# NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation



## Bad Dog

North Dakota Farm Bureau has taken action to oppose a proposed constitutional ballot measure to create a special fund for wildlife and conservation programs. The action was taken by the NDFB Board of Directors during its recent meeting in Fargo.

If there was ever any doubt that the nd farm bureau is flat out against wildlife, conservation, and sustainable agriculture, here's the final nail in the coffin of that thought!

I don't know who prompted the ndfb president doyle johannes with 'information', more like MIS-information, but his quotes are RIDICULOUS!

http://agnews890.com/2012/02/ndfb-oppos ... servation/


----------



## Plainsman

Bad Dog, I picked this up on the Drudge Report yesterday. I thought of the NDFB first thing. I am not bashing, I am dead serious. These folks have a problem, and they are going right down the path of the Freemen, Posse Comitatus, and sovereign citizens. Look at their stand on most things and compare it to sovereign citizens. Same playbook. 
Bad Dog a couple of things that point to anti wildlife is the attempt to take from the Game and Fish license fees for township roads. Then I looked at that grassland initiative which has duck stamp money, and they want to use that for something else. Anti wildlife is just the tip of the mad iceberg.
It may sound radical comparing NDFB with sovereign citizens, but read what both believe then make up your own mind. Be warned that some of these people can come off sane at times so look deep. Watch the youtube. She sounds just like Gordon Kahl.

http://sovereign-citizenship.net/order.html






http://www.notmygovernment.us/forum/NMG ... 1295912588



> FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists
> 
> By Patrick Temple-West
> WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 6, 2012 7:21pm EST
> (Reuters) - Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.
> 
> These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.
> 
> The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.


----------



## shaug

The sponsors is on page 4:

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf

Bad Dog, which name is yours on the sponsoring committee?

Hey Plainsman, are you trying to imbed a message that anyone opposed to this theft of money diverted away from the North Dakota State Treasurey is a Gordon Kahl type? Lame!!!


----------



## gst

plainsamn, I really think you have gone over the edge, what exactly is the purpose behind pasting a article talking about law enforcement being in danger with statements trying to tie policy from the NDFB to it????????



Plainsman said:


> I thought of the NDFB first thing. I am not bashing, I am dead serious. These folks have a problem, and they are going right down the path of the Freemen, Posse Comitatus, and sovereign citizens. Look at their stand on most things and compare it to sovereign citizens. Same playbook





Plainsman said:


> (Reuters) - Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations *pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States,* the FBI warned on Monday.


 :eyeroll:


----------



## dakotashooter2

I have come to the conclusion that FB is equivalent of a modern day Land Baron. FB wants every sq inch of land available for farmers and completelty under farmer control. They would be happy to land lock Cities and keep everyone except farmers off the roads. They would be happy if there wasn't a tree or pothole in all ND.

I had assumed they would support this with the intent of getting their grubby hands on a share of the money but apparently have figured out thats not gonna work how they want so they have gone the other way.


----------



## gst

Dakota shooter, the question has been asked once before and I will ask it once again, in your opinion, how much land is enough to be under control by and for wildlife and sportsman programs?

What number of acres will be enough?


----------



## gst

From bad dogs link:

"A significant number of these dollars could be dedicated to acquiring wetland and grassland conservation easements," explained Johannes. "While farmers and ranchers support voluntary land conservation practices, NDFB policy opposes these types of long-term easements. They are detrimental to future landowners.

Wildlife and recreation should not take precedence over agricultural production. Many of these conservation programs limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to manage the adjacent land. Wildlife, recreation and agriculture can all co-exist with sound land management."

Posse comitatis rhetoric indeed.

Land baron values and demands indeed.

Nailing the lid on the coffin against wildlife for sure.

:roll:

So bad dog, plainsamn, dakota shooter, what is your number?

How many acres of land should be under wildlife and spotsman based programs contol here in ND?

You guys want to claim NDFB wants none, how many do you guys want?

What's your number?


----------



## gst

by Bad Dog » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:01 am

_Another article on the ndfb's constitutional amendment proposal. Again, farming is an occupation and not a 'right', this needs to be defeated and stop littering our constitution with rubbish_.

by Bad Dog » Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:43 am

_Ok, so I checked the ndfb website. Aasmundstad stated this proposal is to insure an individual has a 'right' to farm. Again, last time I checked, farming is an occupation and not a 'right'. A 'right' is more like, someone has a 'right' to education, freedom of speech, etc. Please do not litter the constitution with frivolous things like this or every group imaginable will have a constitutional amendment for any and everything_

by Bad Dog » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:07 pm

_ShineRunner - Nice dog! We have two.

I'd like for more input on whether we should allow the continued littering of our constitution by any group that wishes to impose their will upon all. There is a difference, a big difference between saying 'all' should have the 'right' to a specific occupation, like farming, and 'all' should have the 'right' to speak freely.

If this is the way 'we' want to go as a state, then every citizen should propose their own constitution amendment. I for one will propose that every citizen will have the right to dispose of any dog that isn't a Chessie!_

So Bad dog, from your previous comments can we assume you are opposed to "littering" our constitution with this amendment as well?


----------



## leadfed

The NDFB is a bad, bad organization plain and simple. They are akin to PETA, HSUS and all the other crazies. Anyone who thinks they are on the side of the sportsman better do some research....they are NOT!!! Sometimes I wonder if they aren't in bed with HSUS to completely eradicate hunting so they can divert any monies aimed at preserving hunting into their own coffers.


----------



## spentwings

I don't know how much oil revenue is currently being used to mitigate oil boom stressors put on people 
*especially people*, wildlife, and land in Western ND. Does anyone?
I suspect it isn't enough.
As a former posse member, I say use as much as it takes,,,, but without strings.
It seems everyone wants a place at the constitutional measure trough.


----------



## shaug

ledfed said,



> The NDFB is a bad, bad organization plain and simple. They are akin to PETA, HSUS and all the other crazies. Anyone who thinks they are on the side of the sportsman better do some research....they are NOT!!! Sometimes I wonder if they aren't in bed with HSUS to completely eradicate hunting so they can divert any monies aimed at preserving hunting into their own coffers.


That statement is just plain stupid. Farm Bureau iniaited their ballot measure because some pretend sportsmen from this very dying web-forum took $150,000 from HSUS. Eleven of the fair chase crazies came from right here. They call themselves sportsmen. Where I come from you leave the dance with those that brought you. Dick Monson, Plainsman and a few others hopped into bed with HSUS for a one nighter. Now they want to deny it. Too late. They should be ostricized from the hunting community.

ledfed, which name is yours on the sponsoring committee?

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf


----------



## dakotashooter2

I'm not claiming that huge amounts of land have to be under sportsmans/conservation control. I'm asking for reasonable and sensible use of land. The fact is a certain percentage of land that is farmed is not and never will be profitable. It is farmed because the farming culture/mentality dictates that it has to be. Farming that land is more of a burden than not farming it but that is besides the point. "I'll farm it even if it kills me". I'ts not because farmers are stupid but that it is part of the culture. It defies logic but that doesn't matter. It's like a smoker who knows it is wrong but refuses to stop and convinces himself everything is OK. Some of it may just be the challege of farming non farmable land dispite the cost. The fact is farmers today cannot afford to farm poor land yet they still do. 50 or 100 years ago they could afford to because land was cheap and overhead was low but that's not the case anymore. Another example is removing shelter belts. Often only a couple of acres and some convenienced are gained. I've seen heavy equipment work on a 1/2 belt for a couple of weeks. It doesn't take much to figure out that bill is gonna be $15,000-$2000 minimum. It's gonna take a long time to recoup that on 2-3 acres.


----------



## spentwings

dakotashooter2
Shaug had it right to the extent the BS breeds BS.
The elitist proponents of measure 2 created a we vs. them mentality.
So who's hurt in the long run???,,,definitely not the *elitists *or landowners.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> ledfed said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NDFB is a bad, bad organization plain and simple. They are akin to PETA, HSUS and all the other crazies. Anyone who thinks they are on the side of the sportsman better do some research....they are NOT!!! Sometimes I wonder if they aren't in bed with HSUS to completely eradicate hunting so they can divert any monies aimed at preserving hunting into their own coffers.
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is just plain stupid. Farm Bureau iniaited their ballot measure because some pretend sportsmen from this very dying web-forum took $150,000 from HSUS. Eleven of the fair chase crazies came from right here. They call themselves sportsmen. Where I come from you leave the dance with those that brought you. Dick Monson, Plainsman and a few others hopped into bed with HSUS for a one nighter. Now they want to deny it. Too late. They should be ostricized from the hunting community.
> 
> ledfed, which name is yours on the sponsoring committee?
> 
> http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf
Click to expand...

Shaug I want you to go read the NDFB policies again and tell me why you think my statement is stupid. The NDFB is no less of a threat to the ND sportsman as HSUS and PETA is. The one difference being how you go about hamstringing the ND sportsman. You keep bringing up HSUS and PETA as a scare tactic in EVERYTHING you want pushed through to get the results you want. I hate HSUS and PETA more than you, lets get that straight. It sucks they got involved in the fair chase deal there is no doubt about that. Whats even worse is that you and your cronies will now use that EVERY chance you get. What people have to realize is that you are no better than them when it comes to the big bad wolf in the corner of the hunting cabin.

Sorry to burst your bubble but my name isn't on that list shaug. Although, I like a lot of what it says you have to understand I live out in the middle of this oil field crap. I will admit before I can support spending this money where they are talking I have to see them put a lot more into infastructure and protection first. The thing is I think there is going to be plenty of money so I will probably sign it but I am going to get informed first and not just react like the NDFB is so good at doing.


----------



## shaug

Remember Art Linkletters program, "kids say the darndest things."



> I'm not claiming that huge amounts of land have to be under sportsmans/conservation control. I'm asking for reasonable and sensible use of land. The fact is a certain percentage of land that is farmed is not and never will be profitable. It is farmed because the farming culture/mentality dictates that it has to be. Farming that land is more of a burden than not farming it but that is besides the point. "I'll farm it even if it kills me". I'ts not because farmers are stupid but that it is part of the culture. It defies logic but that doesn't matter. It's like a smoker who knows it is wrong but refuses to stop and convinces himself everything is OK. Some of it may just be the challege of farming non farmable land dispite the cost. The fact is farmers today cannot afford to farm poor land yet they still do. 50 or 100 years ago they could afford to because land was cheap and overhead was low but that's not the case anymore. Another example is removing shelter belts. Often only a couple of acres and some convenienced are gained. I've seen heavy equipment work on a 1/2 belt for a couple of weeks. It doesn't take much to figure out that bill is gonna be $15,000-$2000 minimum. It's gonna take a long time to recoup that on 2-3 acres.


Let's break it down,



> I'm not claiming that huge amounts of land have to be under sportsmans/conservation control. I'm asking for reasonable and sensible use of land.


Dakota2, what you are asking is, to impose your ideas about land use onto other peoples property. You sir do not pay taxes on their property so therefore you do not have a say. Or is it that you would like to have a say?



> The fact is a certain percentage of land that is farmed is not and never will be profitable. It is farmed because the farming culture/mentality dictates that it has to be. Farming that land is more of a burden than not farming it but that is besides the point.


Dakota2, You said "fact". Do you have some references to back up your claim?



> I'll farm it even if it kills me". I'ts not because farmers are stupid but that it is part of the culture. It defies logic but that doesn't matter.


Dr. Dakota2, Are you a phycologist?



> It's like a smoker who knows it is wrong but refuses to stop and convinces himself everything is OK.


Dr. Dakota, If you don't like it don't do it.



> Another example is removing shelter belts. Often only a couple of acres and some convenienced are gained.


Dr. Dakota2, Trees are their hardiest between ages 40-60 years. Most shelter belts are older than that and many of those trees planted years ago were of poor variety.



> I've seen heavy equipment work on a 1/2 belt for a couple of weeks. It doesn't take much to figure out that bill is gonna be $15,000-$2000 minimum. It's gonna take a long time to recoup that on 2-3 acres.


Dr. Dakota, Maybe the heavy equipment was frequently parked. It only takes a few days to take out a row. How did you come up with a figure of 15,000 to 20,000 dollars? O did you just shoot from the hip there dakotashooter?

Dakotashooter, which name is yours on the sponsoring committee?

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf


----------



## spentwings

Thinking of elitists,,,when plains is hoping for two tags for an Idaho wolf hunt in another thread,,,I'm thinking it'd be nice once
again to find a spring pasture full of flickertails,,,, something doesn't equate.
Ground squirrels are the decline in ND,,,they don't know why.
I suspect the farmers are at fault,,,but don't have any proof. :wink:


----------



## shaug

leadfed said,



> The one difference being how you go about hamstringing the ND sportsman.


I am a sportsmen. Belong to and support organizations such as United Sportsmen of North Dakota. You need to learn the difference between a grassroots sportsmens org and a government advocacy org. The ones who malign Farm Bureau at any cost do it because FB is the last line of defense between them and getting their grubby little fingers on taxpayers monies. Look at the sponsors of this 5% oil tax rip off.

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf

Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation members. Government advocacy groups.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one difference being how you go about hamstringing the ND sportsman.
> 
> 
> 
> I am a sportsmen. Belong to and support organizations such as United Sportsmen of North Dakota. You need to learn the difference between a grassroots sportsmens org and a government advocacy org. The ones who malign Farm Bureau at any cost do it because FB is the last line of defense between them and getting their grubby little fingers on taxpayers monies. Look at the sponsors of this 5% oil tax rip off.
> 
> http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf
> 
> Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation members. Government advocacy groups.
Click to expand...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Getting their grubby little fingers on taxpayers monies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :rollin: :lol: :lol: Why don't you tell us your name shaug so we can see how many of those taxpayers monies end up in your grubby little fingers. We already know how much the "whole" thompson crew rakes in.


----------



## Plainsman

> Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation members. Government advocacy groups.


Some of those guys could be government employees, but what they are trying to do isn't advocating government it's advocating habitat and wildlife. I would guess the oil money is not tax, but habitat mitigation. The duck stamp isn't a tax and belongs to sportsmen. I advocate we all cut back, but I don't advocate robbing sportsmen to give it to other groups. Specific funds paid by specific people should go for specific purposes. I hardly ever go duck hunting, but I know that money belongs to duck hunters. I am more into predators and big game, but I'm not going to advocate stealing from duck hunters who are fellow sportsmen to promote what I like.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, this Constitutional Amendment does not have one dam thing to do with duck stamp money. The Game and Fish is adequately funded. The Dept. of the Interior is adequately funded. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and it's conservation programs are adequately funded. What this is, is deficit spending. Take 5% of the oil tax revenues that currently now goes into the North Dakota General Fund and divert that money away to do what? Purchase more land? Can government better manage land then private ownership?

Let's leave private lands in private hands!!!!


----------



## shaug

leadfed said,



> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Getting their grubby little fingers on taxpayers monies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why don't you tell us your name shaug so we can see how many of those taxpayers monies end up in your grubby little fingers. We already know how much the "whole" thompson crew rakes in.


When I have a little more time, we are going to do something fun. I am going to go through every name that is a sponsor of this oil tax rip-rape-run and we are going to do a little history on each. :computer:


----------



## gst

dakotashooter2 said:


> I'm not claiming that huge amounts of land have to be under sportsmans/conservation control. I'm asking for reasonable and sensible use of land.


NDFB statement from bad dogs link:
Wildlife and recreation should not take precedence over agricultural production. Many of these conservation programs limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to manage the adjacent land. Wildlife, recreation and agriculture can all co-exist with sound land management.

Dakota shooter, kind seems like maybe you and NDFB are on the same page! :wink:



dakotashooter2 said:


> The fact is a certain percentage of land that is farmed is not and never will be profitable


dakota shooter, what do you beleive is the average input cost/acre in farming nowadays? Your beleif land is being farmed simply because of stubborness is simply not true to any significant degree.



dakotashooter2 said:


> I have come to the conclusion that FB is equivalent of a modern day Land Baron. FB wants every sq inch of land available for farmers and completelty under farmer control. They would be happy to land lock Cities and keep everyone except farmers off the roads. They would be happy if there wasn't a tree or pothole in all ND


So dakota exactly how many acres for wildlife and recreation are enough?


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Let's leave private lands in private hands!!!!


Why, as a sportsman would we want this shaug? Put your feet in someone else's shoes for once. I rather like the idea of people being able to hunt public land, purchased with money brought in by an oil industry that is destroying western ND as we speak. Whats wrong with that? I say this as an individual with litterally tens of thousands of private land to hunt also. Just looking out for the common man and the hunting heritage shaug, not myself like two other individuals I know on this site. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, let me put this into perspective. This state has money in the bank. Everybody wants to spend spend spend. We must resist, we must spend like we are managing our own checkbook. A democracy cannot exist once the people have figured out that they can gift themselves largesses from the general treasurey. The fed/gov has fallen into that trap spending like mad and throwing money at any group who tells them they need money to protect species from becoming endangered or for the purchase of more fed/gov land or perpetual easements. On the surface that sounds good but.........is it about endangered species, hunting or is it about dollars. The fed/gov is broke and still you advocate for more deficit spending at the state level.

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-treasury-ra ... ver-debts/

U.S. treasury raids federal employee pension funds to cover debts

Wake up. Maybe when the fed/gov fails to send your pension check you will figure it out.


----------



## shaug

leadfed wrote,



> Why, as a sportsman would we want this shaug? Put your feet in someone else's shoes for once. I rather like the idea of people being able to hunt public land, purchased with money brought in by an oil industry that is destroying western ND as we speak.


How much more public land is enough? How much more debt is enough?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug, I once said we all need to cut. Then one fellow asks what. I would need to know more before I said anything like that. I would need to know the sources of funding etc. If it's tax money, or if it's license, duck stamp, etc. You appear to be up on it more than I. I would enjoy talking with you if you could keep from going off the deep end. I keep having this feeling we do have some of the same ideas, but you can't stop with the HSUS bs and the like. That doesn't make it look possible for a real conversation.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, as a sportsman would we want this shaug? Put your feet in someone else's shoes for once. I rather like the idea of people being able to hunt public land, purchased with money brought in by an oil industry that is destroying western ND as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> How much more public land is enough? How much more debt is enough?
Click to expand...

Did I miss something and ND is now in debt over night?lol How much public land is enough?....well if fee hunting and hunting leases continue on the path they are on I would say a lot more. Because if not there will only be two types of people hunting.....the rich and the landowners. There will be no new hunters and those people that don't hunt will probably end up sitting on the hsus and peta side of the fence and then we will all be up **** creek without a paddle. I'm not saying hunting is the savior to the world but I am passionate about it and will try to protect it forever. It looks to me like this idea is a step in the right direction.

Shaug you should take a trip out to W. ND sometime and see what is becoming of this beautiful land....its digusting. It makes a guy wish it was all a national park. Once again this coming from someone who makes money off of the oil field. I would give it all up in a heatbeat to have the old W. ND back.


----------



## gst

plainsman, a vast majority of the dollars to fund the Dakota Grasslands Initiative come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund which are derived from offshore oil and gas leases. These millions of dollars thru an act of Congress could be redirected to help address our "extreme national debt".

Do you beleive they should be.

Recall your statement, "everyone will have to cut".

Where?


----------



## swift

bulletmaker said:


> FB is trying to stop all of the tree huggers and HUSU from overtaking everything else. At least that is what I got out of the NDSA and it was not put to a vote to agree of disagree.
> 
> I have yet to see a better steward of the land than the farmer and if he is not then he fails and the new land owner will be a better land manager.
> 
> I as of now would side with FB You want who to manage it. the G&F all they are are money hungry. look at the whitetail,mule deer, antelope and bird population. for the last 4 yrs there have been too many licenses issued and now the sportsman are going to suffer and one of the ways the F&G will make up for their wasteful spending is to raise the price of every license you buy. I heard they want a 50% increase in fees. and that is just to make up for spending it is time for them to tighten the belt.
> 
> The timing of the CRP comming out is perfect because there is no need for millions of acres when only thousands will support what is left.


This is an interesting post you claim the NDGF is responsible for the low big game numbers in the beginning then blame CRP loss for not having supporting habitat for big gamen. In the middle you state the farmers are great land stewards in the end you admit removal of CRP (in order to increase crop acerage is hurting wildlife. So which is it?


----------



## Plainsman

bulletmaker, I like your handle there. Since I cast my own your screen name makes me feel akin. It's nice to have you here because many of us have debated for so long that we offend each other. It's not that we dislike each other personally, but we have strong opinions that conflict. I'm going to turn some things around on you here, and I hope you think about them rather than think I am putting you down. I appreciate your consideration.



> I have yet to see a better steward of the land than the farmer and if he is not then he fails and the new land owner will be a better land manager.


Were both on the same page here. How do you feel about the government making it possible for the very worst land stewards to succeed? Often even encourage it? I like how you explained it in your above statement, but it doesn't work that way when government gets involved. I have the idea you may agree with me there too, but just checking.



> the G&F all they are are money hungry.


I am not sure about that. I do agree with Reagan and many of his quotes. Below are a few I agree with.


> Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.





> Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.





> Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.


Some say I am not conservative. I guess they think I need to think 100% like them on 100% of the issues or I can't be a conservative. Yet I agree with the above quotes. Some say I can't be conservative and agree with Reagan because I was a federal employee. Well, I could have had a lot more money come my way by voting liberal, but I voted for Reagan because I thought my country comes first. However, some still say I can't be conservative. They even knock some of my conservative ideas because they feel they have to oppose me on everything because I opposed them on one a couple of years ago. Go figure. Cut of your nose to spite your face my mother would have said.

Anyway, I digress there but will leave it as a plea to debate each issue on it's merits, not who says it first.



> I heard they want a 50% increase in fees. and that is just to make up for spending it is time for them to tighten the belt.


Yes and no. I have mixed feelings. Sure they can tighten there belt. However, in North Dakota so many things are happening right now I don't think this is a good time to do it, and in North Dakota with our economy it certainly isn't a good time to do it. Also, I like cheap license like everyone else, but I know people who drop $50 or more in a bar in a single evening then complain about a $20 deer license. I don't like to spend money myself, and I especially don't like to waste it, but wow a deer license and the enjoyment it brings me is one of the best deals I make every year.



> The timing of the CRP comming out is perfect because there is no need for millions of acres when only thousands will support what is left.


Look at this real careful bulletmaker. I think you have it reversed. Now the first thing that has knocked our deer population is the bad winters. However, the crp going out is also part of the reason our deer population is going down, rather than the crp going out being great timing because the deer herd is down.

Anyway bulletmaker I hope you can take my comments as simply another way of looking at things. I see both sides since I grew up on a farm, most of my family still farms, but I spent my career as a wildlife biologist. Some may think I gained that desire in school, but actually I gained that desire to be a wildlife biologist from the seat of a Ford tractor raking in hay season, an old C Allis Chalmers mowing in hay season, a really old (I think D4) International bucking and stacking hay, and a U Minneapolis Mollin while summer fallowing. I do mean old too, because that's all we could afford. We didn't waste money like government sometimes does. No electric start on those old buggers you had to learn how to crank without breaking your wrist. A lesson I had to learn the hard way with a tiny little B International.

Thanks for your time bulletmaker. Even though we have different views I hope you hang around and we can discuss these things with mutual respect.


----------



## dakotashooter2

I can only qualify most of my statements by life experience. They are based on things I have experience or see and hear around me...from farmers. Often subjects of coffee talk. When a farmer only gets 30 bushels an acre they grumble about it when productions cost get high they grumble about it. Listen and you often hear the real story not the ones printed in newspapers or on the news..

Shelter belts? I have seen some single rows go in a couple days. All the multiple row belts around me have taken about a week per 1/4 mile. I'm driving by the equipment 3 times a day.... it's moving.. at least one piece at $125 hr 8 hrs a day

As to my answer on how much is enough. All of it... properly managed for mixed use under both private and public ownership....... I can dream can't I?

I will counter with a question? How much acreage is enough for farming? Initiatives like Freedom to Farm have us wondering if the answer isn't "all of it" And I would add the question "why"? Does the loss of acreage really inpact farming as a whole or just individual farmers?..........


----------



## spentwings

bulletmaker said:


> One of the issues is the ability of the G&F enforcement sitting on private posted land or trepassing on posted land without permission the NDSA has only dicuse and has not come to a up or down vote..


Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying the NDG&F shouldn't be allowed on posted land?
If so, you're a radical that only the NDFB would embrace.
The NDSA is what it is,,,even we non-elitists aren't fooled.


----------



## gst

dakotashooter2 said:


> I will counter with a question? How much acreage is enough for farming?


Dakota shooter, this is largely determined, and should be more so, by demand. A handful of people on here have seemed to dismiss two things that will determine the direction of agriculture in the future.

1. The global population is growing at a rate faster than ever before and is expected to reach a total of 9 billion by 2050.
in contrast in 1950 (only 100 years ago) the global pop. was 2.5 billion.

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

2. Arable lands, (those suited for the production of crops) are decreasing each year by varying amounts.

From these two FACTS, one thing can be determined, more will have to be produced from less. Within this fact, there can be held discussion as to production methods, production puposes production technologies ect........, but the fact remains, there will be more demand for food production than ever before in this worlds history and this will have to be accomplished on a decreasing number of acres.

Therefore there are a number of issues that need to be looked at which will ultimately involve ALL of society here and globaly, not just those that are involved in agriculture or hunt or bird watch ect...

One can make statements we need X amount of land set aside for wildlife/hunting, but that arguement has to include the considerations of the overwhelming majority of society that does not hunt nor have a concern for wildlife whose primary concern is how much of their disposable income is spent on the food they buy. What MUST be realized in the "big picture" BOTH agriculture and hunters are VERY small minorities. Yet the simple fact is (right or wrong)this societal majority will identify agricultural producers as where the food they purchase comes from, and what percent of their avalible income they have to spend to get it.

So those that are advocates for wildlife and sportsman issues need to realize is that at some point in time as food costs inevitably begin to increase because of supply and demand, this overwhelming majority of society will begin to ask the question why are these lands not put into food production rather than wildlife habitat.

So in the long run, what is to begained by alienating agriculture with the type rhetoric seeen on this site all too often by a small handful of people? Most ag producers are hunters and sportsmen as well. Cooperative efforts to work with them have been very successful when tried. (DU's winter wheat program, various rotational grazing programs ect...) But yet these cooperative, volantary, renewable, single generation programs are pushed aside for Federally mandated and controled programs by people that use the terms to describe ag producers we have seen on here. Adversarial programs rather than cooperative programs.

ie. the Dakota Grasslands Initiative. At public input hearings the USFWS was told overwhelmingly by the people in attendance, simply drop the "perpetual" aspect of these conservation programs and the ag orgs would support them. What happened? Where is the "compromise", where was the middle ground here???

As a result you have on the opposite spectrum the ideologies sometimes seen. A pendelum. So please explain to me what good does the rhetoric seen by a small handful of people on this site do to lessen the swing of the pendelum?

dakotashooter2 wrote:
_I'm not claiming that huge amounts of land have to be under sportsmans/conservation control. I'm asking for reasonable and sensible use of land._

NDFB wrote:
_Wildlife, recreation and agriculture can all co-exist with sound land management_.

So dakotashooter, where in the swing of the pendelum do you think these two similar ideals can be accomplished today, as well as in 2050?


----------



## spentwings

So no one has anything to say about bulletmaker and his NDSA views?
It's really hard to find common ground gst/shaug when you seem to embrace this Posse Comitatus BS.
shaug is a NDSA member,,,maybe he can enlighten us on bulletmaker's comments????

Looking at it again,,,maybe I didn't quite understand what bulletmaker was saying.
So shaug/gst help me out. :lol:


----------



## swift

Rhetoric GST that's all. Your last post seems noble and all but there is a surplus of food in this country. Price supports are the reason for the high commodity prices. Sugar beets are being plowed under on good years to keep the price up. This whole idea of feeding the world is just rhetoric. Through other posts you and Shaug have admitted we can import food cheaper than buying our own. While I don't advocate for that, it should show that there are more players in the feed the world market than just ND farmers.

The NDFB's co-exsisting statement is a joke. They are opposed to CRP which is the single most sucessful conservation program ever. What is their idea of co-exsisting with wildlife? 2 deer per county is technically co-existing.

As far as perpetual easements. Why in God's name would any taxpayer want millions spent on habitat conservation so just when it's maturing the "next generation" can decide 14 dollar beans are more important. I say forget the easements and the Dept of Interior can purchase the land and we can all have access to it.

How much public land is enough is a question that lies directly on Ag's lap. My answer is... Enough to support inexpensive recreational activities for the majority of the citizens. That is my answer. PLOTS provides that hunting leases do not. When the co-existence becomes profit driven then there is more need for public land.


----------



## shaug

swift said,



> As far as perpetual easements. Why in God's name would any taxpayer want millions spent on habitat conservation so just when it's maturing the "next generation" can decide 14 dollar beans are more important. I say forget the easements and the Dept of Interior can purchase the land and we can all have access to it.


The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Plank number one:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Swift, you should be more careful what you wish for.


----------



## spentwings

Sill no response shaug?
Maybe as a USND member you can help me understand bulletmaker's comment???


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> swift said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as perpetual easements. Why in God's name would any taxpayer want millions spent on habitat conservation so just when it's maturing the "next generation" can decide 14 dollar beans are more important. I say forget the easements and the Dept of Interior can purchase the land and we can all have access to it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
> 
> Plank number one:
> 
> Abolition of property in land and application of *all* rents of land to public purposes.
> 
> Swift, you should be more careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

I must have missed where swift said "all"?


----------



## shaug

spent said,



> Sill no response shaug?
> Maybe as a USND member you can help me understand bulletmaker's comment???


What is USND?

lead,



> I must have missed where swift said "all"?


You're a cherry picker.

Somewhere lead you posted that you work in the oil patch but do not like what is happening to the badlands. Do you need to work there? Do you have a family? Is the oil patch your source of livelyhood?


----------



## Plainsman

> Somewhere lead you posted that you work in the oil patch but do not like what is happening to the badlands. Do you need to work there? Do you have a family? Is the oil patch your source of livelyhood?


Shaug, this is meant in humor. I worked for the government, but I didn't always like what was going on there. Is that OK? :rollin:


----------



## spentwings

shaug said:


> spent said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sill no response shaug?
> Maybe as a USND member you can help me understand bulletmaker's comment???
> 
> 
> 
> What is USND?
Click to expand...

The United Sportsmen of North Dakota?
But you do know what NDSA is. So just hoping you'll clarify bulletmaker's comment on NDG&F and posted land.
He either won't,,,or maybe, if I believed in conspiracies, you're telling him not to. :lol:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> As far as perpetual easements. Why in God's name would any taxpayer want millions spent on habitat conservation so just when it's maturing the "next generation" can decide 14 dollar beans are more important.


swift, what do you suppose would be driving the price of beans to $14.00? An oversupply?

If beans are $14.00 what do you suppose wheat will be priced at?

Why?



swift said:


> This whole idea of feeding the world is just rhetoric.


swift I have provided links to articles by people and "professionals" far smarter than you or I in this that suggest feeding 9 billion people in less than one generation's time will pose a serious issue. Please do not belittle their "education" and "knowledge" on this subject with your "opinions" based on what ? :wink:



swift said:


> How much public land is enough is a question that lies directly on Ag's lap. My answer is... Enough to support inexpensive recreational activities for the majority of the citizens. That is my answer.


swift, who determines this? the 40% of the population here in ND that may hunt (whatever the percentage is) or the other majority? What about nationally, what percentage of the people hunt and recreate on these lands and what percentage are a little more realistic about the necessity of "feeding the world" when they are budgeting what percentof their weekly income is being spent on food?

swift, should CRP be considered "public lands"?

Call what I posted about finding some "common ground" rhetoric if you wish, it is what keeps the pendelum swinging.


----------



## spentwings

So as a NDSA member gst,,,,maybe you can enlighten us on bulletmaker's comment???? :lol:


----------



## leadfed

lead,



> I must have missed where swift said "all"?


You're a cherry picker.

Somewhere lead you posted that you work in the oil patch but do not like what is happening to the badlands. Do you need to work there? Do you have a family? Is the oil patch your source of livelyhood?[/quote]

No I don't cherry pick, you fire with a scattergun so anything quoted would appear as a cherry pick.

As far as your other questions???? Tell me what relevance they have in this convo and I'll bite.


----------



## swift

Yes Shaug,where did I say all? Its quite simple Shaug we want places to recreate. You want to make a profit from us. We will work toward obtaining more public ground since the rules of ag and wildlife and sportsman co-existing have changed. It has been said before when respect and give and take ends support dwindles too. The bond that was so strong a generation ago is not as strong any longer since the FB supporters have taken to looking at sportsman as a fatted calf ready for sale.


----------



## spentwings

And whose fault is that swift?
Hypocrisy is the only thing I've seen on these threads.
But I'd still like bulletmaker/shaug/gst or someone from the NDSA to clarify the NDG&F on posted land comment.
I'm not holding my breath,,,they've been caught with their pants down and it's not a pretty sight.


----------



## shaug

Spent wrote,



> shaug is a NDSA member,,,maybe he can enlighten us on bulletmaker's comments????


and



> Sill no response shaug?
> Maybe as a USND member you can help me understand bulletmaker's comment???


Sorry, you kind of lost me in all the alphabet soup there for a minute. Not a NDSA member but am a USND memeber. And again sorry but I have not been reading bulletmaker.

swift said,



> Yes Shaug,where did I say all? Its quite simple Shaug we want places to recreate. You want to make a profit from us. We will work toward obtaining more public ground since the rules of ag and wildlife and sportsman co-existing have changed.


Swift, if you want a place to recreate then buy one. Who is the "we" you just referred to whom endeavor to get money from the general treasurey to purchase a public play ground for you at taxpayer expense?

Swift, which name is yours on the sponsoring committee?

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf


----------



## swift

Shaug, I did buy my own. But unlike you I care about more than just myself.


----------



## gst

spent, pants are up and buckled, as long as I have been a director this has never came up that I can recall.


----------



## leadfed

Swift, if you want a place to recreate then buy one. Who is the "we" you just referred to whom endeavor to get money from the general treasurey to purchase a public play ground for you at taxpayer expense?

The "we" is the same person's lining your pocket with free subsidy money. I damn sure would like to see my $$$ go towards a "public playground" (if thats what you wanna call it) rather than buy you a new truck every year.


----------



## swift

Bulletmaker is probably from South Dakota where the Stockmen in Harding county a few years ago tried to organize a boycott of hunters because they did not want Game Wardens entering their land to check for violations. Likely he has his states mixed up. Or he was just drunk because the post makes no sense.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spent, pants are up and buckled, as long as I have been a director this has never came up that I can recall.


Always better up than not. Thanks for clarification.  
Swft probably has it right.


----------



## spentwings

*Bulletmaker is gone?*
His membership,,,his posts,,,just a figment of my imagination?
Will plainsman or the "super moderators" explain that one to me.


----------



## Plainsman

Don't know.


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Don't know.


Guess what? Somehow I don't believe that.
Did he ask to be purged from NoDak?
Unlike you plains I'm not a conspiratist,,,however I've never seen a site run like NoDak.
Something doesn't equate.


----------



## Plainsman

Since your post I have checked on that. Most times I don't pay attention, and I would guess I don't talk to other moderators more than once a month and sometimes longer. There isn't much behind the scene interaction. Maybe others talk more, but that's the way it is with me. 
Here is what I see for an explanation: When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out. I'm sorry you doubt my honesty with you.


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Since your post I have checked on that. Most times I don't pay attention, and I would guess I don't talk to other moderators more than once a month and sometimes longer. There isn't much behind the scene interaction. Maybe others talk more, but that's the way it is with me.
> Here is what I see for an explanation: When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out. I'm sorry you doubt my honesty with you.


Sounds like marksman to me,,,his stink is still on this site.
Read all of bulletmakers posts,,,don't recall him doing the same,,,but now we'll never know will we.
If NoDak is banning someone,,,how about doing it on the up and up.
My criticism still stands,,,on a normal site,,,what goes on in Hot Topics wouldn't be tolerated.
A free for all breeds lack of control in the weak,,,and as an offender,,I hate trying to clean up after myself.


----------



## AdamFisk

spentwings said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your post I have checked on that. Most times I don't pay attention, and I would guess I don't talk to other moderators more than once a month and sometimes longer. There isn't much behind the scene interaction. Maybe others talk more, but that's the way it is with me.
> Here is what I see for an explanation: When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out. I'm sorry you doubt my honesty with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like marksman to me,,,his stink is still on this site.
> Read all of bulletmakers posts,,,don't recall him doing the same,,,but now we'll never know will we.
> If NoDak is banning someone,,,how about doing it on the up and up.
> My criticism still stands,,,on a normal site,,,what goes on in Hot Topics wouldn't be tolerated.
> A free for all breeds lack of control in the weak,,,and as an offender,,I hate trying to clean up after myself.
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't read all of bulletmakers posts, because he did the same!!!

bulletmaker=marksman.


----------



## spentwings

_*bulletmaker=marksman*_.
Is that so Adam? Then just another INTERNET dog turd gone!
Still, it would have been interesting to find out if bulletmaker was in fact a SD Posse Comitatus that got kick in the head
by a cow, or in fact a drunk NDSA member that couldn't keep his mouth shut.

They say if you can't play marbles on the playground with the big boys :lol:,,,you should take your marble and go home. 
Guess I'll leave mine here ,,,and just mosey off to another forum,,,like politics,,,where plains does indeed have control. :thumb:


----------



## fedupwithwater

I've tried to do this twice, and both times I hit save, it erased and said I have to log back in and of course, my post is gone. How annoying.

First of all, I am a farmer, but don't hold that against me. I enjoy hunting also, but just don't get to hunt very often. I don't post my ground and neither does my father unless a relative wants to hunt some weekend, which doesn't happen very often. I have heartburn over this measure for a variety of reasons and I'll try to relate them.

The biggest problem I have with this measure is MORE GOVERNMENT. I'm not anti-government, but to create another government agency with basically an open checkbook forever seems like not the prudent thing to do. Sure the purpose is just and honest, but to think that any government agency will not evolve not only its size, but also its power is very naive at best and disengenuous at worst. All of the other government agencies that are in the state of ND have to submit a budget to the legislature every biennium. Why should this agency be treated any different? Having the next legislature session appropriate money for this type of project would give it much more credibility and make the agency more responsible. Think of it: An agency, constructed by constitutional law, having massive amounts of money that will probably not run out for at least 30-50. Sure, it will be overseen by a board, but that does little to make me feel better about it.

Doesn't the current combination of ND government managed lands and PLOTS land give hunters a lot of options. Not to mention the other private land that is open. Also, it seems that hunters think that "Posted" land suggest "No Hunting". In some cases, I'm sure that is true, but most times, landowners such as myself just like to know who's out there. Even though I don't post my land, I still appreciate the hunter who still asks.

Also, the picture (not sure if it was on this thread or another) of a burned cattail slough disturbs me as well. So what if it is burned? Maybe that slough has been farmed for 7 of the last 10 years and got too wet with the last few harsh winters. To try to make the illusion that farmers are burning sloughs to destroy wildlife cover makes me upset. I'm paying rent on that land, if you want to pay me for it, go ahead, but I don't believe you should use taxpayer money for it. I burn sloughs, but only on cropland that I pay rent on. It's been so wet that the continual wet soil has allowed salts to rise to the surface which kills any plant that tries to grow. This does neither the farmer or wildlife any good. Federal law will not allow me tile my land, which would remove the salt, so the only thing I can do is to remove the cattails so they don't catch snow. I can't afford not to, land rent is too high (and yes I do pay rent on that cattail slough) and grain prices are too.

Speaking of grain prices, the comments by "swift" which implies that sugar beet farmers plow under their crop to keep the price high is ridiculous! The reason for this action is because the sugar beet factory can only process so much tonnage in a year. So instead of wasting the time, money, and resources to harvest, haul, and store a crop that will eventually rot in the pile, the farmers/sugar beet cooperatives decide to plow under the beets instead. Those tons, which seem large, are miniscule compared to the tons of beets harvested nationwide, let alone worldwide. (BTW I am NOT a sugar beet grower) It doesn't affect the price more than you or I doubling our sugar consumption in one year would move the price of sugar.

As I said earlier, I'm not against more wildlife habitat, especially in areas affected negatively by the oil exploration in western North Dakota. However, I urge the people pushing this measure to instead go through the correct budget processes to put some accountability in the procedure. I think doing it this way will only divide the landowners and hunters and instead they should be working together.


----------



## Plainsman

For a fellow that's fed up your polite. I appreciate that. I also agree that any agency State or Federal needs oversight. Often the federal ones tick people off, but they only reflect the policies of the administration. It's not great for them either. However, when you spend public money the public should have some say in how you spend it. I suppose if five percent goes to conservation the other 95% is someone else business. If 40% goes to farmers what they do with it is ok with me as long as they don't flood me out. Just an example fedupwithwater so don't be angry with me.



> First of all, I am a farmer, but don't hold that against me.


I seriously wouldn't think of it. You may notice me get on some in these posts, but I just look at it as dishing it back. Mostly I want people to appreciate each other. You sound like a reasonable person so I will tell you I not only appreciate you as a farmer I appreciate the words with which you express yourself.



> It's been so wet that the continual wet soil has allowed salts to rise to the surface which kills any plant that tries to grow. This does neither the farmer or wildlife any good. Federal law will not allow me tile my land, which would remove the salt, so the only thing I can do is to remove the cattails so they don't catch snow.


That's a huge problem. In the past ten years I can not believe how much soil has gone alkaline just south of Carrington. Leave it and all you can grow is kochia, tile it and it poisons the rivers. What to do is a huge problem. I hope someone out there comes up with an answer that can make it all work to everyone's satisfaction. I have thought about it a lot, and it beats me every time. I often wonder if a row of plants that have a high rate of transpiration would draw down the water table enough to pull the salts from the surface. I suppose a person would have to use salt tolerant species for that if there is that much salt in the soil. Droughts are not good either, but we need something to lower the ground water. I understand your problem and hope some guy smart enough comes up with an answer for you fast.



> Speaking of grain prices, the comments by "swift" which implies that sugar beet farmers plow under their crop to keep the price high is ridiculous!


I don't know, but I am old enough to remember them dumping potatoes into the Red River in protest of low prices many years ago. I can't remember if it was North Dakota or Minnesota that made a big milk dump one time. I don't think either were in an amount that really meant much beyond making the news for protest.



> As I said earlier, I'm not against more wildlife habitat, especially in areas affected negatively by the oil exploration in western North Dakota. However, I urge the people pushing this measure to instead go through the correct budget processes to put some accountability in the procedure. I think doing it this way will only divide the landowners and hunters and instead they should be working together.


I'm pleased I have not angered you. If you go way back in my posts before the frustration set in you will find that same sentiment about working with each other. I do blame some of the pay hunting. I'll try use an example to point out my thought process. Lets say you have a neighbor who lets you cross his land with your tractor. You would feel appreciative right? Sure you would and so would I. I would hold the man in high esteem. Now lets say the neighbor on the other side of you lets you cross his land, but he charges you about four times what rent per acre would be. Crossing his land perhaps covers half an acre, but he wants ------ oh lets say $300 a year. Which fellow would you feel you were closer to? Yes, me too. I'm pleased with your attitude about those things. Enough so to be appreciative of you even though we have never met. Thank you.


----------



## shaug

fedupwithwater said,



> The biggest problem I have with this measure is MORE GOVERNMENT. I'm not anti-government, but to create another government agency with basically an open checkbook forever seems like not the prudent thing to do. Sure the purpose is just and honest, but to think that any government agency will not evolve not only its size, but also its power is very naive at best and disengenuous at worst. All of the other government agencies that are in the state of ND have to submit a budget to the legislature every biennium. Why should this agency be treated any different? Having the next legislature session appropriate money for this type of project would give it much more credibility and make the agency more responsible. Think of it: An agency, constructed by constitutional law, having massive amounts of money that will probably not run out for at least 30-50. Sure, it will be overseen by a board, but that does little to make me feel better about it.


fedup, you could not be more right. Here is some wording from the measure:

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf



> One member each shall be appointed by the North Dakota House majority leader and minority leader and the North Dakota Majority leader and minority leader. Four members shall be appointed by the Governor from a list of names submitted by the Fish and Game Director, and one member shall be be appointed by the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.


fedup, this means 4 from the legislature, 4 from the G/F and one wildlife society. The 4 from a list submitted by the G/F Director should give anyone pause. Many employees of the Game and Fish Department are wildlife society members already such as Randy Kreil. How would the Governor know that the list submitted to him by the G/F Director isn't stacked with wildlife society members? Then we would have 4 appointed by the legislature and 5 wildlife society.

Bureaucracy never sleeps.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here is what I see for an explanation: When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out


Really? :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Have you seen any topics started with you first and last name. Man I wish you would grow up. My granchildren don't whine as much as you, and they are just little tykes. Find someone who gives two cents.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out


How about what you have as your ID on here, kinda like Dick Monson has "Dick Monson" and I have gst, if there was a thread with gst specifically in the thread title and someone "attacked"  :roll: would that person be booted of like bulletmaker? I mean I really don;t want to see ron booted off here, but just wondering? :wink: :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Have you seen any topics started with you first and last name. Man I wish you would grow up. My granchildren don't whine as much as you, and they are just little tykes. Find someone who gives two cents.


*So plainsamn as a moderator on here you are then saying as long as the thread title does not have someones name in it they can be "attacked"? *

Just curious as a moderator what you allow on your site. :-?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the subject is a man's name and someone attacks them ------well that's a sure way out
> 
> 
> 
> How about what you have as your ID on here, kinda like Dick Monson has "Dick Monson" and I have gst, if there was a thread with gst specifically in the thread title and someone "attacked"  :roll: would that person be booted of like bulletmaker? I mean I really don;t want to see ron booted off here, but just wondering? :wink: :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen any topics started with you first and last name. Man I wish you would grow up. My granchildren don't whine as much as you, and they are just little tykes. Find someone who gives two cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So plainsamn as a moderator on here you are then saying as long as the thread title does not have someones name in it they can be "attacked"? *
> 
> Just curious as a moderator what you allow on your site. :-?
Click to expand...

Poor wittle gabe  Grow some nuts and man up gabe. If you can't take a little shot in the arm here and there, on a site you claim VERY few people, then you are just a pansy. The thing that really bothers you gabe is that the truth always seems to sting a little more than a missed interpretation. :wink:


----------



## spentwings

If gst is a pansy then I must be a *****,,,because I totally agree with his criticism about the lack NoDak 
to maintain civility in this forum.


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> If gst is a pansy then I must be a p*$$y,,,because I totally agree with his criticism about the lack of civility in this forum.


Hard to be civil when dealing with an adult man who acts like a spoiled little school girl.


----------



## spentwings

leadfed said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gst is a pansy then I must be a p*$$y,,,because I totally agree with his criticism about the lack of civility in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to be civil when dealing with an adult man who acts like a spoiled little school girl.
Click to expand...

And that is where lack of site control comes into play. That's all I'm saying.
No one I've met on a talk forum is more insufferable than gst.
However,,,nowhere on a mainstream site have I've seen personal attacks more tolerated than on NoDak.


----------



## indsport

Just dropping by for my weekly visit and see this debate disintegrated into mud slinging almost immediately. Just a few comments. First, see Dick Monson's information about the amendment at viewtopic.php?f=75&t=96293 to answer a number of questions. Second, go to http://www.ndheritage.org and ask questions there and then repost here. However, be that as it may, no more than 50% of the money may be spent on any one category in the list of possible projects. Considering one of the categories is conservation on farms, and there are waiting lists for all the federal farm conservation programs (and no money), I suspect there are plenty of willing farmers who would want money from the fund. Conservation programs, easement programs and the rest are voluntary programs. I suspect there are more than a few NDFB members who have voluntarily joined some of those programs. As to the composition of the board, and given that the majority and minority leaders in the legislature pick members, I strongly suspect that the ag interests will be represented and have a seat at the table. But don't ask me, ask the majority and minority leaders what they would do if the amendment passes.


----------



## gst

For the record, I do indeed use sarcasm at times, and could possibly see where it could be "insufferable" to some for various reasons. 

I enjoy conversing with people that have a sharp wit even if it stings a little now and then. 

I truly do not care if someone hiding behind a computer screen and lacking in this sharp wit follows the only recourse they are able and begins using terms like "a$$hole" and "prick" :-?

I point it out not for sympathy, but to show what this site and it's moderating has been even going back to when I first got on here. :roll:

It appears from bulletmakers removal that as long as the "attacks" are aimed at someone the moderator on here does not care for they are allowed to continue and even be excused, but when they are aimed at a fellow HFH sponsor :wink: the perpetrator is gone in an instant. 

Hey I get it, it is plainsmans site to do with what he pleases. It is clear what the standards on here are. 

spent you hit the nail on the head back awhile ago, entertainment is sometimes lacking up north!


----------



## spentwings

It's not plainsman's site and to suggest he's responsible for the lack of civility is misdirected.
As for indsport,,,I always appreciate his drive by above the fray wisdom


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> It's not plainsman's site and to suggest he's responsible for the lack of civility is misdirected


Indeed it is not "his" site. . A sacrastic suggestion meant to give cause to the people actually in charge allowing "their" site to be "super moderated" in the manner it is.

However as a "super moderator with the ability to lock threads, one would have to lay a portion of the responsibility on an indivdual that does not only condone and allow select threads to continue, but excuses the behavior he claims was the result of his locking others.

Perhaps the real "owners" of this site also look at certain people on here as "insufferable" as well, yet look to the number of "veiws" in these forums as opposed to say the politics one or most others and quietly sit back and hope it continues. After all, how many advertisers will spend their dollar on a site with the veiw history of that in the politcal forum? 

You yourself spent, have asked why it is some remain on here, myself included, perhaps it is all about numbers! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not plainsman's site and to suggest he's responsible for the lack of civility is misdirected
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is not "his" site. . A sacrastic suggestion meant to give cause to the people actually in charge allowing "their" site to be "super moderated" in the manner it is.
> 
> However as a "super moderator with the ability to lock threads, one would have to lay a portion of the responsibility on an indivdual that does not only condone and allow select threads to continue, but excuses the behavior he claims was the result of his locking others.
> 
> Perhaps the real "owners" of this site also look at certain people on here as "insufferable" as well, yet look to the number of "veiws" in these forums as opposed to say the politics one or most others and quietly sit back and hope it continues. After all, how many advertisers will spend their dollar on a site with the veiw history of that in the politcal forum?
> 
> You yourself spent, have asked why it is some remain on here, myself included, perhaps it is all about numbers! :wink:
Click to expand...

Man what a cry baby. Sorry gabe....hope that makes you feel better and improves your day buddy.


----------



## spentwings

plains does what he can,,, but again to suggest he's responsible is misdirected.
I think if you'd direct your criticism at NoDak it would be more appropriate.
I agree, something ain't right here,,,but you're starting to sound like a con·spir·a·cist to me. :wink:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> plains does what he can,,, but again to suggest he's responsible is misdirected.
> I think if you'd direct your criticism at NoDak it would be more appropriate.


Spent if you recall that was done a while back. Plainsmans response was to lock the thread because it was "damaging the site".

He even insinuated that by questioning this very thing and how it affected the credibility of this site one would be removed if it continued.

I dont beleive he is soley "responsible" but having the power to lock thread if it happens and he yet allows the thread to continue and even goes so far as to excuse it, a degree of accountability must be allocated.


----------



## spentwings

leadfed said:


> Man what a cry baby. Sorry gabe....hope that makes you feel better and improves your day buddy.


Interesting led,,,how you can remain on this site I still don't quite understand.
There are a lot of dark sites on the net that would embrace you.
How do I know? Well my moniker on one was troutwetdreams. :lol:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> plains does what he can,,, but again to suggest he's responsible is misdirected.
> I think if you'd direct your criticism at NoDak it would be more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> Spent if you recall that was done a while back. Plainsmans response was to lock the thread because it was "damaging the site".
> 
> He even insinuated that by questioning this very thing and how it affected the credibility of this site one would be removed if it continued.
> 
> I dont beleive he is soley "responsible" but having the power to lock thread if it happens and he yet allows the thread to continue and even goes so far as to excuse it, a degree of accountability must be allocated.
Click to expand...

Use all the recalls,,,quotes you want gst,,,again,,,your criticism of plains is misdirected.
And I'm done with that.


----------



## adokken

Hard to believe but finally found some thing I agree with my old friend the Plainsman about,the NDFB is about a radical group of nutcases you can find in ND. Incidently Plainsman I am back in Hong Kong living the good life.Maybe I should not of called you old,your a teenager compared to me as I will be 87 this summer. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

adokken it's good to hear from you. Yes we may argue some politics, but it's odd because I think we agree on many things. I have friends who think just alike, but when it comes to politics they are totally opposite. It leaves me scratching my head. It's very nice to hear from you again.


----------



## adokken

Oh I am sure that we agree on a few things like keeping hunting available to the public,I have 200 acres of good deer habitat that is only for some bow hunting friends and a family that rifle hunt a couple of week ends during the gun season. It joins a section of Game and Fish property and all aspen ,sandhills and very good deer habitat.I reserve the property by my home for my own bow hunting. I am sure the NDFB would not approve. About my opinion guess I feel that like many of us few remaining WW 2 vets that we earned it. incidently served during the Korean conflict also. Keep up the pressure on the outfitting community and we will remain friends. :beer: Adrian


----------



## Plainsman

Adrian, your a man who's hand I would like to shake some day. I know many landowners out there are like you. I can not grasp the words that can tell them how much I appreciate them. God bless you all. :beer:


----------



## swift

Welcome back Mr. Dokken. Your wisdom was missed the last year or so.


----------



## shaug

Adrian,

Will you be out stumping for your nephew for Gov?

Plainsman said,

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/ryan_taylor ... or?app_p=8



> ﻿Since Taylor is running as a democrat I would say their is a 95% chance or better he is liberal.


----------



## adokken

Of course I will be working for Ryan Taylor, you conservatives can spew all the negative remarks about liberals you want. The Taylor family and the Dokken family have probably taken less Goverment hand outs then many of the conservative posters on here. Ryan's dad was a WW2 combat veteran ,spent all of the war in the south pacific . There have been several conservatives that I admired,one that comes to mind was Barry Goldwater. It would be interesting if he was with us today and seen what has changed. One statement that he made was one I try to follow,was when he said that when a President is elected by the people he is our President. He also said he would proudly have his picture on his wall. I myself consider it is my duty to listen to every state of the union speeches no matter what party is in power. We are Americans and the people who voted for Obama are all Americans. This climate of venomous hate cannot be good for our nation.


----------



## Plainsman

adokken you may have to tell us more about Ryan. Since NDFB come out with their radical views I may have to vote conservative to go to Washington, but Democrat for North Dakota. I may be conservative, but I am not dollar worshiping like some landowners I debate with on here. Of course they are only conservative when it benefits them, but still want those government dollars. I don't know how to classified that type. Conservative when it comes to their rights, but socialists when it comes to our dollars.

You know what adokken, the NDFB could talk me into voting democrat faster than you can. :thumb: Radicals from either conservative or liberal aren't that great. NDFB would flood the state worse than the last few years, while the far left would have us bowing to the east every morning on our prayer mats. I sure hope I don't have to vote for Romney this fall. :lol:


----------



## gst

plainsamn, you simply can not help yourself. Please do not waste peoples time by suggesting you wish to have a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture as you simply can not.

Mr. Dokken, had the opportunity to listen to a program earlier this month put on by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. They were both speaking on the same stage as to their seperate ideologies in a manner they wished people to take away from the thought process we need to meet somewher in the middle.

In his talking points, Mr Beckel stated that Obama WILL win another election simply because of the political machine he has behind him. Chicago politics. Your quote by Bary Goldwater while perhaps relevant back in the day, simply does not carry much water in todays political sideshow. It is NOT who the American people support as our leader, it is who can be manipulated to win a publicity campaign thru any number of methodologies most Americans would find particularily revolting if they actually knew what went on behind the scenes.

Yes indeed given the histroy of accomplishments, or better yet the lack thereof that this President brought out of the Chicago political machine in gaining the office he now holds, surely we as Americans can hold our head high and proudly claim "this is OUR president" :roll:


----------



## shaug

addokken wrote,



> Of course I will be working for Ryan Taylor, you conservatives can spew all the negative remarks about liberals you want.


Adrian, I didn't spew anything. You sir are the one who said on fishingbuddy that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the best president we ever had and did more for this country than any other president. The conservatives on FBO got after you.

Plainsman wrote,



> adokken you may have to tell us more about Ryan. Since NDFB come out with their radical views I may have to vote conservative to go to Washington, but Democrat for North Dakota. I may be conservative, but I am not dollar worshiping like some landowners I debate with on here. Of course they are only conservative when it benefits them, but still want those government dollars. I don't know how to classified that type. Conservative when it comes to their rights, but socialists when it comes to our dollars.


Plainsman, you really are not fooling anybody here. You are a democrat. You surround yourself with them on Nodak. When it comes to politics there is a tug of war for the sportsmen vote. In Montana it has gotten bad. I keep telling you guys there are orgs out there that are not sportsmens orgs, they are government advocacy groups.

http://www.lobowatch.org/adminclient/Legislation9/go

New Montana Sportsmen's Organization May Not Be Exactly What They Claim

Enlarge Image

With the national elections now less than a year away, most of us really expected the campaign mudslinging to shift into high gear. Here in Montana, we will elect a new Governor in November 2012, and there will be a lot of jockeying for the state senator and state representative seats. However, the most hotly contested spot in Montana politics will likely be for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator Jon Tester. His primary opponent is current U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg.

The mud is already flying in this battle. And leading the charge against Rehberg is the most unlikely group, calling itself Montana Hunters and Anglers Action.

So, just who is Montana Hunters and Anglers Action? Well, a lot of this state's sportsmen have been asking themselves that very question. Those who hunt here have watched the quality of the big game hunting in western Montana disintegrate, from some of the best in North America to some of the absolute worst - thanks to a wolf experiment gone wrong. Likewise, many of this state's fishermen are less than thrilled by fisheries management, especially in some large lakes where an all out effort is being made to destroy thriving lake trout populations, to make room for more of the native bull trout - a fish which many fishermen feel is the trout equivalent of the carp.

(Photo Above - Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus are now feeling the rath of state residents who blame them for many of Montana's economic woes...and by sportsmen who point at the two politicians close ties with anti-hunting environmental groups.

Enlarge Image

Are these some of the issues that concern those making up the 501 (c) (4) not-for-profit Montana Hunters and Anglers Action? Apparently not, their agenda is far more political. Currently, this new group is making an all out attack on Congressman Rehberg's support of H.R. 1505, legislation which would provide stronger security of America's borders. The television ad many have gotten tired of listening to calls the bill the "Rehberg Land Grab", claiming that sportsmen could be shut out of nearly a third of Montana's public lands.

(Photo Above Right - Montana is blessed with huge tracts of wild public land. The scare tactics of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action procalim that a third of that land could be lost to Homeland Security if H.R. 1505 is put into law.)

Chuck Cushman, Director of American Land Rights, says, "A bureaucratic turf war between federal employees is putting national security and private property at risk. H.R. 1505 ends the turf war by giving border patrol agents access to the border on federal lands to do their job. But radical environmentalists who don't support private property or secure borders are up in arms because this law prioritizes national security over their pet environmental laws."

Could Montana Hunters and Anglers Action be simply a front for what is really just another radical environmental group? A group with a political agenda? Let's take a look at those who head this pseudo sportsmen's organization.

Enlarge Image

The Director of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is George Cooper, a senior vice president of a major political lobbying group in Washington, D.C. The President of this sportsmen's group in Land Tawney, who also happens to sit on the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee, and is a member of Senator Jon Tester's Sportsmen's Advisory Panel. Elected state senator Kendall Van **** (D-Billings) serves as the group's Secretary, and also sits on the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee. Treasurer Barrett Kaiser is a former staffer for Senator Max Baucus, and served as a consultant to Senator Tester's 2006 campaign.

(Photo Above Left - The residents of the Northern Rockies have had their fill of meddling radical environmental groups which have worked hard to destroy the outdoor lifestyle of this region of the country. Signs and bumper stickers such as this are quickly becoming more commonplace.)

Theirs is truly a politically driven agenda. But what could be the motivation of a "sportsmen's organization" which seems to ignore issues which are truly impacting the quality of hunting and fishing in Montana?

Tiptoe through the Montana Hunters and Anglers Action website at www.montanahuntersandanglers.org and it does not take long to realize that this group is all about wilderness. This state is very blessed to have the truly wild places we have. But there are those who feel that we need even more "wilderness" areas. One extremely radical agenda, known as the Wildlands Network, would turn approximately half of the U.S. into wilderness areas or into "Wildlands Corridors", providing connective passageways for wildlife from one area to another. Part of that big scheme would be to establish what has been dubbed the "Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative". This would turn much of western Montana and most of northern Idaho, plus a good share of western Canada, into one huge wild corridor...where human activities would be severely curtailed or eliminated. And dozens of environmental organizations are collaborating to see this through by chipping away at "public use" of "public land".

Enlarge Image

Now, a secure border between the U.S. and Canada would kind of throw a wrench into those plans...wouldn't it? Could it be that opposition to H.R. 1505 by those of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is due to their zest to "re-wild" the American West? Or does their political agenda go even deeper, with an all out effort to see that Denny Rehberg is not elected to the U.S. Senate?

(Photo At Right - Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg conducted a series of panel meetings on wolves in 2010, where the majority of the comments were for more stringent wolf control. Click on "Enlarge"...And LOBO WATCH founder Toby Bridges served as a member of the panel during the discussion in Kalispell - seated third from the left.)

"These groups will stop at nothing to misrepresent this good law as something it is not, and they've already spent a quarter of a million dollars in Montana to spread their lies. If you support private property, and if you support secure national borders, you should support H.R. 1505," claims Chuck Cushman of American Land Rights.

He says that Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is a fake group, established to confuse Montana voters and defeat Denny Rehberg. - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH

Plainsman, Don't you just wish that you guys could promote and have a strong wildlife federation and wildlife society like they have in Montana? Look at all the mischeif.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> addokken wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I will be working for Ryan Taylor, you conservatives can spew all the negative remarks about liberals you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian, I didn't spew anything. You sir are the one who said on fishingbuddy that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the best president we ever had and did more for this country than any other president. The conservatives on FBO got after you.
> 
> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adokken you may have to tell us more about Ryan. Since NDFB come out with their radical views I may have to vote conservative to go to Washington, but Democrat for North Dakota. I may be conservative, but I am not dollar worshiping like some landowners I debate with on here. Of course they are only conservative when it benefits them, but still want those government dollars. I don't know how to classified that type. Conservative when it comes to their rights, but socialists when it comes to our dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plainsman, you really are not fooling anybody here. You are a democrat. You surround yourself with them on Nodak. When it comes to politics there is a tug of war for the sportsmen vote. In Montana it has gotten bad. I keep telling you guys there are orgs out there that are not sportsmens orgs, they are government advocacy groups.
> 
> http://www.lobowatch.org/adminclient/Legislation9/go
> 
> New Montana Sportsmen's Organization May Not Be Exactly What They Claim
> 
> Enlarge Image
> 
> With the national elections now less than a year away, most of us really expected the campaign mudslinging to shift into high gear. Here in Montana, we will elect a new Governor in November 2012, and there will be a lot of jockeying for the state senator and state representative seats. However, the most hotly contested spot in Montana politics will likely be for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator Jon Tester. His primary opponent is current U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg.
> 
> The mud is already flying in this battle. And leading the charge against Rehberg is the most unlikely group, calling itself Montana Hunters and Anglers Action.
> 
> So, just who is Montana Hunters and Anglers Action? Well, a lot of this state's sportsmen have been asking themselves that very question. Those who hunt here have watched the quality of the big game hunting in western Montana disintegrate, from some of the best in North America to some of the absolute worst - thanks to a wolf experiment gone wrong. Likewise, many of this state's fishermen are less than thrilled by fisheries management, especially in some large lakes where an all out effort is being made to destroy thriving lake trout populations, to make room for more of the native bull trout - a fish which many fishermen feel is the trout equivalent of the carp.
> 
> (Photo Above - Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus are now feeling the rath of state residents who blame them for many of Montana's economic woes...and by sportsmen who point at the two politicians close ties with anti-hunting environmental groups.
> 
> Enlarge Image
> 
> Are these some of the issues that concern those making up the 501 (c) (4) not-for-profit Montana Hunters and Anglers Action? Apparently not, their agenda is far more political. Currently, this new group is making an all out attack on Congressman Rehberg's support of H.R. 1505, legislation which would provide stronger security of America's borders. The television ad many have gotten tired of listening to calls the bill the "Rehberg Land Grab", claiming that sportsmen could be shut out of nearly a third of Montana's public lands.
> 
> (Photo Above Right - Montana is blessed with huge tracts of wild public land. The scare tactics of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action procalim that a third of that land could be lost to Homeland Security if H.R. 1505 is put into law.)
> 
> Chuck Cushman, Director of American Land Rights, says, "A bureaucratic turf war between federal employees is putting national security and private property at risk. H.R. 1505 ends the turf war by giving border patrol agents access to the border on federal lands to do their job. But radical environmentalists who don't support private property or secure borders are up in arms because this law prioritizes national security over their pet environmental laws."
> 
> Could Montana Hunters and Anglers Action be simply a front for what is really just another radical environmental group? A group with a political agenda? Let's take a look at those who head this pseudo sportsmen's organization.
> 
> Enlarge Image
> 
> The Director of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is George Cooper, a senior vice president of a major political lobbying group in Washington, D.C. The President of this sportsmen's group in Land Tawney, who also happens to sit on the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee, and is a member of Senator Jon Tester's Sportsmen's Advisory Panel. Elected state senator Kendall Van **** (D-Billings) serves as the group's Secretary, and also sits on the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee. Treasurer Barrett Kaiser is a former staffer for Senator Max Baucus, and served as a consultant to Senator Tester's 2006 campaign.
> 
> (Photo Above Left - The residents of the Northern Rockies have had their fill of meddling radical environmental groups which have worked hard to destroy the outdoor lifestyle of this region of the country. Signs and bumper stickers such as this are quickly becoming more commonplace.)
> 
> Theirs is truly a politically driven agenda. But what could be the motivation of a "sportsmen's organization" which seems to ignore issues which are truly impacting the quality of hunting and fishing in Montana?
> 
> Tiptoe through the Montana Hunters and Anglers Action website at http://www.montanahuntersandanglers.org and it does not take long to realize that this group is all about wilderness. This state is very blessed to have the truly wild places we have. But there are those who feel that we need even more "wilderness" areas. One extremely radical agenda, known as the Wildlands Network, would turn approximately half of the U.S. into wilderness areas or into "Wildlands Corridors", providing connective passageways for wildlife from one area to another. Part of that big scheme would be to establish what has been dubbed the "Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative". This would turn much of western Montana and most of northern Idaho, plus a good share of western Canada, into one huge wild corridor...where human activities would be severely curtailed or eliminated. And dozens of environmental organizations are collaborating to see this through by chipping away at "public use" of "public land".
> 
> Enlarge Image
> 
> Now, a secure border between the U.S. and Canada would kind of throw a wrench into those plans...wouldn't it? Could it be that opposition to H.R. 1505 by those of Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is due to their zest to "re-wild" the American West? Or does their political agenda go even deeper, with an all out effort to see that Denny Rehberg is not elected to the U.S. Senate?
> 
> (Photo At Right - Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg conducted a series of panel meetings on wolves in 2010, where the majority of the comments were for more stringent wolf control. Click on "Enlarge"...And LOBO WATCH founder Toby Bridges served as a member of the panel during the discussion in Kalispell - seated third from the left.)
> 
> "These groups will stop at nothing to misrepresent this good law as something it is not, and they've already spent a quarter of a million dollars in Montana to spread their lies. If you support private property, and if you support secure national borders, you should support H.R. 1505," claims Chuck Cushman of American Land Rights.
> 
> He says that Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is a fake group, established to confuse Montana voters and defeat Denny Rehberg. - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
> 
> Plainsman, Don't you just wish that you guys could promote and have a strong wildlife federation and wildlife society like they have in Montana? Look at all the mischeif.
Click to expand...

So shaug what I got from this is your point of view is a sportsman vs landowner ideology then? I don't know why that would suprise me, kind of what I figured you and gst were all about from the beginning anyway.


----------



## Plainsman

> So shaug what I got from this is your point of view is a sportsman vs landowner ideology then? I don't know why that would suprise me, kind of what I figured you and gst were all about from the beginning anyway.


Bingo!

I think the wolf introduction was stupid myself. I also think the border insecurity is a shame. The biggest shame is the Obama administration going after Arizona for enforcing a law that they themselves swore an oath to enforce.

What we see above is an attempt to get control of government land. I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands. Every few years the Forest Service evaluates their management plans and allows public input. The two fighting for more control was the Sierra Club and the ranchers that graze the land. The ranchers that lease grazing rights hate the idea of multiple use. It's a shame the management didn't stay the same because either of these groups winning is a loss for hunters. We need to be more vocal.

The Montana politics going on is tree huggers on one side and land grabbing ranchers on the other. Again we should be getting involved along the common sense middle ground. If the tree huggers win our hunting will get hurt, but if the ranchers had their way we would be paying to play on land we own. This is radical vs radical.

Shaug calls me a democrat. Go back and read some of the last five years in the political form. Then you will understand the near total lack of understanding shaug has. That's the best choice. The other choice is understanding just how deceptive these people are to get their hands on public land, and to remove all agriculture regulations. It's a 1700's mentality in a modern world. That "leave your mark on the land son" doesn't mean environmental and social irresponsibility. One can be socially and fiscally conservative without reverting back to the stone age. When human populations were low you could dump on the environment without disastrous consequences. That isn't possible today without the willingness to dump on your neighbor.


----------



## gst

led, why should anyone give your claims any degree of credibility????????

*Re: It's about darn time!*

_by gst » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:28 pm

But led lets just concentrate on one thing at a time here.

leadfed wrote: *You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think*

gst wrote:Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true.

leadfed wrote:Liar.

gst wrote: Led, you have claimed you know more than I think in regards to this claim you have made. Now would be a good time to prove it.

So led if you wish to have any credibility, please state who has "hired/delegated" me to be on this site. 
This should be intereting!

ledafed wrote:I got my sources gabarinski I see you are still b*tching about this site and the moderators. I'll state it again. If you don't like it just leave.

Alrighty.....bye then.

gst wrote: led which is it have I been "hired" or "delegated" . There is a difference between the two. What do your "sources" tell you led!

You claim to "know more than I think", (which at this point would not be hard to do as I "think" you do not "know" much of anything) but claiming this, one would "think" you "know" which it is, "hired" or "delegated"????

Actually after you made that claim that I was either "hired/delegated" to come on this site, I do not "think" you "know" anything, as a matter of fact, I "know" you do not "know" anything even though you "think" you "know" something because what you claim to "think" you "know" simply is not true!

So led, which is it you "think" you "know", hired????? Or "delegated"

Lets get thru this claim you made first and then we can address why I am even on this site.

Credibility_

You see led when you make claims and accusations and then refuse to substantiate them as truth or fact, it is your "credibility" that suffers.

Are you planning to continue to remain hidden behind your computer screen making unsubstantiated accusations against people that you will not and can not prove?


----------



## Plainsman

> Are you planning to continue to remain hidden behind your computer screen making unsubstantiated accusations against people that you will not and can not prove?


Don't be so hard on shaug.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, why should anyone give your claims any degree of credibility????????
> 
> You don't need to gabe and I could really give a ****. The question you should be asking is why anyone would consider even one word you say on here credible? You are too biased on the subjects at hand due to a conflict of interest, therefor credibility on your part is impossible.
> 
> Still don't like the site eh gabe?
> 
> Well....by then. 8)


----------



## gst

quote="Plainsman"]


> So shaug what I got from this is your point of view is a sportsman vs landowner ideology then? I don't know why that would suprise me, kind of what I figured you and gst were all about from the beginning anyway.


Bingo!

I think the wolf introduction was stupid myself. I also think the border insecurity is a shame. The biggest shame is the Obama administration going after Arizona for enforcing a law that they themselves swore an oath to enforce.

What we see above is an attempt to get control of government land. *I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands*. Every few years the Forest Service evaluates their management plans and allows public input. The two fighting for more control was the Sierra Club and the ranchers that graze the land. *The ranchers that lease grazing rights hate the idea of multiple use*. It's a shame the management didn't stay the same because either of these groups winning is a loss for hunters. We need to be more vocal.

The Montana politics going on is tree huggers on one side and land grabbing ranchers on the other. Again we should be getting involved along the common sense middle ground. If the tree huggers win our hunting will get hurt, but if the ranchers had their way we would be paying to play on land we own. This is radical vs radical.[/quote]

*Plainsman this statement simply is not true.*

Remember Bruce we have had this conversation once before. In that claim you stated it was the North Dakota Cattleman Association that had the "petition" out. You were asked to provide proof at that time and did not.

Bruce you are either so biased against agriculture here in ND tht you will say anything regardless of fact in the hope that somethibg will stick, or you have gotten so senile you simply can not distiguish or remember what is fact or turuth and what is not.

The "multiple use" claim you make above is what lies at the heart of the debate regarding many of these govt lands. At the time they were entered into govt ownership many of them were managed by what is now the NRCS and in fact were agreed to be "multiple use lands" and controled grazing was a part of the agreed upopn "multiple use". Ther is an agenda within govt and some of the people manageig these lands to disallow grazing as a management tool. And plainsman before you go about some story of how these lands are over grazed please recall the link I provided to a story right here in ND where the govt "expert" claims the Grasslands here in ND were being over grazed because the grass did not measure up high enough on her ruler, but when an actual study was done by NDSU it was found that the grass species in the northern plains that make up this ecosystem do not grow as tall as what the new rules managing grazing of this area of the Grasslands claim.

So Bruce once again the rhetoric simply keeps coming.



Plainsman said:


> The Montana politics going on is tree huggers on one side and *land grabbing ranchers on the other*.


As I said, please do not suggest to wish to have a "serious discussion" regarding agriculture when you can not help yourself from the rhetoric you spew on this site. Are we to actually beleive you wish to find "middle ground"????? Right. :roll:

You have proven you are unwilling to take the time to even educate yourself as to who is involved in these issues and what the facts are, so how can anyone take anything you say as .....................................................................................

Credible?

So plainsman which was it the North Dakota Cattlemans Association or the NDSA? Or possibly neither? :eyeroll:

You once again make claims against yet another ag org representing almost 3000 of ND ranchers that you can not substantiate as truth.

Your "willie" is showing again Bruce. :eyeroll:

Credibility.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Are you planning to continue to remain hidden behind your computer screen making unsubstantiated accusations against people that you will not and can not prove?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so hard on shaug.
Click to expand...

plainsamn can you point to a post out of the several thousand you have made where you have stated who you are so people can put a degree of credibility to your positions and rhetoric?


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman which was it the North Dakota Cattlemans Association or the NDSA? Or possibly neither?


It was one of those groups, and governor Hoven held public meetings accompanied by Forest Service people. They held meetings at Watford City, and Lisbon, North Dakota. I testified at the Lisbon meeting. So duck this all you want gst, but it should be clear to everyone your being dishonest about this.

This is a dangerous time for sportsmen, and much of America. Obama has been so radical that it makes the time ripe to swing the political pendulum far right. I don't mind far right, but in those ranks are radicals just like in the ranks of liberals there are radicals. Groups like the NDSA and the NDFB will exploit the dissatisfaction we have with the radical left. The time is ripe to rip off the public for the advantage of these groups. If we don't get more involved the radical left will outlaw hunting on public land, and if we don't become more involved the radical right will make us pay to play on land we own. These groups are licking their chops thinking about grazing every spear of grass and charging you to hunt on public land. Their representatives are not so tenacious for no reason. The reason is dollars in their wallet. Follow the money. Expect them to infiltrate every sportsmen's organization and point fingers. They know there will be a battle because they will start it.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> led, why should anyone give your claims any degree of credibility????????
> 
> You don't need to gabe and I could really give a &$#*. The question you should be asking is why anyone would consider even one word you say on here credible? You are too biased on the subjects at hand due to a conflict of interest, therefor credibility on your part is impossible.
> 
> Still don't like the site eh gabe?
> 
> Well....by then. 8)
Click to expand...

And led this "conflict of interest would be???

You see led by stating who I am as I have on this site and any I post on, people can judge on their own and by what is posted and how it is substantiated as to wether they give someone any degree of credibility. Many people may not agree with someone, but they will realize what they post on a site such as this is credible because of the two above things.

Wether you understand that and accept ones credibility matters little, your juvenile personal comments have shown you to be someone whos "opinion" is irrelevant to any "serious discussion".

So led if you wish to continue to remain annimous and make accusations as you have and instead of substantiating them with some sort of proof or fact so people can judge for themselves the credibility of your claims, how can ANYONE give you or them any credibility?

by gst » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:28 pm

But led lets just concentrate on one thing at a time here.

leadfed wrote: You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think

gst wrote:Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true.

leadfed wrote:Liar.

gst wrote: Led, you have claimed you know more than I think in regards to this claim you have made. Now would be a good time to prove it.

So led if you wish to have any credibility, please state who has "hired/delegated" me to be on this site. 
This should be intereting!

ledafed wrote:I got my sources gabarinski I see you are still b*tching about this site and the moderators. I'll state it again. If you don't like it just leave.

Alrighty.....bye then.

gst wrote: led which is it have I been "hired" or "delegated" . There is a difference between the two. What do your "sources" tell you led!

You claim to "know more than I think", (which at this point would not be hard to do as I "think" you do not "know" much of anything) but claiming this, one would "think" you "know" which it is, "hired" or "delegated"????

Actually after you made that claim that I was either "hired/delegated" to come on this site, I do not "think" you "know" anything, as a matter of fact, I "know" you do not "know" anything even though you "think" you "know" something because what you claim to "think" you "know" simply is not true!

So led, which is it you "think" you "know", hired????? Or "delegated" 

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsamn can you point to a post out of the several thousand you have made where you have stated who you are so people can put a degree of credibility to your positions and rhetoric?


I don't have to you already did that. Back when you cried because leadfed posted how much money you got from the government. You complained to me and asked what I thought. I said there are crazy people on the internet and I don't like it when people use real names because they are trying to make them targets. Next post you started using my name. You use your name because you are officially a representative of the NDSA who you are here representing.

I would call you a hypocrite and ask that you tell us who shaug is. However, I am more consistent than that. When you use peoples names gst your simply hoping some radical does something to damage them. Your tactics are transparent and not very civilized. That' why shaug hides his name, and it's also why he wants the name of others and who they worked for, who they worked with, when they worked together, etc. He said when they go to meetings take names. You want that public land under your thumb, and you want to run your farms and ranches as if they were sovereign nations. In a modern world that is uncivilized. You boys were born 200 years late.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> So plainsman which was it the North Dakota Cattlemans Association or the NDSA? Or possibly neither?





Plainsman said:


> *It was one of those groups, *and governor Hoven held public meetings accompanied by Forest Service people. They held meetings at Watford City, and Lisbon, North Dakota. I testified at the Lisbon meeting. So duck this all you want gst, but it should be clear to everyone your being dishonest about this.


So plainsamn has there ever been a North Dakota Cattlemans Association?

Plainsman if you were there and testified, providing some sort of proof should not be that hard as to what group you claim was circulating a petition.

Please substantiate your claim which group it was.

Perhaps there is a direct correlation as to how much your "willie" grows as to how much your nose grows as well! :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't have to you already did that. Back when you cried because leadfed posted how much money you got from the government. You complained to me and asked what I thought. I said there are crazy people on the internet and I don't like it when people use real names because they are trying to make them targets. Next post you started using my name. You use your name because you are officially a representative of the NDSA who you are here representing.


Bruce, wether intentional or a result of senility, you once again are not posting what is actually the truth. Your identity as a Federal salamander trapper was shared in a completely different scenario and thread than what you state! :-?

Bruce you have been told on more than one occassion that I am not on here representing the NDSA in any capacity and the comments I make are mine and mine alone. If I am "representing" the NDSA it will be stated as such in any comments made. It appears you wish to go down the road led has as well. :eyeroll:

So can we assume you will provide the same "proof" to substantiate your claims he has??? 

Credibility


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You want that public land under your thumb, and you want to run your farms and ranches as if they were sovereign nations. In a modern world that is uncivilized. You boys were born 200 years late


So plainsamn, are you saying the people in this country 200 years ago were wrong in the path they took?


----------



## leadfed

And led this "conflict of interest would be???

You see led by stating who I am as I have on this site and any I post on, people can judge on their own and by what is posted and how it is substantiated as to wether they give someone any degree of credibility. Many people may not agree with someone, but they will realize what they post on a site such as this is credible because of the two above things.

Wether you understand that and accept ones credibility matters little, your juvenile personal comments have shown you to be someone whos "opinion" is irrelevant to any "serious discussion". [/quote]

Led said
What you can't figure out gabe is that I DON'T GIVE A RATS *** IF YOU OR ANYONE ELSE *THINKS* WHAT I SAY IS CREDIBLE!. I know what is true and that is that you come on here as part of an aggreement with an organization that you will fight for the common interest of an organization. It's true. You can deny it all you want because it is not in writing and you do not get paid for it so there is no paper trail. As far as knowing who you are on this site....there again I DONT GIVE A RATS *** if I know you as gabe thompson, super rancher, social ****** or whatever other adjectives one can find in a prison setting. The bottom line is your arrogance stinks so bad it could knock a vulture off a **** wagon and that is dangerous to the sportsman.

The conflict of interest in your case is that you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO one sided on the protection of the farmer/rancher that you can't look at anything objectively.....that is bias and creates a conflict of interest. So before you tell other people what they say is not credible, I want you to understand that not one damn thing in the history of your posting has been credible for the exact reason stated above.

So once again, get to work copying and pasting here on my post so that your next post twists and jade's the whole context to your appeal. Just one long drawn out cycle of us listening to your ignorant, juvenile, arrogant jargon isn't it? And all from a boy who has made it apparent over and over and over and over again that he doesn't like this site, it's moderators and has said it is dying. Makes one wonder why he spends endless hours on it doesn't it?......almost like he has make a commitment to be here?  :lol:

But heck....if you don't like this site gabe, well.......by then. 8)


----------



## leadfed

I was just looking back through previous posts. Holy gabe, you sure bring up the male reproductive organ a lot.lol


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsamn, are you saying the people in this country 200 years ago were wrong in the path they took?


Leadfed is right you twist things. My point is they took the plow to everything they could. The old western movies always talk about leaving your mark on the land. It's developed to a point now, and out population has also developed to a point you just can't run with your plows and drainage equipment with disregard for fellow citizens.

gst you want to know what group it was NDSA or cattlemen's association? I don't remember, but I am sure you do. Why for the sake of truth don't you just tell us what group it is. I am sure most people who pay attention to our National Grasslands will remember this happening. You know the truth gst, but you refuse to tell us what that organization was.

shaug, I know you call me democrat because you want to be insulting. I'm not going to bite. All anyone has to do is go to the political form to see how full of bull droppings you are. Then apply that to everything else you say.

adokken said:


> Oh I am sure that we agree on a few things like keeping hunting available to the public


As much as I and adokken disagree on political things we agree on this. I guess we both serve as examples of people who think for ourselves and don't make our decisions based on politics or dollars in our pocket. gst, you and shaug are on the other side of this spectrum. If you could get control of our National Grasslands our hunting without paying would be in question. I would guess you would even welcome the animal rights activist stopping hunting on public land because we would then be left at your mercy, or lack there of. We sportsmen are between a rock (radical, liberal, animal rights activists) and a hard place (radical, right wing, landowners who want control of all land).


----------



## adokken

What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt,we can thank him for a lot of public land that was kept out of the hands of the greedy. I have made the mistake in telling a couple of ranchers that the BLM Land is being leased too cheap and nearly had my head bit off. About like the Forrest Service who let bids on our land and by the time the build the roads we the taxpayers lose money. It is always interesting to listen to some of my conservative friends complain about welfare and I go home and see how much their farm payments are.


----------



## Plainsman

google "North Dakota National Grasslands and stockmen". The first thing that comes up is NDSA. They oppose many things and it's usually public property, environment, etc.



> Under the private property rights umbrella, NDSA members passed three separate, but related, resolutions opposing wilderness and wild-and-scenic-river designations and the Antiquities Act, which allows the president to designate national monuments without Congressional approval. NDSA members assert that such designations often result in diminished ability to graze livestock and manage those lands as the landowner sees fit and are the first step in further regulation.


What they don't understand is that the land they lease isn't theirs it's ours.

http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=308&page= ... convention

Check this out. Radical like the NDFB I think.

http://www.tonydean.com/issues8104.html?sectionid=1645
http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=25

notice the call for public input on this one: http://badlandsconservationalliance.org ... data_id=46

http://badlandsconservationalliance.org ... data_id=46



> A proposed Forest Service management plan that puts an emphasis on wildlife and recreation could cut the number of cattle grazing on Northern Great Plains National Grasslands and Forests anywhere from 10% to 50%.
> 
> That has ranchers and some rural communities concerned about their livelihoods.
> 
> If the plan is approved in its present form, "a good many of our operators would fold up," says Melvin Leland, a Sidney, MT, rancher who has grazing permits for 350 head on the Little Missouri National Grasslands in western North Dakota.
> 
> Some of the largest grazing cuts (as high as 50%) could come on the units in western North Dakota, Leland says.
> 
> The grazing reductions are part of a revised management plan proposed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) - the government agency that oversees the National Grasslands and Forests.
> 
> The plan, which was made public July 7, 1999, is the result of a routine evaluation conducted by the USFS every 10-15 years to account for changing ecological conditions, says Bob Sprentall. Sprentall is USFS Rangeland Ecosystem Coordinator for the Northern Great Plains.
> 
> A New Focus The new plan marks a shift toward managing the land to a desired vegetation condition, according to Sprentall. "We are trying to provide for evolving ecological conditions," he says.
> 
> The plan calls for increased roadless areas, wilderness areas, more wildlife habitat, restrictions on mineral development and on public access, and decreased carrying capacities of livestock. The grassland structure would be closely monitored to meet desired rangeland conditions using the Robel Pole, says Sprentall.


Remember what I said about the Forest Service having a routine management evaluation every ten years? See above.

The comment about decreased carrying capacity simply means they are not going to allow the ranchers to graze public land until the cows leave tooth marks on the rocks.


----------



## Plainsman

adokken said:


> What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt,we can thank him for a lot of public land that was kept out of the hands of the greedy. I have made the mistake in telling a couple of ranchers that the BLM Land is being leased too cheap and nearly had my head bit off. About like the Forrest Service who let bids on our land and by the time the build the roads we the taxpayers lose money. It is always interesting to listen to some of my conservative friends complain about welfare and I go home and see how much their farm payments are.


Well, we are going to have to agree again adokken. gst will whine because I am not up to date. I remember 1988 it cost the government $58 million to administer federal grazed land, but the grazing only brought in $26 million. If they don't want to be part of the welfare system then at least pay enough to cover our cost of administration.

They whine about how much they pay for public land, but don't blink an eye when paying ten times as much for adjoining private pastures.

adokken I have had ranchers complain about how much the grain farmers get, and claim they get nothing. The truth is they get grazing so cheap that their income is much higher than beef producers in the eastern part of North Dakota. The guys around the Sheyenne Grasslands have the same opportunity. I'm guessing gst is busy searching for my testimony at Lisbon, North Dakota.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands


plainsamn lets keep it simple and to the point here. You made the above statement. Is it true?


----------



## shaug

leadfed wrote,



> So shaug what I got from this is your point of view is a sportsman vs landowner ideology then? I don't know why that would suprise me, kind of what I figured you and gst were all about from the beginning anyway.


Everything just goes right over your head. The leader of the 501 (c) (4) not-for-profit Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is one Land Tawney. He is or was a regional director for the National Wildlife Federation. Lead, when are you going to learn, those are not sportsmens orgs, they are goverrnment advocacy groups. They are trying to get Senator Jon Tester re-elected. They are trying to get Obama re-elected. Land Tawney is also head of Montana Sportsmen for Obama. Lead, Why don't you stop being such a dope?

Do you know who is behind the 5% oil tax rip rape and run for wildlife conservation in North Dakota? The sponsors of the iniative are members of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. These government advocacy orgs are affiliates of the NWF and TWS. They want between 70 and 90 million dollars of oil revenues diverted from the ND General Treasurey to their coffers. Would that much money empower them? Would that much money empower them? Would that much money empower them?

I hope Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg kicks Senator Jon Testers butt.


----------



## gst

leadfed wrote: You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think

gst wrote:Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true.

leadfed wrote:Liar.

So led, apparently you are going to continue to hide behind your computer, continue to make juvenile personal posts that contribute nothing to the discussion, continue to not not substantiate your claims that you specifically made and expect people to give you any degree of "credibility"?

Indeed I have been elecetd to serve on the board of the NDSA, it is no secret. I have always been up front and open about that fact. One that I am very proud of. I have not hidden behind a computer screen having posted my name on here in several different threads.

Simply because I have been elected to serve on the NDSA board does not mean that I have been hired/delegated a to come on this site as you claim. If you do not beleive me you are free to contact anyone with the NDSA to ask the question for yourself. Your claimis simply not true.

I realize that for some of you the fact my opinions may be similar to those of an org I serve, is hard to comprehend. But I assure you as this org has extremely qualified communications people, if they wish an official position to be given regarding an issue they are more than qualified to do so without me being involved! :wink:

So continue down the road of maligning every agriculture organization here in the state using the rhetoric we so often see on this site. Just please, those that choose to follow this path, do not suggest you are capable of having a "serious discussion" regarding agriculture.


----------



## gst

plainsman in case you missed it! :wink:

quote="Plainsman"]I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands[/quote]



gst said:


> [*plainsamn lets keep it simple and to the point here. You made the above statement. Is it true*?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> The Montana politics going on is tree huggers on one side and land grabbing ranchers on the other. Again we should be getting involved along the common sense middle ground. If the tree huggers win our hunting will get hurt, but if the ranchers had their way we would be paying to play on land we own. This is radical vs radical.


It is almost fun to watch you spin. In four sentences you are trying to take this discussion into red herring no where. Bruce, the ndcws and the ndwf need a bump. They need money. The 5% oil tax scheme will run millions right through their fingers. Montana has a strong wildlife federation because they have donors like Liz Clayborne giving them $500,000 dollars and only 17% of their members actually live in MT. The 83% out of staters send money. With all that money flying around it certainly should attract bees. Check out Sen. Jon Testers Sportsmen's Caucus advisory group. Look at these clowns dressed up as sportsmen. Everyone wildlife federation and wildlife society to a tee. Sportsmen, my asre. Follow the money. If Jon Tester is re-elected he will remember his helpers and gift much money from the US General Tresurey to them. I hope Rehberg kicks Testers butt.

http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_02 ... rtsmen.cfm

Tester announces members of Sportsmen's Caucus advisory group 
19 Montanans on panel 'come from all walks of life'

Thursday, February 10, 2011

(U.S. SENATE) - Senator Jon Tester today announced members of the Montana Sportsmen's Advisory Panel, a group of sportsmen and women from across Montana who will provide input to Tester in his new role as the Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.

Tester's 19-member panel of Montanans will share their experiences as men and women actively engaged in hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities. Tester plans to use the group's input to craft legislation aimed at protecting Montana's and America's outdoor heritage.

Tester plans to focus the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on working to strengthen gun rights, remove wolves from the endangered species list, improve access to public land, and fight for clean water and healthy wildlife.

"Montanans grow up surrounded by the many outdoor recreational opportunities our state has to offer and we learn from an early age that it is also our job to make sure we strengthen that heritage for our kids and grandkids," Tester said. "The Montanans on this panel come from all walks of life, and all of them are experts in working together to make sure the next generation has the opportunities to hunt, fish, camp and hike. I look forward to their advice on how we can move forward legislation to protect Montana's rich outdoor heritage."

"The NRA looks forward to working with Senator Tester in his leadership role with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus on these issues that are of great importance to the NRA and tens of millions of Americans," said Christopher Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "The NRA is a leader in the effort to preserve America's rich hunting heritage and improve hunting opportunities at the federal, state and local levels. For these efforts to continue to be successful, every hunter and hunting organization needs to speak with a strong and unified voice"

The following Montana hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts will be part of Tester's Montana Sportsmen's Advisory Panel:

•John Borgreen is a life-long hunter and angler who has been an active participant in a variety of sportsmen's organizations including Russell Country Sportsmen's Association where he served as President and Secretary/Treasurer. In addition, Borgreen has been actively involved with the Montana Wildlife Federation (serving as Vice President for Internal Affairs), the Devil's Kitchen Working Group and the Sun River Working Group. Borgreen is retired from the commercial printing industry and lives in Great Falls. 
•Ryan Busse has worked in the outdoor industry for over 18 years. He has long been involved in sportsman's issues and conservation. Among other things, Busse has served as board chair for Montana Conservation Voters and has been active in efforts to preserve the Rocky Mountain Front. He is a passionate hunter and fisherman and lives in Kalispell. 
•Bruce Farling is a life-long hunter and angler, and has hunted and fished Montana for 40 years. He is in his 18th year as executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited. Previous to that he was conservation director for the Clark Fork Coalition. He also worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 10 years, including nine years in Montana and Idaho working in wilderness management. 
•Bill Geer has been a Fish and Wildlife professional for 38 years. He started as a project biologist on Georgetown Lake for fisheries research in 1973 for the Montana Fish and Game Department. In 1984, Geer became the Director of the Utah division of Wildlife Resources. Geer currently works at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, is a board member of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, and is a Community Councilman in Lolo. 
•John Gibson is the president of the Public Land and Water Access Association, which works to protect and improve public access to land and water. He is retired from the US Forest Service and lives in Billings. He is a former president of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and the Montana Wildlife Federation.
•Kathy Hadley is a lifelong hunter, angler and conservationist. She lives on a ranch in the Upper Clark Fork valley, near Galen. She is a former president of the Montana Wildlife Federation and was a founding board member of the Clark Fork Coalition. Hadley is currently the Western Vice Chair of the National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors and is a member of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Council. 
•Gayle Joslin is a wildlife biologist and worked for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for 30 years. She is the secretary and founding board member of Orion-The Hunters Institute. Gayle is also the Issues Chair for the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, an affiliate of the Montana Wildlife Federation. She has conducted Hunter Education Wildlife Identification courses and has taught riflery at Becoming an Outdoors Woman seminars. 
•Chris King has spent most of his life as a rancher and is a County Commissioner in Petroleum County. He is also a member of the Private Land/Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana.
•Ben Lamb is an avid fly fisherman and big game hunter who loves to spend as much time as possible in wild country. He is the Conservation Director for State and National Issues for the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana's oldest and largest Hunter/Angler Advocacy group. Lamb has worked for over 8 years as a sportsmen's advocate in both Montana and Wyoming, and served on the board of directors for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and the Animal Damage Management Board of Wyoming before moving to Montana.

•Perry Miller is a Blaine County Justice of the Peace. Miller is a landowner in Blaine County and avid hunter and fisherman. 
•Randy Newberg currently is the host and producer of the critically acclaimed outdoor show On Your Own Adventures, a show focused on teaching hunters how to hunt on public lands, without guides. Newberg has been a committee chairman and board member for many conservation groups. He is currently Treasurer and past President of Orion the Hunters Institute. He is a co-founder of a local rod and gun club, Headwaters Fish and Game Association in Bozeman. 
•Karl Rappold is a lifelong cattle rancher. His family has been in the business since 1882, located West of Dupuyer. He rode saddle broncos and bulls for more than a decade in rodeos. Karl opens his ranch up every year to a lucky group of hunters, many of which are out for their first time with family. 
•Joelle Selk is the first Vice President of the Montana Bowhunters Association and the chairman of the MBA's Legislative Committee. She is an active member of the Traditional Bowhunters of Montana and the Montana Wildlife Federation. Her passion for hunting and wildlife conservation spans 25 years and she is honored to collaborate with sportsmen committed to fostering healthy and diverse wildlife populations.
•Pat Smith is a partner in a Montana law firm that specializes in American Indian law. He is a former managing attorney for the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, a member of the Assiniboine Tribe, and presently serves on the Montana Redistricting Commission. His fly rod, shotgun and rifle are no strangers to Montana's great outdoors. 
•Land Tawney is a 5th generation Montana who grew up with a fly rod and gun in hand. He served as the president of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Senior Manager of Sportsmen's leadership for the National Wildlife Federation. In addition he chairs the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council and serves as vice chair of the Phil Tawney Hunter Conservation Endowment.
•Brett Todd is the President-elect of the Montana Outfitter and Guide Association. He is also a member of the Private Land/ Public Wildlife organization. This group works on hunting access issues and conflicts between private landowners, outfitters and hunters in Montana. Todd has been a guide since 1988. He is a former President of the Professional Wilderness Outfitters Association.
•Dan Vermillion was raised on the banks of Yellowstone River in Montana. After spending years guiding some of the world's most exotic and famed fisheries, Vermillion formed Sweetwater Travel with his brothers, Jeff and Pat Vermillion. Sweetwater Travel is based in Livingston, Montana and owns and operates fishing camps in Mongolia, Brazil, Alaska, British Columbia, and Montana. He is also the Commissioner for southwestern Montana for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 
•Steve Vinnedge has been a warden with Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) since 1984. He trained in Billings, worked in Colstrip for four years and has since been located in Great Falls since 1989. In 2006, Vinnedge became a Sergeant with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He has been married to his wife Donna for 32 years and has three daughters, all of whom still hunt. Vinnedge attended Bigfork High School and went on to graduate from the University of Montana. 
•Irv Wilke is the President of the Billings Rod and Gun Club and has been involved with the group for more than a decade. He is also the Vice President for the Laurel Rod and Gun Club as well as the Laurel Rifle Club. Wilke is a voting representative for the former at Montana Wildlife Federation meetings. He is also involved in maintaining the Black Otter Bowman archery courses.

Plainsman, follow the money "AND" follow the names. The names will lead you to who stole money from the PUBLIC PURSE.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So shaug what I got from this is your point of view is a sportsman vs landowner ideology then? I don't know why that would suprise me, kind of what I figured you and gst were all about from the beginning anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything just goes right over your head. The leader of the 501 (c) (4) not-for-profit Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is one Land Tawney. He is or was a regional director for the National Wildlife Federation. Lead, when are you going to learn, those are not sportsmens orgs, they are goverrnment advocacy groups. They are trying to get Senator Jon Tester re-elected. They are trying to get Obama re-elected. Land Tawney is also head of Montana Sportsmen for Obama. Lead, Why don't you stop being such a dope?
> 
> Do you know who is behind the 5% oil tax rip rape and run for wildlife conservation in North Dakota? The sponsors of the iniative are members of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. These government advocacy orgs are affiliates of the NWF and TWS. They want between 70 and 90 million dollars of oil revenues diverted from the ND General Treasurey to their coffers. Would that much money empower them? Would that much money empower them? Would that much money empower them?
> 
> I hope Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg kicks Senator Jon Testers butt.
Click to expand...

Ok I take it all back and am in-line with you now.lol Get real shaug. Your conspiracy theories are getting just as rediculous as gabes. Funny how he keeps begging me to produce my name and calls me a juvenile when his buddy (you) hides too...isn't it? I really don't care if you post your name or not by the way.

Why don't you do us all a favor and tell us how you want it shaug? That way we will all know what a "perfect" ND is. Seriously though. What is it that you want here? Where do you want the money to go? Why does it but you so much that there is money possibly directed towards the betterment of the sportsmans life? Not getting enough subsidy $$$$? Maybe the thompson family can share some of theirs. :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> So continue down the road of maligning every agriculture organization here in the state using the rhetoric we so often see on this site. Just please, those that choose to follow this path, do not suggest you are capable of having a "serious discussion" regarding agriculture.


  Ok. I don't follow gabes whacked out ideology so I am an ag bashing, rhetoric spouting juvenile. The NDFB and the NDSA do more harm than good for the sportsman, so what do you think I am going to do gabe? There needs to be an even ballance between the two (in my perfect world) and I would be willing to accept some compromise. You and shaug will not compromise. It is the all or none mentality, the we are right and you are wrong mentality. That right there seems juvenile.

By the way, there isn't a person on here that knows me including you so why do you want to know my name so bad? So you can hire a PI to dig up **** on me? Well even if I gave you my social security number you wouldn't be able to find any gabe so go pound sand. It doesn't make a damn if you know my name or not. You keep calling me juvenile yet you slap shaugs *** every chance you get all the while he remains hidden. Who's the juvenile again? :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> google "North Dakota National Grasslands and stockmen". The first thing that comes up is NDSA. They oppose many things and it's usually public property, environment, etc.
> 
> Under the private property rights umbrella, NDSA members passed three separate, but related, resolutions opposing wilderness and wild-and-scenic-river designations and the Antiquities Act, which allows the president to designate national monuments without Congressional approval. NDSA members assert that such designations often result in diminished ability to graze livestock and manage those lands as the landowner sees fit and are the first step in further regulation.


Plains, Did you just say, you think it is a good idea for the President of the US to be able to designate national monuments?

Another thing, If a rancher has a contract or lease agreement with the fed/gov for grazing, it is called fee land. It is no longer public land. The term public land means acreage that has no liens, contracts, covenents etc. on it.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> We sportsmen are between a rock (radical, liberal, animal rights activists) and a hard place (radical, right wing, landowners who want control of all land).


There you go again, trying to lump yourself in with sportsmen. You sir, advocate for government advocacy groups. You like to talk about cheap grazing. How those ranchers are taking from the public commons. But you fail to mention that they have input costs or this land was homesteaded, then sold back to the fed/gov durring the dirty 30's, with the understanding that they could rent it back.

Plainsman, your government advocacy groups steal from the public purse. They are no better than those ranchers who you claim take from the public commons.

I hope Congressman Denny Rehberg kicks Senator Jon Testers butt.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plains, Did you just say, you think it is a good idea for the President of the US to be able to designate national monuments?


 No, I didn't say that.



> Another thing, If a rancher has a contract or lease agreement with the fed/gov for grazing, it is called fee land. It is no longer public land.


Yes it is. Public land is multiple use. All you get is the grass for that lease. That's why it's called a grazing lease. It appears many of those ranchers don't get that.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> Another thing, If a rancher has a contract or lease agreement with the fed/gov for grazing, it is called fee land. It is no longer public land. The term public land means acreage that has no liens, contracts, covenents etc. on it.


I believe this is wrong, at least in the case of grazing on National Grasslands. They are designated as multiple use public lands. Just because a rancher holds a grazing permit on a parcel of Federal land does not remove it from public use, it is still public land.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> But you fail to mention that they have input costs or this land was homesteaded, then sold back to the fed/gov durring the dirty 30's, with the understanding that they could rent it back.


Actually I think they lost it to delinquent taxes back in the depression of the 1930's. I don't think there was any purchase, nor any agreement to rent back. The grazing leases were established later.



> Plainsman, your government advocacy groups steal from the public purse.


I don't belong to any government advocacy groups. What groups are you talking about? After seeing some of your lists you perhaps think the NRA is a government advocacy group. In that case, I would be guilty. :rollin:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I don't belong to any government advocacy groups. What groups are you talking about? After seeing some of your lists you perhaps think the NRA is a government advocacy group.


The NRA sometimes has to go along to get along. A full frontal assault isn't always the best option. Senator Jon Tester of Montana has a sportsmens caucus advisory group. They are all a bunch of enviros. Did you look at the list? These men endeavor to get Obama re-elected. Congressman Denny Rehberg is challenging Testers Senate seat. But there is some dirty politics happening. Land Tawney is trying to help (D) Tester win in the name of sportsmen. What is happening in MT is just wrong.

http://www.lobowatch.org/adminclient/Legislation9/go

Read it again Plainsman. Now then, this fella named Land Tawney used to come to North Dakota as a regional director for the National Wildlife Federation. He gave a few Rah Rah speeches in ND to help kick off the fair chase iniative.

Plainsman, you claim you are a conservative, but all your friends are democrats.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't think I like those guys (Tester etc) either. I see they had a picture saying "Sierra Club Sucks". I don't much like them either, but the last time the Forest Service opened their management evaluation to the public input the only ones who had plans was the Sierra Club and some grazing association or stockmen's association. gst knows who it was, but he is hiding it. Anyway, as bad as the Sierra Club plan was it wasn't as bad as the ranchers plan. The Sierra Club made recommendations the ranchers wanted more control turned over to them. Nooooooooo thanks.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote



> I believe this is wrong, at least in the case of grazing on National Grasslands. They are designated as multiple use public lands. Just because a rancher holds a grazing permit on a parcel of Federal land does not remove it from public use, it is still public land.


Currently the fed/gov has income coming in from the leasing of grazing. Some say those ranchers should have to pay the going rental rate. I think those same persons would like to see the rental rates increased to the point of forcing those cows out and off of the fed/gov ground. The alternative is no income coming in to the US General Treasury. Hunt and Plains, why don't you guys give this group below a call. They want the same thing you want.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Anyway, as bad as the Sierra Club plan was it wasn't as bad as the ranchers plan. The Sierra Club made recommendations the ranchers wanted more control turned over to them. Nooooooooo thanks.


Did you just say that you are in the Sierra Clubs Camp? I saw them at the Bismarck sport show. They had some dried up old enviro lady working the booth.


----------



## adokken

Plainsman being we are friends ,could give a tip how to post a couple of pictures on here,before I went to Hong Kong I ran a snare line and the final count was 22 coyotes and 20 fox. Have been told by the big fur buyers that I am the oldest trapper in ND. Some days I feel like it. Anyway feel that the deer and the ground nesting birds got a little respite in this area.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> Huntin1 wrote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is wrong, at least in the case of grazing on National Grasslands. They are designated as multiple use public lands. Just because a rancher holds a grazing permit on a parcel of Federal land does not remove it from public use, it is still public land.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the fed/gov has income coming in from the leasing of grazing. Some say those ranchers should have to pay the going rental rate. I think those same persons would like to see the rental rates increased to the point of forcing those cows out and off of the fed/gov ground. The alternative is no income coming in to the US General Treasury. Hunt and Plains, why don't you guys give this group below a call. They want the same thing you want.
> 
> http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html
Click to expand...

You sure like to tell people what it is they want. I don't see anything in my post that indicates that I am against grazing on the Nat. Grasslands. In fact I believe that grazing is a good thing as long as over grazing doesn't happen. But, now that you brought it up.

Why shouldn't the ranchers have to pay the going rate to graze those lands?

Huntin1


----------



## KurtR

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, as bad as the Sierra Club plan was it wasn't as bad as the ranchers plan. The Sierra Club made recommendations the ranchers wanted more control turned over to them. Nooooooooo thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just say that you are in the Sierra Clubs Camp? I saw them at the Bismarck sport show. They had some dried up old enviro lady working the booth.
Click to expand...

i agree with that she was crusty looking


----------



## gst

led, wether people state who they are on this site matters little right up until they acuse someone of lying and claim they have proof(sources). At that point their "credibility" comes into play.

You made a claim, said you could prove it, and yet when asked to have not.

Credibility.

At this point led there is little left to say.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn lets keep it simple and to the point here. You made the above statement. Is it true?
Click to expand...

palinsamn, you never answered this question. Is this statement true?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn lets keep it simple and to the point here. You made the above statement. Is it true?
Click to expand...




Plainsman said:


> I don't think I like those guys (Tester etc) either. I see they had a picture saying "Sierra Club Sucks". I don't much like them either, but the last time the Forest Service opened their management evaluation to the public input the only ones who had plans was the Sierra Club and *some grazing association or stockmen's association.* gst knows who it was, but he is hiding it. Anyway, as bad as the Sierra Club plan was it wasn't as bad as the ranchers plan. The Sierra Club made recommendations the ranchers wanted more control turned over to them. Nooooooooo thanks.


plainsman, so is this an admission that the first statement you made in THIS thread quoted above is not true? It appears to be.

First it was the North Dakota Cattlemans Association.

Then it was the North Dakota Stockmans Association.

Now it is "some grazing association or stockmans association".

Bruce this is your story, ( all three versions of it) I actually do not know who it is you claim was circulating this petition, but I do know who it was NOT.

So Bruce as we have determined it was not the first two groups you claimed it was, if you wish to have people beleive your story from here on out, would you please actually substantiate it. I mean you said you testified, so you should know exactly which Grasslands this was, (there are more than one here in ND) One would think you could email the managing entity of the particular Grasslands involved and get the background information. It really should not be too difficult to substantiate your claims if you wish to.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, wether people state who they are on this site matters little right up until they acuse someone of lying and claim they have proof(sources). At that point their "credibility" comes into play.
> 
> You made a claim, said you could prove it, and yet when asked to have not.
> 
> Credibility.
> 
> At this point led there is little left to say.


You have zero credibility as well there gabe, you can be damn sure of that. I agree there is little left to say. Oh I will continue to question your sanity on occasion but thats about it. You ask for "discussion" but you are simply unable to discuss. I'm not done here by any means but little left to say is a good way to put it. Besides the way I look at it is, what have I really done when I have bested a fool anyway?


----------



## Plainsman

I will email the Forest Service. If I have to I will stop in while in Bismarck. One way or another I will find out who those people were. It's a shame to waste time though because as involved in ranching as you are there is no way you don't know exactly who those people were. It's real small of you not to just fess up. I wonder how many people reading this remember what I am talking about? They had the petition on the front counter at Trappers Kettle in Belfield and asked everyone to sign it. The petition called for ranchers having more say so in how the grasslands were managed. I don't think they should have any more say than anyone else. It's U. S. public land and it belongs to every citizen. It does not belong more to a rancher.

Keep it up gst. Do you know how deceiving you will look when I get the information. Sure, sure, you know nothing about it. Right, and the sun comes up in the west.

Maybe when I get back home this site will work and solve everything:



> ND Stockmen's Association - ND Stockmen's Association
> dev.ndstockmen.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=1007...
> The North Dakota Stockmen's Association is dedicated to protecting, promoting and ... Services include legislative lobbying, brand inspection and recording, ND Stockman ... existing between the U.S. Forest Service and the grazing associations. .... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NDSA petitions to accomplish changes to ...


gst, shaug, have either of you belonged to the sagebrush rebellion?


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntin1 wrote
> 
> You sure like to tell people what it is they want. I don't see anything in my post that indicates that I am against grazing on the Nat. Grasslands. In fact I believe that grazing is a good thing as long as over grazing doesn't happen. But, now that you brought it up.
> 
> Why shouldn't the ranchers have to pay the going rate to graze those lands?
> Huntin1
Click to expand...

Privately held grazing lnads can be managed with a number of tools to maximize the productivity/profitablity of the land that is being rented thru increased pounds/acre of grazing while maintaining and actually improving the grassland itself. These management opportunities establish "the going rate".

Under the management constrictions of these Federal lands, these options are not avalible for the producers that are contracted thru the govt programs. In fact in many cases there exist limiting factors on these public multiuse lands that prevent the "renter" from getting anywhere's close to the same productivity they could on properly managed private lands.

A more direct example perhaps, what would you expect to pay for a section of pasture that had a fresh water system installed, good perimeter fencing, with a 24 paddock rotational grazing system installed where the renter can manage to suit their operational systemesand plan versus a section of pasture with 30 year old fence and no structural improvements with constrictions on grazing practices that do not allow the renter the ability to implement practices to improve productivity and actually has constraints to prevent improvement of only of productivity, but the grasslands itself.

Understanding that the first option will give you a return on your dollarinvested several times over what the second will.

Which would you expect to have to pay more for?

I could introduce you to any number of producers tht given the chance could take these Federal lands, graze them under their management plans and improve not only the grazing but wildlife habitat and existance as well.

But so often uninfromed biased people such as some on this site simply lump them in catogories defined by rhetoric and personal dislike.

So exactly what good does that accomplish?

_"They whine about how much they pay for public land, but don't blink an eye when paying ten times as much for adjoining private pastures"

"Radical like the NDFB I think. "

"The comment about decreased carrying capacity simply means they are not going to allow the ranchers to graze public land until the cows leave tooth marks on the rocks."

"I guess we both serve as examples of people who think for ourselves and don't make our decisions based on politics or dollars in our pocket. gst, you and shaug are on the other side of this spectrum. If you could get control of our National Grasslands our hunting without paying would be in question. I would guess you would even welcome the animal rights activist stopping hunting on public land because we would then be left at your mercy, or lack there of. We sportsmen are between a rock (radical, liberal, animal rights activists) and a hard place (radical, right wing, landowners who want control of all land)."

"This is a dangerous time for sportsmen, and much of America. Obama has been so radical that it makes the time ripe to swing the political pendulum far right. I don't mind far right, but in those ranks are radicals just like in the ranks of liberals there are radicals. Groups like the NDSA and the NDFB will exploit the dissatisfaction we have with the radical left. The time is ripe to rip off the public for the advantage of these groups. If we don't get more involved the radical left will outlaw hunting on public land, and if we don't become more involved the radical right will make us pay to play on land we own. These groups are licking their chops thinking about grazing every spear of grass and charging you to hunt on public land. Their representatives are not so tenacious for no reason. The reason is dollars in their wallet. Follow the money. Expect them to infiltrate every sportsmen's organization and point fingers. They know there will be a battle because they will start it."

"The Montana politics going on is tree huggers on one side and land grabbing ranchers on the other"

"The two fighting for more control was the Sierra Club and the ranchers that graze the land. The ranchers that lease grazing rights hate the idea of multiple use."

"If the tree huggers win our hunting will get hurt, but if the ranchers had their way we would be paying to play on land we own. This is radical vs radical."

"The other choice is understanding just how deceptive these people are to get their hands on public land, and to remove all agriculture regulations"_

*Huntin 1*, from your comment of supporting grazing if properly done, here is a couple of questions I am curious as to your answer.

If you were sitting at a table charged with discussing the management of Federal grasslands and someone made the above italisized comments at that table, would you beleive this to be a person that wishes to find common ground and work procatively WITH ranchers and supported agriculture to find a management solution?

What do you think a rancher sitting at that table hearing that type of rhetoric would think?

How does this type of rhetoric help anything?

Often times sportsmen simply sit back and allow others to "speak for them". And all to often it ends up being people with the ideals and attitudes that make comments like quoted above that end up doing the speaking. I am curious to what value a sportsman beleives comments such as these bring to the table and what comments such as these accomplish.

Please understand, I am just curious to see what some people think of the type of rhetoric seen on this site regarding these type issues.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I will email the Forest Service. If I have to I will stop in while in Bismarck. One way or another I will find out who those people were.


Say plainsman did you ever post the dialogue from your contacting the EPA onthat other issue?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's a shame to waste time though because as involved in ranching as you are there is no way you don't know exactly who those people were. It's real small of you not to just fess up


plainsman, as I said there are more than one "Grasslands" here in ND. So which one was it you are claiming ranchers had a petition to "gain control of"?

As I do not graze any Federal lands, I am not as informed regarding this as you seem to want to beleive.

So as you have made this claim on more than one occassion in a different thread and were asked to substantiate it when asked to please do so wih actual documentation of some sort.

And plainsamn please recall your specific claim that this petition would remove "control" of the Grasslands from the Federal govt and give it to these ranchers.

"Plainsman wrote:
]_"I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that _" *would give them control of our national grasslands[/b*


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will email the Forest Service. If I have to I will stop in while in Bismarck. One way or another I will find out who those people were.
> 
> 
> 
> Say plainsman did you ever post the dialogue from your contacting the EPA onthat other issue?
Click to expand...

I decided that the EPA would know no more about the future than you or I. When we talk about what can happen it's all opinion. As public servants they don't get themselves into political things like opinions on what can happen.

So gst seeing how involved in ranching you are will you tell us what grazing group that was that had the petition? The Sierra Club had a plan and one of the cattle groups also had a management plan. Was that your group?

So gst, shaug, have you ever belonged or supported the sagebrush rebellion?

Didn't see your last post. I still don't believe you don't know about that petition. I suppose it could be county, or simply those who graze public land. I would have thought you as a representative of the NDSA would have known about such things. Your right, I should reword what I said. They wanted more control. No way would they get all control. However, now that you have sirred my interest I'm going to dig into all the grazing issues.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> led, wether people state who they are on this site matters little right up until they acuse someone of lying and claim they have proof(sources). At that point their "credibility" comes into play.
> 
> You made a claim, said you could prove it, and yet when asked to have not.
> 
> Credibility.
> 
> At this point led there is little left to say.
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero credibility as well there gabe, you can be damn sure of that. I agree there is little left to say. Oh I will continue to question your sanity on occasion but thats about it. You ask for "discussion" but you are simply unable to discuss. I'm not done here by any means but little left to say is a good way to put it. Besides the way I look at it is, what have I really done when I have bested a fool anyway?
Click to expand...

led then as you have not substantiated your claim with any sort of proof even though you clain=med to have "sources", your accusation of a "liar" was in and of itself a lie.

If lying anonomously on this sit allows you to beleive you have "bested a fool" by all means, take pride in your victory. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I decided that the EPA would know no more about the future than you or I. When we talk about what can happen it's all opinion. As public servants they don't get themselves into political things like opinions on what can happen.


Always an "explanation" eh bruce! 

So you now wish us to beleive the EPA would not have an "opinion" wether feedlots will be allowed to be built on river bottoms so manure will be allowed to be washed into rivers?

Riiigghhtt. :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So gst, shaug, have you ever belonged or supported the sagebrush rebellion?.


To directly answer your question regarding the "sagebrush rebellion" I do not beleive I have ever been involved as I do not know what the "sagebrush rebellion is.

Now Bruce will you directly answer my question.

Plainsman wrote:
_I think it was the NDSA that had a petition out a few years ago that would give them control of our national grasslands_

plainsamn lets keep it simple and to the point here. You made the above statement. Is it true?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I suppose it could be county, or simply those who graze public land. I would have thought you as a representative of the NDSA would have known about such things.


Plainsamn, as I have said on here several times in the past, contary to what you guys keep claiming, and apparently beleive, I do not know everything!!! :wink:


----------



## gst

:-?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> However, now that you have sirred my interest I'm going to dig into all the grazing issues.


And we are all looking forward to your "serious discussion" regarding them.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I suppose it could be county, or simply those who graze public land. Your right, I should reword what I said. They wanted more control. No way would they get all control.


And so it begins! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> led, wether people state who they are on this site matters little right up until they acuse someone of lying and claim they have proof(sources). At that point their "credibility" comes into play.
> 
> You made a claim, said you could prove it, and yet when asked to have not.
> 
> Credibility.
> 
> At this point led there is little left to say.
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero credibility as well there gabe, you can be damn sure of that. I agree there is little left to say. Oh I will continue to question your sanity on occasion but thats about it. You ask for "discussion" but you are simply unable to discuss. I'm not done here by any means but little left to say is a good way to put it. Besides the way I look at it is, what have I really done when I have bested a fool anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> led then as you have not substantiated your claim with any sort of proof even though you clain=med to have "sources", your accusation of a "liar" was in and of itself a lie.
> 
> If lying anonomously on this sit allows you to beleive you have "bested a fool" by all means, take pride in your victory. :wink:
Click to expand...

I will not throw that person under your bus gabe. I know its credible info and that is why I am letting people know what your agenda is on this site. I don't give a **** if you think it is credible or not. I know what it is. You can sit there and pound your keyboard and talk about male genetalia all you want. The fact of the matter is you are part of a scheme that is absolutely caustic to the sportsman in this state.


----------



## gst

led, you guys are kinda paranoid. :roll:

Or it seems more like perhaps you just have a burr under your saddle and made an accusation that is simply not true and now you have gotten backed into a corner when asked to substantiate this claims and you are dodging like calf in a cutting horse competition. :wink:

I mean led, if you truly wish to substantiate your claim that I have been "hired/designated to come on this site" there indeed are avenues to do so without throwing anyone under the bus.  :roll:

Lets slow the dodging and ducking down for a moment and get a little more factual here for a moment if you would (or can) led in regards to your accusation, who exactly do your "sources"  state has "hired/delegated me to come on this site" ?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, shaug, have either of you belonged to the sagebrush rebellion?


Got back in from feeding cows and googled "sagebrush Rebellion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_rebels

From this site:

Sagebrush rebels
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_Sagebrush rebels is a group that attempted to influence environmental policy in the American West during the 1970s and 1980s, surviving into the 21st century in public lands states (generally, the 13 western states where federal land holdings include 30% to more than 50% of a state's area), and surviving in organized groups pressuring public lands policy makers, especially for grazing of sheep and cattle on public lands, and for mineral extraction policies.

An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of government owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies. Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, Reagan told the crowd, [b]"I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel[/b]."[1] Reagan was faced with opposition with conservation organizations. This struggle persists today after changing form, with the "wise use movement" in 1988. George H. W. Bush helped work around restrictive environmental laws to help mining, ranching, and real estate developing industries that created jobs in the states._

plainsamn, seeing as how I was in grade school in the 70's you will have a hard time linking me into any "conspiracies" regarding the "sagebrush rebellion". :wink:

I couldn;t help but notice Ronald Regan considered himself an "sagebrush rebel" in that he supported maintaining a higher level of state and local control rather than increasing that of the Federal govt. Damn those "radical" conservative ideals!!!  :wink:

plainsman, didn;t you once blame Regan for cutting your taxpayer funded Federal govt retirement benefits? You guys need to shake out your saddle blankets a little better! :wink:

So Bruce what is your opinion of these "sagebrush rebels" and their ideals that more centralized governmental control is not necessarily a good thing?

Plainsamn, what do you know about the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I suppose it could be county, or simply those who graze public land. I would have thought you as a representative of the NDSA would have known about such things. Your right, I should reword what I said. They wanted more control. No way would they get all control. However, now that you have sirred my interest I'm going to dig into all the grazing issues.


plainsman, these Grasslands that you stated you testified in regards to, and claim there was a petition being circulated to give the ranchers control over them, (or wahtever you are NOW claiming :wink: ) were they the ones around Lisbon or were they the ones around Belfield?

If you help me out here a little bit narrowing it down to a little better time frame, location, ect..... maybe I can find a "source"  or two that might have been involved in the grazing associations at that time that are in these areas that perhaps I could ask. Because the way it stands now, it appears you may think I know more than I do! :wink:

As to your statement I underlined above, you certainly do have that ability, along with "rewording" what someone else may post on here as well! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Huntin wrote,



> Why shouldn't the ranchers have to pay the going rate to graze those lands?


So what you are saying is you think rental rates should go up taking money out of the ranchers pocket.

This thread is about the 5% oil tax revenue ballot measure. It would divert about 80 million bucks away from the general treasurey and put it toward conservation. The other day I was at the Bismarck Sport Show. The 5% oil rip rape and run guys were out front of the Civic Center (they didn't have a booth inside) collecting signatures. They asked me to sign. OK, what's it for. Well the guy says to me it will give money to farmers and ranchers. When I pressed him he explained it will be for conservation practices. He explained it is not a new tax, it is from oil revenues. I said the money currently goes into the general treasurey and if the legislature wanted the farmer/ranchers to have more money couldn't they get it to them through other means.

He explained that this is for conservation and the money would go through a 9 member panel. Four appointed by the legislature four appointed by the Governor and one by Game and Fish. I informed him he is wrong. It is four appointed by the legislature, four appointed by the Governor "from a list" provided by the Game and Fish and one from the Wildlife Society.

How is the Governor to know if the names provided to him by the Game and Fish are not already Wildlife Society (federal and state workers). So potentially, we could end up with 4 against 5.

So Huntin1 wants to take money out of farmer/ranchers pockets through increased grazing fees and these 5% oil tax schemers want to put money into farmer/ranchers pockets. But of course the money would be channeled through their fingers first. They get to pick winners and losers, who gets money and who doesn't. The bureauracracy never sleeps.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Huntin wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the ranchers have to pay the going rate to graze those lands?
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is you think rental rates should go up taking money out of the ranchers pocket.
> 
> This thread is about the 5% oil tax revenue ballot measure. It would divert about 80 million bucks away from the general treasurey and put it toward conservation. The other day I was at the Bismarck Sport Show. The 5% oil rip rape and run guys were out front of the Civic Center (they didn't have a booth inside) collecting signatures. They asked me to sign. OK, what's it for. Well the guy says to me it will give money to farmers and ranchers. When I pressed him he explained it will be for conservation practices. He explained it is not a new tax, it is from oil revenues. I said the money currently goes into the general treasurey and if the legislature wanted the farmer/ranchers to have more money couldn't they get it to them through other means.
> 
> He explained that this is for conservation and the money would go through a 9 member panel. Four appointed by the legislature four appointed by the Governor and one by Game and Fish. I informed him he is wrong. It is four appointed by the legislature, four appointed by the Governor "from a list" provided by the Game and Fish and one from the Wildlife Society.
> 
> How is the Governor to know if the names provided to him by the Game and Fish are not already Wildlife Society (federal and state workers). So potentially, we could end up with 4 against 5.
> 
> So Huntin1 wants to take money out of farmer/ranchers pockets through increased grazing fees and these 5% oil tax schemers want to put money into farmer/ranchers pockets. But of course the money would be channeled through their fingers first. They get to pick winners and losers, who gets money and who doesn't. The bureauracracy never sleeps.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that either way it goes we are talking about money going into the farmer/ranchers pocket. Heck that might spur gabe into having another kid! :lol: Wait a minute....from how much he talkes about the male reproductive organ I'm not sure he is interested in having any more. :-?


----------



## huntin1

Please be accurate shaug. I never once said anything about taking money from anyone's pockets. Those are your words, your idea.

But, do you really think that it is fair that the rancher renting the north half of a section pays more for grazing than the rancher who is grazing the south half of the same section just because the north half is private and the south is public?

You make me out to be unfair, who is really advocating fairness in this situation?

Huntin1


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> plainsman, as I said there are more than one "Grasslands" here in ND. So which one was it you are claiming ranchers had a petition to "gain control of"?


Don't know about that,,,but if I recall correctly,,,a tract of the Sheyenne NG's was almost lost to private ownership
many years ago. I believe the BLM was considering selling the "Hankinson Hills" to surrounding Ag interests but public outcry was so intense they reconsidered.
Did a search on the net and didn't come up with anything so maybe it was just a bad dream.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

That grazing thingy you are talking about happened back in 2000. I didn't know your little group was involved in that (make everyone divided) issue too. When Senators Dorgan and Conrad got involved, your little team backed down.

Maybe plains you can help me out, as I am losing count here, but just how many losing causes have you guys championed?

Why do you always lose? Let me give you a hint:

Leadfed said,



> I find it funny that either way it goes we are talking about money going into the farmer/ranchers pocket. Heck that might spur gabe into having another kid! Wait a minute....from how much he talkes about the male reproductive organ I'm not sure he is interested in having any more.


Is leadfed helping or hindering? That right there had to be another proud moment for you. Or does it make you cringe?


----------



## huntin1

Speaking of helping or hindering,

I'm curious gst and shaug, does the NDSA and NDFB provide you guys with training seminars on spin and deflection, or do you come by that naturally? I know many farmers and ranchers and their opinions do not seem to coincide with the opinions expressed here by the two of you.

I realize that this is only my "opinion" and can't be substantiated by an official report, but you guys are doing more harm than good to your "cause".

huntin1


----------



## swift

> So what you are saying is you think rental rates should go up taking money out of the ranchers pocket.


One could also say increasing grazing fees would increase money going into the general fund. I guess that's only important to you when you can hold it over someone else.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> So what you are saying is you think rental rates should go up taking money out of the ranchers pocket.


Lets look at this a little closer.



> In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The
> 10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and
> BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazing related
> activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal
> year 2004. The 10 federal agencies' grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal
> year 2004-less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing.
> 
> The BLM and Forest Service fee also decreased by 40
> percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers
> increased by 78 percent for the same period.


So who exactly is having money taken from their pockets?

And this is NOT my opinion, it is from a 2005 GAO report on grazing.

huntin1


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> That grazing thingy you are talking about happened back in 2000. I didn't know your little group was involved in that (make everyone divided) issue too. When Senators Dorgan and Conrad got involved, your little team backed down.
> 
> Maybe plains you can help me out, as I am losing count here, but just how many losing causes have you guys championed?
> 
> Why do you always lose? Let me give you a hint:
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it funny that either way it goes we are talking about money going into the farmer/ranchers pocket. Heck that might spur gabe into having another kid! Wait a minute....from how much he talkes about the male reproductive organ I'm not sure he is interested in having any more.
> 
> 
> 
> Is leadfed helping or hindering? That right there had to be another proud moment for you. Or does it make you cringe?
Click to expand...

What a cry baby you are shaug.lol You never did tell me how you want it shaug. I mean what is it that you really want and why are you so against spending this money on the sportsman? You as a farmer aren't getting enough handouts?


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> But, do you really think that it is fair that the rancher renting the north half of a section pays more for grazing than the rancher who is grazing the south half of the same section just because the north half is private and the south is public?


huntin 1, did you happen to read the following?



gst said:


> Privately held grazing lnads can be managed with a number of tools to maximize the productivity/profitablity of the land that is being rented thru increased pounds/acre of grazing while maintaining and actually improving the grassland itself. These management opportunities establish "the going rate". Under the management constrictions of these Federal lands, these options are not avalible for the producers that are contracted thru the govt programs. In fact in many cases there exist limiting factors on these public multiuse lands that prevent the "renter" from getting anywhere's close to the same productivity they could on properly managed private lands.A more direct example perhaps, what would you expect to pay for a section of pasture that had a fresh water system installed, good perimeter fencing, with a 24 paddock rotational grazing system installed where the renter can manage to suit their operational systemesand plan versus a section of pasture with 30 year old fence and no structural improvements with constrictions on grazing practices that do not allow the renter the ability to implement practices to improve productivity and actually has constraints to prevent improvement of only of productivity, but the grasslands itself. Understanding that the first option will give you a return on your dollarinvested several times over what the second will. Which would you expect to have to pay more for? I could introduce you to any number of producers tht given the chance could take these Federal lands, graze them under their management plans and improve not only the grazing but wildlife habitat and existance as well. But so often uninfromed biased people such as some on this site simply lump them in catogories defined by rhetoric and personal dislike.


Huntin 1, Now given what was just stated, could you possibly begin to see why a difference exists in grazing land rental rates?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, as I said there are more than one "Grasslands" here in ND. So which one was it you are claiming ranchers had a petition to "gain control of"?
Click to expand...

Don't know about that,,,but if I recall correctly,,,a tract of the Sheyenne NG's was almost lost to private ownership
many years ago. I believe the BLM was considering selling the "Hankinson Hills" to surrounding Ag interests but public outcry was so intense they reconsidered.
Did a search on the net and didn't come up with anything so maybe it was just a bad dream.[/quote]

spent please do not feel badly, it seems as if that happens quite often on this site!!! :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> You never did tell me how you want it shaug





gst said:


> Lets slow the dodging and ducking down for a moment and get a little more factual here for a moment if you would (or can) led in regards to your accusation, who exactly do your "sources" state has "hired/delegated me to come on this site" ?


led prior to critisizing others, perhaps you should clear up your own little mess. :wink: Lets start with something easy from your "sources" with an answer to the above question.

Led, the reference to the "willie" a few on here seem to have regarding agriculture was actually coined by someone else on here, I can not take credit for it. I simply thought it an apt discription for what you and a gaggle of others maintain regarding agriculture on this site given some of the rhetoric that is common here.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsamn, what do you know about the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976?


huntin 1, perhaps you would care to answer this question?


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> Speaking of helping or hindering,
> 
> I'm curious gst and shaug, does the NDSA and NDFB provide you guys with training seminars on spin and deflection, or do you come by that naturally? I know many farmers and ranchers and their opinions do not seem to coincide with the opinions expressed here by the two of you.
> 
> huntin1


huntin 1, you aren't falling for that old led/plainsman claim that we are "hired/delegated" to come on this site are you???? 
 

Huntin, as well I know MANY sportsmen whose "opinions" do not seem to coincide with the "opinions" expressed here by the small gaggle of people that even back in 2007 were chanting the same mantra against agriculture. I mean I can understand why most ag producers don;t wish to waste their time on this "hunting and fishing site", but hey you would think this small gaggles "opinions" would be getting overwelmed with "sportsman" support on this "hunting and fishing site" rather than just being confined to the same small gaggle of people ALL the time.

Hey huntin 1, one thing I am curious to, do you share the "greed at it's darkest", head in the mailbox" "hands in the taxpayers pockets", lords of the land", "welfare recepients"," rip rape and run" rhetoric that a small handful of people spout on this site with those faring and ranching friends of yours?

So exactly what "opinion" of mine do you beleive these farming and ranching friends of yours, "opinions" will not coincide with? Please give an example in writing of what "opinion" has been stated they will not agree with.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1



> I realize that this is only my "opinion" and can't be substantiated by an official report, but you guys are doing more harm than good to your "cause".


I have been slacken a bit, gittin out there and collecting signatures for the farm bureau ballot measure to let farmers farm and ranchers ranch. A farm bureau rep just called a few minutes ago and asked how many signatures I got. In passing I asked how many we got? He said of the 26,000 needed, FB is almost there. 

Hunt, just thinking out loud here; the people collecting signatures for the 5% oil tax rip rape and run didn't have a booth inside the civic center for the Bismarck sports show. They were standing outside the front door in the cold. Maybe they don't have any money. Maybe that is why they proposed this 5% oil tax scheme........ so that they can get some.


----------



## huntin1

Maybe so. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't yet made up my mind about where I stand on this issue.

Tongue in cheek thought though. If NDFB is against it, then it is likely a good idea.

huntin1


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is you think rental rates should go up taking money out of the ranchers pocket.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at this a little closer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The
> 10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and
> BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazing related
> activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal
> year 2004. The 10 federal agencies' grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal
> year 2004-less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing.
> 
> The BLM and Forest Service fee also decreased by 40
> percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers
> increased by 78 percent for the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who exactly is having money taken from their pockets?
> 
> And this is NOT my opinion, it is from a 2005 GAO report on grazing.
> 
> huntin1
Click to expand...

Perhaps if a breakdown of itemized expenditures had been provided to actually see what could be allocated soley to the grazing management of these lands rather than the multitude of other expenditures lumped into this total, your information would be a little more relevant. 

huntin 1, perhaps what this tells us is that the govt can not manage the grazing of these lands in a fiscally responsible manner.  

Indeed this proof you provide does suggest the privatization of the management these grazing lands could possibly return more to the govt coffers than what they have done themselves!!! :wink: 

The govt never spends more than they take in on anything else do to poor management do they? :-?

I mean look what they have spent on salamander traps in the past! :wink:


----------



## huntin1

Or maybe it tells us that the fees need to be raised to reflect the current rates.


----------



## gst

huntin 1, did you actually read this?



gst said:


> Privately held grazing lnads can be managed with a number of tools to maximize the productivity/profitablity of the land that is being rented thru increased pounds/acre of grazing while maintaining and actually improving the grassland itself. These management opportunities establish "the going rate". Under the management constrictions of these Federal lands, these options are not avalible for the producers that are contracted thru the govt programs. In fact in many cases there exist limiting factors on these public multiuse lands that prevent the "renter" from getting anywhere's close to the same productivity they could on properly managed private lands.A more direct example perhaps, what would you expect to pay for a section of pasture that had a fresh water system installed, good perimeter fencing, with a 24 paddock rotational grazing system installed where the renter can manage to suit their operational systemesand plan versus a section of pasture with 30 year old fence and no structural improvements with constrictions on grazing practices that do not allow the renter the ability to implement practices to improve productivity and actually has constraints to prevent improvement of only of productivity, but the grasslands itself. Understanding that the first option will give you a return on your dollarinvested several times over what the second will. Which would you expect to have to pay more for? I could introduce you to any number of producers tht given the chance could take these Federal lands, graze them under their management plans and improve not only the grazing but wildlife habitat and existance as well. But so often uninfromed biased people such as some on this site simply lump them in catogories defined by rhetoric and personal dislike.


huntin 1, If the fees are then raised to "reflect current rates" would you accept allowing these lands to then be managed the same as those that establish the "current rates"??????

huntin 1, would you provide the link to the site where you referenced your information?


----------



## huntin1

> huntin 1, If the fees are then raised to "reflect current rates" would you accept allowing these lands to then be managed the same as those that establish the "current rates"??????


As long as they continue to be managed as multiple use public lands, I really don't care.



> huntin 1, would you provide the link to the site where you referenced your information?


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05869.pdf


----------



## shaug

gst wrote,



> huntin 1, would you provide the link to the site where you referenced your information?


He got it off of that Center for Biolgical Diversity link I provided earlier.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html



> Livestock grazing is one of the most ubiquitous and destructive uses of public land. It is also a contributing factor to the imperilment of numerous threatened and endangered species, including the desert tortoise, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, Mexican gray wolf, Oregon spotted frog, Chiricahua leopard frog and dozens of other species of mammals, fish, amphibians and springsnails that occur on western public land. Public-lands livestock grazing is also a primary factor contributing to unnaturally severe western wildfires, watershed degradation, soil loss and the spread of invasive plants - as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that of 705,342 passenger vehicles.
> 
> Grazing fees apply to livestock grazing across 258 million acres of western public land administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management - 81 percent of the land administered by the two agencies in the 11 western states. There are approximately 23,600 public-lands ranchers, representing about 6 percent of all livestock producers west of the Mississippi River.
> 
> The low federal grazing fee contributes to the adverse impacts caused by livestock grazing on public lands for two primary reasons: (1) the below-fair-market-value fee encourages annual grazing on even the most marginal lands and allows for increased grazing on other areas; and (2) since a percentage of the funds collected is required to be used on range mitigation and restoration, the low fee equates to less funding for environmental mitigation and restoration of the affected lands.
> 
> In its 2005 report, the Government Accountability Office found that the BLM and Forest Service grazing receipts fail to recover even 15 percent of administrative costs and are much lower than fees charged by the other federal agencies, states and private ranchers. The GAO found that the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee decreased by 40 percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers increased by 78 percent for the same period. To recover expenditures, the BLM and Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per animal unit month, respectively.


The Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, PETA, the National Wildlife Federation and a host of others do not employ scientists, biologists, ecologists etc. The information they usually use is taken from data that has been compiled and paid for by the US taxpayer. The information is then cherry picked. One of the largest warehouses of data is the US Geological Survey where Plainsman worked. In the piece below the Center for Bioloical Diversity boasts that they compelled the forest service to do an environmental impact study on the negative impacts of cows.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog ... s/grazing/



> GRAZING
> The ecological costs of livestock grazing exceed that of any other western land use. In the arid Southwest, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of species endangerment. By destroying vegetation, damaging wildlife habitats and disrupting natural processes, livestock grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike - causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.
> 
> Despite these costs, livestock grazing continues on state and federal lands throughout the arid West. Livestock grazing is promoted, protected and subsidized by federal agencies on 270 million acres of public land in the 11 western states. Federal-lands livestock grazing enjoys $100 million annually in direct subsidy; indirect subsidies may be three times that. On the Tonto National Forest in Arizona in 2004 and 2005, ranchers were subsidized under just one federal program to the tune of $3.5 million for "range improvements."
> 
> ECOLOGICAL COSTS
> Cattle destroy native vegetation, damage soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned to dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale elimination of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of fire-carrying grasses has starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone to unnaturally severe fires.
> 
> Keystone predators like the grizzly and Mexican gray wolf were driven extinct in southwestern ecosystems by "predator control" programs designed to protect the livestock industry. Adding insult to injury - and flying in the face of modern conservation science - the livestock industry remains the leading stodgy opponent to otherwise popular efforts to reintroduce species like the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico.
> 
> ECONOMIC COSTS
> It isn't simply the direct subsidies and federal assistance programs that public lands livestock operators rely on. The federal grazing fee is unreasonably low, creating a de facto subsidy for cattle owners. The western livestock industry would evaporate as suddenly as fur trapping if it had to pay market rates for the services it acquires free of charge from the federal government.
> 
> Private, unirrigated rangeland in the West rents out for an average of $11.90, while monthly grazing fees on federal lands are currently set at a paltry $1.35 per cow and calf. Despite the extreme damage done, western federal rangelands account for less than 3 percent of all forage fed to livestock in the United States. If all livestock were removed from public lands in the West, in fact, beef prices would be unaffected.
> 
> OUR CAMPAIGN
> Since our founding, the Center has led efforts to reform overgrazing on public lands in the West. Our work protecting endangered species has removed cattle from hundreds of vulnerable riparian areas in national forests in Arizona, New Mexico and California over the years; in 1999 and 2000 alone, we brought pressure and lawsuits resulting in cows and sheep being removed or restricted on more than 2.5 million acres of habitat for the desert tortoise, southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo in the vast California Desert Conservation Area. We're now in court to increase the federal fee for livestock grazing on public lands to an amount that's fiscally responsible and less ecologically harmful. Center legal action has compelled the Forest Service to do an environmental impact statement on the impacts of grazing on more than 13 endangered species; in the late 1990s, our work persuaded the Bureau of Land Management to remove cattle from all or part of 32 allotments along the middle Gila River and the Forest Service to remove cattle from 250 miles of streams on 52 allotments in the upper Gila.
> 
> The Center also played a leading role in the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, including drafting of a report criticizing the proposed "Ranch Conservation" element of Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and promoting alternative recommendations to stop grazing in critical habitat for imperiled species. In 2010, Center work helped stop domestic sheep grazing on 7,500 acres in and around the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to protect grizzly bears, lynx, wolves and bighorn; we also halted grazing on a quarter-million acres of Oregon's Malheur National Forest to protect steelhead trout. In 2011, Center appeals stopped grazing on 33,000 acres of national forest land in Arizona.
> 
> The Center and allies sued the federal government to compel it to fix agency budget woes by reforming or eliminating the grazing program, which loses money just as rapidly and consistently as it destroys habitat. Unfortunately, in 2011 the Obama administration announced it was refusing to increase grazing fees to levels reflecting grazing's true financial and environmental costs.


The only people that these 501(c)3's employ are lawyers.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> As long as they continue to be managed as multiple use public lands, I really don't care.


After the cows are gone, these 501(c)3's are going to let you hunt.?????????????

It won't take these non-profit non-governmental orgs as long to be rid of you and hunting as it has taken them to get rid of the cows.


----------



## huntin1

Actually shaug, as you can clearly see in the link I posted it came directly from the Government Accounting Office. (GAO)

But, hey, since you were the one sitting at my desk doing the google thing on my computer I guess you know more about where I got the info than I do.

Personally, I've never heard of the center for biological diversity and I really don't give a crap about their policies.

I'm still wondering about that question, "does the NDSA and NDFB provide you guys with training seminars on spin and deflection, or do you come by that naturally?"


----------



## Plainsman

adokken said:


> Plainsman being we are friends ,could give a tip how to post a couple of pictures on here,before I went to Hong Kong I ran a snare line and the final count was 22 coyotes and 20 fox. Have been told by the big fur buyers that I am the oldest trapper in ND. Some days I feel like it. Anyway feel that the deer and the ground nesting birds got a little respite in this area.


Sorry I was so slow. I have been trying to beat the storm at some things.

1 go down and click upload attachnments
2 click brows to look for your file
3 double click on your file
4 click add the file
5 click put in line, or something like that. 

That should do it. I have to hit the sack and you had a lot fewer questions than gst.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Sorry I was so slow. I have been trying to beat the storm at some things.1 go down and click upload attachnments2 click brows to look for your file3 double click on your file4 click add the file5 click put in line, or something like that. That should do it. I have to hit the sack and you had a lot fewer questions than gst.


Can we be assured then you will answer the questions I pose in as thourough an factul a manner at some point?


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> huntin 1, If the fees are then raised to "reflect current rates" would you accept allowing these lands to then be managed the same as those that establish the "current rates"??????
> 
> As long as they continue to be managed as multiple use public lands, I really don't care.


huntin 1, here is simply one issue that perhaps sheds a little light into why a pricing differential can exist.

http://watfordcitynd.com/?id=10&nid=1021

From this article:

_At the heart of the grazing association's concern is the Forest Service's requirement that 20 to 30 percent of the pastures have a minimum of 3.5" Visual Obstruction Reading (VOR).
"We don't believe that it is possible to achieve a 3.5" VOR on the grasslands under normal conditions," states Keith Winter, president of the McKenzie County Grazing Association. "We have scientific data that was compiled by North Dakota State University that only 2.8 percent of the land within these three pastures is biologically capable of producing high structure."
According to Winter, if the Forest Service proceeds with implementing the 3.5" VOR requirement in its management plans for Pastures 2, 10 and 11, which covers grasslands in western McKenzie County, the number of cattle that will be allowed to graze on the grasslands would be cut by upwards to 46 percent._

Within this article you will note standards being placed on the management of these lands by the Forrest Service that the range scientists at NDSU show can not even be reached as there are not enough acres of the grass species needed or biologically capable existing to meet the requirements.

Also please note the lack of the Forrest Service to provide any scientific data to back their position.

It is simply another example of a push that has been occuring for decades to remove animal grazing from these Public lands and end the "multiple use contract" they were enrolled into the Federal govt control under. Not everyone is as "cooperative" in continueing grazing on these lands as you huntin 1. :wink:


----------



## gst

huntin 1, you forgot to include the last bit of the statement you quoted from your link.

_If the purpose of the fee were
to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would have had to
charge $7.64 and $12.26 per AUM, respectively; alternately, if the purpose
were to gain a fair market value, the agencies' fees would vary depending on
the market. *Differences in resources and legal requirements can cause fees
to vary*; however, the approaches used by other agencies could close the gap
in expenditures and receipts or more closely align BLM and Forest Service
fees with market prices. The purpose of the grazing fee is, ultimately, for the
Congress to determine._

Do a little digging into the background of these Federal Lands and the agreements thru Congress that were enacted at the beginning and the agreements Congress has entered into regarding them over the years.

gst wrotelainsamn, what do you know about the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976?

huntin 1, perhaps you would care to answer this question?


----------



## indsport

stopping by for my weekly visit and see not much has changed. Ad hominem attacks and a new off topic discussion about grazing fees. On topic, I see shaug is trotting out his misconception about both the wildlife federation and wildlife society. See my previous posts on the subject of funding on another thread that disproves his assertions. As to the initiated measure, I still refer others to the answers provided by Dick M on the other thread as to frequently asked questions. Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds. I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes.


----------



## gst

Acouple of section titles from your link huntin 1

_Federal Agencies Spent at Least $144 Million on Grazing Activities, Although Some Agencies Do Not Track Expenditures for
Grazing on Federal Lands

The Remaining Eight Federal Agencies Spent at Least $3.4 Million on Grazing Programs in Fiscal Year 2004, but They Do Not
Track All Expenditures

Other Agencies Have Grazing-Related Activities and Expenditures of at Least $8.4 Million, but Some Do Not Know Their
Expenditures for Grazing on Federal Lands 

BLM and the Forest Service Spent About $132.5 Million on Direct, Indirect, and Range Improvement Activities for Grazing
Programs in Fiscal Year 2004._

huntin 1 it is an interesting link with a lot of numbers and information. Butwhat I did not find were specific costs allocated to these Federal grazin lands. ie.. fencing costs for just one example. My thought here is if the Federal govt was charged and paid $27000 for a toilet seat or $1300 for a hammer, or even the outrageous fees charged for salamander traps,  what do you suppose the cost of a mile of fence paid for by the govt is as compared to one built around a comparative privately owned rangeland?  

But as some agencies do not track expenditures, how would you ever know how they are being spent and for what???? 

And having sat on a budget committee or two, what value is any financial audit if the actual numbers are not provided? :-?

Indeed there are differences between fees even within the Federal lands that allow grazing and private rangeland. But there are a number of factors (regulations, restrictions, ect...) involved that if one does not fully understand or is made aware of that do factor into the equation.

Should these fees be addressed? As you can see from your link it is Congresses determination to make.

Even some ranchers paying the higher private rates have often thought possibly so as well. At one point I agreed.

Given what I have learned over the last few years as what challenges the ranchers using these Federal lands contend with, would I trade places with them simply for these lower fees???

No.


----------



## gst

indsport, perhaps if you actually addressed any of the several questions posed in these discussions rather than stopping by for a weekly visit yours would receive a bit more consideration.

But as I do try to answer those questions posed me here goes.

[i]Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds.[/i]

As I am not in favor of this measure the make up of this board to me is a moot point.

_I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes._

Instead of creating a separate thread (if you wished to you most certainly could have) I will answer this here.

The primary usage of these funds should be to ensure the infrastructure that allows them to be garnered is maintained and improved in an necessary and effective manner.

The secondary usage of these funds should be to address the concerns the people most directly impacted from their generation need addressed.

After these primary concerns are addressed in a fomr those impacted deem sufficient, if there are remaining funds left, they should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the State of ND in a manner the elected representatives of these people see fit, rather than agenda based programs set forth by small groups of people.

ie.... 5% here for this small group, 5% there for that small group and what is left for the two primary concerns listed above?

indsport, if this measure passes and the programs are created and funded, who will pay for them if the EPA were to place a moratorium on fracking? Where is this addressed in the wording of this measure?

indsport, will these funds be allocated equitably across the entire state, where the developement has most impacted conservation, or where the "panel" wishes to focas them?

indsport. EXACTLY how would you 
1, design the make up of this "panel"
2. allocate these funds if you sat on this "panel" ?

And what would you determine the terms of duration be for the conservation programs created from this measure?


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> Actually shaug, as you can clearly see in the link I posted it came directly from the Government Accounting Office. (GAO)
> 
> But, hey, since you were the one sitting at my desk doing the google thing on my computer I guess you know more about where I got the info than I do.


Directly from the (GOA) eh??? That is a 2005 report. What a coincidence. That is the very same same piece included in the blue letters at the bottom of this page:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html

Hunt the last paragraph, the first sentence says: "In its 2005 report, the Government Accountability Office found that"
simply click on it and ............hmm It is the very same report you dug into.

In that report it says the fed/gov spent $144 million managing the grasslandswhile only receiving $21 million. That is what is known as deficit spending. There are almost 25 government agencies involved:

We performed the majority of our work at the 10 federal agencies that have
programs to allow private ranchers to graze livestock on portions of the
land they manage. These agencies were the Department of the Interior's
(Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service; the Department of
Defense's (DOD) Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Air Force and
Navy; and the Department of Energy (DOE). We also performed work at
other federal agencies that have grazing-related activities. These agencies
are Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Solicitor's Office; USDA's
Agricultural Research Service; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Farm
Service Agency, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Risk Management
Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Office of General
Counsel; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Department of
Justice.

Hunt, obviously these agencies didn't start with this budget but over the years it incrementally went up. So what is the answer? Cut the budget and number of fed/gov workers or raise the user fees every year to keep pace with a bloated government?


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> Huntin1 wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually shaug, as you can clearly see in the link I posted it came directly from the Government Accounting Office. (GAO)
> 
> But, hey, since you were the one sitting at my desk doing the google thing on my computer I guess you know more about where I got the info than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Directly from the (GOA) eh??? That is a 2005 report. What a coincidence. That is the very same same piece included in the blue letters at the bottom of this page:
> 
> http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html
> 
> Hunt the last paragraph, the first sentence says: "In its 2005 report, the Government Accountability Office found that"
> simply click on it and ............hmm It is the very same report you dug into.
> 
> In that report it says the fed/gov spent $144 million managing the grasslandswhile only receiving $21 million. That is what is known as deficit spending. There are almost 25 government agencies involved:
> 
> We performed the majority of our work at the 10 federal agencies that have
> programs to allow private ranchers to graze livestock on portions of the
> land they manage. These agencies were the Department of the Interior's
> (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); the
> U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service; the Department of
> Defense's (DOD) Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Air Force and
> Navy; and the Department of Energy (DOE). We also performed work at
> other federal agencies that have grazing-related activities. These agencies
> are Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Solicitor's Office; USDA's
> Agricultural Research Service; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
> Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Farm
> Service Agency, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Risk Management
> Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Office of General
> Counsel; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of
> Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Department of
> Justice.
> 
> Hunt, obviously these agencies didn't start with this budget but over the years it incrementally went up. So what is the answer? Cut the budget and number of fed/gov workers or raise the user fees every year to keep pace with a bloated government?
Click to expand...

WOW! truely hypocritical thinking there.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> indsport, perhaps if you actually addressed any of the several questions posed in these discussions rather than stopping by for a weekly visit yours would receive a bit more consideration.


*Heh...heh! Yeah the weekly drive-by words of wisdom that are always so profound.*

As I said earlier,,,
,,,_"I don't know how much oil revenue is currently being used to mitigate oil boom stressors put on people 
especially people, wildlife, and land in Western ND. Does anyone?
I suspect it isn't enough.
As a former posse member, I say use as much as it takes,,,, but without strings.
It seems everyone wants a place at the constitutional measure trough."_

*So I think we kinda agree gst except you left out Western ND's ecosystem. 
Was that intentional or just an oversight?* :lol:


----------



## indsport

gst said:


> indsport, perhaps if you actually addressed any of the several questions posed in these discussions rather than stopping by for a weekly visit yours would receive a bit more consideration.
> 
> But as I do try to answer those questions posed me here goes.
> 
> [i]Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds.[/i]
> 
> As I am not in favor of this measure the make up of this board to me is a moot point.
> 
> _I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes._
> 
> Instead of creating a separate thread (if you wished to you most certainly could have) I will answer this here.
> 
> The primary usage of these funds should be to ensure the infrastructure that allows them to be garnered is maintained and improved in an necessary and effective manner.
> 
> The secondary usage of these funds should be to address the concerns the people most directly impacted from their generation need addressed.
> 
> After these primary concerns are addressed in a fomr those impacted deem sufficient, if there are remaining funds left, they should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the State of ND in a manner the elected representatives of these people see fit, rather than agenda based programs set forth by small groups of people.
> 
> ie.... 5% here for this small group, 5% there for that small group and what is left for the two primary concerns listed above?
> 
> indsport, if this measure passes and the programs are created and funded, who will pay for them if the EPA were to place a moratorium on fracking? Where is this addressed in the wording of this measure?
> 
> indsport, will these funds be allocated equitably across the entire state, where the developement has most impacted conservation, or where the "panel" wishes to focas them?
> 
> indsport. EXACTLY how would you
> 1, design the make up of this "panel"
> 2. allocate these funds if you sat on this "panel" ?
> 
> And what would you determine the terms of duration be for the conservation programs created from this measure?


answers (in order)

Why should I want to participate in an off topic discussion about grazing fees? Once a week is more than enough.

The governor and legislature already have made public statements that the general fund is sufficient to pay for any infrastructure needs out west. Further, the enabling legislation that created the fund in the first place addresses your question and it can be used to meet infrastructure needs.

Any other group could also start an initiated measure. So far, I see only the current measure requesting money.

Even if the Epa stopped fracking, it would have no effect. If there is no money coming in, there is no money to disburse

The measure language already states any money would be used across North Dakota. It is up to the panel to decide where it is spent and to speculate as to their intentions is not appropriate.

Since I support the measure, I also support the makeup of the panel as defined in the measure. As I stated earlier, I expect that nominations from the legislature to be predominantly ag producers. As to NDGF, they are required to provide a list of names to the governor to choose from and I would expect that list to include those who do not work for government answers well. I trust all those who nominate members to the panel to do the right thing.

If I sat on this panel, it is already stated that no more than 50% can be spent on any one of the categories listed for assistance. However, and given that private ag land is the predominate land use in this state, and provides most of the wildlife habitat, I would lean to giving additional assistance to farm conservation programs on private land consistent with the purposes of the measure. Recall the language of the measure requires this money be given to government and non profit groups as a competitive grant, not just a hand out. I would expect non profit farm groups would be most interested in applying for those grants. Even you could set up your own non profit group and apply for the money.

Back to my other duties. I'll stop by in a week.


----------



## spentwings

Golly, that sure sounds reasonable,,,eh gst?


----------



## leadfed

indsport said:


> stopping by for my weekly visit and see not much has changed. Ad hominem attacks and a new off topic discussion about grazing fees. On topic, I see shaug is trotting out his misconception about both the wildlife federation and wildlife society. See my previous posts on the subject of funding on another thread that disproves his assertions. As to the initiated measure, I still refer others to the answers provided by Dick M on the other thread as to frequently asked questions. Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds. I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes.


Good post.

However, good luck with getting an answer from wing nut (gst) and jackhammer (shaug). They will spew some crap about the money going to better places than conservation but we all know where they want the money to go....in their pockets. Nope, can't give a dime to the sportsman because they might try to take over ND and push the farmer/rancher out (insert sarcasm).

BTW I see gst is still whining about the site and how bad it is. Blows my mind that he continually comes back to it. Wait a minute, if I told the "powers that be" that I would come on nodak and fb and be responsible for spreading false propaganda I guess I would hit up a site I hated too. :lol:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Instead of creating a separate thread (if you wished to you most certainly could have) I will answer this here.
> 
> The primary usage of these funds should be to ensure the infrastructure that allows them to be garnered is maintained and improved in an necessary and effective manner.
> 
> The secondary usage of these funds should be to address the concerns the people most directly impacted from their generation need addressed.
> 
> After these primary concerns are addressed in a fomr those impacted deem sufficient, if there are remaining funds left, they should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the State of ND in a manner the elected representatives of these people see fit, rather than agenda based programs set forth by small groups of people.


God you are dense gabe.

Do you understand how much $$$$$$$ is rolling through oil country right now? To use a fraction of it to try to help preserve some aspect of what W. ND once was seems like a VERY logical thing to do. Too bad you and logic go together like whore and church. Nothing you say makes a damn bit of sense.

The first two usages you mention I agree with totally and I believe they are being taken care of. The last one..."the remaining funds should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the state of ND".....bull ****. That is just you and shaug wanting a piece of the pie once again. WHAT ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM THAT IS GETTING COMPLETELY WRECKED IN OIL COUNTRY.....OR DO YOU NOT WORRY ABOUT THAT GABE? Drive through oil country sometime, better yet get a ride from someone who has lived out here their entire life and let them show you what is happening. You might have a dog in the fight then. Until then let me tell you, you are in no position to debate this and decide that a fraction of the oil revenue should not be used to preserve the lands of w. nd. Id show you around but I'd probably end up having to protect you from a large number of people I know out here, including many farmers and ranchers, that would want to kick your *** if you started puking up the verbage you post on here.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> indsport wrote:stopping by for my weekly visit and see not much has changed. *Ad hominem attacks* and a new off topic discussion about grazing fees. On topic, I see shaug is trotting out his misconception about both the wildlife federation and wildlife society. See my previous posts on the subject of funding on another thread that disproves his assertions. As to the initiated measure, I still refer others to the answers provided by Dick M on the other thread as to frequently asked questions. Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds. I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes.
> 
> ledfed wrote: Good post.


led it appears you have a case of "can't see the forrest for the trees"!!! 

That is unless you really beleive what you contribute to the discussion is more than "Ad hominem attacks"! :wink:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Golly, that sure sounds reasonable,,,eh gst?


Spent, indeed the part that was answered does sound quite reasonable.  :wink:

Despite the cries of those on here that engage in the rhetoric we see in almost every ag related thread, I have a strong commitment to having conservation be a part of production agriculture. This is something that was instilled in me fom my father by example and I hope I am instilling in my kids by the same means. And while I am instilling in my kids this commitment to putting more back in the land than you take out and an appreciation of the things lands are used for other than producing food and fiber, I also wish them to have the ability to make these same decisions for themselves down the road.

Spent in case you missed it here is the question that was not answered in a post that was pointedly meant to answer questions.



gst said:


> And what would you determine the *terms of duration* be for the conservation programs created from this measure?[/quote
> 
> spent if you and I and indsport were sitting having a shot of mescal after a dinner of liver and onions, I would likely enjoy a conversation void of the childish rhetoric seen here and indeed probably agree on many things. But it can not be denied there are those within the community that is proposing this measure that have also steadfastly refused to compromise and demanded a perpetual duration be tied to other conservation programs.
> 
> If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.
> 
> It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be give to or granted by the govt. We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.
> 
> Should these conservation programs not be mutually beneficial?
> 
> And if they are indeed mutually beneficial will they not attract persons from each generation into paricipating?
> 
> So spent, while the portion of what indsport answered is indeed "reasonable" one wonders about the portions and consequences of this measure that remain unanswered.
> 
> (And on a side not to those claiming infrstructure needs are being adequately cared for in western ND perhaps you should talk with those a little better in the know.)
> 
> So within the conversation you and I and indsport would be having, I would ask how will he ensure those that have sponsored tis measure will not hold thir perpetual duration a part of any program created by this measure?


----------



## swift

> If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.
> 
> It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be give to or granted by the govt. We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.


I believe these are contradicting statements here.

What I think GST is really saying is...perpetual easements are okay if done under his terms by the way of an irrevocable trust. And when 30 years after he is dead and the next generation determines for themselves what is best for the property it's too bad. Just under no circumstances should somebody allow a govt agency, conservation group or nonprofit organization be part of the plan.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.
> 
> *It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be give to or granted by the govt.* We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe these are contradicting statements here.
> 
> What I think GST is really saying is...perpetual easements are okay if done under his terms by the way of an irrevocable trust. And when 30 years after he is dead and the next generation determines for themselves what is best for the property it's too bad. Just under no circumstances should somebody allow a govt agency, conservation group or nonprofit organization be part of the plan.
Click to expand...

'

Swift you seem to have missed the above emboldened statement. If an individual chooses to implement a plan of his own doing to restrict what future generations can do with their land, of course he has the right and ability to do so.

swift, what would you think the founding fathers of this country would think of a perpetual easement whereby the govt had the ability to dictate terms to them (and change them at their will) as to what endeavors they can engage in on their private properties???

As said, many beleive the govt should not be given the power to implement or grant such control.

So in the case of this measure, swift, what duration of term would you wish these conservation programs to run?

Do you beleive these conservation programs should be mutually beneficial to every party directly involved?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Do you beleive these conservation programs should be mutually beneficial to every party directly involved?


No I think they should only benefit the farmer/rancher. I think they should make gabe thompsons life easier. I think they should pad his pockets further and make him look like the martyr, hero and savior he is. Damn the sportsman and the person who enjoys the wild outdoors I say!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.
> 
> *It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be give to or granted by the govt.* We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe these are contradicting statements here.
> 
> What I think GST is really saying is...perpetual easements are okay if done under his terms by the way of an irrevocable trust. And when 30 years after he is dead and the next generation determines for themselves what is best for the property it's too bad. Just under no circumstances should somebody allow a govt agency, conservation group or nonprofit organization be part of the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> Swift you seem to have missed the above emboldened statement. If an individual chooses to implement a plan of his own doing to restrict what future generations can do with their land, of course he has the right and ability to do so.
> 
> swift, what would you think the founding fathers of this country would think of a perpetual easement whereby the govt had the ability to dictate terms to them (and change them at their will) as to what endeavors they can engage in on their private properties???
> 
> As said, many beleive the govt should not be given the power to implement or grant such control.
> 
> So in the case of this measure, swift, what duration of term would you wish these conservation programs to run?
> 
> Do you beleive these conservation programs should be mutually beneficial to every party directly involved?
Click to expand...

I believe the landowner should be able to enter into a perpetual easement if he wants to. Just like you do. I do not believe the govt should be able to force a perpetual easement on anyone unless there is due process i.e. eminent domain. Just like you do. I believe you are trying to muddy the waters by inferring govt perpetual easements are not voluntary. When you know very well they are unless again due process by the way of eminent domain occurs. An irrevocable trust is nothing more than a perpetual use contract set up by you that will affect future generations. So to claim to be for irrevocable trusts but not voluntary perpetual easements is hypocritical. If you are opposed to forced perpetual easements without due process then we are on the same side.


----------



## swift

> Swift you seem to have missed the above emboldened statement. If an individual chooses to implement a plan of his own doing to restrict what future generations can do with their land, of course he has the right and ability to do so.


What if that individual chooses to involve the NFWS to restrict what future generations can do? Again do not try to imply that govt conservation plans are not voluntary.



> So in the case of this measure, swift, what duration of term would you wish these conservation programs to run?


For however long the landowner agrees to in the contract with the program officials.



> Do you beleive these conservation programs should be mutually beneficial to every party directly involved?


 YES

Do you believe your irrevocable trust should be beneficial to every party directly involved?


----------



## shaug

indsport, does your last name begin with a "T"?

indsport wrote,



> Why should I want to participate in an off topic discussion about grazing fees? Once a week is more than enough.


Actually it is Plainsman who likes to bring up the grazing thingy. He has not been posting about it because he is still looking for that petition thing that he claimed happened in 2000. Clue: it wasn't a petition.



> The governor and legislature already have made public statements that the general fund is sufficient to pay for any infrastructure needs out west. Further, the enabling legislation that created the fund in the first place addresses your question and it can be used to meet infrastructure needs.


The ND General Fund has a surplus. The Game and Fish gets over $30 million a year and is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior has multiple fed/gov programs for wildlife and conservation, all adequately funded. Maybe even over funded. The fed/gov has a several trillion dollar short fall. I don't think North Dakota needs to follow that template. Five percent here, five percent there.......



> Since I support the measure, I also support the makeup of the panel as defined in the measure. As I stated earlier, I expect that nominations from the legislature to be predominantly ag producers. As to NDGF, they are required to provide a list of names to the governor to choose from and I would expect that list to include those who do not work for government answers well. I trust all those who nominate members to the panel to do the right thing.


Last year the US Congress shirked their duties and created a super committee of twelve. No one supported the panel of twelve.



> If I sat on this panel, it is already stated that no more than 50% can be spent on any one of the categories listed for assistance. However, and given that private ag land is the predominate land use in this state, and provides most of the wildlife habitat, I would lean to giving additional assistance to farm conservation programs on private land consistent with the purposes of the measure.


Again, the Game and Fish gets over $30 million a year and is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior has multiple fed/gov programs for wildlife and conservation, all adequately funded. So then what you are suggesting is deificit spending.



> Recall the language of the measure requires this money be given to government and non profit groups as a competitive grant, not just a hand out. I would expect non profit farm groups would be most interested in applying for those grants. Even you could set up your own non profit group and apply for the money.


Non-governmental non-profits will be at the trough.

http://www.gf.nd.gov/links/


----------



## swift

One more scenario for you GST...

Your greatgrandpa put the old Olson quarter in an irrevocable trust that states the land will be maintained on native prairie grasses and maintained for weeds by the trustee, being you GST. Now soybeans are 21dollars a bushel and you want to seed that quarter would you have a problem with your greatgrandpa's wishes? Would you claim he could not see the future of GMO crops in the area
and would you try to get the trust changed?

Same scenario but greatgrandpa entered into a NFWS perpetual easement that states this quarter will be native prairie grasses for ever. Would you have a problem with that?

And what exactly is the difference?


----------



## swift

> Again, the Game and Fish gets over $30 million a year and is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior has multiple fed/gov programs for wildlife and conservation, all adequately funded. So then what you are suggesting is deificit spending.


Where does that $30 million dollars come from? Taxes? NO. I wish you and your buddy would quit mixing your apples and oranges.

Why wouldn't a govt that is deficit spending not charge market value for all things they have to offer? To defend the penny on the dollar grazing fees that ranchers get from govt pastures with a deficit spending argument is just ridiculous.



> The ND General Fund has a surplus.


 So taking 5% of the oil tax for conservation in the state is not deficit spending at all. And taking this "surplus" money for conservation might reduce some of the Federal spending in the state thereby reducing deficit spending by the feds. Which is what you like to claim.


----------



## swift

> Non-governmental non-profits will be at the trough.


Is this one of the Non-profits that will be at the trough?
The NDFB Foundation was established by the North Dakota Farm Bureau Board of Directors in 2002. Gifts to the Foundation are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code.


----------



## leadfed

Swift you are making wayyyyyyyyyy too many logical points and asking wayyyyyyyyyy too many valid questions for these two yahoos to handle. Just fore warning you for a multitude of duck, dodge and dive responses. :lol:


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> Where does that $30 million dollars come from? Taxes? NO. I wish you and your buddy would quit mixing your apples and oranges.


You're a smart guy swift, why don't you tell me where it comes from?



> So taking 5% of the oil tax for conservation in the state is not deficit spending at all. And taking this "surplus" money for conservation might reduce some of the Federal spending in the state thereby reducing deficit spending by the feds. Which is what you like to claim.


The fed/gov through the USFWS wants to spend $588 million dollars purchasing perpetuel easements on 240,000 acres in ND. They claim this money is not a new tax nor is it coming out of the US General Fund, it is to come from oil and gas lease monies. But that would be incorrect. The oil and gas lease monies currently go into the US General Fund. So what they are doing is simply diverting it to their coffers. The US General Treasurey is in a hellava fix. Trillions in debt.

Swift, we have been down this path many times. But the template is always the same. What the 5% oil tax divertors are proposing is the very kind of spending that has gotten the fed/gov into the fix it is today.

There is a reason we have a treasurey surplus in ND. We are conservative. Swift, do honestly believe that if this state increases its spending on conservation that the fed/gov will slow its spending?



> Is this one of the Non-profits that will be at the trough?
> The NDFB Foundation was established by the North Dakota Farm Bureau Board of Directors in 2002. Gifts to the Foundation are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code.


Swift, indsport is talking about (gifting) granting some of this money to non-profit non-governmental organizations. He says it is a competitive grant, not just a hand out. What is the purpose of giving away taxpayer dollars to 501(c)3 non-profits?????


----------



## leadfed

quote="shaug"]
The fed/gov through the USFWS wants to spend $588 million dollars purchasing perpetuel easements on 240,000 acres in ND. They claim this money is not a new tax nor is it coming out of the US General Fund, it is to come from oil and gas lease monies. But that would be incorrect. The oil and gas lease monies currently go into the US General Fund. So what they are doing is simply diverting it to their coffers. The US General Treasurey is in a hellava fix. Trillions in debt.

So you would rather the monies from oil and gas leases go into the US general fund instead of using them to help the people of ND....the place where the monies are generated? Maybe that isn't what you mean but it seems like it. Can you clarify that?

There is a reason we have a treasurey surplus in ND. We are conservative. Swift, do honestly believe that if this state increases its spending on conservation that the fed/gov will slow its spending?
quote]

Really? ND has a surplus becasue we are conservative huh? Has nothing to do with the 200+ drilling rigs scattered across W. ND and out my back door? What do we do with those monies then shaug....have a babeque?

Just admit it gabe and shaug. You don't want to see this go through because it might threaten you from buying a piece of land and tying it up in farming/ranching therefore taking it forever away from the sportsman.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> One more scenario for you GST...
> 
> Your greatgrandpa put the old Olson quarter in an irrevocable trust that states the land will be maintained on native prairie grasses and maintained for weeds by the trustee, being you GST. Now soybeans are 21dollars a bushel and you want to seed that quarter would you have a problem with your greatgrandpa's wishes? Would you claim he could not see the future of GMO crops in the area
> and would you try to get the trust changed?
> 
> Same scenario but greatgrandpa entered into a NFWS perpetual easement that states this quarter will be native prairie grasses for ever. Would you have a problem with that?
> 
> *And what exactly is the difference?[/*quote]
> 
> swift if you actually have to ask the above emboldened question you will never understand the "difference".
> 
> Swift, one questions for you in regards to the USF&WS perpetual easements. Once entered into can the producer change them or "opt" out?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Again, the Game and Fish gets over $30 million a year and is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior has multiple fed/gov programs for wildlife and conservation, all adequately funded. So then what you are suggesting is deificit spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does that $30 million dollars come from? Taxes? NO. I wish you and your buddy would quit mixing your apples and oranges.
> 
> *Why wouldn't a govt that is deficit spending not charge market value for all things they have to offer?* To defend the penny on the dollar grazing fees that ranchers get from govt pastures with a deficit spending argument is just ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ND General Fund has a surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So taking 5% of the oil tax for conservation in the state is not deficit spending at all. And taking this "surplus" money for conservation might reduce some of the Federal spending in the state thereby reducing deficit spending by the feds. Which is what you like to claim.
Click to expand...

Swift, why wouldn;t a govt that is deficiet spending not divert the revenues that it collects on off shore oil and gas leases and developement and use it to help discontinue deficiet spending instead of funding perpetual easements?

Hey plainsman said "everyone will have to cut" i this time of "extreme national debt", why not start there?


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> quote="shaug"]The fed/gov through the USFWS wants to spend $588 million dollars purchasing perpetuel easements on 240,000 acres in ND. They claim this money is not a new tax nor is it coming out of the US General Fund, it is to come from oil and gas lease monies. But that would be incorrect. The oil and gas lease monies currently go into the US General Fund. So what they are doing is simply diverting it to their coffers. The US General Treasurey is in a hellava fix. Trillions in debt.
> 
> led fed wrote:
> So you would rather the monies from oil and gas leases go into the US general fund instead of using them to help the people of ND....*the place where the monies are generated*? Maybe that isn't what you mean but it seems like it. Can you clarify that?


led these revenues shaug references do not come from ND.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Swift you seem to have missed the above emboldened statement. If an individual chooses to implement a plan of his own doing to restrict what future generations can do with their land, of course he has the right and ability to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> What if that individual chooses to involve the NFWS to restrict what future generations can do? Again do not try to imply that govt conservation plans are not voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in the case of this measure, swift, what duration of term would you wish these conservation programs to run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *For however long the landowner agrees to in the contract with the program officials. *
> 
> So you are saying you wish these programs could be perpetual in nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you beleive these conservation programs should be mutually beneficial to every party directly involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YES*
> 
> So if the contract from this measure is perpetual, please explain how it becomes mutually beneficial to each subsequent generation that deals with the constraints and yet does not receive any consideration of value.
> 
> Do you believe your irrevocable trust should be beneficial to every party directly involved?
Click to expand...


Once again swift you do not seem to understand the difference between a family irrevocable trust and a perpetual agreement entered into with a separate entity. 

Swift do you beleive the producer upon entering into a perpetual easement should be able to change the stipulations of the agreement after it is signed?


----------



## shaug

leadfed wrote,



> So you would rather the monies from oil and gas leases go into the US general fund instead of using them to help the people of ND....the place where the monies are generated? Maybe that isn't what you mean but it seems like it. Can you clarify that?


I was referencing oil and gas lease monies that are derived from the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. That money currently goes into the US General Fund. In the year of 2000 a handful of non-profits made a bold move and introduced a bill in Congress called (CARA). The Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The oil and gas lease monies generate about $5 billion a year. These non-profits wanted $3 billion per year times 15 years. Much of the money was to be used to purchase land from willing sellers.(wink wink) The fed/gov currently owns about a third of America and they don't have the money to adequately take care of those acres let alone purchase more.

Right now the fed/gov borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. That money is borrowed from China at interest. If the Chinese are asking for collateral on these massive loans, I can't help but wonder what Uncle Sam is putting up?

leadfed, The same types of people, groups of people, and the same non-profits who introduced CARA are proposing this very 5% oil tax scheme in ND. The template is always the same.


----------



## shaug

indsport wrote,



> stopping by for my weekly visit and see not much has changed. Ad hominem attacks and a new off topic discussion about grazing fees. On topic, I see shaug is trotting out his misconception about both the wildlife federation and wildlife society. See my previous posts on the subject of funding on another thread that disproves his assertions. As to the initiated measure, I still refer others to the answers provided by Dick M on the other thread as to frequently asked questions. Further, I would ask gst and shaug what they would propose as to the members of the 9 member panel to distribute the funds. I would also ask gst and shaug to answer a question as to what they think should be done with the oil monies on a separate thread since they are opposed to using it for conservation purposes.


indsport, Awhile back there was another initiated that Dick Monson was a sponosr of. As I recall he was asked over and over if he or his org would accept any help or money from HSUS. Dick Monson provided the same answer over and over. "NO" So now indsport you are asking us again to trust Dick?????????? I don't think so.

indsport, you said once that you used to work with Plainsman. Were you a federal employee? Are you one still?


----------



## zogman

Shaug asked.........
indsport, you said once that you used to work with Plainsman. Were you a federal employee? Are you one still?

Why is that impotant to you :eyeroll:

So Shaug what is your claim to fame???? Name, address, phone # etc.......... oke:


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more scenario for you GST...
> 
> Your greatgrandpa put the old Olson quarter in an irrevocable trust that states the land will be maintained on native prairie grasses and maintained for weeds by the trustee, being you GST. Now soybeans are 21dollars a bushel and you want to seed that quarter would you have a problem with your greatgrandpa's wishes? Would you claim he could not see the future of GMO crops in the area
> and would you try to get the trust changed?
> 
> Same scenario but greatgrandpa entered into a NFWS perpetual easement that states this quarter will be native prairie grasses for ever. Would you have a problem with that?
> 
> *And what exactly is the difference?[/*quote]
> 
> swift if you actually have to ask the above emboldened question you will never understand the "difference".
> 
> Swift, one questions for you in regards to the USF&WS perpetual easements. Once entered into can the producer change them or "opt" out?
Click to expand...

What is the difference GST? Greatgrandpa made a decision two generations ago that will affect you on that land today. Your arguement is invalid if you support irrevocable trusts. Typical GST though caught in deception so ask another question instead of manning up and admitting your wrong.

GST, can a producer farming irrevocable trust land change the stipulations of the trust or "opt" out?

Lead theses guys are purposefully clouding the topic with oil and gas revenues from the Feds on a topic of state funds to try to confuse and decept. The 5% oil tax for conservation has nothing to do with the offshore oil money that GST continues to bring up. It's the typical M.O. of these two, Spew so many half truths or statements that have nothing to do with the topic until confusion sets in. It's like argueing with a woman or worse two women at the same time.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Lead theses guys are purposefully clouding the topic with oil and gas revenues from the Feds on a topic of state funds to try to confuse and decept.


swift please show where I have ever tried to confuse the two and not clearly explained where these funds for the UF&WS easement programs come from.



swift said:


> What is the difference GST? Greatgrandpa made a decision two generations ago that will affect you on that land today. Your arguement is invalid if you support irrevocable trusts. Typical GST though caught in deception so ask another question instead of manning up and admitting your wrong.


swift Although unlikely, I will try and explain it in a manner you may understand.

In the example of Grandpa putting the Olsen quarter in an irrevocable family trust to remain in native sod, it is Grandpa"s rules and stipulations that accompany that land thru out the generations.

In an example of Grandpa putting the Olsen quater in a perpetual agreement with the USF&WS, it is the USF&WS rules and stipulations that accompany that land thru out the generations.

And please note the following answers to the questions you avoided answering, they do indeed play a part in understanding the difference.

Every single generation of producers impacted by these decisions until the end of existance as we know it on this planet can not change or alter or opt out of said USF&WS perpetual easement or Grandpas trust. (at least without extensive, expensive legal manuevering)

Now take note swift, this is an important part of the difference.

*The USF&WS retains the ability to change (and relax or possibly further restrict) the stipulations under which these lands enrolled in these perpetual easements can be managed at any point in time in the future.*

Grandpa under the irrevocable family trust can not.

Big difference.

Why is this a concern to some producers that look farther down the road than others?

Upon creating agreements with the Federal govt back when the Federal grasslands and Forrest Services lands were established as to these lands usage, a clearly defined policy of multiple use including the grazing of livestock was established for the management of these lands.

Over time, slowly but surely, piece by piece, groups have worked successfully to influence these agreements to remove grazing from the multiple use management of these Federal lands.

So tell me swift, why should anyone think either these USF&WS land agreements, or a state sponsored program will be any different as time goes on?

Should we beleive that sudenly people like we see using the rhetoric they do on this site will suddenly see the light in that their demands placed on the lands over their concerns for their recreational pleasures will not affect the ability to use them to produce food and fiber for a majority of societies daily needs if necessary?

Should we suddenly (even after the last HFH measure attempt) beleive that the arrogance of demanding others capitulate to your ideals of how these private lands be used will suddenly end?

swift you and I will likely never see the end consequences of it in our lifetime, but the fact is there are fewer people in this country and world every year that hunt, yet there are more and more people in this country and world that are becoming more and more concerned to the increaseing amount of their income they spend on foodand th avalibility of this food.

In the example you gave swift, what do you think it would be that drove soybeans to $21/bushel, double their average price now in what is now a global market????? If beans are $21 every other comodity produced for food will be as correlatingly high. How will that affect food costs???

Eventually these people will demand that policies allow as much food to be produced as possible on the private lands avalible for food production and at that point who will be there to ensure conservation still happens on these lands?

Eventually these people will demand Congress change the stipulations and policies of how these Federal lands under their control will be managed. And at that point swift, who will be there to ensure conservation still happens on these lands?

The answer swift is the producers themselves. At that point wether there exists mutually beneficial conservation programs and the desire of people to work cooperatively (rather than shoving things down someones throats wether they like it or not and using the type rhetoric we see on this site regarding agriculture) will determine the level of participation in any conservation programs.

A few people on here are so narrow minded and allow their personal anomousities to cloud their ability to reason that they cannot see there are those people out there that are looking farther down the road than they have ever considered doing themselves regarding agriculture and conservation.

Simply take one look at the most recent of any number of countries in which a shortage of food has changed policy.

Take a look at what is happening now in North Korea and why. We saw it happen in Egypt, it brought down the former Soviet Union, most countries thru out history that have fallen from within have been dismantled by people with hungry stomaches, do not be so arrogant to beleive that a need and shortage of food or prohibitive cost of food could not do the very same thing in this country at some point.

To demand ones recreational wants take precedent over ensuring the future of this nations food production policies will be looked at here at some point, the same way they have been in every other nation that has become so arrogant to forget what lies at the foundation of their existance.

Some of us simply beleive a volantary, cooperative, single generation, renewable, mutually beneficial approach void of the rhetoric towards agriculture so often seen on this site is ultimately the path that would serve conservation and wildlife interest best within agricultural production.

Radical ideas I know, but some who can actually see common ground might say it has worked quite well so far here in ND.

Swift, one question if you would, have you ever seen a poor, hungry "conservationalist" ? :-?


----------



## swift

Nice diatribe GST, but your again showing your animosity toward anything non-agriculture.

The hunting aspect, conservation aspect and ag intrest aspect of your post really has nothing to do with my reasoning on this topic.

Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit. If my grandpa liked the pitch from the USFWS and wanted to enter into a perpetual agreement with the USFWS you and your holier than thou organizations should not have a word to say about it. Much the same way your greatgrandpa had the foresight to protect what he thought was important from the greedy generations to come.

If you don't like the pitch from the USFWS then don't enter into an agreement with them. But don't think you have the ability through your orgs to deny me the right to sign that contract if I feel it is right for me.

What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."

If the perpetual easements by the USFWS are such a bad thing then nobody would sign up for them and your problem would go away through atrition. But, you feel the need to dictate to others what is good and what is bad and make the decision for them by removing one of the options.

To make it simplier for you. 
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T SIGN UP FOR IT. 
IF NOBODY LIKES IT NOBODY WILL SIGN UP FOR IT. 
IT DOESN'T NEED A LAW TO PREVENT THOSE THAT DO LIKE IT FROM SIGNING UP FOR IT.

You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.

Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.


----------



## shaug

Zogman asked,



> Shaug asked.........
> indsport, you said once that you used to work with Plainsman. Were you a federal employee? Are you one still?
> 
> Why is that impotant to you


John, I have testified at several sub-committee hearings etc. at the capitol. Given speeches to groups of 300 or more. I am not the best or the most comfortable in front of a crowd. When this 5% oil tax scheme comes down to the wire the propondents will trot out their best at public relations. Some of those speakers are on the public payrole right now. Over the years I have watched the Lloyd Jones' and Keith Trego types get up and speak with authority on issues while they were getting paid by the taxpayer.

When I or someone who opposes their schemes speaks out against, we have to pay our own way to get there and are not being paid to be there. These guys get paid to go to meetings, set up meetings, attend meetings, speak at meetings, meetings meetings meetings. Knowing who is going to be speaking is just as important as knowing the issue.


----------



## swift

> Where does that $30 million dollars come from? Taxes? NO. I wish you and your buddy would quit mixing your apples and oranges.
> 
> You're a smart guy swift, why don't you tell me where it comes from?


Th e Game and Fish Department's annual
income consists of about 45 percent state
hunting, fi shing, trapping and other license
dollars; 50 percent federal aid from manufacturers'
excise taxes on hunting and fi shing
equipment, and 5 percent from other sources
such as wildlife management area agricultural
land rental, North Dakota OUTDOORS
magazine subscriptions, federal funding for
species of concern research, and state motorboat
fuel tax.

Licenses and Pittman Robertson fund make up the income for the Game and Fish. Not your state tax dollars Shaug.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.
> 
> Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.


For you it is as simple as that. The voters understood it and defeated the measure. For the elk and deer growers it was a little more complicated. They spent five years in meetings and over $400,000 defending themselves. There should never have been a fair chase iniative.

There was a group of people who wanted to impose their will on the elk and deer producers through the legislative process doing things their way. It was called Senate Bill 2254 to ban high fence hunting. They lost 3 to 44.

I know it was their right to start a ballot measure feeling that the legislature had wronged them. They started telling lies. They said they only lost by a slim margin. 3 to 44 is not slim. Everything went down hill from there. It was their right to do an iniative but not a smear campaign. The only thing they didn't accuse the elk and deer growers of was that they have witnesses who saw the elk growers dancing on top of a pile of dead catholic nuns, doing high fives with the deer growers, shooting saturday night specials up into the air that they just purchased from Farm Bureau.

What happened durring the fair chase folly was just pathetic. No one person or group of persons, a business or industry should be subjected to something like that. There were 7 federal people who sponsored that HFI. Many of these same individuals are now sponsoring this 5% oil tax.

Swift, these types of issues should be handled at the legislature. No lying, no cheating, no wearing a paper bag over your head to hide your idnetity and you know the rest.


----------



## shaug

Swift,

I am sitting here laughing. I already knew that half the money comes from Pitt-Robertson. And that sir is a tax. Everybody pays it whether they hunt or not. But its funny to watch you hold out until the end.



> Not your state tax dollars Shaug.


You just can't concede. 

Plainsman is very much like you. He can't concede either. He made a claim that a Grazing Association in ND passed a petition around a few years ago trying to get more control of the grasslands. Clue: there wasn't a petition. But we will let him dig around a little longer. I know how much he dislikes "busy work."


----------



## swift

> team sitting here laughing. I already knew that half the money comes from Pitt-Robertson. And that sir is a tax. Everybody pays it whether they hunt or not. But its funny to watch you hold out until the end.


You need to educate yourself on the Pittman Robertson act Shaug. Those funds come from hunting and fishing supply sales and were never intended for the general fund. No not everybody pays them only sportsman and women do. Take your hate for anything federal and twist it all you like.

The HFI was about landowner rights. AND Perpetual easements are about landowner rights. Your group is doing the same thing the HFI sponsors did. You are no better than Roger Kaseman Shaug. You are attempting to force your ethics onto everyone else just like the HFI guys did. You are one in the same.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Nice diatribe GST, Thank you.
> but your again showing your animosity toward anything non-agriculture.
> 
> "Some of us simply beleive a volantary, cooperative, single generation, renewable, mutually beneficial approach void of the rhetoric towards agriculture so often seen on this site is ultimately the path that would serve conservation and wildlife interest best within agricultural production."
> _Indeed swift I can see where YOU would beleive this to be animousity towards anything nonagriculture__._
> The hunting aspect, conservation aspect and ag intrest aspect of your post really has nothing to do with my reasoning on this topic.
> 
> Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit. If my grandpa liked the pitch from the USFWS and wanted to enter into a perpetual agreement with the USFWS you and your holier than thou organizations should not have a word to say about it. Much the same way your greatgrandpa had the foresight to protect what he thought was important from the greedy generations to come.
> 
> If you don't like the pitch from the USFWS then don't enter into an agreement with them.
> The point you seem to be missing and not acknowledging in defining the difference swift is the FACT the producer or future generations do not know what the "agreement" truly is as the ability to further restrict it remains with the USF&WS if they so choose But don't think you have the ability through your orgs to deny me the right to sign that contract if I feel it is right for me.
> 
> What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."
> 
> If the perpetual easements by the USFWS are such a bad thing then nobody would sign up for them and your problem would go away through atrition. But, you feel the need to dictate to others what is good and what is bad and make the decision for them by removing one of the options.
> 
> swift there are factors involved that are not looking out for what is best in the long term in regards to who is "siging up" for these perpetual eaements. Wether you wish to acknowldege that in your desire to see this thru or not gows to exactly the lack of looking past what currently may affect YOU that you sem so wiling to accuse others of.
> 
> To make it simplier for you.
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IF NOBODY LIKES IT NOBODY WILL SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IT DOESN'T NEED A LAW TO PREVENT THOSE THAT DO LIKE IT FROM SIGNING UP FOR IT.
> 
> You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.
> 
> "I" am "imposing my will thru the legislative process"???? Come on swift that old "ag controls the legislatue" conspiracy claim plainsman always trots out is simply that, a conspiracy claim that happens when a small group does not get their way.
> 
> Unless you truly beleive the citizens of ND are not able to elect the people they beleive best qualified to enagage in leading our state down the proper path?????? Perhaps this arrogance that a handful of you seem to beleive that YOUR ideals are the ones the people of ND should demand their elected representatives follow falls short for a reason.
> 
> Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.


So then swift, two questions.

1.should the ability to build and operate a feedlot or packing plant on private property be controled and regulated? 

2. Should the USF&WS retain the ability to change the stipulations of a perpetual easement after it is entered into?


----------



## gst

swift, one more if you would.

Are property rights absolute?


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> You need to educate yourself on the Pittman Robertson act Shaug. Those funds come from hunting and fishing supply sales and were never intended for the general fund. No not everybody pays them only sportsman and women do. Take your hate for anything federal and twist it all you like.


I said the Game and Fish is adequately funded. I never said Pitt-Robertson money goes to the G/F after it first goes through the general fund. People who buy a hand gun or ammo for personel protection pay the tax. You do not have to be a sportsmen. I do not hate everything federal. But I will say that a democracy cannot work once the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse or gifts from the general treasurey. 5% here 5% there, spend spend spend.



> You are no better than Roger Kaseman Shaug.


How about Dick Monson, Mike McEnroe, Keith Trego, Lloyd Jones or Bruce Hanson? I'm I no better than them?????


----------



## gst




----------



## gst

swift, actually after re reading your quote, I do have one more in which the statement you made cries out for an answer to this question I will post. I will underline, embolden and enlarge the statement YOU made so you are sure to know what statement is tiesd to the question I will ask below your quote. Not to be accused of cherry picking, ducking or dodgeing, or spinning anything, I have included the full text of your quote.



swift said:


> Nice diatribe GST, but your again showing your animosity toward anything non-agriculture.
> 
> The hunting aspect, conservation aspect and ag intrest aspect of your post really has nothing to do with my reasoning on this topic.
> *
> Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.[/**b]** If my grandpa liked the pitch from the USFWS and wanted to enter into a perpetual agreement with the USFWS you and your holier than thou organizations should not have a word to say about it. Much the same way your greatgrandpa had the foresight to protect what he thought was important from the greedy generations to come.
> 
> If you don't like the pitch from the USFWS then don't enter into an agreement with them. But don't think you have the ability through your orgs to deny me the right to sign that contract if I feel it is right for me.
> 
> What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."
> 
> If the perpetual easements by the USFWS are such a bad thing then nobody would sign up for them and your problem would go away through atrition. But, you feel the need to dictate to others what is good and what is bad and make the decision for them by removing one of the options.
> 
> To make it simplier for you.
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IF NOBODY LIKES IT NOBODY WILL SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IT DOESN'T NEED A LAW TO PREVENT THOSE THAT DO LIKE IT FROM SIGNING UP FOR IT.
> 
> You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.
> 
> Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.*


*

Once again swift, YOUR statement:

Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit. 

I am gald you are finally seeing the point I have been making and agree with me in regards to this statement swift, it is indeed "simple terms"!

But if you would, please explain how each subsequent generation has the ability to do what YOU state should be their "right" when a perpetual easement has been placed on that land that THEY did not choose to engage in that stipulates and limits what THEY can choose to do in being "stewards of their land as they seem fit"??????

Please answer this question if you would swift.*


----------



## leadfed

Holy **** gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do. Either that or the "powers that be" gave you a raise to come on this site and lie gabe :lol:

Anyway, same old bs from you two. Shaug you STILL have never answered where you would rather see this money go? I heard on the news last night that ND is poised to bring in close to 3 billion in oil and gas revenue next year. Yet you two still think it is a bad idea to use some of that money to protect the land they (oil and gas industry) are ruining out here. Unreal fellas :shake: And all for what? Thats what I want to know really. Selfishness at its finest is my guess.


----------



## shaug

leadfed wrote,



> Holy &$#* gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do. Either that or the "powers that be" gave you a raise to come on this site and lie gabe


There are no powers that be "here". I am a "concerned sportsmen."



> Anyway, same old bs from you two. Shaug you STILL have never answered where you would rather see this money go?


Put it in the bank. Pay your bills first. Did anyone catch the one hour segment on Williston?


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy &$#* gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do. Either that or the "powers that be" gave you a raise to come on this site and lie gabe
> 
> 
> 
> There are no powers that be "here". *I am a "concerned sportsmen."*
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, same old bs from you two. Shaug you STILL have never answered where you would rather see this money go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put it in the bank. Pay your bills first. Did anyone catch the one hour segment on Williston?
Click to expand...

Yep. What do you want to know or what are you implying? I live in the middle of the oil mess.


----------



## leadfed

Shaug said,
Put it in the bank. Pay your bills first. Did anyone catch the one hour segment on Williston?

lead said
Shaug, when you have a surplus does that not mean your bills are probably paid?

The episode on the bakken last night said next year the state of ND is poised to make a couple billion on oil and gas revenue and possibly even more than that. I see no reason and neither do the analysts that this will not continue into the foreseable future. As a matter of fact they said early in the episode that it was going to continue at this pace for another 16 to 18 years!!!! Why not spend some of the revenue created by the oil industry to protect the very land that is going to get destroyed by the oil industry in those years? It makes all the sense in the world to me yet you and gabe don't think so. WHY?


----------



## swift

> How about Dick Monson, Mike McEnroe, Keith Trego, Lloyd Jones or Bruce Hanson? I'm I no better than them?????


No your not.



> But if you would, please explain how each subsequent generation has the ability to do what YOU state should be their "right" when a perpetual easement has been placed on that land that THEY did not choose to engage in that stipulates and limits what THEY can choose to do in being "stewards of their land as they seem fit"??????
> 
> Please answer this question if you would swift.


They have just as much as the trustee over an irrevocable trust does generations down the line Gabe. That is what I'm saying, what you think is Okay by irrevocable trust, you do not think is okay in a govt easement.

Again, why remove an option for a landowner through a law? If it's a bad deal nobody will sign up. Who are you affecting by outlawing perpetual easements? The answer is your neighbors, other ag producers, and various landowners.

I don't expect you to see that the irrevocable trust vs perpetual easement is the same thing because it doesn't fit into your political agenda. But anyone with half a brain can see your drive to end perpetual easements is nothing more that dictating to landowners what you think is best for their personal and private futures.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Yep. What do you want to know or what are you implying? I live in the middle of the oil mess.


led, if it is a "mess" how can what you state in this quote at the very last that I underlined be true?

*Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:24 am* 
_gst wrote:Instead of creating a separate thread (if you wished to you most certainly could have) I will answer this here.

The primary usage of these funds should be to ensure the infrastructure that allows them to be garnered is maintained and improved in an necessary and effective manner.

The secondary usage of these funds should be to address the concerns the people most directly impacted from their generation need addressed.

After these primary concerns are addressed in a fomr those impacted deem sufficient, if there are remaining funds left, they should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the State of ND in a manner the elected representatives of these people see fit, rather than agenda based programs set forth by small groups of people.

ledfed wrote: God you are dense gabe.

Do you understand how much $$$$$$$ is rolling through oil country right now? To use a fraction of it to try to help preserve some aspect of what W. ND once was seems like a VERY logical thing to do. Too bad you and logic go together like whore and church. Nothing you say makes a damn bit of sense.

*The first two usages you mention I agree with totally and I believe they are being taken care of*._

Perhaps I am indeed "dense" as you claim led, but please for my sake explain how if things are a "mess" ( "I live in the middle of the oil mess") that things "are being taken care of" as you claim?



leadfed said:


> Holy &$#* gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do. Either that or the "powers that be" gave you a raise to come on this site and lie gabe


led, who exactly do your "sources" claim the "powers that be " are?? You have been asked to substantiate your claim, it will not require youto reveal your "sources"  to simply verify who the "powers that be" that you claim heve "hired/delegated" me to "come on this site and lie" are?

Please show me by substantiating your claim where a lie exists in what I have posted on this site.

Credibility led,

What you acuse and yet won't/can't prove matters.

Perhaps when you grow up a bit you will realize this.


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> Swift wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to educate yourself on the Pittman Robertson act Shaug. Those funds come from hunting and fishing supply sales and were never intended for the general fund. No not everybody pays them only sportsman and women do. Take your hate for anything federal and twist it all you like.
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Game and Fish is adequately funded.
> 
> 
> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swift,
> 
> *I am sitting here laughing. I already knew that half the money comes from Pitt-Robertson. And that sir is a tax. Everybody pays it whether they hunt or not. But its funny to watch you hold out until the end. *
> 
> 
> 
> Not your state tax dollars Shaug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just can't concede.
> 
> Plainsman is very much like you. He can't concede either. He made a claim that a Grazing Association in ND passed a petition around a few years ago trying to get more control of the grasslands. Clue: there wasn't a petition. But we will let him dig around a little longer. I know how much he dislikes "busy work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * I never said Pitt-Robertson money goes to the G/F after it first goes through the general fund. *People who buy a hand gun or ammo for personel protection pay the tax. You do not have to be a sportsmen. I do not hate everything federal. But I will say that a democracy cannot work once the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse or gifts from the general treasurey. 5% here 5% there, spend spend spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are no better than Roger Kaseman Shaug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about Dick Monson, Mike McEnroe, Keith Trego, Lloyd Jones or Bruce Hanson? I'm I no better than them?????
Click to expand...

There is your answer Shaug. Your own words contradicting each other.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.


swift, these are your very own words, not mine, not shaugs, yours. YOU wrote them. And hey I agree!!!!! 

Do you beleive what you wrote?

Please quit trying to "spin" things and answer the question in simple direct terms.

*Your own statement* says "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"

"Simple terms" swift.

Swift, will the use of perpetual easements by the USFWS or any other group or org. allow this "right to be stewards of the land as they see fit" for each subsequent generation?

Swift do you think property rights are absolute?

Swift do you think the ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on private property should be regulated?

Swift do you beleive the USF&WS should have the ability to change the rules in a perpetual agreement after entering into it?

If you wish to have a "serious" discussion swift please answer the above questions in "simple terms". Some might even think yes or no would be "simple"enough! :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> What if that individual chooses to involve the NFWS to restrict what future generations can do?[/quote]
> 
> Swift beleives in the right to do the above and argues it is his "right"! :-?
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he preaches the above as the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer Shaug. Your own words contradicting each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Irony at it's finest! :wink: 

At least I think "irony" is the proper word, perhaps it could be hyp.... oh well either or works. :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. What do you want to know or what are you implying? I live in the middle of the oil mess.
> 
> 
> 
> led, if it is a "mess" how can what you state in this quote at the very last that I underlined be true?
> 
> *Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:24 am*
> _gst wrote:Instead of creating a separate thread (if you wished to you most certainly could have) I will answer this here.
> 
> The primary usage of these funds should be to ensure the infrastructure that allows them to be garnered is maintained and improved in an necessary and effective manner.
> 
> The secondary usage of these funds should be to address the concerns the people most directly impacted from their generation need addressed.
> 
> After these primary concerns are addressed in a fomr those impacted deem sufficient, if there are remaining funds left, they should be used for the benefit of all the residents of the State of ND in a manner the elected representatives of these people see fit, rather than agenda based programs set forth by small groups of people.
> 
> ledfed wrote: God you are dense gabe.
> 
> Do you understand how much $$$$$$$ is rolling through oil country right now? To use a fraction of it to try to help preserve some aspect of what W. ND once was seems like a VERY logical thing to do. Too bad you and logic go together like whore and church. Nothing you say makes a damn bit of sense.
> 
> *The first two usages you mention I agree with totally and I believe they are being taken care of*._
> 
> Perhaps I am indeed "dense" as you claim led, but please for my sake explain how if things are a "mess" ( "I live in the middle of the oil mess") that things "are being taken care of" as you claim? \
> 
> Christ gabe...do you need it in sign language? That is exactly what we are all talking about when we say you twist things all the time. There is A LOT of money already being directed at the "mess". That is what I meant and if you had even a 1/4 of a brain you would have figured that out.
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy &$#* gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do. Either that or the "powers that be" gave you a raise to come on this site and lie gabe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> led, who exactly do your "sources" claim the "powers that be " are?? You have been asked to substantiate your claim, it will not require youto reveal your "sources"  to simply verify who the "powers that be" that you claim heve "hired/delegated" me to "come on this site and lie" are?
> 
> Please show me by substantiating your claim where a lie exists in what I have posted on this site.
> 
> Credibility led,
> 
> What you acuse and yet won't/can't prove matters.
> 
> Perhaps when you grow up a bit you will realize this.
Click to expand...

Lead said,
Like I said before gabe, I know what I was told and that is that you are here on the behalf of another organization to try to protect your agenda. I don't give a ****, once again, if you think it is credible or not. It is what it is and that is the truth. None of what you say is credible due to a conflict of interest anyway so why should you worry about my credibility?

You want me to grow up?...you mean to your size?...Hell then I'd have to worry about diabetes  :lol: oke:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Holy &$#* gabe and shaug you two must have a lot of time on your hands to sit around and post as much as you two do.


Just stopping in between calving cows led, but I would guess "radicals" like you and swift and plainsman would indeed be much happier without people like shaug and I (or gohon, angus 1, and old poop from 5 years ago  ) holding you guys accountable for the rhetoric you spout. :roll: :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Lead said,Like I said before gabe, I know what I was told and that is that you are here on the behalf of another organization to try to protect your agenda. I don't give a &$#*, once again, if you think it is credible or not. It is what it is and that is the truth


led, we have already established that I do not think this claim you have made is "credible" so what you think of what I think is irrelevant! :wink: 

It is other people that may read your childish posts who perhaps you should concern yourself wether they beleive you have any credibility left hiding behind your computer screen making accusations you refuse to prove because you know you can not.

So should we just assume your dodging and ducking the questions such as who the "powers that be" that you claim "hired/delegated" me "to come on this site and lie" are the result of not being able to prove a juvenile school yard claim ("yeah, well you have cooties") that was made out of frustration of not being able to find ones way out of a corner they found themselves in and childish personal dislike?

Can we assume since you have not proven this claim you made with an example of where and when I have came on this site and "lied" is itself a lie created as a result of an inability to respond within a discussion with anything of pertinant value and so results in a school yard "your momma wers army boots" retort?

Credibility led, the words you post determine it or the lack there of.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lead said,Like I said before gabe, I know what I was told and that is that you are here on the behalf of another organization to try to protect your agenda. I don't give a &$#*, once again, if you think it is credible or not. It is what it is and that is the truth
> 
> 
> 
> *led, we have already established that I do not think this claim you have made is "credible" so what you think of what I think is irrelevant! :wink: *
> 
> BINGO and I feel the same!!!!!! I think its safe to say we both understand that we hate each other gabe, no reason to skirt around the obvious. :wink:....and if you deny that well, i guess once you tell one lie its easy to tell another. :wink:
> It is other people that may read your childish posts who perhaps you should concern yourself wether they beleive you have any credibility left hiding behind your computer screen making accusations you refuse to prove because you know you can not.
> *
> So should we just assume* your dodging and ducking the questions such as who the "powers that be" that you claim "hired/delegated" me "to come on this site and lie" are the result of not being able to prove a juvenile school yard claim ("yeah, well you have cooties") that was made out of frustration of not being able to find ones way out of a corner they found themselves in and childish personal dislike?
> 
> You can assume all you want, it wouldn't be anything new.
> Can we assume since you have not proven this claim you made with an example of where and when I have came on this site and "lied" is itself a lie created as a result of an inability to respond within a discussion with anything of pertinant value and so results in a school yard "your momma wers army boots" retort?
> 
> Credibility led, the words you post determine it or the lack there of.
Click to expand...


Once again I could care less if you think what I say is credible or not gabe. Why don't you just let us know....why are you hiding it gabe? :wink: Geesh, between talking about the male sexual organ all the time, flat out telling lies, copying and pasting snippits of posts to make em look and read how you want, and *****ing about this site its amazing you even have one calf to brand in the spring. There can be NO WAY you have any heifers to calve. :lol:


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> There is your answer Shaug. Your own words contradicting each other.


You kind of lost me there. To be clear, what I said was, the Pitt-Robertson money goes to the Game and fish. It doesn't go through the ND general fund first.

Hey, where did Plainsman go? You don't suppose he is still looking for that rancher petition to seize more control of the badlands? 
You know, the one that doesn't exist.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Swift wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer Shaug. Your own words contradicting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> You kind of lost me there. To be clear, what I said was, the Pitt-Robertson money goes to the Game and fish. It doesn't go through the ND general fund first.
> 
> Hey, where did Plainsman go? You don't suppose he is still looking for that rancher petition to seize more control of the badlands?
> You know, the one that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Do you even know where the badlands are shaugy?


----------



## shaug

lead,

you sound a little irritated............


----------



## swift

GST, Your the spinner here. I will maintain that an irrevocable trust is the same as a perpetual easement.

You brought up the irrevocable trust idea remember?

I will answer your one legitimate question...I do not think the USFWS should be able to change the directives in a signed contract. Given your history of defending breaking contracts it does not suprise me that you hold the USFWS in poor respect when they assert the rights they were given in a signed contract. GST, my friend, you have no integrity on the subject of standing by your word.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> BINGO and I feel the same!!!!!! I think its safe to say we both understand that we hate each other gabe, no reason to skirt around the obvious. ....and if you deny that well, i guess once you tell one lie its easy to tell another


led, if you wish to work yourself up to "hate" someone on an internet site, I guess that is certainly your choice, but you will have to dance that dance alone as I have better things to do with my time.  Heck I am so busy pointing out inconsistancies, contradictions, hypocrasies and outright BS in so many claims on here, I have little time to work up a hate for anyone! 

Life is too short led, perhaps you have merely confused sarcasm with hate, but there is indeed a differnce. :wink: 
Perhaps you'll learn that someday. As spent once concluded, this is simply a bit of "entertainment" in my day.

As you seem so concerned with my ability to calve cows led I feel obligated to ease your mind. We run a historic average of less than a 4% death loss thru weaning. 4 years ago with the twins we had we weaned over 100% on 240+ cows. Just got done pulling a calf that came backwards with one hind leg forward. He is up and sucking and doing fine. This year we are set to calve 65 heifers starting any day now. Pehaps led if you wished to stop by sometime I could introduce you to a number of friends and neighbors that actually know me that could tell you a thing or two about our operation that is fact rather than made up internet claims.  And for anyone else as concerned as led, pm me and I can get you in touch with a couple of "sources"  that "know" a little more than led "thinks" he knows" that I "know" that I "think" he "thinks" he "knows" or how ever that "I may know more than you think" claim went! :wink:

I said a few posts back "this is going to be entertaining", refering to your attempts (or lack of) to substantiate your claims and accusations, but you have let us down led, no smoking gun, no grainy video of money changing hands, no garbled tapes of people "designating someone to come on this site and lie", co corroberating evidence, nothing at all! 

Perhaps your "sources" are not as credible and informed as you beleive, I mean if there actually existed proof of your claims, I would imagine given your now admitted "hate", it would get the better of you and you would have to post them eh? :-? :wink:

I mean how could you pass up a chance to prove someone you "hate" is a "liar" as you claimed? :-?

Simply made up accusations and claims made from an anonomous individual hiding behind his computer screen on line. :roll: 
Disappointing indeed. :eyeroll:

Hey led, didn't Brad Paisley have a song about that?? :wink:

http://www.cmt.com/videos/brad-paisley/ ... ist=760526

led isn't the internet great, you can be anyone you wish and say anything you like as long as you do not reveal your true identity so people can base what you pretend to be against who you really are. :wink:

How does the song go led ?

"I'm so much cooler online"  :wink: 

Anyway, try not to let your "hate" get the better of you led any more than it already has, as I said life is too short. Most people realize that when they have experieced life a bit.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GS?
> 
> I will answer your one legitimate question...I do not think the USFWS should be able to change the directives in a signed contract.


 So swift if there was a program where the USF&WS where entering into perpetual easements where they did in fact maintain the ability to change the terms of the easement after they were entered into should that proram be discontinued?

Swift there were three other questions asked here you "dismissed" that are indeed relevant to this discussion.

1.Swift, will the use of perpetual easements by the USFWS or any other group or org. allow this "right to be stewards of the land as they see fit" for each subsequent generation as you claim they should have? Remember swift these were YOUR own words, surely you can defend them! :wink:

2.Swift do you think property rights are absolute?

3.Swift do you think the ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on private property should be regulated?

4.Why is it swift you will not answer these questions?

Do not feel like you need to answer that last one swift, I think most reasonable people already know why! :wink:

How much paint did you use to get back in that corner swift? 

In case you're wondering swift my answers to those above questions would be:

1.No
2.No
3.Yes
4.Well you know, it is hard to get out of a corner you have gotten yourself into especially when it will make your claims look bad. :wink:


----------



## gst

Enjoy the conversation guys, it appears plainsamn has taken a vaction from moderating  :wink: (or perhaps he wouldwegh leds "hateful" comments against the user agreement led surely signed to post on here  ) and there is little value left to conversing as swift will not address or defend his own statements  .

Perhaps when indsport drops by he can answer the question he did not before and a conversation can resume.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Enjoy the conversation guys, it appears plainsamn has taken a vaction from moderating  :wink: (or perhaps he wouldwegh leds "hateful" comments against the user agreement led surely signed to post on here  ) and there is little value left to conversing as swift will not address or defend his own statements  .
> 
> Perhaps when indsport drops by he can answer the question he did not before and a conversation can resume.


Hahaha...you are a first class baby gabe. Picked on too much as a kid i bet.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Anyway, try not to let your "hate" get the better of you led any more than it already has, as I said life is too short. Most people realize that when they have experieced life a bit.


Oh don't worry bout me gabe. I don't throw the hate word around very often at all so you should feel privledged :wink: Although I'm pretty sure what I "hate" more than anything is your condescending, arrogant attitude....you know, the I am the one who is right, you idiots are all wrong. Baisically the inability to see both sides of a discussion. That is why I have given up trying to say anything logical to you , it just won't register.

As far as experiencing life, once again I'm not really worried about that either. Seen, done and learned an awful lot already. The better question would be how much life have you experienced outside of that farm in Antler, ND?....college?....world travel? Tell us all what life experiences you have had that make you so much more versed in the art of life than me?

As far as seeing your super rancher operation, I'll pass. I can drive 2 miles down my road and watch my buddy run a 1000 head operation any day I want. The beauty of his operation is his and his families attitude. No whining, crying, and wanting more, more, more, more like you do.


----------



## gst

led, I am glad you can "watch" your buddy run a 1000 head operation, I wish we had the type of land that allowed us to run more cattle in this country, but we make due with what we have.

Perhaps I could push for "more and more and more" and outbid my friends and neighbors that run cattle up here as well, but I like having friends and neighbors that run cattle up here.

Super rancher though???? Not hardly led, just try my best to do my best and care for the animals I am responsible for in a good manner and speak up when others malign what I do for a living.



leadfed said:


> BINGO and I feel the same!!!!!! I think its safe to say we both understand that we *hate* each other gabe, no reason to skirt around the obvious.





leadfed said:


> Oh don't worry bout me gabe. I don't throw the *hate* word around very often at all so you should feel privledged Although I'm pretty sure what I "hate" more than anything is your condescending, arrogant attitude....you know, the I am the one who is right, you idiots are all wrong. Baisically the inability to see both sides of a discussion.


led, I most times simply point out peoples own words that they apparently choose not to give much thought to before posting that some times point out inconsistancies and hypocrasies with what they claim. I can imagine for those who seem to do this more than others the frustration could make you construe it as being condescending or arrogant.

I am glad you have some good neighbors led, we as well have some good neighbors. Besides my parents, a couple of them have been people I have looked up to as well. Over the years from when I was young, brash and foolish, I was able to realize some of the things I said and did in my youth were rather childish,,,,, jealousy, hate, name calling ,,,,, I never saw these people engage in that juvenile behavior. I also saw them speak up when others told untruthes wether intentional or not. Often times they did so in a cutting manner that would make one stop and consider what they had said.

I remember once thinking what an arrogant condescending comment someone made in reply to something I had said, until I actually took the time to consider what it was I had said. It was one of those moments that shed a little light into ones self. I still find myself at times saying things I wish I had not, but I have realized the foolishness of allowing jealousy,anger or hatred to dictate my words.

Sarcasm?????

yes. :wink:

Hatred,,,,,,, it's a consumption of ones self and a waste of one's time.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Hatred,,,,,,, it's a consumption of ones self and a waste of one's time.


You're so noble and well meaning super rancher. You think of yourself as a provider and savior of the modern world. I as well as others would call you a parasite to america.

Hatred is by no means consuming me bud and it only takes me a second or two to realize I hold you and what you say to the same standard as a free roaming mutt so it doesn't waste my time either.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> BINGO and I feel the same!!!!!! I think its safe to say we both understand that we *hate* each other gabe, no reason to skirt around the obvious.


Your own words led.

Like I said, you'll have to dance that tune by yourself, but if you would, please get your neighbors to shake out that saddle blanket you have, It seems you just can't quite get the burr you seem to have under it out. 

It seems to keep you from adding anything of much value to the "serious discussions" regarding agriculture this site is noted for!! :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> You're so noble and well meaning super rancher. You think of yourself as a provider and savior of the modern world.


Not hardly led, I simply think I have learned a little more at almost 50 than I thought I knew in my 20's and 30's. Some people that actually, really do know me might tell you that would not have been to hard to accomplish! 

MANY people besides myself have experienced this revalation, (I might say most) and yet sadly some never do.


----------



## swift

> So swift if there was a program where the USF&WS where entering into perpetual easements where they did in fact maintain the ability to change the terms of the easement after they were entered into should that proram be discontinued?


Discontinued? NO! If you enter into it knowing it could change then you are making an informed decision to do so. Why should you or anybody else remove that option for a landowner?

As for your other questions there is no need to answer them as they are just another way to fill up a post with useless information. Next time you cry landowner rights are you going to cave in because they are not absolute. You are such a hypocrit.

Why have you ignored the Irrevocable trust comparison? because you haven't found a way to spin it to support your egotistical way of thinking is likely why.

I suspect if you're as friendly and open with your neighbors as you are on this site, I have found the reason you must log hours of social time on this site just to have a conversation. I suspect you are the neighbor everyone hopes will win the lottery and move away. IMHO only.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I will answer your one legitimate question...I do not think the USFWS should be able to change the directives in a signed contract


swift are you trying to confuse people???? First you say they should not be able to change the "directives" of a signed contract, now below you are saying they should be able to and if you signed it too bad????? 

Kinda like argueing with a woman/  Can;t have it both way swift so which is it? 



swift said:


> So swift if there was a program where the USF&WS where entering into perpetual easements where they did in fact maintain the ability to change the terms of the easement after they were entered into should that proram be discontinued?
> 
> 
> 
> Discontinued? NO! If you enter into it knowing it could change then you are making an informed decision to do so. Why should you or anybody else remove that option for a landowner?
> 
> So then swift you are in favor of the USF&WS being able to enage in a perpetual easement agreement in which they retain the ability to change the parameters of the agreement after it is signed??? Just so you are aware that is EXACTLY what is happening in their current Dakota Grasslands Initiative
> 
> As for your other questions there is no need to answer them as they are just another way to fill up a post with useless information.
> 
> 1.Swift, will the use of perpetual easements by the USFWS or any other group or org. allow this "right to be stewards of the land as they see fit" for each subsequent generation as you claim they should have? Remember swift these were YOUR own words, surely you can defend them.
> 
> So swift you will not try to explain how each generation should have the right to be stewards of their land as they see fit as you stated, when the perpetual easements you support denies them that right??? If there is a hypocritical stance swift that is it.
> 
> So Next time you cry landowner rights are you going to cave in because they are not absolute. You are such a hypocrit.
> 
> 3.Swift do you think the ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on private property should be regulated?
> So swift, if property rights are "absolut" there should be no regulation on what an individual does on their property including building a feedlot or a packiing plant.
> So swift,
> 2.Swift do you think property rights are absolute?
> And if one "right" can be regulated/controled/denied, why can not another?
> 
> Why have you ignored the Irrevocable trust comparison? because you haven't found a way to spin it to support your egotistical way of thinking is likely why.
> 
> Swift go back and read and you will realize I explained the difference.
> 
> I suspect if you're as friendly and open with your neighbors as you are on this site, I have found the reason you must log hours of social time on this site just to have a conversation. I suspect you are the neighbor everyone hopes will win the lottery and move away. IMHO only.
Click to expand...

You guys sure seem to have a burr under your saddle and can not help but try and make everything personal. :roll: Do you know any of my neighbors swift, yet you are making assumptions about them as well??? :-?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Nice diatribe GST, but your again showing your animosity toward anything non-agriculture.
> 
> The hunting aspect, conservation aspect and ag intrest aspect of your post really has nothing to do with my reasoning on this topic.
> 
> Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.  If my grandpa liked the pitch from the USFWS and wanted to enter into a perpetual agreement with the USFWS you and your holier than thou organizations should not have a word to say about it. Much the same way your greatgrandpa had the foresight to protect what he thought was important from the greedy generations to come.
> 
> If you don't like the pitch from the USFWS then don't enter into an agreement with them. But don't think you have the ability through your orgs to deny me the right to sign that contract if I feel it is right for me.
> 
> What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."
> 
> If the perpetual easements by the USFWS are such a bad thing then nobody would sign up for them and your problem would go away through atrition. But, you feel the need to dictate to others what is good and what is bad and make the decision for them by removing one of the options.
> 
> To make it simplier for you.
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IF NOBODY LIKES IT NOBODY WILL SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IT DOESN'T NEED A LAW TO PREVENT THOSE THAT DO LIKE IT FROM SIGNING UP FOR IT.
> 
> You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.
> 
> Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.


Okay swift just answer one "legitimate" question. Given YOUR statement from the above quote in context, which is as follows:
"_Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."_

If a perpetual easement is entered into by the current generation how can every subsequent generation have the "same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" as you clearly stated they should each have? 

Please answer the above posed legitimate question directly swift.

Don't spin this swift, they were YOUR own words. Realize what you said you beleive is each persons right can not happen if a perpetual easement is put in place on that land. It can not happen, you can not have it both ways.


----------



## shaug

Last summer I attended a meeting hosted by the USFWS. Lloyd Jones the director gave a schpeel why people need to support the Dakota Grasslands Iniative. Most of the people in the room were against it. Mostly because they didn't like perpetual easements. 30 years max. There was only three in the room for the Dakota Grasslands Iniative. Two were Ducks Unlimited. One talked about how sad it is going to be someday trying to explain it to his kids why there are no ducks and geese. There was scoffing all around the room. We have more ducks and geese now than ever.

Another fellow talked about how if he had more land he would enroll more. His name was Craig Larson. He owns Starion Financial Bank. He doesn't make his livelyhood off of his land. Craig was also a sponsor of the HFI. Part of this same little crowd.

Durring the question and answer session I asked Lloyd Jones how much money the USFWS has in the DGI fund since the freshman congressmen defunded or took the money away (Feb. 19th, 2012) after Sen. Harry Reid had secured funding through one of those midnight deals (Dec., 2011).
Lloyd answered me that program has been defunded. OK, then why are we here at this meeting? No answer. BTW, Lloyd was a sponsor of the HFI. Part of that same little crowd.

I suppose if the program was defunded there is always next year next session in Congress to beg for that money. $588 million. Maybe they had the meeting last summer (2011) looking for consensus.

One thing they have learned at these meetings is that ND has a strong AG Coalition who drive on their own nickel spend the time to show at those meetings and give input.

I read somewhere recently that Ducks Unlimited is vowing to go it alone with these easements. Anyway they are pounding their chests. The USFWS is now taking comments on-line. I guess the meetings thingy wasn't working for them.

When the USFWS goes back to Congress to beg for $588 million they will need proof that there is consensus. They are not going to tell what happened at those meetings last summer. They will trot out their on-line comments. The bureauacracy knows no bounds.

If the facts don't fit the theory, then change the facts.


----------



## gst

swift must be waiting for the paint to dry!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> swift must be waiting for the paint to dry!


Or he has better things to do than check this site every hr like you super rancher. Better watch out swift. It appears gabe misses your presence and as much as he's been talking about "willies" lately, id be worried if I were you.lol


----------



## gst

led, In between the presonal crap, swift at least addresses the conversation to some extent.

He made the following statement:
swift wrote:
"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

This statement and position is the very policy the NDFB supports!!!!!!  Apparently swift is more into with this org. than he would like to admit!!! :wink: 

I'm just curious as to how this beleive swift claims to have can happen when the current generation signs a perpetual easement today, on the land future generations will call "theirs"? From my veiw point it can not happen, as the "perpetual" easement will indeed limit every subsequent generation from having "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"", but I would like to hear swifts ideas how his beleif can be acomplished after a perpetual easement limiting doing "what they see fit" has been put in place.

per·pet·u·al[ pər péchoo əl ] 
1. lasting forever: lasting for all time
2. lasting indefinitely: lasting for an indefinitely long time

Preferably in direct, "simple terms".


----------



## swift

> I'm just curious as to how this beleive swift claims to have can happen when the current generation signs a perpetual easement today, on the land future generations will call "theirs"? From my veiw point it can not happen, as the "perpetual" easement will indeed limit every subsequent generation from having "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"", but I would like to hear swifts ideas how his beleif can be acomplished after a perpetual easement limiting doing "what they see fit" has been put in place.


The exact same way is can when the land is in an irrevocable trust. It's not my fault your "willie" cannot see that.

You should be able to figure out that my statement that a landowner should be able to be stewards of their land as they see fit includes now and when they are gone. Many people choose to have the idea that they do not care what happens once they are gone. Some do care. Some sign irrevocable trusts some sign perpetual easements. The beauty of it is each person has the opportunity to do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons. You and yours want to remove an opportunity for some. That is wrong. That is elitist and that is bullying through legislative means.

So, NO I do not have the same mindset of the NDFB. I do not believe I know what is best for other people and try to take away their freedoms. That is the NDFB's way.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I'm just curious as to how this beleive swift claims to have can happen when the current generation signs a perpetual easement today, on the land future generations will call "theirs"? From my veiw point it can not happen, as the "perpetual" easement will indeed limit every subsequent generation from having "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"", but I would like to hear swifts ideas how his beleif can be acomplished after a perpetual easement limiting doing "what they see fit" has been put in place.
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same way is can when the land is in an irrevocable trust. It's not my fault your "willie" cannot see that.
> 
> You should be able to figure out that my statement that a landowner should be able to be stewards of their land as they see fit includes now and when they are gone.
> 
> Once that land owner is "gone" how can the next one in line," have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"???
> 
> Or does that ideology only apply to the current generation owning the land??? Swift you can not be so blindly biased you can not see a perpetual easement takes away EXACTLY what you claim "Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> Many people choose to have the idea that they do not care what happens once they are gone. Some do care. Some sign irrevocable trusts some sign perpetual easements. The beauty of it is each person has the opportunity to do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons.
> 
> Right up until a perpetual easement is encumbered onto that property, then the" same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit." or do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons" " ends. How can you not realize that?
> 
> You and yours want to remove an opportunity for some.
> 
> Wrong swift, we wish to allow the same "opportunity" for EACH generation that the one before it had.
> 
> That is wrong. That is elitist and that is bullying through legislative means.
> 
> So if a bill was introduced to limit the numbe of non residents a G/O could have would THAT be "bullying through legislative means" and "elitist?????
> 
> It is funny that when something occurs that you disagree with. it is "bullying" or "conspiracies" thru the legislative assembly tat is ellected by ALL NAans, but when it is something that suits your ideals it is not. :roll:
> 
> So, NO I do not have the same mindset of the NDFB.
> 
> So swift then are you now claiming this statement you made:
> "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> is no longer the way you feel? Because you have not explained how if a perpetual easement is encumbered onto a parcel of property how any subsequent genertations will have the above "right" you claim each person should have?????
> 
> I do not believe I know what is best for other people and try to take away their freedoms.
> 
> So exactly what do you call supporting the placement of perpEtual easements that WILL TAKE AWAY THE "FREEDOM" OF EVERY SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS "RIGHT TO BE STEWARDS OF THEIR LAND AS THEY SEEM FIT", OR "HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY DO WHAT THEY THINK IS CORRECT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL REASONS" ?????
> 
> YOUR own words swift.
> 
> That is the NDFB's way.
Click to expand...

You simply can not have it both ways swift.


----------



## swift

spin as you wish master spin rancher.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Some sign irrevocable trusts some sign perpetual easements. The beauty of it is each person has the opportunity to do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons.


Every subsequent generation no longer has "_the opportunity to do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons_ "



swift said:


> You should be able to figure out that my statement that a landowner should be able to be stewards of their land as they see fit includes now and when they are gone.


Swift, when the landowner that encumbers the land is "gone", he is no longer the "_landowner_" and someone else becomes the "_landowner_". So should this new landowner "_have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit_"?

Or are you merely concerned with the current generation as it is what most directly impacts you?

Perhpas your dismissal of every subsequent generations "_same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit_" is an example of "greed at it's darkest" and an "elitist" ideal of what is best for you rather than these following generations. :wink: 

swift wrote:
]"_Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."[/_

Your own words swift.

This can not happen when one generation encumbers the land and every subsequent generation with a perpetual easement stipulating how the land may be used.

NO spin, simply fact.


----------



## swift

> Every subsequent generation no longer has "the opportunity to do what they think is correct for their own personal reasons "


So, your stating an opposition to an irrevocable trust not too. Is that also the policy of the NDFB?


----------



## swift

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly, that sure sounds reasonable,,,eh gst?
> 
> 
> 
> Spent, indeed the part that was answered does sound quite reasonable.  :wink:
> 
> Despite the cries of those on here that engage in the rhetoric we see in almost every ag related thread, I have a strong commitment to having conservation be a part of production agriculture. This is something that was instilled in me fom my father by example and I hope I am instilling in my kids by the same means. And while I am instilling in my kids this commitment to putting more back in the land than you take out and an appreciation of the things lands are used for other than producing food and fiber, I also wish them to have the ability to make these same decisions for themselves down the road.
> 
> Spent in case you missed it here is the question that was not answered in a post that was pointedly meant to answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what would you determine the *terms of duration* be for the conservation programs created from this measure?[/quote
> 
> spent if you and I and indsport were sitting having a shot of mescal after a dinner of liver and onions, I would likely enjoy a conversation void of the childish rhetoric seen here and indeed probably agree on many things. But it can not be denied there are those within the community that is proposing this measure that have also steadfastly refused to compromise and demanded a perpetual duration be tied to other conservation programs.
> 
> *If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.*
> If you cannot see that this statement , your statement, contradicts your arguement about the perils of future generations being affected then there is no use continueing this dialogue.
> 
> It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be give to or granted by the govt. We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.
> 
> Should these conservation programs not be mutually beneficial?
> 
> And if they are indeed mutually beneficial will they not attract persons from each generation into paricipating?
> 
> So spent, while the portion of what indsport answered is indeed "reasonable" one wonders about the portions and consequences of this measure that remain unanswered.
> 
> (And on a side not to those claiming infrstructure needs are being adequately cared for in western ND perhaps you should talk with those a little better in the know.)
> 
> So within the conversation you and I and indsport would be having, I would ask how will he ensure those that have sponsored tis measure will not hold thir perpetual duration a part of any program created by this measure?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## shaug

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

Thanks Shaug for showing that the terms of the contract are spelled out and the signee should understand what he is agreeing to.
I believe the individuals are best to decide what is best for them not an organization, neighbor, or anyone else.

GST, How can you advocate for control in "perpetuity" after your gone, when you no longer own the land after your gone? Isn't that the way you put it to me? It seems you have a hypocritical view of this subject. No more spins, Do you support a persons right to set up an irrevocable trust or not?

If you do then you have NO basis to oppose perpetual easements. Period end of discussion.


----------



## indsport

My weekly visit and comments. I see no difference between a land owner giving his land to the government (e.g. USFWS) or signing a perpetual easement or an irrevocable trust or any other agreement and it is entirely up to the landowner. It is where I diverge from NDFB and I have stated this elsewhere on the forum and I will repeat it here. The landowner can consider "future generations" but no one should be able to tell a landowner whether he signs a limited term or perpetual easement, irrevocable trust (that could also affect future generations). How can an organization claim to support private property rights but require a specific limitation on a landowner entering into any agreement that could last more than one generation? One example I can recall, the landowner, his children and his adult grandchildren all wanted to put some wetlands and associated uplands into a perpetual easement to honor their grandfather but NDFB opposed it anyways. Again, it is up to the current landowner and the future generations argument is solely at the discretion of the landowner. If it was so all fired important, why aren't more landowners writing the contract that says it expires when the land owner dies or the land changes ownership? Further, any landowner should be smart enough to write the easement contract so the land can continued to be used for agriculture purposes such as grazing. As to Shaug's comment that conservation programs are adequately funded, how come there are over 800 landowners on waiting lists for various conservation programs in Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Ag? The reason is simple. There is not enough money to go around and the budget passed by the House in Washington will cut those programs further. I see the legacy funds and the initiative money as a possible way to meet the needs of landowners. However, there is no waiting list at this time for CRP signups as far as I know. Another point to revisit is the fact that duck stamp dollars pay for land acquistion by Dept. of Interior and does not come from taxpayer dollars. It is a voluntary program as well. As to the other funds that come from the federal oil and gas tax, that was negotiated years ago and its intent was to provide funding to all the states, that at the time, had little or no recoverable oil and gas resources rather than just put all that money back to the states where the resources were located. Lastly, a landowner should be able to negotiate the terms of the easement but once the contract is signed, then they should only be able to be altered by common consent of both the landowner and the easement holder. BTW, thanks shaug for the information on easements. Good stuff.

Back to your regularly scheduled sniping at each other.


----------



## gst

Re: NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

by gst » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:08 am 
swift wrote:What is the difference GST? Greatgrandpa made a decision two generations ago that will affect you on that land today. Your arguement is invalid if you support irrevocable trusts. Typical GST though caught in deception so ask another question instead of manning up and admitting your wrong.

_
swift Although unlikely, I will try and explain it in a manner you may understand.

*In the example of Grandpa putting the Olsen quarter in an irrevocable family trust to remain in native sod, it is Grandpa"s rules and stipulations that accompany that land thru out the generations.

In an example of Grandpa putting the Olsen quater in a perpetual agreement with the USF&WS, it is the USF&WS rules and stipulations that accompany that land thru out the generations. *

And please note the following answers to the questions you avoided answering, they do indeed play a part in understanding the difference.

Every single generation of producers impacted by these decisions until the end of existance as we know it on this planet can not change or alter or opt out of said USF&WS perpetual easement or Grandpas trust. (at least without extensive, expensive legal manuevering)

Now take note swift, this is an important part of the difference.

*The USF&WS retains the ability to change (and relax or possibly further restrict) the stipulations under which these lands enrolled in these perpetual easements can be managed at any point in time in the future.

Grandpa under the irrevocable family trust can not. *

Big difference.

Why is this a concern to some producers that look farther down the road than others?

Upon creating agreements with the Federal govt back when the Federal grasslands and Forrest Services lands were established as to these lands usage, a clearly defined policy of multiple use including the grazing of livestock was established for the management of these lands.

Over time, slowly but surely, piece by piece, groups have worked successfully to influence these agreements to remove grazing from the multiple use management of these Federal lands.

So tell me swift, why should anyone think either these USF&WS land agreements, or a state sponsored program will be any different as time goes on?

Should we beleive that sudenly people like we see using the rhetoric they do on this site will suddenly see the light in that their demands placed on the lands over their concerns for their recreational pleasures will not affect the ability to use them to produce food and fiber for a majority of societies daily needs if necessary?

Should we suddenly (even after the last HFH measure attempt) beleive that the arrogance of demanding others capitulate to your ideals of how these private lands be used will suddenly end?

swift you and I will likely never see the end consequences of it in our lifetime, but the fact is there are fewer people in this country and world every year that hunt, yet there are more and more people in this country and world that are becoming more and more concerned to the increaseing amount of their income they spend on foodand th avalibility of this food.

In the example you gave swift, what do you think it would be that drove soybeans to $21/bushel, double their average price now in what is now a global market????? If beans are $21 every other comodity produced for food will be as correlatingly high. How will that affect food costs???

Eventually these people will demand that policies allow as much food to be produced as possible on the private lands avalible for food production and at that point who will be there to ensure conservation still happens on these lands?

Eventually these people will demand Congress change the stipulations and policies of how these Federal lands under their control will be managed. And at that point swift, who will be there to ensure conservation still happens on these lands?

The answer swift is the producers themselves. At that point wether there exists mutually beneficial conservation programs and the desire of people to work cooperatively (rather than shoving things down someones throats wether they like it or not and using the type rhetoric we see on this site regarding agriculture) will determine the level of participation in any conservation programs.

A few people on here are so narrow minded and allow their personal anomousities to cloud their ability to reason that they cannot see there are those people out there that are looking farther down the road than they have ever considered doing themselves regarding agriculture and conservation.

Simply take one look at the most recent of any number of countries in which a shortage of food has changed policy.

Take a look at what is happening now in North Korea and why. We saw it happen in Egypt, it brought down the former Soviet Union, most countries thru out history that have fallen from within have been dismantled by people with hungry stomaches, do not be so arrogant to beleive that a need and shortage of food or prohibitive cost of food could not do the very same thing in this country at some point.

To demand ones recreational wants take precedent over ensuring the future of this nations food production policies will be looked at here at some point, the same way they have been in every other nation that has become so arrogant to forget what lies at the foundation of their existance.

Some of us simply beleive a volantary, cooperative, single generation, renewable, mutually beneficial approach void of the rhetoric towards agriculture so often seen on this site is ultimately the path that would serve conservation and wildlife interest best within agricultural production.

Radical ideas I know, but some who can actually see common ground might say it has worked quite well so far here in ND.

Swift, one question if you would, have you ever seen a poor, hungry "conservationalist"

End quote_

swift, there is your explaination once again to the difference between the two. And no I personally do not support the usage of irrevocable trusts, I am only stating that avenue exists if one wishes to use them.

My personal ideal is to instill in following generations what has been instilled in me, the understanding of the importance of conservation alongside production in agriculture. It is my beleive you get better results by actually showing these following generations the benefits through actual implementation rather than forcing them thru an irrevocable trust.

Having said this, I do beleive there is a line regarding property rights that should not be crossed of of choosing how ones estate is handled WITHIN THE FAMILY UNIT. Once an outside entity such as the Federal govt or a nonprofit becomes involved, I beleive much like it is in many other ways, the "absolute" right to do with ones property as they wish can be regulated.

So swift, do you beleive property rights are absolute?

Do you beleive the right to build a feedlot or packing plant on ones property should be regulated?

What if it is Great Grandpas dying wish that his land will be transferred only if the tansfereee builds a feedlot or packing plant on it to ensure a commitment to the cattle industry continues?

Should this property right automatically occur or should there be a regulatory process one must follow before permission is granted?

Deem these questions "irrelvant" if you will and not answer them , but others will realize they are not and understand your avoidance of answering.

So swift, you have still not expalined how:
"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
This can occur for every subsequent generation when a perpetual easement is put in place?

They are YOUR words clearly spelling out in "SIMPLE TERMS" what you beleive each personas right is.

Would you please explain how what you demand can occur after a perpetual easement has been put in place. .


----------



## swift

> And no I personally do not support the usage of irrevocable trusts, I am only stating that avenue exists if one wishes to use them.


So is this the next right to be argued against by the NDFB? I am glad you cleared it up that you oppose landowners rights to do with their estate what they seem fit. That really seals the coffin to hear such a loud proponent of farming and ranching say he does not agree with someone setting up their estate as they want.

No GST your not an elitist


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> My weekly visit and comments. I see no difference between a land owner giving his land to the government (e.g. USFWS) or signing a perpetual easement or an irrevocable trust or any other agreement and it is entirely up to the landowner. It is where I diverge from NDFB and I have stated this elsewhere on the forum and I will repeat it here. The landowner can consider "future generations" but no one should be able to tell a landowner whether he signs a limited term or perpetual easement, irrevocable trust (that could also affect future generations).
> 
> indsport, I will pose to you the same questions I have to swift.
> 
> Do you beleive property rights are absolute?
> 
> If Grandpa wills his land to his grandson with a stipulation that the land only transfers if a feedlot or packing plant is built, should this property right automatically occur or should there be a regulatory process one must follow before permission is granted?
> 
> So if this property "right" is regulated, why can not the property right under which how long a duration of land easement occurs be regulated as well?
> 
> Why can not who the land is transfered to be regulated as well?
> 
> The purpose of regulating ones ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on ones own property is to consider the impact on society is it not?
> 
> Then why can not the same ability to limit or regulate who or for how long property is sold or used for a purpose to consider the impact on society as well?
> 
> How is one limitation any less of an "infringement" on property rights than the other?
> 
> If a perpetual easement is put in place how is that not an "infringement on every subsequent generations property rights as well?
> 
> How can an organization claim to support private property rights but require a specific limitation on a landowner entering into any agreement that could last more than one generation?
> 
> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property hen the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they wish?????????
> 
> Indsport, in your infinie driveby wisdom, please explain that.
> 
> One example I can recall, the landowner, his children and his adult grandchildren all wanted to put some wetlands and associated uplands into a perpetual easement to honor their grandfather but NDFB opposed it anyways. Again, it is up to the current landowner and the future generations argument is solely at the discretion of the landowner. If it was so all fired important, why aren't more landowners writing the contract that says it expires when the land owner dies or the land changes ownership?
> 
> That was the majority consensus at the USF&WS meetings they held regarding the Dakota Grasslands Initiative. There was very little opposition to th conservation program itself, only the usage of the PERPETUAL easent. And yet Loyd Jones defended theperpetual time frame and would not consider changing it. If the "public hearings" have any impact on thse govtprograms, this should be changed as the vast majority of people in attendance at all three meetings held were in opposisition to the use of a perpetual easement. And yet look what tis program is moving forward with. The imput you suggest landowners having is being disregarded even when presented thru the proper process, these "public input meetings" .
> 
> Further, any landowner should be smart enough to write the easement contract so the land can continued to be used for agriculture purposes such as grazing.
> 
> indsport, you do not seem to realize the landowner can not write up individual contracts with the Federal govt. It took a bit of prying, but at the "public input meeting" the USF&WS held regarding the DGI, Loyd Jones admitted that even after these contracts are signed, the USF&WS retains the ability to change the stipulations of the contract!!!!!
> 
> Do you beleive this little tidbit is being hilighted for the people signing up for this programs??
> 
> Indsport do you beleive the USW&WS shouold have the right to change the terms of a perpetual easement contrat after it has been entered into?
> 
> Do you understand given the changes from the original promises of multiple use including grazing that we are seeing happening on lands contorled by ohers (Federal govt) where the people involved "were smart enough to write them to allow grazing" that are now disallowing grazing that there would be some copncern over any new "agreements"
> 
> As to Shaug's comment that conservation programs are adequately funded, how come there are over 800 landowners on waiting lists for various conservation programs in Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Ag? The reason is simple. There is not enough money to go around and the budget passed by the House in Washington will cut those programs further. I see the legacy funds and the initiative money as a possible way to meet the needs of landowners. However, there is no waiting list at this time for CRP signups as far as I know. Another point to revisit is the fact that duck stamp dollars pay for land acquistion by Dept. of Interior and does not come from taxpayer dollars. It is a voluntary program as well. As to the other funds that come from the federal oil and gas tax, that was negotiated years ago and its intent was to provide funding to all the states, that at the time, had little or no recoverable oil and gas resources rather than just put all that money back to the states where the resources were located.
> 
> indsport, as you stated above these programs are being cut because there exists no money, There exists no money as our govt is broke, every dollar spent on these programs is deficeit spent. Do you beleive these dollars from offshore gas and oil wells should continue to be deficeit spent or used to balance the budget?
> 
> Lastly, a landowner should be able to negotiate the terms of the easement but once the contract is signed, then they should only be able to be altered by common consent of both the landowner and the easement holder. BTW, thanks shaug for the information on easements. Good stuff.
> 
> indsport, so you are suggesting that I should have the ability to negotiate a different contract with the govt than what my neighbor does? Do you understand how the govt works with "equal opportunity" and all that???
> 
> Back to your regularly scheduled sniping at each other.


----------



## gst

indsport you once again in your weekly drive by did not address a concern and question regarding this current discussed measure that I posed earlier. I will include the post in its entireity with the question being at the bottom underlined and emboldened. 

Re: NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

by gst » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:15 pm

_spentwings wrote:Golly, that sure sounds reasonable,,,eh gst?

Spent, indeed the part that was answered does sound quite reasonable.

Despite the cries of those on here that engage in the rhetoric we see in almost every ag related thread, I have a strong commitment to having conservation be a part of production agriculture. This is something that was instilled in me fom my father by example and I hope I am instilling in my kids by the same means. And while I am instilling in my kids this commitment to putting more back in the land than you take out and an appreciation of the things lands are used for other than producing food and fiber, I also wish them to have the ability to make these same decisions for themselves down the road.

Spent in case you missed it here is the question that was not answered in a post that was pointedly meant to answer questions.



gst said:



And what would you determine the terms of duration be for the conservation programs created from this measure?[/quote

spent if you and I and indsport were sitting having a shot of mescal after a dinner of liver and onions, I would likely enjoy a conversation void of the childish rhetoric seen here and indeed probably agree on many things. But it can not be denied there are those within the community that is proposing this measure that have also steadfastly refused to compromise and demanded a perpetual duration be tied to other conservation programs.

If as a producer I would wish to ensure my operation is kept within conservation standards I beleive in even after my passing, I can create an irrevocable trust to ensure my wishes are carried out in perpetuity.

It is simply my beleif as well as MANY in agriculture, that this power not be given to or granted by the govt. We beleive that every generation should have the ability to determine for themselves if each conservation program that is tied to their lands are mutually beneficial.

Should these conservation programs not be mutually beneficial?

And if they are indeed mutually beneficial will they not attract persons from each generation into paricipating?

So spent, while the portion of what indsport answered is indeed "reasonable" one wonders about the portions and consequences of this measure that remained unanswered.

(And on a side not to those claiming infrstructure needs are being adequately cared for in western ND perhaps you should talk with those a little better in the know.)

*So within the conversation you and I and indsport would be having, I would ask how will he ensure those that have sponsored tis measure will not hold thir perpetual duration a part of any program created by this measure?*

Click to expand...

_


gst said:


> *So indsport can you assure us that given the trend of tying these conservation easments to a perpetual term with a one time upfront payment that as Loyd Jones stated "get them the most bang for their buck", this practice will not be included under this new measure and that any conservation easement or programs developed under it will be renewable by either party in nature? ?*


----------



## gst

swift said:


> And no I personally do not support the usage of irrevocable trusts, I am only stating that avenue exists if one wishes to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> So is this the next right to be argued against by the NDFB? I am glad you cleared it up that you oppose landowners rights to do with their estate what they seem fit.
> 
> swift please show where I have "opposed" the ability of someone to use an irrevocable trust within their estate. The fact is I have stated the opposite even though I simply do not personally support it's use. So for you to claim otherwise is simply not true.
> 
> That really seals the coffin to hear such a loud proponent of farming and ranching say he does not agree with someone setting up their estate as they want.
> 
> swift, I would guess for every estate "set up" there would be someone that does not agree with how it was done, some times even including the subsequent generations when there is the usage of a perpetual easement. :wink: After all setting up ones estate in this manner takes away the right you claim is theirs :
> 
> "Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> A "right" YOU swift claim each person should have! :wink: And yet have not explained how this can happen when a perpetual easement is engaged in. Would you care to do so? Or will you simply continue to deflect defending YOUR own words.
> 
> Swift, if you truly beleive what you wrote enlarged above, how can this happen when one enters into a perpetual easement that controls the right of every subsequent generation to use thier lands as they see fit?
> 
> No GST your not an elitist
Click to expand...

Calling someone names is not answering a "relevant" question swift or being a part of the "serious discussions" this site has regarding agiculture. :wink: :roll:


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> The IRS Code, Section 170(h) and numerous state tax codes, provide tax benefits to landowners whocreate 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 tractof land in return for income tax deductions, a reduction in estate tax and lower property taxes - alllucrative 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 notviolate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the land trusts lobbied Congress and changedthe law. *In Real Estate law, no action can be taken to "tie the hands of future owners" onany real property, except for conservation easement.2. Protects natural habitats of fish, wildlife or plants;3. Preserves open space - including farms, ranches or forests; or4. Preserves historically important land or certifi ed historic structures.





indsport said:


> BTW, thanks shaug for the information on easements. Good stuff.


indsport, I can see why you consider this "good stuff"! :wink:

I wonder if those on here that rail against the considerations granted agriculture would oppose this tax break incentive as well??? :wink:


----------



## gst

From shaugs link:
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.*

quote="swift"]No GST your not an elitist[/quote]

Swift perhaps the underlined portion of the above is why you so adamantly support perpetual easements!  And you call me the "elitist"??? :-? 

So swift, you do realize under this arrangement by the land trust engaging with the USF&WS, the USF&WS retains the ability even once these agreements have been signed to change the terms of the easement.

From shaugs link:
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."

All that is left to the landowner at this time is to file a "takings" claim in Federal court.

swift, do you support the ability of the Federal govt thru the USF&WS to be able to do this.

indsport?

If you do not, why do you support any program they bring forth that maintains this ability?

indsport, can you assure us that under this new measure these land trusts created to manage this program will not be allowed to "convey" these conservation agreements to another entity such as the USF&WS?


----------



## leadfed

It's so hard to follow what it is you actually want gabe. Landowner rights, landowner rights, landowner rights on one hand and then wait a minute!............nope, on the other hand you can't do certain things with your land because I, Gabe "super rancher" Thompson know whats best for you and the future of your land.]

God your a stud!lol


----------



## leadfed

Question for ya super rancher. This oil tax revenue we are talking about. Would it really coming from offshore rigs or local ND oil.


----------



## leadfed

Gabe, if I OWN 3 sections of land. Why do you and the NDFB say I can't sell it to whoever I want? That infringes on landowner rights in anyones book. UNLESS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE...right


----------



## gst

gst said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS Code, Section 170(h) and numerous state tax codes, provide tax benefits to landowners whocreate 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 tractof land in return for income tax deductions, a reduction in estate tax and lower property taxes - alllucrative 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 notviolate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the land trusts lobbied Congress and changedthe law. *In Real Estate law, no action can be taken to "tie the hands of future owners" onany real property, except for conservation easement.2. Protects natural habitats of fish, wildlife or plants;3. Preserves open space - including farms, ranches or forests; or4. Preserves historically important land or certifi ed historic structures.
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I wonder if those on here that rail against the considerations granted agriculture would oppose this tax break incentive as well??? :wink:
Click to expand...

 led, do you care to answer?? If I were to enroll my lands in one of these tax break incentive induced conservation programs, would you rail as hard about that as you do other considerations granted agriculture????

led, please show where I have ever claimed landowner/property rights are absolute and can not be ifringed upon.

?????????

led please show where I have ever suggested the funds for this measure will come from offshore oil and gas leases.

??????????

What the burr under your saddle is not allowing you to see, is that it is not me that has made this determination, here in ND, but rather the elected representatives of ALL the citizens of ND. Ufortunately as shown at the Federal level, , the land trust interests lobbied and were granted law stating Federal entities were not subject to state law regarding duration of easements.

led if you could refrain from the personal drama and childish comments it would be interesting to actually have a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture on this site for once.

Perhaps you could turn over a new leaf by answering this one question regarding perpetual easements leaving out the childsih name calling.

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property when the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they wish?????????

led, perhaps you or others can answer this question for me. Why is my ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on property I own regulated and controled and in some instances prohibited?


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Gabe, if I OWN 3 sections of land. Why do you and the NDFB say I can't sell it to whoever I want? That infringes on landowner rights in anyones book. UNLESS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE...right


Only if you beleive landowner/property rights are absolute. Please show where I have ever taken that stance.

Then if you beleive you have that right to sell that land to whomever you choose because landowner/property rights are absolute and should not be infringed upon, why can I not build a feedlot or packing plant on property I own without being infringed upon by laws that regulated, control and sometimes prohibited me from doing so?


----------



## swift

GST, can you elaborate on when landowner rights should be infringed on? Should it be in a regulatory manner? When many people will be negatively affected? Or is arbitrary infringement of landowner rights okay? Such as taking away one persons right to manage their estate as they wish? Where there are few if any other people negatively affected?

If the HFI was a huge infringement on landowner rights why isn't having the ability to sign a perpetual easement?


----------



## shaug

indsport,

Do you currently now, or did you in the past, work for the federal government?

Does your last name begin with the letter "T"?

indsport wrote,



> As to Shaug's comment that conservation programs are adequately funded, how come there are over 800 landowners on waiting lists for various conservation programs in Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Ag? The reason is simple. There is not enough money to go around and the budget passed by the House in Washington will cut those programs further.


The 800 waiting in line is a buzz word like a theme. I've heard Lloyd Jones repeat the same. You already out lined why this program should not be allowed to go further. "There is not enough money to go around." What you really mean is that there is not enough of other peoples money to go around. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said, "the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later it will run out of other peoples money."

indsport wrote,



> However, there is no waiting list at this time for CRP signups as far as I know. Another point to revisit is the fact that duck stamp dollars pay for land acquistion by Dept. of Interior and does not come from taxpayer dollars. It is a voluntary program as well.


Ya know indsport, the check that the DOI receives for the Duck Hunting Stamp must be made out of rubber. It covers a long way.

indsport wrote,



> BTW, thanks shaug for the information on easements. Good stuff.


You are welcome. I realize Swift, leadfed, Plains and the gang are a little short on material. Glad I could help.


----------



## swift

Shaug, Can you explain why a citizens right to enter into a legacy contract should be outlawed as proposed by the NDFB?

What is your personal feelings toward irrevocable trusts?

Do you believe that if the USFWS conservation easements are so bad that people will make the choice to not enter into them?

Do you believe that people need to be protected from themselves when it comes to USFWS perpetual easements?


----------



## indsport

I believe the right of a landowner to enter into a perpetual easement should be absolute. I also believe that the right limiting that land use even to future generations is absolute and the landowner at the time makes the decision. Is it an infringement? Yes, but too darned bad. Convince the landowner who wants a perpetual easement to change their mind if it is all that important. The feedlot example is a distraction because feedlots (as well as many other uses) are regulated in many ways by the government at the federal state and local levels but the only current law about easements is the constitutional restriction on corporate and non profit land ownership that already has been construed to include perpetual easements.

As to the initiated measure, that money goes to state, local and non profit entities through a grant process. It is the state, local or non profit entities that would write any contracts and would make any determinations about easements, not the panel. The argument about easements so far has only related to federal easements, an entirely different contract and process. My thoughts were based on state G&F contracts (like PLOTS), DU grassland easements and the like. 
Shaug entirely missed two points in my post. First, duck stamp money and offshore oil and gas money has never been deficit spending. It actually spends what it takes in and their books actually balance every year between income and outflows. The problem is there are more requests for money than is collected. I see where the initiated measure money would provide additional funds for those landowners that want to be in a similar program run by the state or whomever. Second, the check from duck stamp money is not rubber since it is paid directly from the collected funds and no money comes from the taxpayer. It is actually sequestered (for real) from the regular federal budget. Read the law that established the Duck Stamp program if you don't believe me.


----------



## shaug

swift, if you need the answers to your questions you will have to dig them up yourself. I'm a little busy right now.

indsport wrote,



> As to the initiated measure, that money goes to state, local and non profit entities through a grant process.


Why should non-profit 501(c)3's get any taxpayer dollars. What function do they provide?



> First, duck stamp money and offshore oil and gas money has never been deficit spending.


Let duck stamp monies go back to hunters from which they were derived. Let oil and gas lease monies go to the general treasurey.



> The problem is there are more requests for money than is collected. I see where the initiated measure money would provide additional funds for those landowners that want to be in a similar program run by the state or whomever.


Now you are talking about two different animals here. Do you think the 5% oil tax monies should be used to purchase easements? Keep in mind that oil tax revenue is from ND. Maybe a 30 year easement??? It cannot be used to purchase a perpetual easement as only the USFWS can obtain a perpetual easement.

Oh, I almost forgot. indsport, do you work for the federal government now or in the past? Does your last name begin with the letter "T"?


----------



## swift

Typical Shaug when trapped in your own web of deception you choose not to answer up.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Shaug, Can you explain why a citizens right to enter into a legacy contract should be outlawed as proposed by the NDFB?
> 
> What is your personal feelings toward irrevocable trusts?
> 
> Do you believe that if the USFWS conservation easements are so bad that people will make the choice to not enter into them?
> 
> Do you believe that people need to be protected from themselves when it comes to USFWS perpetual easements?





gst said:


> So swift, you have still not expalined how:"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> How can this occur for every subsequent generation when a perpetual easement is put in place?


Before you can expect answwers to your questions swift, perhaps you should answer this one. They are your own words after all.


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> I believe the right of a landowner to enter into a perpetual easement should be absolute. I also believe that the right limiting that land use even to future generations is absolute and the landowner at the time makes the decision. Is it an infringement? Yes, but too darned bad. Convince the landowner who wants a perpetual easement to change their mind if it is all that important. The feedlot example is a distraction because feedlots (as well as many other uses) are regulated in many ways by the government at the federal state and local levels but the only current law about easements is the constitutional restriction on corporate and non profit land ownership that already has been construed to include perpetual easements.
> 
> Indsport, so you are saying you support the infringement of a perpetual easement dictating what one can do with their land, .........but rail against the infringement of regulations dictating who one can sell their land to??????????
> 
> It appears you as well wish to pick and choose what "infringements" suit your ideals. The feedlot example is not a distraction, but merely and example of the fact property/landowner rights are not absolute.
> 
> ind you did not answer these question posed. Here it is once again.
> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????
> 
> As to the initiated measure, that money goes to state, local and non profit entities through a grant process. It is the state, local or non profit entities that would write any contracts and would make any determinations about easements, not the panel. The argument about easements so far has only related to federal easements, an entirely different contract and process. My thoughts were based on state G&F contracts (like PLOTS), DU grassland easements and the like.
> 
> So then are you stating that under this measure all contracts willhave to abie by state law and will not be subject to perpetual easements?
> 
> Are you then stating that these easements written by a nonprofit will not be able to be conveyed to a Federal agency that is exempt from following state guidelines regarding duration of easements?
> 
> Shaug entirely missed two points in my post. First, duck stamp money and offshore oil and gas money has never been deficit spending.
> 
> ind, before the Act was established directing these funds be used for this purpose where were they allocated?
> 
> The dollars collected from offshore oil and gas revenues could indeed be directed to be applied to reduce the Federal deficeit thru an act of Congress. So every time one is spent when this country is running a deficeit they are indeed being deficeit spent.
> 
> It actually spends what it takes in and their books actually balance every year between income and outflows. The problem is there are more requests for money than is collected. I see where the initiated measure money would provide additional funds for those landowners that want to be in a similar program run by the state or whomever.
> 
> And here in lies the concern. "whomever".
> 
> Second, the check from duck stamp money is not rubber since it is paid directly from the collected funds and no money comes from the taxpayer. It is actually sequestered (for real) from the regular federal budget. Read the law that established the Duck Stamp program if you don't believe me.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Typical Shaug when trapped in your own web of deception you choose not to answer up.


Swift you wrote:

"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

YOUR own words swift.

Please answer the following question.

When a perpetual easemnet is put in place that stipulates what every subsequent generation can do with their lands, how does every single subsequent generation until the end of time then maintain the "right" you claim is theirs in your above statement of "being stewards of their land as THEY seem fit?

We are waiting for you to explain your own words and position swift.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Typical gst, when back into a corner and not able to answer a question or does not want to he tries to change the subject by injecting something else into the conversation. Stop dodging gst and answer the question instead of asking one of your own!

You have had your question answered numerous times! Stop your shell game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To answer your question! As a buyer of the land I know that the easement is in place!!!!!!! To put it more blunt and in a manner that you should understand!

Grandpa bought a 1936 Chevy pickup! At the time it had a few options. Grandpa bought it plain no options! Now today that truck with all the options is worth X which is somewhat more than your plain truck is. Now grandpa used that money he saved(easement payments) to buy another cow! That cow over the years had calves who then had calves etc.. gaining him an advantage overall.

But in your mind you want the cows and someone to give you a Chevy pickup with all the options as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are PO that Grandpa left you a plain jane truck and did not give you the truck with the most options on it!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Typical gst, when back into a corner and not able to answer a question or does not want to he tries to change the subject by injecting something else into the conversation. Stop dodging gst and answer the question instead of asking one of your own!
> 
> You have had your question answered numerous times! Stop your shell game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Ron you will have to please forgive me, exactly what "question" are you referring to?Please let me know and I will do my best to answerit wether you will like th answer or not! :wink:
> 
> To answer your question! As a buyer of the land I know that the easement is in place!!!!!!! To put it more blunt and in a manner that you should understand!
> 
> This is an answer to which particular question ron?
> 
> Grandpa bought a 1936 Chevy pickup! At the time it had a few options. Grandpa bought it plain no options! Now today that truck with all the options is worth X which is somewhat more than your plain truck is. Now grandpa used that money he saved(easement payments) to buy another cow! That cow over the years had calves who then had calves etc.. gaining him an advantage overall.
> 
> But in your mind you want the cows and someone to give you a Chevy pickup with all the options as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> You are PO that Grandpa left you a plain jane truck and did not give you the truck with the most options on it!


Ron I do not bleive we are talking about the value of what Grandpa may have received or wether he spent it on a cow a pickup or hookers and whiskey. 

It seems the discussion always claims there should not be an infringement on the "right" of who you sell the land to or what duration of easement, but the very people that oppose these "infringements" support thru their very actions the "infringement" onto the right of every subsequent generations ability to do with the land what THEY wish.

Ron do you beleive swift should answer the following question as well?

Swift you wrote:

"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

YOUR own words swift.

Please answer the following question.

When a perpetual easemnet is put in place that stipulates what every subsequent generation can do with their lands, how does every single subsequent generation until the end of time then maintain the "right" you claim is theirs in your above statement of "being stewards of their land as THEY seem fit?

Ron perhaps you can directly answer this question as well or perhaps the question posed that indsport, swift and others have avoided answering.

ind you did not answer these question posed. Here it is once again. 
How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????

Ron does a perpetual easement infringe upon the landowner/property rights of every subsequent generation "to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

Ron if you would, after telling me which question you would like me to answer, please answer the above couple.


----------



## shaug

Ron Gilmore wrote,



> Grandpa bought a 1936 Chevy pickup! At the time it had a few options. Grandpa bought it plain no options! Now today that truck with all the options is worth X which is somewhat more than your plain truck is. Now grandpa used that money he saved(easement payments) to buy another cow! That cow over the years had calves who then had calves etc.. gaining him an advantage overall.


Ron, your grandpa bought a 1936 Chevy pickup, plain no options. He more than likely planned on driving it. What if he had sold the option early on that he he couldn't drive it. Would he still have made the purchase?

A few years ago some people wanted a clunker law. These people were serious about it but not taken too seriously. Vehicles older than 198? cannot be licensed or driven on public highways. Persons possessing older vehicles can still have them. They can wash them, look at them, park them in their garage. But the option of driving them has been removed. If those people had been taken seriously, than new persons looking to purchase a 1936 Chevy pickup in 2012 know up front or in the back of their minds that this clunker law could be looming.

Let's say that a clunker law did pass. Anyone who wants to make a purchase of an older vehicle knows up front and early on that they cannot license it so the value of it drops. But they knew that right.

Ron, I think your 1936 Chevy pickup scenerio summed it up best. Perpetual Easements are a "clunker law."


----------



## swift

> "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> YOUR own words swift.


Okay one more time for you to twist again.

When somebody buys land they are bound to exsisting easements. They are aware of those easements prior to buying that land. If I choose to sign a perpetual easement as a way of being a steward of the land during my lifetime and after my death I should be allowed to do so.

When the next generation buys that property with the perpetual easement in place they do so with full knowledge that they will have to adhere to the provisions in place. They can add their own fingerprint to the land but must respect the prior arrangements they agreed to during the purchase transaction.

I understand GST that you don't believe you should have to follow contracts and you should be able to run as you wish.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug instead we have two types of lisence in the state collector and pioneer. So no clunker law, people value the things done and made in the past. Just as an easement is, an agreement from the past that needs to be held to! You knew when you took ownership of the land that is was there, and now like the pickup without options you want those options!


----------



## shaug

Ron,

Permit me to pose the question again. If your grandfather purchased a 1936 Chevy pickup, would he at the very same time have signed an agreement to limit its use. Not drive it. He more than likely intended to use it. Let's say he bought a brand new pickup and to save some money he sold the engine and the wheels back to the dealer. Hmmm

He still has possession, right. Actually what he sold was it's use. Would he still have made the purchase? Probably not. 
Where would the auto industry be today? The "USE" is the economic engine.

Easements curtail "use." The general public is being asked to spend money it doesn't have, to purchase easments on property to curtail use. Keep in mind the fed/gov borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. The general public will have to pay that money back someday with interest. They will need to work. They will need Chevy pickups that have a motor in them to perform a task.

Whether it is a pickup or an acre of land the value lies in its use. A pickup up on blocks has less value. Land with easemnts the same. So what is it that the general public is being asked to purchase? Where is the value in denying "use?" I don't see the general public out there promoting these poor ideas. It is coming from a small handfull of people who claim that they represent the people. But Ron, you and I both know that isn't true.

I've been at some of those meetings watching fellas like Lloyd Jones, director of the USFWS, going head to head with people of ND who are opposed to his agenda.

Perpetual easements are a clunker.


----------



## swift

Shaug, What I can't understand is why not tell lloyd Jones no thanks and walk away? Why must you take the option away from everyone else? Shouldn't you try to advance your agenda through education of the landowners to not enter into those contracts? Obviously. if there are still people interested in signing perpetual easements there are still people that think they work for them. All you are doing is imposing your own will onto another person. That is not the American way, that is bullying through legislative means.

Back to the pickup scenario. If Grandpa knows his truck will be worthless by selling the motor he is making the decision that suits him. We may look back and say I don't understand why he did that but we will know he did it the way he wanted to. Most of us can respect somebodies decision to do with their property what they want without feeling entitled to control that property for them.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> YOUR own words swift.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay one more time for you to twist again.
> 
> When somebody buys land they are bound to exsisting easements. They are aware of those easements prior to buying that land. If I choose to sign a perpetual easement as a way of being a steward of the land during my lifetime and after my death I should be allowed to do so.
> 
> When the next generation buys that property with the perpetual easement in place they do so with full knowledge that they will have to adhere to the provisions in place. They can add their own fingerprint to the land but must respect the prior arrangements they agreed to during the purchase transaction.
> 
> I understand GST that you don't believe you should have to follow contracts and you should be able to run as you wish.
Click to expand...

swift, when did the discussion turn to someone buying land that has an easement on it??? Of course if you ar buying something all the benefits as well as the negatives go with the title.

I thought the question was regarding Great grandpa and the Olson quater being passed down thru the family was it not????

So please answer the question swift, in the example you mentioned of Grandpa passing down the Olson quater he has entered into a perpetual easement on thru the USF&WS, do the subsequent generations have "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

Yes or no?

And at this time, who is actually controling what they do and preventing them from having "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.", Grandpa's wishes or those of the USF&WS?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I understand GST that you don't believe you should have to follow contracts and you should be able to run as you wish.


swift could you post where I have ever stated this?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> shaug instead we have two types of lisence in the state collector and pioneer. So no clunker law, people value the things done and made in the past. Just as an easement is, an agreement from the past that needs to be held to! You knew when you took ownership of the land that is was there, and now like the pickup without options you want those options!


How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????

ron would you care to answer this question?


----------



## swift

One more question,

Since perpetual easements have been a part of farming for generations and are viewed as a viable option to farms for added income, wouldn't they be protected by the Right to Farm amendment? The very amendment you and your group are pushing to pass?


----------



## swift

> So please answer the question swift, in the example you mentioned of Grandpa passing down the Olson quater he has entered into a perpetual easement on thru the USF&WS, do the subsequent generations have "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> Yes or no? Yes they do with the same restrictions as anybody that purchases land with stipulations attached,


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand GST that you don't believe you should have to follow contracts and you should be able to run as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> swift could you post where I have ever stated this?
Click to expand...

Your arguement against the NWF's CRP lawsuit states this very clearly. The lawsuit prevented haying because contractual obligations were not met prior to releasing the CRP for haying. You stated the lawsuit should not have been upheld thereby admitting you believe contracts are made to be broken.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Most of us can respect somebodies decision to do with their property what they want without feeling entitled to control that property for them.


swift what about if that includes building a feedlot or packing plant on that property?

What if it is a decision to allow a wind farm on a property a generation down the road,that has a perpetual easement on it that you supported putting in place?

In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them".

Swift, should a generation or even two or three down the line have the right to allow a power line to transect the property they were willed with a perpetual easemnet on it???

_[b]"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."[/b]_

YOUR own words swift.


----------



## swift

> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????


[/colorIt does not infringe on anybody. If land purchased has an easement you KNOWINGLY buy that land understanding it will be part of your stewardship of the land. It's not that hard to understand GST keep spinning.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us can respect somebodies decision to do with their property what they want without feeling entitled to control that property for them.
> 
> 
> 
> swift what about if that includes building a feedlot or packing plant on that property? Again apples to oranges, zoning or governmental regulation to protect many from one is not the same as infringing on one to protect nobody
> 
> What if it is a decision to allow a wind farm on a property a generation down the road,that has a perpetual easement on it that you supported putting in place? Sell the land and buy other land to put the wind farm on. Geesh it's not that hard.
> 
> In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them". Wrong in both cases I chose what I wanted my land to be forever. I would bet you could support the farmers decision to place a section of land bordering the Bismarck city limits into an irrevocable trust that maintains it as Ag land for ever. Never to be sold for development. Even though in 20 years that land could sell by the square foot and would be worth millions.
> 
> Swift, should a generation or even two or three down the line have the right to allow a power line to transect the property they were willed with a perpetual easemnet on it??? No, again respect for others especially those that gave us all we have must be a foriegn concept to you. If there is a need it will happen through eminent domain so there is a balance built in.
> 
> _[b]"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."[/b]_
> 
> YOUR own words swift.
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

swift said:


> So please answer the question swift, in the example you mentioned of Grandpa passing down the Olson quater he has entered into a perpetual easement on thru the USF&WS, do the subsequent generations have "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> Yes or no? Yes they do with the same restrictions as anybody that purchases land with stipulations attached,
Click to expand...

 You seem to be missing the fact that the perpetual eaement that encumbers the "stipulations" was not entered into by these generations nor was this land purchased with the knowledge of these existing encumberments.

So swift given the fact a perpetual easement exsts on this land, please explain how these generations have the "right" you claimed they should thru YOUR statement.

* "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit* 
."

YOUR own words swift.

So how can EACH person in these subsequent generations have this "right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" when a perpetual easement prevents it?????

You are not answering this question swift, it seems as if you are trying to "spin" things to avoid an honest answer. I can give you the honest answer if you wish, it would go something like this:

"Perpetual easements do in fact prevent every subsequent generation from each person having the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit, but I do not care".

So swift, do you beleive the hunting rights on a peice of property should be severed from the property itself and sold?

Do you beleive there should be restictions regarding the sale of land to non US citizens?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????
> 
> 
> 
> [/colorIt does not infringe on anybody. If land purchased has an easement you KNOWINGLY buy that land understanding it will be part of your stewardship of the land. It's not that hard to understand GST keep spinning.
Click to expand...



swift once again I will ask when did this discussion turn to land being purchased with perpetual easements on it. Was it not you that referenced Grandpa and the Olson quater within a generational transfer?????


----------



## gst

:-? :roll:


swift said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us can respect somebodies decision to do with their property what they want without feeling entitled to control that property for them.
> 
> 
> 
> swift what about if that includes building a feedlot or packing plant on that property? Again apples to oranges, zoning or governmental regulation to protect many from one is not the same as infringing on one to protect nobody
> 
> So swift you are saying the regulations you support that restrict ones ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on ones own property are not a form of "contoling" that property for them?????? You only wish to claim it is irrelevant as it does not help your position. They ar BOTH infringements onto what one can do with ones own property (apples to apples)
> 
> What if it is a decision to allow a wind farm on a property a generation down the road,that has a perpetual easement on it that you supported putting in place? Sell the land and buy other land to put the wind farm on. Geesh it's not that hard. :roll:
> 
> In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them". Wrong in both cases I chose what I wanted my land to be forever. I would bet you could support the farmers decision to place a section of land bordering the Bismarck city limits into an irrevocable trust that maintains it as Ag land for ever. Never to be sold for development. Even though in 20 years that land could sell by the square foot and would be worth millions.
> 
> Swift, should a generation or even two or three down the line have the right to allow a power line to transect the property they were willed with a perpetual easemnet on it??? No, again respect for others especially those that gave us all we have must be a foriegn concept to you. If there is a need it will happen through eminent domain so there is a balance built in.
> 
> So swift you are now saying what you stated earlier is not true???? swift, I thought you beleived thefollowing:
> "_Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit_."
> And yet here you are now saying these subsequent generations should NOT have the right to be stewards of their land as they see fit as you beleive they should NOT have the right to determine to allow a power line to transect their lands.  :-? :roll:
> 
> _[b]"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."[/b]_
> 
> YOUR own words swift.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 They are YOUR own words swift and now you are saying they are not true.


----------



## gst

swift wrote:

_"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."[/_size]

In response to this question:

Swift, should a generation or even two or three down the line have the right to allow a power line to transect the property they were willed with a perpetual easemnet on it???

swift wrote"
_No, again respect for others especially those that gave us all we have must be a foriegn concept to you. If there is a need it will happen through eminent domain so there is a balance built in_.

So what is it swift, should "Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" as you stated earlier???

Or should they not be allowed to do so as you stated above? You simply can not have it both ways swift.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please answer the question swift, in the example you mentioned of Grandpa passing down the Olson quater he has entered into a perpetual easement on thru the USF&WS, do the subsequent generations have "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."
> 
> Yes or no? Yes they do with the same restrictions as anybody that purchases land with stipulations attached,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be missing the fact that the perpetual eaement that encumbers the "stipulations" was not entered into by these generations nor was this land purchased with the knowledge of these existing encumberments.
> 
> So swift given the fact a perpetual easement exsts on this land, please explain how these generations have the "right" you claimed they should thru YOUR statement.
> 
> * "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit*
> ."
> 
> YOUR own words swift.
> 
> So how can EACH person in these subsequent generations have this "right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" when a perpetual easement prevents it?????
> 
> You are not answering this question swift, it seems as if you are trying to "spin" things to avoid an honest answer. I can give you the honest answer if you wish, it would go something like this:
> 
> "Perpetual easements do in fact prevent every subsequent generation from each person having the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit, but I do not care".
> 
> So swift, do you beleive the hunting rights on a peice of property should be severed from the property itself and sold?
> 
> Do you beleive there should be restictions regarding the sale of land to non US citizens?
Click to expand...


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> Shaug, What I can't understand is why not tell lloyd Jones no thanks and walk away?


I don't care if you, and I do mean you alone want to buy an easement on somebody elses land with your money swift. I went to a meeting last summer where the USFWS is proprosing spending $588 million dollars of the US taxpayers money to buy perpetual easements on 240,000 acres in North Dakota. I said stop the spending.

Why can't people just say no.


----------



## shaug

Swift,

Actually a number of people have told the USFWS no. It seems like they have an agenda and are not listening. Which part can't they understand.....the "N" or the "O"!!!!!


----------



## swift

Shaug, Can you show any perpetual conservation easements that have been put in place by force. That is against landowner wishes? If not then you are just trying to encroach on a landowner right which you claim to hold in high regard.

If it is a political spending reason for your dislike of perpetual I find it interesting you supported Conrads desire to increase taxpayer spending in the crop insurance program. It seems a bit hypocritical to scream to stop current spending but support NEW spending.


----------



## swift

So swift you are saying the regulations you support that restrict ones ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on ones own property are not a form of "contoling" that property for them?????? You only wish to claim it is irrelevant as it does not help your position. They ar BOTH infringements onto what one can do with ones own property (apples to apples) I gave a very clear explanation to that scenario. If you cannot understand it then that is your problem. 

What if it is a decision to allow a wind farm on a property a generation down the road,that has a perpetual easement on it that you supported putting in place? Sell the land and buy other land to put the wind farm on. Geesh it's not that hard. :roll:

In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them". Wrong in both cases I chose what I wanted my land to be forever. I would bet you could support the farmers decision to place a section of land bordering the Bismarck city limits into an irrevocable trust that maintains it as Ag land for ever. Never to be sold for development. Even though in 20 years that land could sell by the square foot and would be worth millions. 

Swift, should a generation or even two or three down the line have the right to allow a power line to transect the property they were willed with a perpetual easemnet on it??? No, again respect for others especially those that gave us all we have must be a foriegn concept to you. If there is a need it will happen through eminent domain so there is a balance built in.

So swift you are now saying what you stated earlier is not true???? swift, I thought you beleived thefollowing:
"_Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit_."
And yet here you are now saying these subsequent generations should NOT have the right to be stewards of their land as they see fit as you beleive they should NOT have the right to determine to allow a power line to transect their lands.  :-? :roll: You really aren't that smart are you? Each person has the ability to do with their land as long as it is within the constraints of the contract they signed when they bought the land. Please quit trying to turn everything I say into jibberish that only you can understand. If you do not want to be bound to a perpetual easement; DONT ENTER INTO ONE AND DONT BUY LAND THAT IS ENTERED INTO ONE. That is your choice. So Spins, no decepetion and no excuses.

YOUR own words swift.[/quote][/quote]

They are YOUR own words swift and now you are saying they are not true.[/quote]
You are a real piece of work. Your getting your rearend handed to you in a legitimate debate that shows you have no regard for a persons right to do what they want within the confines of the law with their land. So you decide to twist my words.

For the last time...
I BELIEVE EVERY LANDOWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE A STEWARD OF THEIR LAND, AS LONG AS IT FALLS WITH IN THE LAWS OF THE LAND. I ALSO BELIEVE IN EVERYONES RIGHT TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS THAT ALLOW FOR THAT STEWARDSHIP TO GO ON AFTER THE CURRENT LANDOWNER IS DEAD AND GONE. TWO EXAMPLES ARE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS AND IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS.

FURTHERMORE I BELIEVE PURCHASERS OF LAND HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT ENCUMBERMENTS ACCOMPANY ANY LAND PURCHASE OR LEASE THEY ENTER INTO PRIOR TO SIGNING THE CONTRACT.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT LANDOWNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT ENTER INTO PERPETUAL EASEMENTS IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO. 
UNLESS DUE PROCESS IS FOLLOWED BY THE WAY OF EMINENT DOMAIN NO PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM AN OWNER, AND JUST PAYMENT MUST BE MADE FOR A TAKING THAT HAS GONE THROUGH DUE PROCESS.

I hope that clears it up for you GST. I thought you were mature and intelligent enough to understand that earlier. Afterall I spelled it out to you several times


----------



## swift

> I don't care if you, and I do mean you alone want to buy an easement on somebody elses land with your money swift.


Actually Shaug you want me to not have the option to enter into a perpetual easement. You want to take away one of MY fundemental rights as a landowner and an American to to control my property within the confines of the law as I see fit.

What do you call that kind of a person or group that works to remove a persons private property rights? You called them HFI sponsors, yet your doing the same thing here. The only person on the side of the landowners in both of these assaults on private property rights is ME.


----------



## swift

> In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them". Wrong in both cases I chose what I wanted my land to be forever. I would bet you could support the farmers decision to place a section of land bordering the Bismarck city limits into an irrevocable trust that maintains it as Ag land for ever. Never to be sold for development. Even though in 20 years that land could sell by the square foot and would be worth millions.


GST, I find it interesting you chose to not comment on this paragraph. Are you afraid it would make you look bad to argue against this? You stated you oppose Irrevocable trusts so, surely you must be opposed to this scenario playing out. Funny thing is your NDFB would be the first one there defending the trust.

Shaug what is your opinion of the above hypothetical situation?


----------



## gst

swift are the regulations regarding the building of a packing plant or feedlot that in some cases prohibit the construction an "infringement" on what one can do with their private property?

Yes or no?

gst wrote:
So please answer the question swift, in the example you mentioned of Grandpa passing down the Olson quater he has entered into a perpetual easement on thru the USF&WS, do the subsequent generations have "the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

Yes or no?

swift wrote:
Yes they do with the same restrictions as anybody that purchases land with stipulations attached,

Swift before you begin calling other people "really not that smart", you should look a little closser at what YOU YOURSELF have written. I will post it for you yet one last time as you do not seem to even understand your own statement.

"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"

Please read what YOU wrote swft and take a momentto let it sink in.

swift I do not know how much simpler I can ask it. If there are "restrictions" placed on the Olson quarter from a perpetual easement, how can every subsequent generation have the right to be stewards of their lands AS THEY SEE FIT???????? There is a perpetual easement in place that does not allow them that "right" as you claim EACH person should have. If one of the heirs wishes to build a road across their property to access a site and build a calving facility on these USF&WS easements acres, they can not do so. So how do they have the right to be stewards of their land as they see fit when this easement tells them what they can and can not do????

It is not possible swift.

If you can not understand this simple FACT, there is little use of continueing this discussion.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> In both cases swift you have shown a desire to feel "entitled to control that property for them". Wrong in both cases I chose what I wanted my land to be forever. I would bet you could support the farmers decision to place a section of land bordering the Bismarck city limits into an irrevocable trust that maintains it as Ag land for ever. Never to be sold for development. Even though in 20 years that land could sell by the square foot and would be worth millions.
> 
> 
> 
> GST, I find it interesting you chose to not comment on this paragraph. Are you afraid it would make you look bad to argue against this? You stated you oppose Irrevocable trusts so, surely you must be opposed to this scenario playing out. Funny thing is your NDFB would be the first one there defending the trust.
> 
> Shaug what is your opinion of the above hypothetical situation?
Click to expand...

 swift I have said previously there is indeed a differance between an irrevocable trust where by the grantors (grandpa) stipulations are the ones being followed by subsequent generations and a perpetual easement where by it is the grantees (USF&WS) stipulations being followed.

There is indeed a distinct difference and I do not know how much clearer that can be spelled out?

As stated previously swift, personally I would not subject my heirs to an irrevocable trust of ANY nature, but if I wished land to remain in a certain state, hope that I had instilled the same understanding of the need for BOTH ag production and conservation and they would honor that ideal to the best of their abilities.

I do not know how much clearer I can state that.


----------



## leadfed

Gabe what do you want?lol You want it ALLLLL apparently. You want landowner rights and then you want to control what landowner can do with their land. plain and simple buddy. And YOU call people hypocrites!!!!!!!!

You are a cry baby farmer gabe. Piss and moan, piss and moan when people don't buy into your theory of the "farmer saves all". It's alright though being its the only thing you "think" you know. I mean its all you have ever done. Probably never left the farm to experience any other aspect of the world. You tell people how much you have learned throughout your life but really how much can you learn when all you deal with is cows and farming? Oh you take trips to the "big city" but it most likely involves a meeting about cows and farms. Sure, you carry a rifle around and take a shot at a coyote once in a while and shoot a deer out of your hay and thats enough to make you a sportsman...in your eyes.

I bet it would be paiful for someone to try to visit with you about something other than cows and farms. Just a guess but I bet it is spot on.

You fight for what you belive in but you are so one sided it is impossible for you to converse. It's not your fault gabe, its all you have ever been involved with. Poor guy should have gotten off the farm and seen what the rest of the world has to offer. Instead all you see in the rest of the world is mouths to feed.

It's not your fault though gabe. I understand why you can't possibly imagine some people have a different perspective of the world than you. In "your" world you are the epicenter and everyone should revolve around YOU. I now understand why you get upset with people who dont share every view you have. I mean, the sun would probably get ****** if the planets didn't behave too. :lol:


----------



## swift

Lead keep remembering he is not a representative of farmers. He is just a guy with an abrasive personality and a superiority complex. Dont jidge all farmers by his words. He lives to enflame twist and drag snipets out pf sentances to validate his bizarre quest to divide hunters from farmers.

Did you notice he wont comment on my hypothetical scenario lest he show his real colors.

He really isnt smart enough to grasp somebody elses point of view. I would bet he is a very lonely person.


----------



## leadfed

swift said:


> Lead keep remembering he is not a representative of farmers. He is just a guy with an abrasive personality and a superiority complex. Dont jidge all farmers by his words. He lives to enflame twist and drag snipets out pf sentances to validate his bizarre quest to divide hunters from farmers.
> 
> Did you notice he wont comment on my hypothetical scenario lest he show his real colors.
> 
> He really isnt smart enough to grasp somebody elses point of view. I would bet he is a very lonely person.


Oh I know. A guy that acts like he has the absolute answer for everything yet has no grasp on reality is a sad sight to see. Elevator quite hasn't reached the top yet for the poor old guy.


----------



## shaug

Swift,

It seems you guide every thread right back to your pet peeve. Perpetual easements. Hypothetical scenario upon hypothetical scenario. We have been up and down this road in a 1936 Chevy pickup and what not so many times that it has gotten very old.

If you like easements than by all means purchase them. That option is available to you. There other avenues also. One is called a covenent. If someone owns beach front property with a nice cabin they probably have a nice view. One day a lot is zoned right between them and the lake. It is a real possiblitiy that the new owner of that lot is going to put a house on it. Your view to the lake is going to be blocked.

You have an option. You can purchase that lot and put a covenent on it. No cabin, no house, nothing higher than 2 feet can be ever be built on it. If the lot is $100,000 and you do not have the money then borrow it. Explain to the banker your plan to purchase it, place this covenent on it and then your plan is to resell it. Obviously the banker will recognize that the value of this property has been greatly diminished and will probably tell you that he is not interested in buying you a piece of blue sky.

Easements on land are much the same. No houses, no barn or out buildings, no wells, no windmills, no mining, no plowing or anything that will disturb the surface. Swift, using your money, would you purchase an easement on your neighbors land defined above? Using your money what benefit would that be to you? Maybe you didn't want your neighbor building a windmill that would wreck "your" viewshed? That is your benefit.

The Dakota Grassland Initiative is asking the people of the United States to be your banker. To bank roll the money or subsidize or socialize this easement plan. There is only a handfull of people promoting it. Yet everyone is expected to pay, and for what? A piece of blue sky!!!!!


----------



## gst

I truly do not know any farmer or rancher that is adamantly opposed to conservation prorams to the point they think they should be stopped.

I truly do not know any farmer or rancher that adamantly beleives every acre of public/govt land should be sold back into the private sector.

In the case of the Dakota Grasslands Initiative I do not know if ANY of the ag related people that were there at the meetings held on it were totaly opposed to the programs itself, only one single aspect of it the perpetual easement.

The reason the policies and oppostion from agriculture exists is because of the very ideals we have seen on this site and at those "public input" meetings on the DGI and that are put forth from SOME sportsman orgs. There is NO compromise.

There would be little to no opposition over the DGI if the perpetual easement were changed to one of say 20 years. (20 years is a long time)
Look what that simple suggestion ignites with a minority of loud, juvenile name calling short sighted sportsmen on this site. It got the same elitist arrogant respose from those at the head of the DGI.

Apparently these few people do not understand how a pendelum works. They do not wish to be somewhere in the middle, (perhaps compromising on easement duration to get support for the program itself) they want to be out at the end of where the pendelum reachs (demanding everything).

What kind of a response can be expected????? The opposition will dig in at the very far other end of the pendelum swing.

What gets accomplished???

What does the juvenile rhetoric we see on a site like this accomplish???

Think for once a little farther down the road than just where YOU are at this time typing on your computer.

You can not deny the global population is growing.

You can not deny that the arable lands to produce the food for this growing population are shrinking.

Perhaps technology can keep up, perhaps not.

You can not deny that the cost of food and how much of ones average disposable income is spent on food is increasing.

You can not deny that a smaller and smaller percetage of society recreates on these lands thru hunting and other sportsman activities and veiws them as a priority .

And apparently these few can not see that at some point down the road, when how much of their income is being spent on food and how avalible it is becomes an issue, this sociey will not care aout the Dakota Grasslnd Inititative or any other conservation program.

They will infact oppose it and any other "conservation" measure that controls or limits production on these lands.

And then who will engage in conservation pracices that benefit the sportsman??????? The farmer/rancher this small vocal minority have alielnated with your demands andlack of compromise and juvenile name calling and rhetoric?

Realize that if it truly were to get to the point in this country where people are spending 1/3 of their income or more on food, or they were standing in line to get certain items, (please do not be so foolish or arrogant to beleieve it can not happen, it is only 80 years since it did) None of these conservation programs will remain in effect UNLESS THE FARMER OR RANCHER BLEIVES IN THEM THEMSELVES.

swift once mentioned $20 dollar beans, what do you suppose it would be that drove beans to $20 ??????? How many acres and conservation programs will remain then?

Society will elect the people that will do whatever it takes to provide them the food they need. The funding and rules creating these programs will be gone. History has proven that. If they do not the people will find away to put those that can and will into power. History past and current has proven that.

There are people involved in conservation that understand this. Many of them are employed thru the NRCS. There are many conservation programs that are happening as we speak that are great programs that most people would never even no exist. Stop and think why.

It is because they are not being sourced from the extreme end of the pendelum. The are common sense mutually beneficial renewable programs that EVERYONE involved supports. I know because I am involved in them. And yet show me one single thread on this site dedicated to talking about these programs successes and calling for their expansion started by this loudest minority of sportsmen.

Where is a thread acknowledging what orgs like the Burleigh County Soil District is doing, where is a thread giving acknowledgement to what the ND Grazing Lands Coalition is doing? I would bet most of the loudest few on here are not even aware of the programs of these entiites and what they are and have been doing for decades.

The ag org I am most involved with has programs (Enviromental Services) and awards (Enviromental Stewardship) and yet how many times have they been complimented or even acknowledged on this site by this vocal minority? How many of the loudest few condeming "greedy ag" even are aware of these programs.

No one is looking for a thank you, just a simple understanding that these vocal juvenile name calling threads and attitudes amoungst a small but vocal minority of sportsmen will not accomplish getting the ag community on the side that will support these programs that benefit sportsmen. And that while a large part of agriculture is quietly going about doing these conservation practices because they beleive in them and they identify those that are truly mutually beneficial, little good is being done from the far ends of the pendelum.

You may think programs like the DGI and it's perpetual easements are a win, but think what the attitude of a subsequent generation towads these programs when he is told he can not build a calving facility on these acres that have been passed down thru their family because of this easement.

Think what the attitude towards these progrms will be when a subsequent generation is told they oil pipeline coming thru his coummunity can not cross his land and his neighbor sees a large windfall instead of him.

Imagine when a subsquent generation is told the stipulation of the contract your grandfather entered into is now being changed and you can no longer graze your cattle on these lands YOU own.

Imagine what support for these programs will come from these producers.

Then imagine a society hungry and poor and see how many conservation programs are championed or even remain.

Tell me how many hungry conservationalists you have ever seen.

So carry on with your juvenile name calling and rhetoric that has been going on from the last several years on this site ( I won;t bother to post the link to the 07 thread on any of several others) it appears that even the "sportsmen" that are being claimed as support by this vocal few do not wish to engage and support this type rhetoric on this sportsman site.

Stop and consider what is happening with literally millions of conservation acres and programs the last couple of years that have existed for decades and honestly think why it is happening. Then ask yourself how much posted above is "relevant".


----------



## leadfed

Yep there you go again gabe. Rambling on like you are the cape crusader saving the world with cheap food. Looking out for all those poor starving 3rd world kids. But what it really comes down to for people like you and shaug is the almighty dollar. You could give two ****s about what food costs. All you care about is making more $$$$. Nice effort at trying to play savior though...gotta give ya props for that.

By the way I noticed you mentioned the term "compromise" above. You sure you know the meaning of that one gabe?


----------



## gst

led, how many conservation programs and practices has your operation been a part of?

led, did you attend any of those public input meetings regarding the Dakota Grasslands Initiative to have any serious dialgoue to try to work toeards a solution that is approvd by everyone involved, or do you prefer the anonimity of hiding behind your compurter screen sniping at people? :roll:

You will have to continue your "hatred" on your own led, there is little to be gained when you can not even understand what was written above was not about being anyones "savior".

Or catch that is was directed at the very thing you seem hell bent on continueing.


----------



## leadfed

And what am I trying to prove gabe? That you are a greedy, cry baby farmer that wants everything to go his way and wants everyone to praise him? Doesn't take much grey matter for one to do that. The ONLY reason you debate on this or any other site is because of the almighty dollar plain and simple. And that is a sorry thing to see. Swift, I and others debate to protect the common mans interest in having a place to enjoy the outdoors whithout having to be rich. You just want to become rich.


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> Swift,
> 
> It seems you guide every thread right back to your pet peeve. Perpetual easements. Hypothetical scenario upon hypothetical scenario. We have been up and down this road in a 1936 Chevy pickup and what not so many times that it has gotten very old.
> 
> If you like easements than by all means purchase them. That option is available to you. There other avenues also. One is called a covenent. If someone owns beach front property with a nice cabin they probably have a nice view. One day a lot is zoned right between them and the lake. It is a real possiblitiy that the new owner of that lot is going to put a house on it. Your view to the lake is going to be blocked.
> 
> You have an option. You can purchase that lot and put a covenent on it. No cabin, no house, nothing higher than 2 feet can be ever be built on it. If the lot is $100,000 and you do not have the money then borrow it. Explain to the banker your plan to purchase it, place this covenent on it and then your plan is to resell it. Obviously the banker will recognize that the value of this property has been greatly diminished and will probably tell you that he is not interested in buying you a piece of blue sky.
> 
> Easements on land are much the same. No houses, no barn or out buildings, no wells, no windmills, no mining, no plowing or anything that will disturb the surface. Swift, using your money, would you purchase an easement on your neighbors land defined above? Using your money what benefit would that be to you? Maybe you didn't want your neighbor building a windmill that would wreck "your" viewshed? That is your benefit.
> 
> The Dakota Grassland Initiative is asking the people of the United States to be your banker. To bank roll the money or subsidize or socialize this easement plan. There is only a handfull of people promoting it. Yet everyone is expected to pay, and for what? A piece of blue sky!!!!!


Thanks again Shaug, You and I have the same feelings for the most part. We both think people should have the right to enter into agreements with their land that is legal. The DGI is only one part of the problem. Folks like GST are lobbying to remove the opportunity for anyone to even have opportunity to do that. I agree that governmental spending is out of control. I believe you have merit in your arguement that DGI funds could be better served paying off the Chinese. But I do not believe you should try to stop spending by ending peoples rights.

GST just made the arguement he in favor of DGI without the perpetual easements. That flies in the face of your arguement regarding govt. spending. Yet you berate me and support him. I have to think you have more in your stable than just govt spending.



> The Dakota Grassland Initiative is asking the people of the United States to be your banker. To bank roll the money or subsidize or socialize this easement plan. There is only a handfull of people promoting it. Yet everyone is expected to pay, and for what? A piece of blue sky!!!


 One more question should be who will benefit from it? a few? many? It was a "handfull" of people that promoted the revolutionary war. For the rest of us thank god they did.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> And what am I trying to prove gabe? That you are a greedy, cry baby farmer that wants everything to go his way and wants everyone to praise him? Doesn't take much grey matter for one to do that. The ONLY reason you debate on this or any other site is because of the almighty dollar plain and simple.
> 
> led, I thought your "sources" told you I was on here beacuse I was "hired/designated" to be on this site"????
> 
> You really have to get your story straight if you wish people to beleive it. :wink:
> 
> And that is a sorry thing to see. Swift, I and others debate to protect the common mans interest in having a place to enjoy the outdoors whithout having to be rich. You just want to become rich.
> 
> Once again led, I thought you claimed I had a "sliver spoon" in my mouth, if that was indeed the case would I not already be "rich" ???
> 
> led, get your story straight okay!


 :roll:


----------



## gst

swift, please answer one single, simple,direct, relelvant question.

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?

After all swift these are YOUR words. 
Quote:
"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

They are indeed "simple terms" swift and you should most certainly be able to defend them by answering one simple question.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Thanks again Shaug, You and I have the same feelings for the most part. We both think people should have the right to enter into agreements with their land that is legal.


Perpetual easements should be illegal. Period. The USFWS is the only entity or agency in the nation that can aquire them.



> One more question should be who will benefit from it? a few? many? It was a "handfull" of people that promoted the revolutionary war. For the rest of us thank god they did.


Take both King George, perpetual easements and throw them into the harbor.


----------



## gst

Someone, anyone care to answer one question????

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Infringing on a future generation is somehow a sin or dastardly act, but infringing on an existing owner is A OKAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is how!!!!!!!!!

Not surprising coming from someone who supports an organization that supports the same positions as HSUS!

Keep spinning an avoiding the question gst! Answer it once instead of asking another question of someone else


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Infringing on a future generation is somehow a sin or dastardly act, but infringing on an existing owner is A OKAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is how!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Not surprising coming from someone who supports an organization that supports the same positions as HSUS!
> 
> Keep spinning an avoiding the question gst! Answer it once instead of asking another question of someone else


Ron, I am glad you have acknowledged in your above statement that the perpetual easement does indeed infringe upon the rights of future generations.

I have always maintained that property rights are not absolute. They are however a conerstone of the foundation this country was built upon so any infringement upon them must be considered carefully and the consequences weighed. That is what has been done thru the legislative process here in ND for several decades. Simply because it does not suit you and a handful of other peoples ideals does not mean it has not been carefully considered by the elected representatives of ALL the citizens of ND.

I have said before, there indeed does need to be "infringements" on property to regulate what happens on it. If not, why can I not build a feedlot or packing plant where ever I wish on my property??

Those of you who are supporting the perpetual easement somehow either can not or simply choose not to acknowledge that the very arguement you use of not "infringing" on someones right to do with their land as they wish is EXACTLY what the perpetual easement itself does. :roll:

And ron, the comment about HSUS is coming from the thread on FBO I am guessing. Please show where I have "supported" the Pennsylvania FB? Simply go to FBO ron and you will find the "question" was answered. Will you answer the ones posed you there? Ron, HSUS is once again back in ND behind an initiated ballot measure trying to create law here in ND. I wonder where they would have gotten the idea they were welcome here in ND?

Of you and I ron, who adamantly argued against the last measure HSUS supported here in ND and who ardently argued for it??????? :wink:  

Please answer THAT question ron! :wink:


----------



## swift

> Perpetual easements should be illegal. Period. The USFWS is the only entity or agency in the nation that can aquire them.


That is simply not a true statement. I have perpetual easements signed with Enbridge, Midcontinent cable, and a few more that can come onto my land and dig up their lines if they feel the need to. I bought that land with those easements in place. I had to leave spaces in the tree rows I planted to stay 10 feet off the gas line. I had to change the site I built my house on to remain 75 feet off the line. I own 62 acres there and if I have a bumper crop of beans I can lose a few thousand dollars by one of those easements coming in and digging up the line for repair or maintaince. I chose to enroll in CRP. The real fact is I knew about those easements when I purchased the land and freely accepted the consequences of that preexisting contract. The other fact is I am not having my rights as a landowner infringed on because I aquired that land with the responsibility to adhere to the previous landowners agreements.

So don't try to sell the arguement of landowners rights infringements for future generations. The person that owns the land has the rights. The future owners have the responsibility to follow the covenents, easements, or any other restrictions that came with that land. I can choose to put an easement on my property and it will be just another decision my heirs, or a future buyer will have to live with if they CHOOSE to take over my land.

Potential landowners should not be given a right that supercedes the rights of current landowners.


----------



## shaug

Swift, I swear you like to argue for the sake of arguement.



> That is simply not a true statement. I have perpetual easements signed with Enbridge, Midcontinent cable, and a few more that can come onto my land and dig up their lines if they feel the need to. I bought that land with those easements in place.


I too have signed an easement for right of way. The telephone company can cross my property. If no access was aloud by anyone for anything we sure wouldn't have much need for communications equipment. The greater good for the greatest many. Right away easements are actually recorded with the deeds office at the courthouse.

I would suppose if someone has a perpetual easement signed with the USFWS it, or the encumbering wording of it would be right on the abstract or deed.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Nice diatribe GST, but your again showing your animosity toward anything non-agriculture.
> 
> The hunting aspect, conservation aspect and ag intrest aspect of your post really has nothing to do with my reasoning on this topic.
> 
> *Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit.* If my grandpa liked the pitch from the USFWS and wanted to enter into a perpetual agreement with the USFWS you and your holier than thou organizations should not have a word to say about it. Much the same way your greatgrandpa had the foresight to protect what he thought was important from the greedy generations to come.
> 
> If you don't like the pitch from the USFWS then don't enter into an agreement with them. But don't think you have the ability through your orgs to deny me the right to sign that contract if I feel it is right for me.
> 
> What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."
> 
> If the perpetual easements by the USFWS are such a bad thing then nobody would sign up for them and your problem would go away through atrition. But, you feel the need to dictate to others what is good and what is bad and make the decision for them by removing one of the options.
> 
> To make it simplier for you.
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IF NOBODY LIKES IT NOBODY WILL SIGN UP FOR IT.
> IT DOESN'T NEED A LAW TO PREVENT THOSE THAT DO LIKE IT FROM SIGNING UP FOR IT.
> 
> You are imposing your will through the legislative process to force people to do things your way.
> 
> Where did I use this arguement before? Oh yea the HFI Luckily the voters understood and defeated the measure.





swift said:


> Perpetual easements should be illegal. Period. The USFWS is the only entity or agency in the nation that can aquire them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not a true statement. I have perpetual easements signed with Enbridge, Midcontinent cable, and a few more that can come onto my land and dig up their lines if they feel the need to. I bought that land with those easements in place. I had to leave spaces in the tree rows I planted to stay 10 feet off the gas line. I had to change the site I built my house on to remain 75 feet off the line. I own 62 acres there and if I have a bumper crop of beans I can lose a few thousand dollars by one of those easements coming in and digging up the line for repair or maintaince. I chose to enroll in CRP. The real fact is I knew about those easements when I purchased the land and freely accepted the consequences of that preexisting contract. The other fact is I am not having my rights as a landowner infringed on because I aquired that land with the responsibility to adhere to the previous landowners agreements.
> 
> So don't try to sell the arguement of landowners rights infringements for future generations. The person that owns the land has the rights. The future owners have the responsibility to follow the covenents, easements, or any other restrictions that came with that land. I can choose to put an easement on my property and it will be just another decision my heirs, or a future buyer will have to live with if they CHOOSE to take over my land.
> 
> Potential landowners should not be given a right that supercedes the rights of current landowners.
Click to expand...

swift, please explain how the fist statement you make, :
"*Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"
can occur when the perpetual easement you are advocating for and attempting to now justify in the second quote is put in place?

You simply can not have both. So which is it swift should "Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" or should they be encumbered by a perpetual easement which prevents that?

Which of your claims should we take as true?

Swift in your first quote you state this is a case of:
"What this boils down to is landowner rights once again being stomped on "by those that know what's best for everyone else."

So swift, who do you beleives places the infringement on ones ability to build a feedlot or packing plant on their own property thru legislative and regulatory actions???

Do you support THIS infringement?*


----------



## Plainsman

> You simply can not have both. So which is it swift should "Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit" or should they be encumbered by a perpetual easement which prevents that?


If you don't want land with a easement on it don't buy it. If you got it by accident your to stupid to farm and should go broke. I think I see some anti conservation mentality showing.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If you don't want land with a easement on it don't buy it.  If you got it by accident your to stupid to farm and should go broke. * I think I see some anti conservation mentality showing*.


I think I see some "anti agriculture" mentality showing! 

Jeesh plainsman, I would have thought after a vaction to Hawaii you would have had a more relaxed tone to your posts! :wink:

plainsamn, perpetual easements do not happen by "accident". 

So are you saying if you receive land that has had a perpetual easement placed on it thru a generational transfer you are "to stupid to farm and should go broke"???? :eyeroll:

At least you spelled "supid/stupid" right! 

Now that you are back plainsman perhaps YOU can answer this question as no one else seems willing to . :-?

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsamn, perpetual easements do not happen by "accident".


Glad to hear you finally understand that gst. As swift has said time and again, if you don't like the easement don't purchase the land. If you inherited the land and can't respect Grandpa's decision to enter in to the easement when he was the landowner, than you probably have a bigger personal problem than the easement.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what am I trying to prove gabe? That you are a greedy, cry baby farmer that wants everything to go his way and wants everyone to praise him? Doesn't take much grey matter for one to do that. The ONLY reason you debate on this or any other site is because of the almighty dollar plain and simple.
> 
> led, I thought your "sources" told you I was on here beacuse I was "hired/designated" to be on this site"????
> 
> You really have to get your story straight if you wish people to beleive it. :wink:
> 
> And that is a sorry thing to see. Swift, I and others debate to protect the common mans interest in having a place to enjoy the outdoors whithout having to be rich. You just want to become rich.
> 
> Once again led, I thought you claimed I had a "sliver spoon" in my mouth, if that was indeed the case would I not already be "rich" ???
> 
> led, get your story straight okay!
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
Click to expand...

Hahaha...you are a bonehead gabe. Anyone who read my post knows exactly what I meant to say. You however, read it, knew what it meant and then asked two more questions about a factual post that made it sound like whay you wanted to hear.hahaha.....par for the course. For not liking to debate with me gabe you sure remember what I say. Could that be because what I say is "on the money" so to say? :wink: :lol:

You are nothing but a liar gabe. And you do it to further your agenda and line your pockets....all at the expense of anyone that gets in your way, questions you or doesn't bow down to you . Hell of a way to live gabe.


----------



## Plainsman

> Jeesh plainsman, I would have thought after a vaction to Hawaii you would have had a more relaxed tone to your posts!


I was relaxed until I read some posts by a guy incapable of understanding. :wink:



> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?


No one on here is sub intelligent enough not to understand gst, so why do you continue to try prey on the stupid when there are none here. The above would require an IQ under 50 to believe. People have not answered because it's to dim of wit to take serious. If your grandfather sold the land you would not have it at all anymore would you gst? So if he takes a perpetual easement your going to have to live with that too. Simple. Your grandfather would have had a right to do that, and it would have been non of your business. You would think someone given land would not whiz and moan about the small things. If you bought it even though you didn't like it then ----- well that would be where the stupid comes in. If you bought it with the plan to get it changed ----- well that's where stupid comes in again. Or perhaps one would think he could develop enough public outrage to bully the government and get it back ---- even though the taxpayer already paid grandpa for it. That's where dishonest comes in.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Or perhaps one would think he could develop enough public outrage to bully the government and get it back ---- even though the taxpayer already paid grandpa for it. That's where dishonest comes in.


Plainsman, what is it that the peoples money is being used to purchase? What are they getting? And, couldn't those recipiants of tax dollars for easements be known as subsidy suckers? I mean, I know how much you guys hate landowners who receive payments that you feel they did not earn. I mean if Craig Larson the banker of Starion Financial lifts a lump sum of five hundred dollars per acre off of the taxpayers, what did he do to earn it and what does the taxpayer who is out of their money get in return?

Has anyone even polled the taxpayer and asked them if they would like to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars at interest from China, and if they even want to own easements on banker Craigs property?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> No one on here is sub intelligent enough not to understand gst, so why do you continue to try prey on the stupid when there are none here. The above would require an IQ under 50 to believe. People have not answered because it's to dim of wit to take serious. If your grandfather sold the land you would not have it at all anymore would you gst? So if he takes a perpetual easement your going to have to live with that too. Simple. Your grandfather would have had a right to do that, and it would have been non of your business. You would think someone given land would not whiz and moan about the small things. If you bought it even though you didn't like it then ----- well that would be where the stupid comes in. If you bought it with the plan to get it changed ----- well that's where stupid comes in again. Or perhaps one would think he could develop enough public outrage to bully the government and get it back ---- even though the taxpayer already paid grandpa for it. That's where dishonest comes in.


plainsamn, you gotta be kidding right????? 

You don;t see the irony in accusing someone of "infringing" on ones right to do with their land as they please all the while defending a practice that does that very thing???????

If you can not see that simple truth plainsman indeed your IQ may be under 50.

longshot perhaps you would care to answer this question as NO ONE else will.

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?

You simply do not want to acknowledge the very thing you are advocating for is exactly what you are whining about being done.

Hell even swift had it right for awhile!!!! 

"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit." 
swift's own words, what say you plainsman yes or no?

Does the perpetual easement allow every subsequent generation this "right" ??? Yes or no?

Come on guys the answer is not rocket science! :wink:


----------



## gst

Here it is in "plain simple terms", if you guys can advocate for using a perpetual easement that will "infringe" on the "right" of every single subsequent generation until the end of time to do with their property as they see fit , why can not others advocate for using a legislative means that does the same???

Unless in your little oligarchy that is not approved of! :wink:

Hey plainsman, ron, swift, should I be able to sell my property to any non resident alien I wish without some regulatory process in place? Say someone from Syria or Iran?

Plainsman do you beleive that a perpetual easement being offered by a govt entity that retains the right to change the terms of the easement after it has been signed is right?

Hey led, why don't you ask those fellas you know that ranch what they think of that one and get back to us!

I know, more of those questions, but how are we to learn anything if no one asks questions?? Heck I would bet even the people with IQ's below 50 would like to hear the answers to these ones Bruce! 

But then maybe asking questions is not allowed in this little oligarchy called Nodak Outdoors either!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Hey plainsman, ron, swift, should I be able to sell my property to any non resident alien I wish without some regulatory process in place? Say someone from Syria or Iran?


You can today as long as they are not a Corp!!!!!!!!

You have no argument other than greed and that is what is being seen!!!! So to quote you" why can not others advocate for using a legislative means that does the same???" You do not want others to be able to do this! Thus the NDFB measure! You should stop now before the ladder in the hole no longer reaches the top!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Has anyone even polled the taxpayer and asked them if they would like to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars at interest from China, and if they even want to own easements on banker Craigs property?


Sssssshhhhhhhhhhh. You realy do not want the public to have a say in what is being done with these dollars that sould be used to pay down thes "extreme national debt" do you shaug? Heck these programs have been going on for years and the majority of the public does not even know they exist?

I mean "everyone will have to cut" in this time of "extreme national debt" shaug but apparently THESE Federal dollars are off limits.

plainsman did you ever identify any places sportsmen will "have to cut" in spending to do their part?

You do remember NDFB has advocated cutting farm subsidies and subsidized insurance programs to do their part for agriculture right?

I mean maybe instead of spending these dollars on these conservation programs, ND should return an equitable amount of Federal dollars back to the govt and use these dollars to fund those programs instead. You know do our part not to be a Federal welfare state, you know" hands in the tax payers pockets" and all.

What do you think plainsman, have you ever said anything about how ND takes in more Federal dollars than we pay out, here's our chance to be the conservative leader this country needs.

Maybe we can even pay for our own salamander traps for once!


----------



## swift

> You don;t see the irony in accusing someone of "infringing" on ones right to do with their land as they please all the while defending a practice that does that very thing???????


You dont see the irony in infringing in an actual landowners right to protect a potential owner of his land? Why not cease the tiling because in the future it may negatively affect the crop of a generation or 4 down the line? Why not cease cervid ranching because there is a chance disease, be it CWD, TB or one we haven't heard of yet may negate the ability to grow livestock or crops on that land? Why not... you get the picture GST. There are a ton of "what ifs" in life. The very fact you want to take away an option for a landowner that has been in existance for decades and has worked for the "many" (to quote shaug) shows you are a true dictator.

Even though I disagreed with the HFI guys, I can understand they had the idea of protecting the integrity of hunters on their side. For you all I can gather is simple greed to control as much of the acres in ND as possible without having to answer to anyone.



> Does the perpetual easement allow every subsequent generation this "right" ??? Yes or no?


ANSWER: YES IT DOES. Generations from now are not landowners and have no right to dictate to current landowners. How would you respond to little GST the third telling you to put the back pasture into corn instead of alfalfa, then filing a lawsuit, based on his future ownership of the land, forcing you to do as he says? You better think real hard of what may happen when you start legislating for the rights of the future landowners by infringing on the current landowners.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> *You have no argument other than greed* and that is what is being seen!!!! So to quote you" why can not others advocate for using a legislative means that does the same???" You do not want others to be able to do this! Thus the NDFB measure! You should stop now before the ladder in the hole no longer reaches the top!!!!!!!


So ron you are now stating that protecting the "right" of future generations to in swifts words "have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit." is nothing more than "greed"????

Those are YOUR words ron.

You guys really like throwing that "greed" term out there don;t you. The whole arguement Loyd Jones gave in favor of the perpetual easement at these public meeting regarding the DGI is it got them "more bang for the buck" as in not having to pay each generation for the value of the easement. So ron who is the "greedy" one here???



Ron Gilmore said:


> Hey plainsman, ron, swift, should I be able to sell my property to any non resident alien I wish without some regulatory process in place? Say someone from Syria or Iran?
Click to expand...

You can today as long as they are not a Corp!!!!!!!! quote]

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t47c10-1.pdf

Perhaps you should read the law ron. It says someting a little different.

So ron are you being "infringed upon" as to who you sell your land to here unless the regulatroy process is met?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You don;t see the irony in accusing someone of "infringing" on ones right to do with their land as they please all the while defending a practice that does that very thing???????
> 
> You dont see the irony in infringing in an actual landowners right to protect a potential owner of his land?


Swift, even without the perpetual easement you seem to forget this can still be done can it not???

Lets deal with one irony at a time here swift okay! :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Read the exceptions gabe!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Does the perpetual easement allow every subsequent generation this "right" ??? Yes or no?
> 
> ANSWER: YES IT DOES. Generations from now are not landowners and have no right to dictate to current landowners. How would you respond to little GST the third telling you to put the back pasture into corn instead of alfalfa, then filing a lawsuit, based on his future ownership of the land, forcing you to do as he says? You better think real hard of what may happen when you start legislating for the rights of the future landowners by infringing on the current landowners.


You gotta be kidding me right swift, future generations are not "landowners" ???? 

Once that land is transfered in deed after grandpas death, who exactly is the "landowner???????? How has this perpetual easement not "infringed" upon his "right" "to be stewards of their land as they seem fit"????? :-?

Please staty in the relm of reality with your "answers" swift. :wink:

As I have repeatedly stated swift even during the HFH discussion property rights are not absolute but they are the foundation this country was built upon so any infringement on them has to be weighed carefully and the consequences thourougly considered.

That is what the state legislature has been doing for decades here in ND.

So swift, given this statement you made,

"_You better think real hard of what may happen when you start legislating for the rights of the future landowners by infringing on the current landowners"_

Should a current landowners ability to build a feedlot on his own property for a future landowner be "infringed upon" thru the legislative process???

Yes or no?

The reality is it happens all the time. You support it when it benefits you and oppose it when it does not, just like anyone else. And yet here you are condemning others and calling them "greedy". "Greed" comes in many forms swift.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman did you ever identify any places sportsmen will "have to cut" in spending to do their part?
Click to expand...

I said everyone will need to cut, but you and shaug are not smart enough to understand that. You keep asking "how about this, how about that". What does everyone leave out? Dense maybe?

You and shaug are not here defending agriculture, your here protecting your trough. In the future you may have to run your business like any other business. You know, be smart enough not to plant corn in sand without irrigation. The intelligent will survive. Maybe they can buy your farm for ten cents on the dollar. Maybe the USFW service can buy it. :wink:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Read the exceptions gabe!


47-10.1-02. Restriction on acquisition - Exceptions.
1. An individual who is not a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Canada, or a
permanent resident alien of the United States may not acquire directly or indirectly any
interest in agricultural land unless:
a. The individual is an alien entitled to enter the United States under the provisions
of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the
foreign state of which the individual is a national, solely to develop and direct the
operations of an enterprise in which the individual has invested or to direct the
operations of an enterprise in which the individual is actively in the process of
investing a substantial amount of capital;
b. The individual resides in this state for at least ten months out of every year;
c. The individual actively participates in the operation of the agricultural land;
d. The agricultural landholding does not exceed six hundred forty acres [258.99
hectares]; and
e. The agricultural landholding includes a dairy operation.
2. An individual who is permitted to acquire an interest in agricultural land under
subsection 1 shall:
a. Notify the agriculture commissioner of any land acquisition within thirty days of
the acquisition; and
b. Annually provide the agriculture commissioner with a list of all addresses at which
the individual resided during the previous year and the dates during which the
individual resided at each address.
3. If an individual ceases to meet the exceptions provided for in subsection 1, the
individual shall dispose of the agricultural land within twenty-four months.
4. A partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, trustee, or other business
entity may not, directly or indirectly, acquire or otherwise obtain any interest, whether
legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to agricultural land unless the ultimate
beneficial interest of the entity is held directly or indirectly by citizens of the United
States or permanent resident aliens of the United States.
5. This section does not apply to agricultural land that may be acquired by devise,
inheritance, as security for indebtedness, by process of law in the collection of debts,
or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by
mortgage or otherwise; provided, that all agricultural land acquired in the collection of
debts or by the enforcement of a lien or claim must be disposed of within three years
after acquiring ownership if the acquisition would otherwise violate this section.
6. This section does not apply to a foreign corporation or a foreign limited liability
company which acquires agricultural land for use as an industrial site when
construction contracts are entered into by the corporation or limited liability company
within one hundred fifty days after acquisition of the land; provided, that this exception
applies only to so much agricultural land as is reasonably necessary for industrial
purposes. A foreign corporation or a foreign limited liability company which owns
agricultural land for industrial purposes but which discontinues using the land for
industrial purposes shall dispose of the land as provided by chapter 10-06.1. A foreign
corporation or foreign limited liability company shall dispose of agricultural land
acquired for industrial purposes within one year after acquisition if construction
contracts are not entered into within one hundred fifty days after acquisition of the
land.
7. This section does not apply to citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose rights to
hold land are secured by treaty or to common carriers by railroad subject to the
jurisdiction of the interstate commerce commission.

Ron here is the section of our NDCC that restricts land purchases by aliens. As you can see even with the "exceptions" there are a number of restrrictions "preventing someone from selling their land to whomever they wish".

So do you approve of these restictions or not? Remember ron you have stated before you should be able to sell your land to whomever you wishwithout anyone "infringing" upon your right to do so.

Even if it is 50,000 acres in the middle of the Badlands and a Chinese investor wishes to purchase it to build a theme park. :wink:

Note the underlined "infringement" in the NDCC.

So what say you ron, should the landowner in the badlands have the "right:" to sell his propety to the Chinese investor to build a theme park?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I said everyone will need to cut, but you and shaug are not smart enough to understand that. You keep asking "how about this, how about that". What does everyone leave out? Dense maybe?


Perhaps dense is not understanding simply saying "everyone will have to cut" is not specific enough plainsman when you have made a habit of condemning others. WHERE do YOU think sportsmen (as in everbody) will have to cut in this time of "extreme national debt"! ???

Come on plainsman you said "everyone will have to sut" I'm curious where YOU think sportsmen should. Perhaps you really did not mean "everyone" when "everyone" includes you???

I have stated I support NDFB positions cutting agricultural spending as a ag producer and actually emptying my "trough" as does the thousands of ag producers that are their members that created this policy, what do YOU support cutting as a sportsman Bruce in this time of "extreme national debt???

Perhaps a program that engages in perpetual easements on private lands and still retains the right to change them after the agreement is signed??? :roll:

Or do you approve of this plainsman?

After all it is a fellow Federal Conservation agency to what employed you all these years, perhaps you do not wish to go on record saying these funds could be better spent paying down our "extreme national debt. Apparently "everyone will have to cut", just not here??? :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

It's clear you didn't get an award from the soil conservation because your a conservationist. You got the award for not being as destructive as in the past. After all wildlife doesn't thrive because of you gst, it thrives in spite of you. Surely you don't consider your habit as good as native, do you????

You still don't catch on. I said everyone. You want to know who. That is dense. Ya, I know you want me to name specifics so you can start driving wedges.

As far as perpetual easements and your whine before that the land is worth more now -------well, my old house is worth about $10,000 more now too. If I go ask the current owner for another ten grand what do you think he will say? What makes farming more special than any other business?? Just because you think so doesn't mean the rest of us are that dumb. Someone sold the easement which should be their right and non of your business. Live with it or start a flower shop. Don't whine the the rest of us because we have no sympathy. I did before running into you, but you have convinced me that it's pure greed that they want, want, want, and don't want anything for anyone else. I support perpetual easements more than ever gst, and I hope that others see we need more, not less.

The problem is the bully attitude you and shaug display hurts agriculture. You want to know who works where, who works with who etc. The only reason you want to know is to damage someone. One big mouth from another site was here in Jamestown complaining about me at the local John Deer shop. Big deal. He is so filled with hate over one disagreement that he is a mirror image of a radical Muslim. You think it's nasty to say that? I don't post often on another site because no matter the subject his big mouth is there to take the opposite opinion. Even on things we agreed with in the past. He even stuck up for Obama a couple of days ago. I'm no psychiatrist, but my "OPINION" is he borders on madness.

I think people are on to your bull droppings gst. What do you think of that?  At least with public land we are not at the total mercy of landowners. We need a lot more public land. About three times what we have now would be a good start. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's clear you didn't get an award from the soil conservation because your a conservationist. You got the award for not being as destructive as in the past. After all wildlife doesn't thrive because of you gst, it thrives in spite of you. Surely you don't consider your habit as good as native, do you????
> 
> Bruce can you actualy prove this claim or is it simply more rhetoric? Have you ever been up here and seen what we do Bruce? Or is the burr under your saddle so bad you will simply say anything? You do know my Dad also received an award from the soil conservation as well bruce so apparently we were not that "destructive" in the past either. :eyeroll:
> 
> You still don't catch on. I said everyone. You want to know who. That is dense. Ya, I know you want me to name specifics so you can start driving wedges.
> 
> I don;t want to know "who" plainsamn, I am curioous as to "where" you beleive "everyone" will "have to cut". Sportsmen are included in "everyone" right Bruce? So what programs do you as a "sportsman" beleive should be cut? Especially in this time of "extreme national debt" surely you have some ideas to do your part right ?
> 
> As far as perpetual easements and your whine before that the land is worth more now well, my old house is worth about $10,000 more now too. If I go ask the current owner for another ten grand what do you think he will say? What makes farming more special than any other business?? Just because you think so doesn't mean the rest of us are that dumb.
> 
> Bruce where have I ever suggested any reparition type payments should be given????? Here we go again bruce, please show me where I have ever said someone should be able to go back and ask for more payments?
> 
> Someone sold the easement which should be their right and non of your business. Live with it or start a flower shop. Don't whine the the rest of us because we have no sympathy. I did before running into you, but you have convinced me that it's pure greed that they want, want, want, and don't want anything for anyone else. I support perpetual easements more than ever gst, and I hope that others see we need more, not less.
> 
> It most certainly did look like you had a great deal od "sympathy" in that thread from 5 years ago eh plainsamn!!! :roll:
> 
> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?
> 
> Can you answer this question or not Bruce?
> 
> The problem is the bully attitude you and shaug display hurts agriculture.
> 
> palinsamn all I am doiing here is asking questions!!! :wink: You know the ones everyone complains about and never answers!
> 
> You want to know who works where, who works with who etc. The only reason you want to know is to damage someone. One big mouth from another site was here in Jamestown complaining about me at the local John Deer shop. Big deal. He is so filled with hate over one disagreement that he is a mirror image of a radical Muslim. You think it's nasty to say that? I don't post often on another site because no matter the subject his big mouth is there to take the opposite opinion. Even on things we agreed with in the past. He even stuck up for Obama a couple of days ago. I'm no psychiatrist, but my "OPINION" is he borders on madness.
> 
> palisnamn you certainly have "stories" about everyone. muslims, posse comitatus, guys in Billings .......
> 
> You see bruce the reason why people suggest posting who someone actually is is not to "damage" someone, simply to determine ones credibility. I mean led makes accusations with no proof, claims he has "sources"  and we must "trust him" and yet what has he posted on here to demonstrate a reason for anyone to "trust him" so due to a lack of credibility one simply questions who he is as well as what he posts. Perhaps if he were to come out fro behind his computer, we would all know who he is and judge his posts accordingly. After all, plainsamn as it stands he could merely be someone you made up "on line"! :wink:
> 
> http://www.cmt.com/videos/brad-paisley/ ... ist=760526
> 
> I think people are on to your bull droppings gst. What do you think of that?  At least with public land we are not at the total mercy of landowners. We need a lot more public land. About three times what we have now would be a good start. :wink:


I think I see some "anti agriculture/landowner" mentality showing! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's clear you didn't get an award from the soil conservation because your a conservationist. You got the award for not being as destructive as in the past. After all wildlife doesn't thrive because of you gst, it thrives in spite of you. Surely you don't consider your habit as good as native, do you????


Bruce, how many trees and shrubs and bushes and fruit trees were on "native" praire in NC ND outside of the river bottoms? How much "thermal shelter" was avalible for deer birds and animals when it was "native" prarie grasses?

Time change Bruce, alot of people like to hunt pheasants and whitetail deer bruce, how much "native" habitat was there for them out on the bare nativ praries?

So Bruce, when was the last time you left standing corn for the birds and deer on your property?

When is the last time you planted several miles of trees and bushes and fruit trees for habitat?

Bruce has it been studied and determined that controled grazing is actually better for nesting habitat than "native" ungrazed grasslands?

Bruce when was the last time you planted corn, alfalfa, peas, soybeans cover crops on your property that wildlife "thrived" in?

Bruce when was the last time you had several hundred deer wintering thru the tough ND winters on the land you had planted sunflowers on?

Inded Bruce, "After all wildlife doesn't thrive because of you gst, it thrives in spite of you." :roll:

Oh and how many pheasants have YOU raised and released into the wild bruce? :wink: 

:eyeroll: You just can help yourself can you bruce.


----------



## Plainsman

> Perhaps if he were to come out fro behind his computer


Why don't you ask the same of shaug? Hmmmmmm



> Bruce, how many trees and shrubs and bushes and fruit trees were on "native" praire in NC ND outside of the river bottoms? How much "thermal shelter" was avalible for deer birds and animals when it was "native" prarie grasses?


Where I am at more deer live in cattails than shelter belts. Also, horned owls live in trees and wipe out upland birds. Ya, and I like shelter belts, but they help one thing and damage another.



> Time change Bruce, alot of people like to hunt pheasants and whitetail deer bruce, how much "native" habitat was there for them out on the bare nativ praries?


A lot more than there is now.



> When is the last time you planted several miles of trees and bushes and fruit trees for habitat?


I don't have the type of land the taxpayer will pay for doing all that.



> Bruce has it been studied and determined that controled grazing is actually better for nesting habitat than "native" ungrazed grasslands?


I agree grazing is a good management tool if you don't overgraze. That's my problem with some of the public land the land I seen in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana was grazed a lot heavier than the private land. However, what in the world would make you think native grasslands were ungrazed before you showed up on the scene????? Wow. Not much knowledge of our natural resources their gst.



> Bruce when was the last time you had several hundred deer wintering thru the tough ND winters on the land you had planted sunflowers on?


If you didn't put the sunflowers there gst there would be good native habitat. That's what I mean by wildlife doesn't thrive because of you it thrives in spite of you. The prairie chicken is all but gone because of agriculture. Sure a few species have increased, but the majority have decreased, and some are gone because of agriculture. The elk lived on the plains not the mountains. Now most live in the mountains because that's where they have been pushed. Only recently have they returned to North Dakota.



> Oh and how many pheasants have YOU raised and released into the wild bruce?


I'm impressed if that's voluntary. How many go to that Mouse River Pheasants or whatever you son raises them for? What do they get paid per bird, and what's the kick back. :wink:

Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back gst. What was on your land produced more than it does now. You may have Chinese chickens now, but sharpies, prairie chicken, and many native species were there before. Even the now extinct passenger pigeon is gone. Mostly because of market hunters. We have a modern day equivalent to them too.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

I know you don't like it when I ask who worked with whom where? There is a method to my madness. Some times people pretend they are sportsmen. Many times antis pretend they are conservationist. I read this article in AGWEEK last week and I thought of you Bruce:

CRP acres decline

Most discussions of the farm bill take place under the assumption that the proposed conservation title would cut CRP acres from 32 million to 25 million. As commodity prices have risen, farmers have shown a preference for using their land for production and have enrolled only 30 million acres in the program.

White said he thinks the cut was necessary because the committee had to get budget savings "somewhere," and that the members also used some of the CRP budget to provide funding for the wetland and grassland reserves.

"Lots of good things have come out of CRP," White said, but he added that he thinks working lands are also wildlife habitat and can be farmed in such a way as to encourage wildlife to use the land in winter.

"I don't believe there is one farm, ranch or woodlot in America that doesn't have room for wildlife," White said.

White also said he thinks USDA will succeed in providing habitat for the sage grouse and avoid its listing as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a division of the Interior Department. White said he thinks that if a utility company, for example, provides habitat for a bird before its listing, the company should get credit for that if the bird becomes listed and mitigation is required.

But White said that decision could only be made by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe or Michael Bean, the counselor for fish and wildlife at the Interior Department.

Farm Service Agency Administrator Bruce Nelson said Feb. 28 that his agency will try to focus CRP "on the most environmentally sensitive acres through the general sign-up and increasingly through continuous enrollments."

Stabenow said in the hearing she is focused "on building on the progress that was made last year in strengthening conservation programs" by making the programs "simpler, locally driven, science-based and flexible."

Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said that his goal in the farm bill process is "to maintain options for producers while simplifying the programs for producers and those tasked with implementation.

Most farm and conservation groups have also endorsed the conservation title that was written,  but six conservation groups sent the chairmen and ranking members of the congressional agriculture committees a letter Feb. 28 saying that the budget for agriculture should be increased.


"Because all farmers and ranchers in all regions are eligible, expanding USDA conservation programs would more equitably distribute scarce federal resources," the groups said in a letter that also noted that more farmers apply for assistance every year than can be served.

The letter was signed by the Environmental Working Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.


"We need a Triple Crown conservation title - one with strong funding, substantive policy improvements and a reinvigorated and broadened conservation compliance regime," Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said in a statement on the coalition's website.

Plainsman wrote,



> You and shaug are not here defending agriculture, your here protecting your trough. In the future you may have to run your business like any other business. You know, be smart enough not to plant corn in sand without irrigation. The intelligent will survive. Maybe they can buy your farm for ten cents on the dollar. Maybe the USFW service can buy it.


The farm bill has turned into one big trough. Even pretend sportsmens orgs like Defenders of Wildlife want a piece of the action. The Farm Bill should be axed straight across the board. No money for farmers, no money for conservation, just get rid of it.


----------



## Plainsman

> The farm bill has turned into one big trough. Even pretend sportsmens orgs like Defenders of Wildlife want a piece of the action. The Farm Bill should be axed straight across the board. No money for farmers, no money for conservation, just get rid of it.


OK, I'm listening. How should it be run? I'm inclined to agree, but need to know more. If a business is run bad it should fail. The land that was CRP should have had cattle on it not grain. If they put grain back on and can make it without government help great. If the go broke, oh well, other companies go broke too.

OK, shaug, I am open to changing my mind if you have some good ideas. I'm guardedly optimistic you have some good ideas. Lay them on me. :thumb:

Oh, and all those questions you ask of indsport, he lives close enough to me that I know he does not belong to any of those organizations your worried about. Neither do I for a matter of fact.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> If you didn't put the sunflowers there gst there would be good native habitat. That's what I mean by wildlife doesn't thrive because of you it thrives in spite of you. The prairie chicken is all but gone because of agriculture. Sure a few species have increased, but the majority have decreased, and some are gone because of agriculture. The elk lived on the plains not the mountains. Now most live in the mountains because that's where they have been pushed. Only recently have they returned to North Dakota.


Plainsman, reading the above I am inclined to believe you are a preservationist. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Maybe we white people should leave and let the grass grow. However, that is unrealistic. Yes the elk are returning. Mostly in a stock trailer. Did you know figure 4 is back in business? The Native Americans brought several elk in from Havre Montana. They got them from a fella named Kim Kafka.



> OK, shaug, I am open to changing my mind if you have some good ideas. I'm guardedly optimistic you have some good ideas. Lay them on me.


Later, I'm going to bed.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, reading the above I am inclined to believe you are a preservationist.


No, not at all, but that's the reality of the situations. Perhaps you noticed one post where I said if people were actually starving I would plow up Yellowstone. Not a preservationist, but a conservationist shaug. However, it's undeniable that there was better habitat before we tore things up for our grain. It was necessary, but what I posted is still reality. Necessity doesn't take away from reality.

I don't blame it on the farmer. We are all responsible because we all need to eat. However, at this time we do not need to destroy every last tiny parcel of God's creation in the name of the almighty dollar. A few fragments would be nice so our great grand children can see what this country once looked like.


----------



## leadfed

Still bugging you eh gabe!lol You are no different than a crack head. Except for the fact that your "crack" so to say is farming. You know NOTHING else and are completely blinded by the [grain+cows+government money=everything life entails] equation. Too bad your daddy never let you leave the farm so you could realize there is quite a world out there and not everyone eats, sleeps, and ****s ag like you and him.

Oh you got some awards for conservation.haha Bravo! Could it have had something to do with you hitting up every possible conservation program available? It really is a good thing for wildlife but that isn't why you did it gabe. You did it because it created a nice windbreak for your cows or a snow barrier for a road. It probably also was an area that was worthless to you anyway. So why not hit up another "program" and make my land worth more....all about the benjies once again gabe! :wink: But because of it you get an "award" so you can puff your chest out and tell everyone around how much of a steward of the land you are. Once again, bravo! What a predictable blowhard.lol


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> However, it's undeniable that there was better habitat before we tore things up for our grain.


Are you sure??? I think what you are talking about is an expanded wild lands program. Wildlife corridors.

Plains, did you see what leadfed just wrote. He qualifies as one of those side walk outdoorsman. Tell you what, bring him and more like him down to the Capitol and let him repeat in so many words what he just said in a sub-committee hearing. Report it in the papers. And then you wonder why you always lose? It's not the politicians fault. It's not that the legislature is stacked against you and your small crew.

Leadfed is yours and you can have him.


----------



## gst

palisnamn so you are saying agriculture has not benefited widlife and that everything was better when these lands were native prarie???

How much of your time is spent hunting on lands that are currentl;y used in agricultural production?

If agriculture is such a detriment to wildlife, surely you do not waste your time hunting these barren lands void of wildlife and habitat.

Yes indeed the hunting and wildlife here in North Dakota simply sucks because of all the agriculture that is in this state. :roll:

This is a perfect example of where the pendelum I mentioned swings. Plainsamn claims to "support" agriculture, but advocates for reversing everything back to the way it was before "tore up for agriculture"

Plainsamn if you are truly a "conservationalist, you would embrace the programs that are out there that agriculture itself has developed.

You would be on this site educating people about how agriculture is moving in the right direction with these programs.

You would not let some childish personal dislike of someone who uses these very conservation programs in their ag operation get in the way of being a postive part of expanding these very programs you claim to "support".

So plainsman can you show me one single thread you have started on this site or that anyone has started on this site regarding some of the innovative conservation programs agriculture is engaging in that benefit wildlife????

I'm not talking thanking a farmer or patting anyone on the bak, I am talking about educating other sportsmen to the kind of programs that are out there that many of usag producers are practicing.

Do you even know what practices and programs are occuring???? 

I have provided you any numbe of links to examples of these practices and programs in the past and what have you used them for in "supporting" ag on this hunting and fishing site???

Please Bruce one single thread about a positive aricultural practice posted as a result of all your "support"of ag on this site.

And palinsman, before you make an assumption that wildlife thrives despite what I do, perhaps it would mean a little more if you had actually seen what it is we do up here and had any actual knowledge rather than personal anomousity driving your comments.

And so the pendelum swings. 
:roll:


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Plains, did you see what leadfed just wrote. He qualifies as one of those side walk outdoorsman. Tell you what, bring him and more like him down to the Capitol and let him repeat in so many words what he just said in a sub-committee hearing. Report it in the papers. And then you wonder why you always lose? It's not the politicians fault. It's not that the legislature is stacked against you and your small crew.
> 
> Leadfed is yours and you can have him.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plains, did you see what leadfed just wrote. He qualifies as one of those side walk outdoorsman. Tell you what, bring him and more like him down to the Capitol and let him repeat in so many words what he just said in a sub-committee hearing. Report it in the papers. And then you wonder why you always lose? It's not the politicians fault. It's not that the legislature is stacked against you and your small crew.
> 
> Leadfed is yours and you can have him.
Click to expand...

Ya it is funny isn't it gabe. It's funny how you and shaug whine and complain about how the world should bend over backwards for you two.lol I've met your type throughout the years and it's always the same. Babies who go crying to somone, be it mom and dad or the teacher, every time something doesn't go their way. You two would be amazed at how much I am involved with ag and ag producers. I have yet to meet one as radical or one that feels like the world owes them something as much as you two. Thats why I don't harbour any ill will towards the logical ag producer. Heck if I hated ag I would have to hate myself as well as half of my family. Nope, the issue is its the few loud mouths like you two who run around crying foul so much that you finally chip away and get more and more handouts. The squeeky wheel gets the grease is the slogan that should hang over the entrance to your operations.

I have no doubts that you idiots will keep getting your way and in all honesty, i'll forget it as fast as it happens. The fact of the matter is that you two will have to continue living your lives depending on someone else to keep your operations "economically profitable"...and that right there is truly the funny point. :lol: I guess if that is the only way you two can survive in this world keep crying fellas. The rest of us will earn a living the honorable way. :wink:


----------



## Longshot

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it's undeniable that there was better habitat before we tore things up for our grain.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure??? I think what you are talking about is an expanded wild lands program. Wildlife corridors.
Click to expand...

Wow shaug, you must have gotten training from gst. Quote one line and then purposely misinterpret what was said. Very honest of you.



gst said:


> longshot perhaps you would care to answer this question as NO ONE else will.
> 
> How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?


gst, this HAS been answered before. I don't know how much clearer swift can make it for you other than you refuse to accept it or not, it has been answered. I don't believe that any possible future owner of a piece of property should have more or any right above that of the present owner. I have already stated this. When you purhcase property you know what incumbers it and you buy it or not that is your decision. If you can't respect the decision that Grandpa made then you have a problem, but what did he gain from the easement payment may or may not benefite the next generation. gst, we have had this discussion before and even when I agreed that I didn't believe in perpetual easements and that the federal government should have to abide by state law you still couldn't accept that opinion because I wouldn't agree with easements only lasting with the landowner. I think 99 years with the appropriate valuation would be benefitial for both parties.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> I don't believe that any possible future owner of a piece of property should have more or any right above that of the present owner.


longshot, answer this one simple direct question.

Should they have the same rights as the present owner to make the decision what they wish to do with their property?

Swift seems to think so!! 
"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit." 
swift's own words,

There simply is no way for that to happen with the perpetual easemnent. EVER.

So......How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?

This question has not been answered as there is no way it can happen without infringing on the next generations rights in the same manner that is being critisized by the perpetual easement supporters.



Longshot said:


> I think 99 years with the appropriate valuation would be benefitial for both parties.


Hey 99 years is not perpetual, that's a good start!  
:thumb:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Swift seems to think so!!
> "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of _*their land *_as they seem fit."
> swift's own words,
> 
> There simply is no way for that to happen with the perpetual easemnent. EVER.


Slowly so it does not go over your head!!!!!! Your land means the land you own now! Not land that someday you may own or others may own! You have no fiduciary interest in land you do not own, and restrictions and covenants that are in place on land purchased are not hidden and the buyer is free to accept or decline them! Compare that to someone being able to decide who you can sell your land to and for how much! Your argument fall flat today as it always has!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

> This question has not been answered as there is no way it can happen without infringing on the next generations rights in the same manner that is being critisized by the perpetual easement supporters.


When they purchased the land with the easement already in place they purchase with the understanding that their are limitations on their rights. Just like any other contract. Nothing makes farming special compared to any business contract. You simply want your cake and eat it too. With your idea of the easement only goes for the current lanowner every crook would sign up an easement, take the money, and sell his land the next day. Or give it to his kid. That's just an open door to abuse --- again.



> palisnamn so you are saying agriculture has not benefited widlife and that everything was better when these lands were native prarie???


As far as species diversity, and numbers of animals yes. We have few white tail deer, but elk, pronghorn, bison, etc. Even the plains grizzly roamed where we are now. Your out of your mind if you think what I typed was anti ag. Did you see where I enlarged the word WE? Sure you did, but that didn't fit your whine agenda. Did you see where I said if people were starving I would plow Yellowstone? Sure you did, but tht didn't fit your whine agenda. If no one agrees you point your little finger and cry. No one is anti ag here gst, but being pro ag doesn't mean I have to kiss your behind either. Pull up your pants and wipe your tears.



> Please Bruce one single thread about a positive aricultural practice posted as a result of all your "support"of ag on this site.


 I am aware of some very good ag practices as compared to ag practices 20, even 10 years ago, but ag brag isn't on my performance standards. You do it.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Swift seems to think so!!
> "Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of _*their land *_as they seem fit."
> swift's own words,
> 
> There simply is no way for that to happen with the perpetual easemnent. EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> Slowly so it does not go over your head!!!!!! Your land means the land you own now! Not land that someday you may own or others may own! You have no fiduciary interest in land you do not own, and restrictions and covenants that are in place on land purchased are not hidden and the buyer is free to accept or decline them! Compare that to someone being able to decide who you can sell your land to and for how much! Your argument fall flat today as it always has!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So ron are you saying that each person should not have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit if they are a subsequent generation land owner?

Slowly so it does not go over your head ron.

......How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?

I even underlined the important parts :wink:

Ron you never did answer if I should be able to sell my land (2 sections) to an alien non citizen?

How about 50,000 acres in the heart of the badlands to a Japanese developer for a theme park?

Or better yet, A Japenese fella who wishes to start a captive cervid operation? :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So ron are you saying that each person should not have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit if they are a subsequent generation land owner?


 You can not purchase absolute rights. Some were sold in perpetual easement. It's the buyers responsibility to make himself aware of all things affecting the land he is buying. I would guess if there is a perpetual easement on it he is paying less. In that light it's totally fair that he not be able to do anything he wants. The previous landowner gambled that he would make more on the easement than the reduction in land value when he sells it. What is it you don't understand about contracts.

Say, how about we look at mineral rights. When they drill on a farm that the previous owner Joe sold his mineral rights to Tom who do you think they pay? Hmmmmmm Oh, my goooooooosh Joe isn't getting paid. He owns the land, but they are paying Tom. Oh, cry cry cry. I'll bet if it was the government that paid for the mineral rights you would whiz and moan and try to get those mineral rights back. They should only be good for the current owner right????? Ya, you betcha Ole.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> When they purchased the land with the easement already in place they purchase with the understanding that their are limitations on their rights. Just like any other contract. Nothing makes farming special compared to any business contract. You simply want your cake and eat it too. With your idea of the easement only goes for the current lanowner every crook would sign up an easement, take the money, and sell his land the next day. Or give it to his kid. That's just an open door to abuse --- again.


Again with the conspiracies plainsman. :-?

Plainsman really slow as ron puts it. We are not talking about purchased land, we are talking about generational transfers.

......How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements *by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property* (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)*when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?*

You guys really aren;t willing to admit what you are demanding (perpetual easements) infringes on someone elses rights every bit as much as you claim yours are being infringed upon. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> gst wrote: Please Bruce one single thread about a positive aricultural practice posted as a result of all your "support"of ag on this site.
> 
> plainsman wrote: I am aware of some very good ag practices as compared to ag practices 20, even 10 years ago, but ag brag isn't on my performance standards


Beleive me bruce we all know "ag brag" isn't on your preformance standards as a moderator on this site, :wink: we have all seen your "preformance standards" regarding discussing agriculture. :wink:

You know those "hands in the taxpayers pockets" and "greed at it's darkest" comments!!! :wink:

Even from 5 years ago!! :wink:

But the comment I can;t help but notice Bruce is this one you made when discussing the value of ag subsidies a while back.

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

_poop wrote: Do the math on how much you pay for it! _

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

So you can't find one positive thread about agriculture practices on here"??? :-? :roll:

How many threads about agriculture are there on this "hunting and fishing site????? surely one must be positive?????


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> ......How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), _*engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?*_


They do not own the land now and when and if they get the land it comes with the obligations attached to the property! Afain they have no current ownership and only an expectation of ownership!!!!!!! They are not infringed as a property owner anymore than someone is that buys a house with covenants on it that restrict the type of shingles or fence etc..... Those contractual obligations come with the property and if they are not to your liking then sell the land or do not buy it!!!!!!!

Your intellectual shortcoming of understanding this is getting laughable!!!!!!

Using your thought process then mineral rights and water rights should not be seperated as well! It amounts to the same thing as it affects not only the value but the use of the land in the future!


----------



## gst

So ron your whole arguement is that the subsequent generations are not being "infringed upon" with a perpetual easement? ???? 

Ron with the current program offered by the USF&WS can the subesquent generation build a calving facility on that landwhere ever they would like???

Remember from a discussion on FBO ron you are big into people being responsibble enough to build the necessary buildings for their animals, so if there is one of these perpetual easements on my land can I build a calving barn where ever I wish to keep from suffereing larger losses ?

So ron if you have the "right" to place a perpetual easement on a property that restricts what other people can do with their property when it becomes their property, why can not other people initiate legislative measures to restrict what you do with your property when you wish to no longer own it?????????

Your intellectual shortcoming of understanding this is getting laughable!!!!!! :wink:

Ron, you keep avoiding answering the questions regarding alien land ownership here in ND?


----------



## gst

swift stated:
"Here it is in simple terms. Each person should have the same right to be stewards of their land as they seem fit."

Ron do you agree with this statement?

Yes or no?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Gabe this has been answered over and over! IF YOU OWN THE LAND YES! BUT IF THAT LAND HAS COVENANTS ON IT WHEN YOU OBTAIN IT THEN YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM!!!!!!

If you do not own the land, then your rights amount to CRAP!!!!!!!!! So there it is again!!!!!!!!!!

So your father or grandfather got money for an easement and now you cannot plow it up or over graze that area! So you are PO'd at them! I think the conversation should be with them if they are alive and if not get over yourself!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6891

Ron, It seems as if it is not just NDFB and other agriculture orgs. that does not want just anyone to be able to purchase land without some sort of process involved! :wink:

It appears that everyone has their own reasons eh??


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> ......How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending and supporting (perpetual easements), engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to choose what they wish to do with their property ?
> 
> You guys really aren;t willing to admit what you are demanding (perpetual easements) infringes on someone elses rights every bit as much as you claim yours are being infringed upon.


If I as a landowner wants to put a piece of my property into a perpetual easement, what makes it right for you or anyone else to say that I can't. It is up to me to decide how this decision will affect my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. If I want to put my land into a perpetual easement, that's up to me, and it is my heir's responsibility to honor these decisions. If I do not want my heirs to have to deal with this then I should not enter into any perpetual easements, but once I do it is something that they will have to live with. Sometimes inheiritances come with encumbrances.

Similarily, if I do not want to own any land that has a perpetual easement against it then perhaps I should not contract to buy any land that has a perpetual easement against it.

Pretty simple concept.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> Ron, you keep avoiding answering the questions regarding alien land ownership here in ND?


I'm guessing an alien (maybe Mars) has purchased land at Antler, North Dakota, because were talking English and he can't understand. Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent conversation here. :wink:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Gabe this has been answered over and over! IF YOU OWN THE LAND YES! BUT IF THAT LAND HAS COVENANTS ON IT WHEN YOU OBTAIN IT THEN YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM!!!!!!


Ron so you are saying that if these "covenants" are placed upon this land infringing on someones rights to do with their land what they wish they must be abided by ? :-?

But then you turn around and demand that the legislative process whereby the elected representatives of ALL the people of ND, can not put in place a "covenant" of sorts in a state law infringing upon what YOU wish to do with YOUR land???? 

Do I have that right ron????

What was that you posted on FBO, "goose meet gander"? :roll:

Huntin one indeed it is a very simple concept. Why should YOU have the "right" to impose "infringements" on others then demand none be placed upon you?

As I said, even though I think it is foolish, if an in family generational trust was imposed so be it. To have a outside entitiy, (particularily one that reserves the ability to change the terms of the easement at any time FOREVER) is a completely different fish to fry.

Those subsequent generations are not following "grandpas" wishes any longer, the other entity becomes the managing entity and ever subsequent generation must abide by their "infringements" BIG difference. Go back and read what shaug posted on perpetual easement terms and models. Don't beleive that, ask the USF&WS.

The plain and simple truth for the majority of people enteringthese agreements is it is not about some great conservationideology, IT IS ABOUT THE MONEY. If it is not about the money and about how "grandpa" wishes the land to be used, why not simply use an irrevocable trust???

Hmmmm. why isn't anyone complaining about these "greedy landowners having their "hands in the taxpayers pockets"?????

And yes indeed when these dollars are not used to pay down our "extreme national debt" the "taxpayer" is left to make up the difference.

Funny how when the dollars spent benefit some no one squacks.

What was that quote of palinsman's?

Plaisnman wrote: "I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it." :roll: :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'm guessing an alien (maybe Mars) has purchased land at Antler, North Dakota, because were talking English and he can't understand. Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent conversation here.


Oh plainsman I understand what is being said here, your own words spell it out quite plainly! :wink:

An oldie, but a goodie! 

Plaisnman wrote: "I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it." 
:roll: :wink:

Perahps less of a "conservative" than a closet "socialist" After all we have detected some anti landower sentiments have we not? :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Got it now! Greed by someone else is bad in ag but OK for you!!!!!!!!!

A possible future owner has no rights gabe period!!!!!!!!!


----------



## shaug

There is only one entity or agency that can purchase a perpetual easement. They are the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. They do not have or make any money of their own. Any monies in their account comes from the US Taxpayer. There are small number of persons pushing legislation to fund these easement schemes. The majority of the population do not even know that there is a small but vocal contingent out there who want to pick their pockets to fund these easements.

So what is it that the general population is being asked to fund with their tax dollars? What are they buying? The owner of Starion Financial bank, Craig Larson, was at a meeting last summer put on by the USFWS. Craig said if he had more land he would enroll more in perpetual easements. Craig Larson is a banker and should know investments. If perpetual easements are such a good investment then why isn't he buying them? Instead he is selling. I guess he can recognize a poor investment when he sees one.

So can anyone tell me why the people of the United States "want" to pay banker Craig Larson between $250 to $500 dollars per acre to own a perpetual easement on his land?

Ron, your leaving a little something out each time you post. If you purchase land, put a covenent on it, then resell it, you will more than likely sell it for less. That is your loss. The agreement is between you and the buyer. Craig Larson has his money from the taxpayer if he sells them an easement. He can afford to sell his land for less. But answer me this, what is in it for Joe taxpayer? What in the heck are we buying? With borrowed money at interest.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 said,



> If I as a landowner wants to put a piece of my property into a perpetual easement, what makes it right for you or anyone else to say that I can't. It is up to me to decide how this decision will affect my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. If I want to put my land into a perpetual easement, that's up to me, and it is my heir's responsibility to honor these decisions. If I do not want my heirs to have to deal with this then I should not enter into any perpetual easements, but once I do it is something that they will have to live with. Sometimes inheiritances come with encumbrances.
> 
> Similarily, if I do not want to own any land that has a perpetual easement against it then perhaps I should not contract to buy any land that has a perpetual easement against it.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.


OK, so you lift the money up front right off of the taxpayers. The fed/gov borrows so more money and burdens your grandchildren with more debt. That shall be their inheritance.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote on page nine,



> I don't blame it on the farmer. We are all responsible because we all need to eat. However, at this time we do not need to destroy every last tiny parcel of God's creation in the name of the almighty dollar. A few fragments would be nice so our great grand children can see what this country once looked like.


Plains, here is a jewel of a fragment for ya.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... erness.pdf


----------



## Plainsman

Good article shaug. Years ago when I was in college we read articles like this so biologists didn't do stupid things. Today universities turn out students who think more like the Hollywood crowd. You know, the people with a cause. They think they work for the round eyed cuddly animals and not the American taxpayer.

My thoughts were running a page ahead and I was thinking about predators. You notice a few posts ago I mentioned the old plains grizzly. These modern touchy feely biologists have to find the predator that replaces the grizzly and the wolf, and that is man. Being responsible means keeping things in balance, and contrary to these modern tv shows nature in most of this country no longer balances it's self. I get really sick of hearing "let nature balance herself". In modern America for wildlife without hunters it's feast and famine. Populations rather than running smooth explode then shortly crash.

The idea of a small wilderness is ok, but brains must accompany the effort and that includes leaving it open to hunting. Those that think hunting is cruel should be forced to watch the slow death animals face when their mindless ideas are incorporated You may notice you just hit one of my pet peeves about modern pseudo biology.

Shaug I know you would really enjoy this book. So would most hunters. It's called The Illusions of Animal Rights by Russ Carman.

There is nothing wrong with small wilderness areas as long as we understand we must replace the predators. It's our responsibility to do so.


----------



## indsport

My weekly drive by

Shaug: Why should non-profit 501(c)3's get any taxpayer dollars. What function do they provide? 
Answer: Shaug, the initiative provides for a competitive grant process. Why exclude someone? Even you can apply for the money. 
Ask an intiative sponsor why they included non profits and get back to us. 
Shaug: Let duck stamp monies go back to hunters from which they were derived. Let oil and gas lease monies go to the general treasurey. 
Answer: Duck hunters voluntarily put the duck stamp act into place. They asked for it and want it to go for duck habitat. Ask any duck hunter. Oil and gas? ask those who wrote the legislation. Only a very small portion goes to habitat, almost all of it goes to the treasury already.
Shaug: Do you think the 5% oil tax monies should be used to purchase easements? Keep in mind that oil tax revenue is from ND. Yes it could be used to purchase easements and it is up to the panel to decide. As the initiative states, all money will be spent in North Dakota.

gst: How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????

Answer: The landowner at the current time makes the decisions. As noted elsewhere, the present landowner grants perpetual easements for a multitude of uses (rights of way etc) and granting a perpetual easement for land use that affects future generations is no different. Further, when one sells the land, all those perpetual easements are part of the sale. If there are any regulations that limit use of the land, even to future generations, that has to be taken into consideration by the buyer. The present landowner should not be restricted with regard to perpetual easements and I do not accept the future generations argument.

gst: So then are you stating that under this measure all contracts will have to abie by state law and will not be subject to perpetual easements? 
Answer: yes, all contracts will have to abide by state law and no, I would hope they could convey perpetual easements.

gst: Are you then stating that these easements written by a nonprofit will not be able to be conveyed to a Federal agency that is exempt from following state guidelines regarding duration of easements?

Answer: I would expect that any use of the money will be governed by existing law which does allow transfer of property from an individual to a federal agency. Whether or not it would include perpetual easements, I don't know.

Question for gst and shaug since I am unsure: Your opposition to perpetual easements seems to be directed only at conservation easements. Does this mean that NDFB is opposed to all perpetual easements or do they make exceptions? If so, that position is a pure flip flop.

Back to your regularly scheduled whine session.


----------



## leadfed

Hey gabe thompson. Do you think it is Ok to sell your land and retain the surface rights?

*edited cause I kind of want to know his stance on this and I don't want to damage his monster ego.


----------



## leadfed

I guess that question is for gabes puppet shaug too.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore[size=5] said:


> A possible future owner has no rights gabe period[/size]!!!!!!!!!


What about when he becomes the land owner thru a generational transfer ron???

This pretty well sums it up. Future land owners can be infringed upon, but the current landowner that wishes to sell to whomever or place a erpetual easement can not.

At least that is the position the small handful of people on here apparently beleives.

I'm willing to leave it at that now that it has been said in black and white with everyone knowing exactly where everyone stands.

That is unless anyone wishes to answer the question wether one should be able to sell their land to whomever they wish even if it is an alien non citizen. :wink:


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> gst: How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????
> 
> Answer: The landowner at the current time makes the decisions. As noted elsewhere, the present landowner grants perpetual easements for a multitude of uses (rights of way etc) and granting a perpetual easement for land use that affects future generations is no different. Further, when one sells the land, all those perpetual easements are part of the sale. If there are any regulations that limit use of the land, even to future generations, that has to be taken into consideration by the buyer. The present landowner should not be restricted with regard to perpetual easements and I do not accept the future generations argument.


I was going to be done with this, but after rereading ind's post, this was simply to direct of an explanation of the ideals on this site by this handful of people that condemn others for being "elitist lords of the land" and "greedy" ect.....

So indsport, simply because you "do not accept" the future generations arguement, it is not valid????? 

How can you as an individual defend the usage of perpetual easements by claiming no one should have the right to infringe upon what someone chooses to do with their property (in who they sell it to or easements restricting usage)when the very action you are defending (perpetual easements) engages in infringing on every subsequent generations right to do with their property what they may wish to do?????????

Indsport, not only do I and many others not "accept" your arguement, please realize the state does not either. :wink: :roll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

What about when he becomes the land owner thru a generational transfer ron???

Nothing changes, he has no rights to that property until he owns it! You cannot go to a bank and borrow money against grand dads land without your name on the property. It is that simple gabe!!!!!!!!!!!

No ownership no property right privilege! Once you become owner of the property be it farm land, or land within a city, you are still bound by the covenants that are attached to the property regardless if you bought it or inherited it or had it handed to you from a living relative or friend!

And here is why gabe! Grandpa puts the land into a trust or in his will to go to you! Grandpa decides the day before he dies that he has changed his mind! Gives it to the church or to the state or to another relative or friend! That is the privilege of ownership! You waiting for that land have none!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Nothing changes, he has no rights to that property until he owns it! You cannot go to a bank and borrow money against grand dads land without your name on the property. It is that simple gabe!!!!!!!!!!!


And when he then owns it has his "right to be stewards of their land as they see fit" been "infriged upon" by the perpetual easement that you are agruing in favor of encumbering the land with?

Yes.

And yet you claim YOUR right to do with YOUR land what YOU wish should not be infriged upon.

spin it whoever you wish ron, them's the facts and this statement by you pretty well sums it up.

by Ron Gilmore » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:27 pm 

_A possible future owner has no rights gabe period!!!!!!!!!_ 

Luckily the ELECTED state legislature disagrees with your little oligarchies position. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst, your thinking the same as some primitive tribes that could not understand how business works. They would sell a pig, spend the money, then a week later wanted their pig back. That's what you want. Children often think that way too. When adults think that way they are trying to get something for nothing. I don't know, is that greedy?

I don't know what a perpetual easement is going for, but for simple math lets say $10/acre. Now if it's only good for a single generation would you expect that same $10/acre? How about $1/acre? This is the part that will tell us if this is greed driven.


----------



## indsport

gst, one more time and as simply as possible. The present landowner should have the right to do with what they want with the property. I merely said that I think your argument about future generations is not valid. I would be interested to see data on your claim that "many others" feel the future generation argument is valid. I am sure there are any number of private property websites that disagree with you.


----------



## Longshot

Plainsman said:


> I don't know what a perpetual easement is going for, but for simple math lets say $10/acre. Now if it's only good for a single generation would you expect that same $10/acre? How about $1/acre? This is the part that will tell us if this is greed driven.


It's more like 50-75% of the land value at the time of signing the easement, dependant on negotiations if there are any. If this is such a bad thing, why is it that they have no problem signing people up? gst, how can you tie property rights to a person who doesn't have ownership? There must be in possession of property to define ownership.



gst said:


> This pretty well sums it up. Future land owners can be infringed upon, but the current landowner that wishes to sell to whomever or place a erpetual easement can not.
> 
> At least that is the position the small handful of people on here apparently beleives.


You may want to get outside your little box gst, you're showing your bias again. The majority of people have always believed it to be that way. It's your right to do with your land at the time of ownership/possession within the limits of your deed and the encumbrances of that property. So how much of your land did Grandpa tie up in easements that has you so skewed? The next thing you'll be telling us is that Grandpa sold the mineral right to the land and you want them to return to each generation.


----------



## Plainsman

> The next thing you'll be telling us is that Grandpa sold the mineral right to the land and you want them to return to each generation.


That is exactly what gst is saying. Like some aborigine who sells his spear, then wants it back without returning what he was given for it. There is no doubt if they were successful with the elimination of a standing perpetual easement that mineral rights would be next.

I can't remember the psychological terminology for it, but when some people are left to their own independence they try replace their parents, who gave everything to them, with something else. Sadly it's often government, and they don't realize that the government doesn't have money trees. They have to reach into the pocket of the American taxpayer. Unfortunately everyone sees the government as something to take advantage of if they can. They don't stop to think the government is all of us. When someone takes, someone else is giving. Now some want to sign perpetual easement, then pass their land along to a son or daughter as if those easements were not valid. What a scam.

These people talk about being conservative, but look at what they propose. These redistribution of wealth scams are socialist. Even when fellow landowners like leadfed don't agree. I didn't see where gst or shaug even acknowledged leadfed as a fellow landowner after he mentioned it. I'm guessing they didn't want anyone to dwell on that. I'm not sure everyone realizes Ron is a farmer also. I often talk with farmers who think gst's stand on perpetual easements is absurd. gst may be with the North Dakota Stockman's Association, and shaug may be (gst says so) a representative of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, but they represent less than 10% of the farmers out there. Most ie the vast majority don't think this way.


----------



## leadfed

You would be hard pressed to buy land in western north dakota right now and expect to get the surface rights with it. What do you think of that gabe? Lets say you buy a section of land with a lot of scoria on it but the original owner retained the surface rights. That keeps you as the current owner from being able to access the scoria but it also allows the previous owner to profit off of YOUR land still.

Do you think that is OK?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> t, your thinking the same as some primitive tribes that could not understand how business works. They would sell a pig, spend the money, then a week later wanted their pig back.


plainsamn, it is not about wanting the pig back, it is about being able to sell the pig. You want to be able to sell the pig but you wish to keep subsequent genertaions from being able to do the same the same.

If YOU have the Right" to put land into an easement in your arguement YOU should be able to do what YOU wish with YOUR land, why should the next generation NOT have the "right" to take it out at some point when it is THEIR land?

It appears you "greedily" demand a right to do with YOUR land what you wish to deny every single subsequent generation.


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> gst, one more time and as simply as possible. The present landowner should have the right to do with what they want with the property.  I merely said that I think your argument about future generations is not valid. I would be interested to see data on your claim that "many others" feel the future generation argument is valid. I am sure there are any number of private property websites that disagree with you.





indsport said:


> The present landowner should not be restricted with regard to perpetual easements and I do not accept the future generations argument.


So once again indsport, simply because you do not "accept it" or "think it is valid" you dismiss any number of alternative ideals held by other organizations??

Indsport, what is the law right here in ND regardig perpetual easements?

As I said indsport the ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND do not agree that perpetual easements have a place here in ND.

That is fact.


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> gst, one more time and as simply as possible. The present landowner should have the right to do with what they want with the property


Indsport, one more time and as simply as possible. Do you beleive every subsequent following generation of landowners should have the same right you stated the "present" land owner should have above?????????

Yes or no?

Please answer this before departing.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> You may want to get outside your little box gst, you're showing your bias again. The majority of people have always believed it to be that way. It's your right to do with your land at the time of ownership/possession within the limits of your deed and the encumbrances of that property. So how much of your land did Grandpa tie up in easements that has you so skewed?


Perhaps if you "get outside of your little box and quit showing your bias, you will understand you are demanding that the "present" generation have the "right" to do with their land what they wish without any infringement so they can implement an "encumberance" on this property that will prevnet every subsequent generation from having the very same right you are demanding.

If you as the "present" landowner beleive you should have the "right" to do with your land what you wish, why should every subsequent generation not have that very same "right" when they become the "present" ladowner thru a generational transfer?

And for the record there are no perpetual easements on any of our property.

Some people simply beleive protecting the"rights" of future generations is as important as looking out for our own "present" generations. Perhaps it could be better understood if you had future generations that will make their livihoods from the land.

Plainsamn, if this conversation is simply "greed" based, why would I not just go to the USF&WS and collect the $200 to $300 dollars /acre or in some instances more, they are paying for this DGI??? Take that times 3000 acres and do the math and ask yourself if it is about "greed" why that check has not been taken and cashed. :roll:

Guys leave your personal dislikes and anomousity aside for once. I am not suggesting there should not be conservation programs or eaasements, simply that they should be mutually benefitial to the parties involved and that each and every generation have the right to determine that for themselves.

Radical ideas indeed. :roll:


----------



## leadfed

:lol: :lol:

Poor ol gabe won't talk to me anymore?  Whats wrong gabe....got a burr under your sadle? :wink: If you don't believe in perpetual easments then you surely can't be in favor of a landowner being able to retain surface rights when he/she sells it.....right?


----------



## gst

led, just tired of rolling around in the gutter with someone once you openly admitted to "hating"me in a thread on here. :roll: You did admit to that did you not?

Little value comes from a discussion based on hatred of a person.

I told you at that time led you would have to dance that dance by yourself.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, just tired of rolling around in the gutter with someone once you openly admitted to "hating"me in a thread on here. :roll: You did admit to that did you not?
> 
> Little value comes from a discussion based on hatred of a person.
> 
> I told you at that time led you would have to dance that dance by yourself.


Sure did and if you deny that feeling doesn't work two ways you are lying again.

Soooo, I will ask swift, plainsman and the rest of the crew what they think.

Right now in W. ND landowners that sell their land are retaining the surface rights. How come I don't hear an uproar from gabe and his cronies at NDFB and NDSA about that? I would consider that essentially a perpetual easment, wouldn't you guys? So much hypocrisy from gabe and his crew its hard to keep up. Yet he plays the role of a stand up super rancher.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Perhaps if you "get outside of your little box and quit showing your bias, you will understand you are demanding that the "present" generation have the "right" to do with their land what they wish without any infringement so they can implement an "encumberance" on this property that will prevnet every subsequent generation from having the very same right you are demanding.


No bias here gst. I've already said I don't agree with perpetual easements by anyone. I believe 99 years should be good enough for any easement. Now gst, that doesn't mean that you will still be getting that same payment amount. It will probably be much less than what you would get now for a perpetual easement.



gst said:


> If you as the "present" landowner beleive you should have the "right" to do with your land what you wish, why should every subsequent generation not have that very same "right" when they become the "present" ladowner thru a generational transfer?


I don't understand how you think a possible future owner can be infringed upon. They don't own it yet, and if they don't like what comes with the land than don't buy it. If Grandpa gave it to you then live with it. It was his decision and I'm sure he got what he wanted because if not he wouldn't have signed.

Edited to add: If you don't like the land you have with the easement attached, sell it a that is still your right. Buy another plot of land. You still have a choice, no right has ever been taken from you.



gst said:


> Guys leave your personal dislikes and anomousity aside for once. I am not suggesting there should not be conservation programs or eaasements, *simply that they should be mutually benefitial to the parties involved *and that each and every generation have the right to determine that for themselves.
> 
> Radical ideas indeed. :roll:


Well the part in bold is true and I agree, but the right should stay with the current land owner.


----------



## Longshot

leadfed said:


> Right now in W. ND landowners that sell their land are retaining the surface rights. How come I don't hear an uproar from gabe and his cronies at NDFB and NDSA about that? I would consider that essentially a perpetual easment, wouldn't you guys? So much hypocrisy from gabe and his crew its hard to keep up. Yet he plays the role of a stand up super rancher.


I wish they wouldn't do that. I believe it's a bad idea to seperate interests from the property. Look how many problems have come about with mineral rights. Things would be much easier and better if they hadn't been seperated in my opinion.


----------



## Plainsman

> If YOU have the Right" to put land into an easement in your arguement YOU should be able to do what YOU wish with YOUR land, why should the next generation NOT have the "right" to take it out at some point when it is THEIR land?


You know why gst. Because the previous owner sold some of those rights for a profit.

gst, leadfed asked a very good question about surface rights. I think you don't answer, not because you don't want to talk to leadfed, but because you will show your bias. You think it's ok as long as a farmer retains the rights. And that boys and girls is the actual truth no matter what comes out of gst's little typing fingers and cowboy thumb next. :rollin:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> gst, leadfed asked a very good question about surface rights. I think you don't answer


One or two sessions ago the ND legislature made it illegal for a landowner to sever or sell the hunting rights off of a piece of property. Good idea. I am unfamiliar with what leadfed is talking about here. Are we talking gravel, scoria?????


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst, leadfed asked a very good question about surface rights. I think you don't answer
> 
> 
> 
> One or two sessions ago the ND legislature made it illegal for a landowner to sever or sell the hunting rights off of a piece of property. Good idea. I am unfamiliar with what leadfed is talking about here. Are we talking gravel, scoria?????
Click to expand...

Yes. Gravel, scoria as well as many others including the profits from a salt water disposal. It essentially keeps the landowner from doing what "he feels is right" to the land he/she owns.

BTW I like the idea of not being able to sever or sell the hunting rights as well.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> led, just tired of rolling around in the gutter with someone once you openly admitted to "hating"me in a thread on here. :roll: You did admit to that did you not?
> 
> Little value comes from a discussion based on hatred of a person.
> 
> I told you at that time led you would have to dance that dance by yourself.


plainsamn it was spelled out quite clearly why I am not wasting time addressing leads concerns.



leadfed said:


> Sure did and if you deny that feeling doesn't work two ways you are lying again.


Little value comes from a discussion based on hatred of a person.

plainsamn this was leds response. Now given what you fely compelled to post in another thread,it appears that even though you felt it necessary to repost a list of rules from 5 years ago, it is clear uyou as a moderator have no intention of dealing with them. And you wonder why this site has the reputation it does.

Re: farm bureau aligns with HSUS...

by Plainsman » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:26 am

_Kurt, they are professional complainers. Funny they didn't post part of Ryan's response to poop which was: _

Chris is very serious when he mentioned that this fall we will be much stricter on creating and maintaining an environment here that is respectful, productive and informative. *Posts that are nothing but venom and/or take pot shots at people will not be tolerated. It is one thing to have a strong opinion about an issue. It is entirely different to have a personal agenda against an individual member or group. If you intend to remain posting on this site, you'll need to keep that in mind.*

end quote

nice examples of "serious" discussions regarding agriculture, the orgs that represent it and the thousands of producer members, i'll keep trying to find one thread on here holding agriculture in a positive light. :roll:

It is clear from even back 5 years, the moderating on here is what we still see today, the only person that apparently attempted to hold people accountable has disappeared, say plainsman you didn;t often agree much with ryan did you?  :wink:

Hmmm it seems like everyone that you disagree with somehow eventually ends up off your site! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If YOU have the Right" to put land into an easement in your arguement YOU should be able to do what YOU wish with YOUR land, why should the next generation NOT have the "right" to take it out at some point when it is THEIR land?
> 
> 
> 
> You know why gst. Because the previous owner sold some of those rights for a profit.
> 
> gst, leadfed asked a very good question about surface rights. I think you don't answer, not because you don't want to talk to leadfed, but because you will show your bias. You think it's ok as long as a farmer retains the rights. And that boys and girls is the actual truth no matter what comes out of gst's little typing fingers and cowboy thumb next. :rollin:
Click to expand...

palinsamn so then you as well are saying that any future landowner should not have the same rights as what the present landowner does?

So how can their rights be infringed upon when they become the "present" landowner, but the present landowners rights can not?

All I am asking for is a direct answer here, as to why it is okay to infringe on a future landowners rights to do with their land when they own it as they see fit, but it is not for the present landowers rights to be infrionged upon?

You do not wish your right to put a perpetual easement in place to be "infringed upon", but you have no problem when a future generation owns that land to infringe upon their rights with the encumberment of the perpetual easement you aregued no one had the right to infringe upon you putting in place.

If you can not see the self serving hypocracy in that, you are truly blinded by bias.


----------



## Plainsman

I posted Ryan's comment so you would know why Poop and Gohon are gone. Any ideas about the NDFB opposing oil tax revenue uses????? If you want to talk with old Gohon I think he goes by the name of Mohammed on fishingbuddy. :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gabe said
plainsamn this was leds response. Now given what you fely compelled to post in another thread,it appears that even though you felt it necessary to repost a list of rules from 5 years ago, it is clear uyou as a moderator have no intention of dealing with them. And you wonder why this site has the reputation it does.

Lead said,
Quit being a baby gabe. You want to continually have "discussions" as you say but they are nothing more than you spinning peoples posts into tornados so whats the point?

I also see you still don't like the site. Well.....bye then. 8)


----------



## leadfed

gabe said,
palinsamn so then you as well are saying that any future landowner should not have the same rights as what the present landowner does?

So how can their rights be infringed upon when they become the "present" landowner, but the present landowners rights can not?

All I am asking for is a direct answer here, as to why it is okay to infringe on a future landowners rights to do with their land when they own it as they see fit, but it is not for the present landowers rights to be infrionged upon?

You do not wish your right to put a perpetual easement in place to be "infringed upon", but you have no problem when a future generation owns that land to infringe upon their rights with the encumberment of the perpetual easement you aregued no one had the right to infringe upon you putting in place.

If you can not see the self serving hypocracy in that, you are truly blinded by bias.[/quote]

Lead said,

Holy cow!  Talk about spinning things into a tornado! Anyone else figure out what gabe said on this last one?

It was a fairly simple question gabe. What do you think about a landowner holding onto his or her surface rights when they sell their land? I would consider that VERY close to a perpetual easment wouldn't you? Come on gabe enlighten us.


----------



## Plainsman

> palinsamn so then you as well are saying that any future landowner should not have the same rights as what the present landowner does?


Ding, ding, ding, now your getting it gst. He can't have those same rights because grandpa sold some of them. You can't have what has been sold to someone else. I tell you what gst, I think my four year old grandkids get it. I know you do too, but you want to pretend it's just so difficult. You want a direct answer? I gave you one as direct as can be. If you still don't understand there is no hope for you.

I think leadfed has you over a barrel on that surface rights question.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think leadfed has you over a barrel on that surface rights question.


As shaug mentioned, the severing of hunting rights was addressed at the legislature as well, the Stockmans opposed the severing of these from the land. I do not beleive the severance of surface rights has been addressed, personally I beleive they should not be.

As I have repeatedly stated, property rights are not absolute but they are the cornerstone this country was built upon and any infringement upon them should be weighed carefully and theonsequences considered. The ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND have done just and have determined that the right to infringe upon every subsequent generation should not be allowed thru the use of a perpetual easement. I agree.

So plainsman if it is alright to have the rights of what future landowners can do with their land infringed upon, why is it not alright to have the rights of current landowners rights infringed upon as to what they can do with their land?

Thru the democratic process, the duely elected legislative representatives of the people of ND have determined that they can, if your little oligarchy wishes to beleive they can not be infringed upon that is entirely up to you guys.


----------



## gst

by Plainsman » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:26 am

Kurt, they are professional complainers. Funny they didn't post part of Ryan's response to poop which was: 
_
Chris is very serious when he mentioned that this fall we will be much stricter on creating and maintaining an environment here that is respectful, productive and informative. Posts that are nothing but venom and/or take pot shots at people will not be tolerated. It is one thing to have a strong opinion about an issue. It is entirely different to have a personal agenda against an individual member or group. If you intend to remain posting on this site, you'll need to keep that in mind._

So plainsamn as a moderator are these "rules" ryan mentioned before he disappeared from this site that you chose to post once again still in effect? 

Perhaps old ryan needs to come back as a moderator! :wink:

Hey wasn't it something about what he posted in the political forum or something that contributed to him disapering? So palinsamn, was he banned or did he just get fed up with the crap on here and leave :-?


----------



## shaug

According to Plainsman and his disciples, 
it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights,
it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals,
it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised,
it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody,
it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights,
it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant,

And the list goes on. It's an agenda. A theme on nodak.

However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?

And then there is Dick Monson who has received several hundred thousand dollars in crop subsidies. How come no one calls Dick a subsidy sucker?

Because they are part of the "in" crowd on Nodak. Do as we say not as we do.

This fella named Ryan, he used to be part of the "in" crowd here as well. I believe he was a moderator or some kind of computer hack. He could trace someone to their residence or place of empolyment.

Here is an example of one:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52692&p=424433#p424433



> LT wrote:
> What kind of fools do you take us for?
> 
> Ryan, do you really want me to answer that?
> 
> Apparently my posts have raised a stir over my identity. Sorry, if I feel that I would like to remain anonymous, as this is what a "wise" Fair Chase moderator told me once when I asked for the names of the sponsors:
> 
> Yes LT I do want you to answer that. Do you feel Berkeley (or UCSF)gives you a feeling of moral or intellectual superiority? Just curious?
> 
> Ryan


Shady charactor. How did he find out where LT worked? Anyway Ryan moved on and went to another site called the baitplie. Invitation only. Plainsman is still waiting for his.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> According to Plainsman and his disciples,
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights,
> I agree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals,
> Why? I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised,
> Neither does the NDFB apparently....are you a member shaug?
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody,
> I agree, it would kill off the average sportsman in ND
> 
> it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights,
> I disagree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant,
> Disagreequote]
> 
> There is MY views plain and simple. I am not a sheep like you and gabe. Thats what happens when you put words in other people's mouth's shaug....it makes you look dumb. I make my decisions on what is better for the whole, not just myself. Remember I could buy a hunting lease, have PLENTY of private land to hunt on, and don't own a single mineral right.


----------



## shaug

Hey dummy,

you forgot these two.

However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?

And then there is Dick Monson who has received several hundred thousand dollars in crop subsidies. How come no one calls Dick a subsidy sucker?


----------



## gst

Shaug, I haven;t noticed the dollar amounts Dick receives from the Federal govt from the website led uses posted on here any wheres have you? Perhaps that is only reserved for people whose "opinions" the oligarchy disagrees with!!! :wink:

It does appear from links to previous threads that one would be hard pressed to deny this has been going on here on Nodak for quite some time. And from the following quote fom the link shaug provides as well as the oldie but goodie "Farms Subsidies gone Wrong" thread I provided there seems to be a trend of people simply getting fed up with what is going on and leaving the site.

I wonder if the site owners realize this.

by 4CurlRedleg » Thu May 01, 2008 8:46 pm 

_Everyone here has stated there position and clearly no one is changing the minds of others.
But here is another example of a moderator trying his damnedest to call out yet another poster in an open forum hoping he gets ticked enough to lose his cool so he can be run off. Ryan it's time to turn the corner and start acting like the men your trying to debate with.
I disagree with LT but I have not seen where he has broken any forum rules but is consistently getting hammered by multiple moderators.
Keep running folks off and you'll have it all to yourselves boys. Keeping the forum clean is one thing but this crap is asinine.

Between the pubescent posters at the top of the forum and the nazis at the bottom it is getting hard to visit here. That is why many used to be members who helped get this site rolling are long gone._


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Hey dummy,
> 
> you forgot these two.
> 
> However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?
> 
> And then there is Dick Monson who has received several hundred thousand dollars in crop subsidies. How come no one calls Dick a subsidy sucker?


hahaha....sorry bud :wink:

I really don't know **** about the craig larson thing and it doesn't interest me so I can't really comment on that. As far as dick monson is concerned....I hold him in no different of a light than anyone else getting crop subsidies. That being that he nor you nor anyone else needs them but it is free money so he, like you and gabe, is going to take them. I can only hope he respects them and doesn't feel entitled to them, thats what really bothers me about them. Certain farmers get all bent out of shape when they find out that farm subsidies are public knowledge, but why? If you are embarassed by them them don't put in for them.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Shaug, I haven;t noticed the dollar amounts Dick receives from the Federal govt from the website led uses posted on here any wheres have you? Perhaps that is only reserved for people whose "opinions" the oligarchy disagrees with!!! :wink:
> .[/i]


Was that a good enough, honest answer for ya super rancher? It has to be tough for you to see people answer logically/honestly and not so damn biased because they have blinders on like a team of draft horses.

I see you still don't like nodakoutdoors.com. Well.....bye then. 8)


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> And then there is Dick Monson who has received several hundred thousand dollars in crop subsidies. How come no one calls Dick a subsidy sucker?


Show us where you found this shaug. I have looked and can't find it?

This is all I found

Maybe this isn't him?

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A07593212

This richard monson made 23 dollars in subsidies in the years covered.


----------



## shaug

leadfed,

You will have to look under K and D farms.

Dick likes to change things up a bit to confuse. He also helped start the ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition. It has no membership, nobody home, it is a blowfish. The address is the same as Dicks home address.

It gives the illusion that there is support where/when in fact there is none.

Led, someday you will figure it out.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed,
> 
> You will have to look under K and D farms.
> 
> Dick likes to change things up a bit to confuse. He also helped start the ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition. It has no membership, nobody home, it is a blowfish. The address is the same as Dicks home address.
> 
> It gives the illusion that there is support where/when in fact there is none.
> 
> Led, someday you will figure it out.


So you're saying there's a chance! As for you though.....I'm afraid there is no hope. You remember those posse comitatis references? Well, you could be the poster child. I mean god forbid anyone try to protect the hunting heritage in ND  Shaug, you try to sound like you know what you are talking about but all it ever boils down to is self centered egotistical "thoughts".

Why don't you enlighten us all with how many subsidies you have collected recently shaug?


----------



## gst

READ BEFORE YOU POST IN THE HOT TOPICS

by administrator » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:28 pm

If you post at Nodak Outdoors again, read the terms below:

http://nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/terms.html

This is an open forum where you can express your views, and I'll let them slide because it's not being covered anywhere else. But all the personal attacks are getting old....REAL FAST!

Whether your new to the forum, or been around awhile...this is going to come to a hault. If you're new, and aren't aware of the policy...it's why it's posted. If you've been around, know where I stand and still keep up the personal attacks, I feel disrespected.

So this is it...If I see you attacking someone for anything other than their opinion I have no choice but to discontinue your ability to post here. Differences of opinion are great to move forward to protect the state's hunting before it's gone, but name calling is immature, and counter-productive.

So again, NODAK OUTDOORS WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVOIR.

**moderators please check out the moderators forum**

search.php?author_id=31236&sr=posts


----------



## shaug

leadfed,

I realize you do not have a lot to work with so let me do the legwork for you. Here is what you were looking for.

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A05671187

Holy mokes, it seems Dick is incorporated.

Do as we say, not as we do.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Do as we say, not as we do


Shaug did you happen to notice how many of those dollars were received for conservation actions? :-?

Conservation subsidies
1995 $0
1996 $0
1997 $0
1998 $0
1999 $0
2000 $0
2001 $0
2002 $0
2003 $0
2004 $0
2005 $0
2006 $0
2007 $0
2008 $0
2009 $0
2010 $0
total * $0*

Perhaps Dick has another entity under which he does all the conservation programs on his lands he is always mentioning .

As he is a sponsor of this measure and as vocal as he is about these Federal conservation programs on this site, I would have guessed he would have been more involved in them himself.

Perhaps there is an explanation.


----------



## Plainsman

The amount of money isn't the problem. It's taking it them flipping us off that is the problem. Dick on the other hand cares about hunting, conservation, and respects people. I have only met Dick once, and only for an hour, but in that time I felt like he was just one of the guys. Only a few posts from you guys and I feel like a peasant.

Edit: gst you often say you want a serious conversation. I have tried to move your direction some in an understanding way, only to receive a smart a$$ comment from you about backpedaling. That tells me you really are not serious about a meaningful dialogue. Don't tell me you are or you would have taken advantage of those situations. You have an arrogant elitist attitude. If not say something that makes me think otherwise. This is one of those situations where I would like to be wrong, but sadly I don't think so. Shaug you fit into this also. If your serious the ball is in your court. Just don't tell me I need to prove my opinions. You may not know it, but you do a lot to form my opinions. So far it's all about you.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Edit: gst you often say you want a serious conversation.


plainsman, you and I actually had a couple of "serious discussions" regarding agriculture and conservation when I first got on this site. Recall those?

If you wish I could post the PM's you sent me if you would okay it so everyone could see what type of veiws you held back before I took a position against an agenda you were once a sponsor of.

How about it plainsman, would you give me permission to share those PM discussions we had regarding agriculture and conservation that were of a more "serious" and pleasant nature than what we now see?

If you are serious the ball is in YOUR court here Bruce.

Lets see what you do as a moderator the next time someone engages in childish name calling on this site for starters. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Lets see what you do as a moderator the next time someone engages in childish name calling on this site for starters.


You reap what you sow gst. At one time you were the worst. It appears that didn't work so you have behaved better. The childish name calling isn't as bad as you calling people liars. But then your trying to make this about me again rather than the subject. The same with asking to post PM's . No I would not give you permission because that is when you acted decent towards me. You have asked a number of times now. Even if we became the best of friends I would not give you permission to post PM's. I think PM's are just that ---- private.

I don't consider that even close to the ball is in my court. If you want a real conversation let see it. Start with something besides whining about me.


----------



## gst

plainsamn, the topic is about conservation and how some think ag is opposed to every conservation programs out there and only wish to "rip,rape.and run".

You have even made that commet in regards to me even though you have never once met me or even set foot on our operation.

Earlier on when I first got on this site, we had "serious discussions" about this very thing, conservation in agriculture and you held a very different veiwpoint of our operation and myself back then.

So why will you not simply allow those PM's to be posted and those comments you shared back then that are much different than what you are claiming now be shared?

There is no "smoking un" of anything held in them, exactly what are you afraid of if they were to be posted.

I even promise I will not share the ones where you conversed about HSUS involvement in the first measure attempt. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I will not give you permission because I think that is just a wedge in the door for more people to ask the same. I know there is no smoking gun, but it's in the rule's and I want to keep consistency. I have told you no five or six times now and that answer will never change.



> Earlier on when I first got on this site, we had "serious discussions" about this very thing, conservation in agriculture and you held a very different veiwpoint of our operation and myself back then.


That was back when I took you for your word. That was before you called me a liar. We don't have much of a future after that. It's also before you defended drainage and tile etc.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Lets see what you do as a moderator the next time someone engages in childish name calling on this site for starters.
Click to expand...

You reap what you sow gst. At one time you were the worst. quote]

So that is your excuse for not carrying out your duties as moderator? Ban me from the site if you wish Bruce, but when you do have the unbiased decency to post the exact complete post or posts that was the cause. And then equitably carry out banning anyone else that meets that standard, even if it means banning yourself! :wink: .

plainsamn, here it is again, please show me  one post where the name calling you state I engaged in meets the new standard set by a couple of people on here you have repeatedly excused.

You have made this accusation Bruce, now please show where it was done.

Bruce you made a statement the rhetoric we see on here never started until shaug and I came on this site. I showed you a thread from years prior to us being on here that contained the very same rhetoric YOU claimed never happened back then, one of any number of threads regarding NDFB ad ag producers in the manner we see today on here.

So is your claim these type comments and threads never happened until shaug and I came on here the truth ?

If something is not the truth, plainsman what is it?

How many other times have you made accusations only to be asked to "please show me" and never did so because you could not becasue what you calimed was never done? 
(Yes I know Bruce all those "disapearing posts here and on FBO where "they" removed them for me) :roll: Always the conspiracy eh?? :eyeroll:

So bruce if you make a claim you can not substantiate with fact and truth what is it?

I know, I know, merely an "opinion" :wink: Growing up I'd have got my hide tanned for telling some of your "opinions"! 

Given the history of your "opinions" regarding agriculture, ag orgs, and the thousands of producer members that comprise them, and the rhetoric you have used to share these "opinions", you will have to forgive me plainsman if I do not waste my time beleiving you could actually have a "serious" discussion about agriculture void of the inflamotory rhetoric we so often see.

It is the very reason why many in ag do not support this measure. The people involved in sponsoring this measure have held uncompromising positions and engaged in rhetoric that has swung the pendelum far to the left,. In response ag has developed policies that have swung the pendelum far to the right. Back and forth between there extremes is rhetoric like "heads in the mail box, hands in the taxpayers pockets, greed at it's darkest, welfare state, rip rape and run, elitist lords of the land," ect..... and back and forth the pendelum swings.

And what does it accomplish???????

Mean while there are groups and orgs, wildlife, sportsmen, conservation and ag quietly engaging in programs and practices that are mutually benficial somewhere in the middle. I personally know many of these producers and orgs involved in great conservation programs I would bet most of the loudest critics on here know nothing about. So when these people that are on the sponsor list of this measure, some from the HFH measure and other hardline proponanets of wildlife create something like this measure with NO involvement in the creation of it from agriculture, do they really think ag is going to jump on board?

This measure is not about creating something that is mutually beneficial that everyone can support, it is about raiding the state coffers to get enough monies in the hope some producers will over look the fine print and people involved. And there in lies the irony, just as in the DGI for a majority of the producers enrolling it is NOT about the "conservation" aspect, but it is about the dollars involved. So some of these "conservation" programs are actually enticing the greediest people most wishing to take taxpayer dollars for someting and yet those on here choose to over look that because it fits THEIR agendas. :roll:

So plainsman next time you wish to make an insinuating comment about "greed" in our operation when you have never once met me or experienced what we do on our agriculture operation, tell me why we have not jumped on the several hundred thousands of dollars avalible thru the DGI to enroll our lands???

For some it is about more than the almighty dollar, it is about future generations. We simply choose to enagage in conservation practices and programs that will not encumber every generation that comes after us while instilling the values we have learned, are learning and practice in them. And for that we are called "greedy, elitist lords of the land that merely wish to rip rape and run with our heads in the mailbox and hands in the taxpayers pockets" even though we walk away from literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I some times wonder if I had supported the HFH measure on this site what these same people would be saying about our operation they have never seen or myself they have never met? :roll:

So someone, tell me what does all this name calling and rhetoric accomplish?


----------



## swift

> We simply choose to enagage in conservation practices and programs that will not encumber every generation that comes after us while instilling the values we have learned, are learning and practice in them.


 If that was the case you would not be legislating for the removal of the option for others. IF you just 'CHOOSE' to not encumber every generation.... then you and I would agree on this subject. But since you and your org has the stance of infringing on current landowners rights we will not agree.



> This measure is not about creating something that is mutually beneficial that everyone can support, it is about raiding the state coffers to get enough monies in the hope some producers will over look the fine print and people involved. And there in lies the irony, just as in the DGI for a majority of the producers enrolling it is NOT about the "conservation" aspect, but it is about the dollars involved. So some of these "conservation" programs are actually enticing the greediest people most wishing to take taxpayer dollars for someting and yet those on here choose to over look that because it fits THEIR agendas.


How dare you GST, call an ag producer greedy? Can you really expect to be taken serious when you basically say if an ag producer disagrees with you they must be greedy. You are truely a narcisstic person.


----------



## gst

And so it continues. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Can you really expect to be taken serious when you basically say if an ag producer disagrees with you they must be greedy.


swift isn't that the stance most everyone in this little oligarchy on here has taken from day one?


----------



## swift

> swift isn't that the stance most everyone in this little oligarchy on here has taken from day one?


What oligarchy? We are individuals with concerns for our way of life being negatively impacted by an organization that has numerous policies aimed at how we live our lives. The key word here is indiviuals. We are not a group, organization, entity or nonprofit. I speak only for myself. You GST are the spokesman for organizations. We all know your role as a mouthpiece for the NDSA, and you are a spokesman for the NDFB with or without their permission.

GST's WORDS...


> just as in the DGI for a majority of the producers enrolling it is NOT about the "conservation" aspect, but it is about the dollars involved. So some of these "conservation" programs are actually enticing the greediest people


Translation...Those Agriculture producers that think with their own brain and go against the NDFB are "the greediest people"


----------



## Ron Gilmore

No names, just some advice! Gabe grab your ears pull hard downward until you see daylight! This will cure your anal/cranium conundrum!


----------



## Plainsman

gst you have brought up and asked me what did our founding fathers intend as to property rights. You think you have us there don't you. When they wrote the second amendment they could not foresee nuclear weapons. How do you think they would have wrote the second amendment if they had known? Would they have included the right to short range rockets and limited us to only a half megaton weapon for a warhead. Individually that is. Do you think they could foresee the huge equipment you drive every day now gst. Could they foresee the equipment that could drain large wetlands. Could they foresee the dangerous chemicals and the little training that leads to overuse? Then we have NDFB and I would guess FB from other states that promote the abolishment of agricultural regulations. Here in North Dakota we have a constitutional amendment coming up for a vote that says no laws may be made in the future hindering agriculture. Like our founding fathers I don't think we can see the danger of the future. Perhaps the voters better think before they vote.


----------



## gst

Plainsamn,they probably didn;t foresee someone trying to prevent someone else from engaging in what is a legally defined animal agriculture operation either.

They probably did not foresee a govt agency that is not directly accountable to the people that has grown outside it's original intentions because of people that wish to use govt appointments to further their agendas

They probably did not foresee such an abundance of food that people would become complacent and take for granted how the plate they fill up got on their table.
I mean a majority of their waking hours were spent ensuring they had enough food to live on not what flavor potato chip they wanted or what someone else maybe doing on their property.

They probably did not foresee this abundance of cheap food becoming so readily avalible and affordable that hunting would become a RECREATIONAL activity rather than a means of sustanance. (I wonder for the people that did not raise their own, what percentage of their disposable income was spent on food)? :wink:

What they did foresee is the nature of people to impose their will onto others. That is why they created a form of govt (Republic) whereby the voice of the people can and is heard and the people have the ability to hold those accountable that do not listen as part of an over all governing process broke down in checks and balances thru divisions. It is the form of govt that create the vast majority of the laws that govern us. It base here in our state is called our state legislature. And in the case of ND these elected representatives of ALL the people of ND have stated the perpetual easement is NOT in the best interest of ND and it's residents. That is a FACT you cannot argue.

They also probably did not foresee the perpetual easement!

As they had recently left a country with those types of ideals, whereby every future generation was in servitude of the ideals of a select few elitists!  :wink: 

So plainsman, is any of your land in perpetual easements,swift, ron? Yes? No?

Or are you just argueing this "infringement" on future generations other than your own?

Swift the term "greed" is bantered about quite freely on this site in reference to agriculture, I have said beforein ag, just as in private business, the medical profession and even the enviromental research field their are "greedy" people.

I simply find it ironic that some on here are so quick to condemn others for receiving some taxpayer dollars for the programs that give them the most readily avalible, lowest cost, safest food supply of any modern nation as being "greedy" , but in turn when it fits THEIR agendas they are all for these same producers taking other Federal and taxpayer dollars especially in this "time of extreme national debt" when "everyone will have to cut" :wink: :roll:

palisamn, if I signed up all our land in the DGI and it was accepted, in one fell swoop my family could possibly collect over twice the amount of Federal dollars that we have received over the last 15 years in programs related to growing the food this country consumes and sells.

And yet where is the outrage over the spending of these Federal dollars that is seen so often on this site and referenced as "greedy ag" ?????? 

As long as it gets you "control" over these lands you do not care how the dollars are spent.

Even in this time of "extreme national debt" ,,,,,,,,,, YOUR very words plainsman.

palinsamn, found any places the sportsman can "cut" yet?

They are part of "everybody" right?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsamn,they probably didn;t foresee someone trying to prevent someone else from engaging in what is a legally defined animal agriculture operation either.


That is because they made wildlife the property of the state, and not in their wildest dreams did they think someone would get some so they could claim ownership, raise them, then charge people to shoot them in a pen and call it sport.



> They probably did not foresee a govt agency that is not directly accountable to the people that has grown outside it's original intentions


Oh, yes they did see that. They also seen the problem of politicians giving to the lazy to purchase their votes. At one time they debated if everyone should vote or only property owners. Property, not as just land, but a house, horses, livestock anything. Now does that mean since I own a car I should be able to do with it as I please. Maybe I could ignore speed limits. :wink:



> They probably did not foresee this abundance of cheap food


Does it make a difference if I pay $4 for a loaf of bread at the grocery store, or two $2 at the store and and extra $2 in taxes for the same loaf of bread?



> What they did foresee is the nature of people to impose their will onto others. That is why they created a form of govt (Republic) whereby the voice of the people can and is heard and the people have the ability to hold those accountable that do not listen as part of an over all governing process broke down in checks and balances thru divisions.


Yes, and I wish Obama would follow those constitutional laws. He just used executive order to give himself new power. The power to impose marshal law in peace time. So impose their will onto others. hmmmm. You mean like many of the people wanting wetlands saved so the government creates wetland easements including perpetual easements. Then when some farmers jump on it other farmers try to impose their will on those farmers and tell them they can not do that? So now our process will determine which is the right path for the future.



> They also probably did not foresee the perpetual easement!





> As they had recently left a country with those types of ideals,


They did? I thought you said the probably did not see perpetual easements. :homer:



> Swift the term "greed" is bantered about quite freely on this site in reference to agriculture, I have said beforein ag, just as in private business, the medical profession and even the enviromental research field their are "greedy" people.


Yes, it's a human condition that at times afflicts us all. If I was a farmer I would need regulations because the temptations that the government offers would perhaps be more than I was able to withstand. When I call farmers greedy I am talking about a few, and at certain times over certain things. Also, it doesn't mean they are more greedy than others would be in the same situation. Like I said I wish it wasn't true, but it is part of the human condition. God help us all.



> So plainsman, is any of your land in perpetual easements,swift, ron? Yes? No?


Nothing current, but I have thought about a quarter with some habitat. I will look to see if their are perpetual or any easements on it. After our debates on here if there is a perpetual easement I will try get it cheaper. I would leave the wetland anyway, and actually would prefer about 20% wetland, but hey, if it saves me a buck when I purchase, then I will actually look for land with a perpetual easement.

They are part of "everybody" right?

What does everyone mean to you? I don't know about you, but to me it leaves out no one. Are you having a comprehension problem ------ again?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> palisamn, if I signed up all our land in the DGI and it was accepted, in one fell swoop my family could possibly collect over twice the amount of Federal dollars that we have received over the last 15 years in programs related to growing the food this country consumes and sells.


WOW what a liar!lol If you could get those monies gabe you would and you know it. The reason you don't is because there is probably some stipulation that pops up that you don't "agree" with. Go ahead and keep trying to sound like the world savior you aren't and we will continue to catch you blowing smoke up our *****. Boy it really isn't hard getting the bulge on a tub like you is it gaberinski :wink: I suppose you will cry to plainsman now about the terms "bulge" and "tub"....just a guess though. :lol:

Find a hobby gabe, it would do you good.


----------



## gst

From a while back:

_READ BEFORE YOU POST IN THE HOT TOPICS__

by administrator » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:28 pm

If you post at Nodak Outdoors again, read the terms below:

http://nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/terms.html

This is an open forum where you can express your views, and I'll let them slide because it's not being covered anywhere else. But all the personal attacks are getting old....REAL FAST!

Whether your new to the forum, or been around awhile...this is going to come to a hault. If you're new, and aren't aware of the policy...it's why it's posted. If you've been around, know where I stand and still keep up the personal attacks, I feel disrespected.

So this is it...If I see you attacking someone for anything other than their opinion I have no choice but to discontinue your ability to post here. Differences of opinion are great to move forward to protect the state's hunting before it's gone, but name calling is immature, and counter-productive.

So again, NODAK OUTDOORS WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVOIR.

**moderators please check out the moderators forum**_

Or simply the above post! :wink: :roll:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> WOW what a liar!lol If you could get those monies gabe you would and you know it. The reason you don't is because there is probably some stipulation that pops up that you don't "agree" with.


led, you mean like the "perpetual easement" part of the program?????????????  I think I have made that quite clear!!!!! 

That has been kinda the point of the entire discussion hasn't it?????????????? :-? I would have thought you would have caught that by now led!!!!! 

If I was truly "greedy" the "stipulation" would not matter, I would simply take the monies and let every single following generation deal with the consequences. I mean a few hundred thousand dollars would certainly help make our operation "more economically profitable"!!!!!!!!!  :wink:

Man led, you have to get over this personal "hatred" you have admitted you have, it is REALLY beginning to affect your ability to comprehend things that are spelled out quite clearly. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst wrote: What they did foresee is the nature of people to impose their will onto others. That is why they created a form of govt (Republic) whereby the voice of the people can and is heard and the people have the ability to hold those accountable that do not listen as part of an over all governing process broke down in checks and balances thru divisions.
> 
> Plainsamn replied: _Yes, and I wish Obama would follow those constitutional laws. He just used executive order to give himself new power. The power to impose marshal law in peace time. So impose their will onto others. hmmmm. You mean like many of the people wanting wetlands saved so the government creates wetland easements including perpetual easements. Then when some farmers jump on it other farmers try to impose their will on those farmers and tell them they can not do that? So now our process will determine which is the right path for the future._


plainsamn the "process" here in ND HAS determined the "right path for the future" in that the perpetual easement is not in the best interests of ND. This was done by those elected representatives of ALL NDan's weighing all the consequences and has stood for several decades.

That is a fact you can not spin or talk around.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsamn the "process" here in ND


What would one expect with the fox in charge of the hen house. :wink: Our legislature protecting anything natural in North Dakota is like putting Rossie O'Donnell in charge of protecting the Twinkies.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> What would one expect with the fox in charge of the hen house. Our legislature protecting anything natural in North Dakota is like putting Rossie O'Donnell in charge of protecting the Twinkies.


Plainsman, it appears you do not like or trust "our elected" representatives yet you want nine appointed Rosie O'Donnells, elected by no one in charge of about $80 million bucks.

Last night while you were waisting your time moderating this web-forum, I was at a banquet. To my immediate left was Terry Steinwand. I had his ear all night. I would put a smiley face up now, but in the emotocons section there isn't one big enough.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would one expect with the fox in charge of the hen house. Our legislature protecting anything natural in North Dakota is like putting Rossie O'Donnell in charge of protecting the Twinkies.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, it appears you do not like or trust "our elected" representatives yet you want nine appointed Rosie O'Donnells, elected by no one in charge of about $80 million bucks.
> 
> Last night while you were waisting your time moderating this web-forum, I was at a banquet. To my immediate left was Terry Steinwand. I had his ear all night. I would put a smiley face up now, but in the emotocons section there isn't one big enough.
Click to expand...

I bet your jaw is sore too......and not from talking. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, it appears you do not like or trust "our elected" representatives


So do you trust Obama, Pelosi, Reid? We have radicals from the other spectrum in Bismarck. Radicals either direction are just that radical.

I don't know Terry Steinwand personally, but I would think anyone in his position knows how to avoid conflict. Anyone with any responsibility for any of our natural resources would perhaps be thinking who was that radical kissing up to me last night?

The only thing I would say about the money coming from oil is if it is for natural resources no NDFB type should sit on that committee because they will try to plunder it.


----------



## swift

Here is an assessment of the "elected officials" in ND. Maybe you have to be outside to see what's really inside once in awhile.

GF Herald today.....
AN* F* FOR *INTEGRITY*: N.D. scores 58 on state government accountability


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Here is an assessment of the "elected officials" in ND. Maybe you have to be outside to see what's really inside once in awhile.
> 
> GF Herald today.....
> AN* F* FOR *INTEGRITY*: N.D. scores 58 on state government accountability


I am proud that North Dakota is in such good financial heath, but it is little wonder. Many of the people in our legislature worship a god of paper about 6 X 2 1/2 inches with pictures of presidents. Nothing like natural resources have any value to many of them. Especially the NDFB type, and there are a number of those in the legislature.

I forget where all that tobacco money went. It was supposed to go for health. I think a chunk of it went to pay for agriculture damage/Devils Lake flooding.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I forget where all that tobacco money went. It was supposed to go for health. I think a chunk of it went to pay for agriculture damage/Devils Lake flooding.


palinsamn, if the legislature is illegally spending monies entrusted to it and you have proof of this, is it not your responsibility as a citizen of ND to take steps to hold them accountable?

After all the founding fathers foresaw this form of govt they created only working if the people themselves accepted the responsibility of controling it.

I'm sure the Grand Forks Herald would like to hear from you regarding the above claim ! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

Plainsman said:


> I don't know Terry Steinwand personally, but I would think anyone in his position knows how to avoid conflict. Anyone with any responsibility for any of our natural resources would perhaps be thinking who was that radical kissing up to me last night? quote]
> 
> Kind of what I was thinking too plaisman. However just in case Terry didn't know the guy to his right was giving him lip service only trying to further his agenda I think you should email him a link to this topic as well as others that shaug participated in. Shaug might have "had" his ear but I wonder if he disclosed all of his radical ideology at the banquet as he has here? So, just to make sure Terry knows that the guy to his right is not the guy he made himself out to be, I'm thinking he should know that person in the one and only "shaug" on nodak outdoors. What think you plainsman?
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am proud that North Dakota is in such good financial heath, but it is little wonder. Many of the people in our legislature worship a god of paper about 6 X 2 1/2 inches with pictures of presidents. Nothing like natural resources have any value to many of them. Especially the NDFB type, and there are a number of those in the legislature.


Or those Wildlife Society "types" !!!!! :wink: 

Perhaps the reason" North Dakota is in such good financial health" is because we do not have a "number of those in the legislature"!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

So gst where did the tobacco money go? I heard some went into education and some went to the Devils Lake drain. Anyone out there remember and can help us out?

Jump to conclusions again gst? I don't think what they did was illegal. I think many states robbed the tobacco fund. It just proves that the liberals really didn't care about health they just wanted to rob someone. Even North Dakota as a conservative state didn't spend the money as intended as I hear it. I guess it isn't just liberals it's politicians in general.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So gst where did the tobacco money go? I heard some went into education and some went to the Devils Lake drain. Anyone out there remember and can help us out?
> 
> Jump to conclusions again gst? I don't think what they did was illegal. I think many states robbed the tobacco fund. It just proves that the liberals really didn't care about health they just wanted to rob someone. Even North Dakota as a conservative state didn't spend the money as intended as I hear it. I guess it isn't just liberals it's politicians in general.


plainsamn, I thought you said you didn;t like taking a thread "off topic"????

How does what the state used "tobacco monies" for relate to this measure?

Don;t ask me what happened to the tobacco monies, it is your story, you tell us! If what they did was not illegal, it was apparently within the guidelines agreed to as to how the state could use these monies. Your story, you tell us.

But before you do here is a quote that is perhaps relevant that I received in an e-update.

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

- Mark Twain

:wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So gst where did the tobacco money go? I heard some went into education and some went to the Devils Lake drain. Anyone out there remember and can help us out?
> 
> Jump to conclusions again gst? I don't think what they did was illegal. I think many states robbed the tobacco fund. It just proves that the liberals really didn't care about health they just wanted to rob someone.  Even North Dakota as a conservative state didn't spend the money as intended as I hear it. I guess it isn't just liberals it's politicians in general.


And here in lies the crux or heart of the discussion regarding perpetual easements. You do not even trust the state govt and their representatives who are DIRECTLY accountable to you through the electoral process to carry out agreements as intended, how then can you assume and trust and defend the Federal govt and their representatives (USF&WS) who have almost no direct accountability to the electors (citizens) to carry out programs as intended?????? 

And you wish to give them the authority FOREVER over private properties???????????????? 

Please recall the very perpetual easements you are defending the usage of reserves the right for one entity (USF&WS) to change the encumberances placed as part of the agreement any time they wish thu an act of Congress which is comprised of the "politicians" you seem to place so little faith in. :-?

plainsamn thanks for clearly stating in your own words the concerns many in agriculture have as well. Now you are beginning to see the position from which agriculture approaches some of these issues.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> plainsamn, I thought you said you didn;t like taking a thread "off topic"????
> :wink:


Only you would type these words after 12 pages of a thread that went off topic within 5 posts. Digging in sand gabe. Did I tell you a hobby would do you well? I still mean it and reading farm auction magazines and collecting toy tractors doesn't count.


----------



## gst

led, apparently your "hatred" prevents you from having a humorous moment now and then on here. :eyeroll: Please note the  :wink: icons sometimes they actually mean something! :wink: ! :roll:

As spent aluded to a while ago, outside of refuting the outright disingenuous statemenets regarding agriculture made on here, this is somewhat of a form of entertainment for me, I would guess it is for most people posting on here that are not filled with hatred! :wink:

led I indeed have a number of "hobbies". Perhaps if you actually did know me as well as you wish people to beleive you do in making your accusations, you would have known that. :-?

Hey did your sources ever tell you what ag org "hired/deleagted" me to come on this site? :wink:  :roll:

Which was it "hired"? Or "delegated"??? :roll: :wink: 

(please note)
The smiley con indicated humor in the claim. 

The winking icon indicates a claim was made that has not be substantiated. :wink:

The eye roll icon indicates how rediculous these hate based claims and accusations are. :roll:

In no particular order.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Only you would type these words after 12 pages of a thread that went off topic within 5 posts. Digging in sand gabe. Did I tell you a hobby would do you well? I still mean it and reading farm auction magazines and collecting toy tractors doesn't count.





leadfed said:


> The NDFB is a bad, bad organization plain and simple. They are akin to PETA, HSUS and all the other crazies. Anyone who thinks they are on the side of the sportsman better do some research....they are NOT!!! Sometimes I wonder if they aren't in bed with HSUS to completely eradicate hunting so they can divert any monies aimed at preserving hunting into their own coffers.


led, this is your first post in this thread,the 9th post in, you are aware there is another thread claiming collusion between HSUS and FB right???

Perhaps you could direct these kinds of comments there instead of taking this thread "off topic"!! :wink:  :roll:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Perhaps you could direct these kinds of comments there instead of taking this thread "off topic"!! :wink:  :roll:


You think I really give a **** gabe? :lol: It's hard to keep pace in trying to call out you and your pard's insane logic thats it. It has pretty much been an open thread since the beginning. I don't have a problem with it but I guess you do. Keep trying to dig gabe.


----------



## Plainsman

leadfed have you noticed how gst takes it off topic? He talks about you or I or interprets icons for us. :rollin:

gst, you don't think for a minute I was asking you where the tobacco money went do you? :rollin: I was in hopes someone with a better memory than you or I was reading this. :wink:


----------



## gst

palinsamn, just a bit of advice, perhaps your comments would be veiwed with a little more credibility if you took the time to research things with the very same computer you are making these claims you have to ask someone else to substantiate for you. 

It was YOUR claim what the tobacco monies were used for, include the facts to prove it. :-?

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

- Mark Twain

Dang this quote comes in handy on here!!


----------



## Plainsman

Hey, gst your right there many articles talking about using the tobacco money for Devils Lake and Grand Forks.

I see North Dakota has done better than most states in using the money as they should. However, all states should have used the money for what it was intended for.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/1/220.full



> North Dakota.
> 
> In North Dakota a major share of MSA funds has been used for infrastructure development. The state had no existing tobacco control programs as of MSA implementation. Although Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D) advocated funding tobacco control at the time, the legislature did not allocate funds for this purpose.
> 
> A 1998 poll indicated that 89 percent of respondents supported using MSA funds for tobacco control.36 However, post-MSA, the state legislature approved allocating all MSA funds for 1999-2001 to water projects and bond payments-and specifying that 45 percent of all funds would be spent on water project development in future years. Then Governor Ed Schaefer (R) and his successor, John Hoeven (R), supported this decision, listing clean water as a top public health priority.
> 
> Interest groups supportive of tobacco control did not or perhaps could not influence MSA fund allocations. In 1999 North Dakota's House Natural Resources Committee voted not to limit the amount of MSA funds used for water projects. The American Heart and Lung Associations supported an amendment to limit funding to only critical water projects and to prevent allocating all trust fund monies. The amendment never passed.
> 
> However, in 2000, citing a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report showing that the state held one of the lowest ratings for tobacco control efforts, Governor Schaefer proposed a tobacco control plan for the 2001-03 biennium. With this initiative, the legislature created the Community Health Grant Program, funded by $4.7 million from the MSA.37 One of the most successful projects funded by this program was a school and community curriculum plan to teach about the harms of smoking. For the 2003-05 biennium, $6 million was appropriated to tobacco control and prevention. Community Health Grant Program funding has been steady, and other grants are being allocated statewide.38 North Dakota has not directly allocated MSA funds to deficit reduction, although it has done so indirectly by funding water projects with MSA monies.


It appears that water projects means flood controld. Like I said Devils Lake was included in the use of those tobacco tax dollars. We know our politicians would not have ment habitat development when they tallk water projects. It's either drain, or clean up the mess they have made with draining.

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcg ... wJul06.pdf



> Since the Water Development Trust Fund was put in place in 1999, tobacco settlement revenue has advanced numerous water development efforts in all corners of the state, such as: large-scale flood control projects at Grand Forks, Devils Lake, and Wahpeton; and several water supply projects, including contributions toward the near


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I don't know Terry Steinwand personally, but I would think anyone in his position knows how to avoid conflict. Anyone with any responsibility for any of our natural resources would perhaps be thinking who was that radical kissing up to me last night?


Actually Bruce, I visit with Terry often. Saturday night we had some laughs. Everyone at the table was speculating the actual numbers of the deer herd and the many reasons why it is down. Winter kill, blue tongue etc. I jumped up and hollared it is none of the above, it is the Game and Fishs' fault. Everybody roared laughing. A good time was had by all.

Anyways Bruce, no one was kissing up. It's about good conversation and good people. Bruce you also like to converse. You must with over 14,000 posts. But your conversations are no longer good and have degenerated greatly. When leadfed writes "I bet your jaw was sore too.......and not from talking," what are you thinking Bruce? Are you proud to be a part of that conversation, do you encourage it?

I've have said it before and Bruce I'll say it again, "You and your kind of people should not be in charge of anything." Especially not $80 million dollars of the taxpayers money.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug have you seen me moderate at all on this form for the past couple of months? I'll leave the decisions on this form to others.



> I've have said it before and Bruce I'll say it again, "You and your kind of people should not be in charge of anything." Especially not $80 million dollars of the taxpayers money.


It's only the attitude of groups like NDFB that make that $80 needed. I think the FB is against it because they want to tie up all hunting that isn't paid for. It's like in Pennsylvania they are against Sunday opening on public land, but all for Sunday hunting on game farms. That isn't tough to figure out that they are trying to make farmers the only game in town. They are sort of saying pay or go to he**.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> It's only the attitude of groups like NDFB that make that $80 needed. I think the FB is against it because they want to tie up all hunting that isn't paid for. It's like in Pennsylvania they are against Sunday opening on public land, but all for Sunday hunting on game farms. That isn't tough to figure out that they are trying to make farmers the only game in town. They are sort of saying pay or go to he**.


Just more rhetoric from you Bruce. Farm Bureau members work together with the NRCS building conservation. These programs are already adequately funded. The G/F is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior is adequately funded.

Bruce, you never talk about the positive success stories that other people are reading about in every day publications. There is only one way that you are your small group can get yours hands on that money. A bad picture must be painted. Convince the public that the sky is falling. You need division.

I believe the biggest reason you hate Farm Bureau and would like others to also hate Farm Bureau is because they are the last line of defense. There are many people that know you and yours will use much of that $80 million for mischief but lack the organization to stop the 5% oil tax revenue rip off.


----------



## Plainsman

No rhetoric shaug, look at what PAFB is against and for. They are against Sunday hunting on public land, but for it on private land. Tell me why if it isn't to tie up hunting so if you want to hunt on Sunday they are the only game in town. Many people who work hard only have Sunday to hunt so what are they going to do? It's as clear as crystal what PAFB is up to.


----------



## leadfed

Yep shaug I'm sure you had a dandy time....sound like a real clown there goofing around with the top brass.lol Anyway, does terry know that the guy that had his ear on the right side of him at this banquet is the one and only "shaug" on nodakoutdoors? I bet he will soon  Not that what you say is going to change the way he thinks but I doubt you disclosed your feeling to that ear you had as much as you do here.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> the public that the sky is falling. You need division.
> 
> I believe the biggest reason you hate Farm Bureau and would like others to also hate Farm Bureau is because they are the last line of defense. There are many people that know you and yours will use much of that $80 million for mischief but lack the organization to stop the 5% oil tax revenue rip off.


What exactly is this mischief you talk about shaug? Is it the potential that it might get used to purchase an acre for the sportsman that you might not be able to farm!  SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!!


----------



## shaug

Sorry lead, but Terry doesn't view himself as top brass. Just another joe with a job to do. One of the good guys.

What is said in Vegas.............but like anyone, we like to talk about the bad guys.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Yep shaug I'm sure you had a dandy time....sound like a real clown there goofing around with the top brass.lol Anyway, does terry know that the guy that had his ear on the right side of him at this banquet is the one and only "shaug" on nodakoutdoors? I bet he will soon  Not that what you say is going to change the way he thinks but I doubt you disclosed your feeling to that ear you had as much as you do here.


The irony here is someone, suggesting that "who" someone is will soon be realized, still remains hiding behind his computer screen. Led, do you suppose Terry Stienwand will know who "leadfed" is when you have someone else send him a link to this thread?

I could see why perhaps given the childish content of most of what you post on here you do not want people knowing your actual identity. :-?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> The irony here is someone, suggesting that "who" someone is will soon be realized, still remains hiding behind his computer screen. Led, do you suppose Terry Stienwand will know who "leadfed" is when you have someone else send him a link to this thread? quote]
> 
> No he won't and he wouldn't even if I told him my name.....but shaug on the other hand :wink: I mean I'm sure he would know the guy who had his ear all night and was doing stand up comedy at his table....right? :wink: I just though he would like to know how shaug really feels. :wink:
> 
> What difference does it make to you who I am any way gabe? You won't dig any dirt on me how bad you try. Wait a minute you might....I think last time I checked I had 2 speeding tickets and some jet ski violation.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep shaug I'm sure you had a dandy time....sound like a real clown there goofing around with the top brass.lol Anyway, does terry know that the guy that had his ear on the right side of him at this banquet is the one and only "shaug" on nodakoutdoors? I bet he will soon  Not that what you say is going to change the way he thinks but I doubt you disclosed your feeling to that ear you had as much as you do here.
> 
> 
> 
> The irony here is someone, suggesting that "who" someone is will soon be realized, still remains hiding behind his computer screen. Led, do you suppose Terry Stienwand will know who "leadfed" is when you have someone else send him a link to this thread?
> 
> I could see why perhaps given the childish content of most of what you post on here you do not want people knowing your actual identity. :-?
Click to expand...

BTW. what you consider childish is my attempt at trying to converse with one of the biggest "child" I have ever had to try to converse with. I can debate reasonably gabe but not with you...you make it impossible with the way you put so many different meanings into a post that it completely destroys it....so why try? I guess I have to give you one prop....you are good at what you are delegated to do! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Having someones ear means talking directly to them. Terry knows my opinions well. I made them known.
So far lead you have been a good student of Plainsman. Most things said are taken out of context and/or turned into something derogatory.

gst wrote,



> The irony here is someone, suggesting that "who" someone is will soon be realized, still remains hiding behind his computer screen. Led, do you suppose Terry Stienwand will know who "leadfed" is when you have someone else send him a link to this thread?


I think leadfed is no different than someone like bioman. When bio's identity was revealed he lit right out of here.


----------



## gst

led, you do not seem to understand, the reason most people wish to know who it is they are talking to is it is a valuable tool to determine ones credibility. I mean most everyone on here knows who I am, what I do for a living and whay orgs I am a part of. They may have even had a direct experience in meeting me or veiwing our operation and they can use this information to make a judgement in the credibility of what I say.

On the flip side is someone pretending to be lets say "leadfed" on an anonimous website. This identity allows no one to know anything about the actual person behind the screen other than what they choose to make up. You could be a 13 year old girl, a Peta member, George Castanza, or a pizza delivery guy! :wink:

Hows that Brad Paisley song go now led!!


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Having someones ear means talking directly to them. Terry knows my opinions well. I made them known.
> So far lead you have been a good student of Plainsman. Most things said are taken out of context and/or turned into something derogatory.
> 
> gst wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony here is someone, suggesting that "who" someone is will soon be realized, still remains hiding behind his computer screen. Led, do you suppose Terry Stienwand will know who "leadfed" is when you have someone else send him a link to this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> I think leadfed is no different than someone like bioman. When bio's identity was revealed he lit right out of here.
Click to expand...

Whats your real name shaug?...wait don't tell me cause to be honest with you I could really give a ****! I actually wish gabe would have kept his name to himself too....that way I wouldn't have known how big of a bottom feader he really is.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, you do not seem to understand, the reason most people wish to know who it is they are talking to is it is a valuable tool to determine ones credibility. I mean most everyone on here knows who I am, what I do for a living and whay orgs I am a part of. They may have even had a direct experience in meeting me or veiwing our operation and they can use this information to make a judgement in the credibility of what I say.
> 
> On the flip side is someone pretending to be lets say "leadfed" on an anonimous website. This identity allows no one to know anything about the actual person behind the screen other than what they choose to make up. You could be a 13 year old girl, a Peta member, George Castanza, or a pizza delivery guy! :wink:
> 
> Hows that Brad Paisley song go now led!!


OKOKOK....here it is HAYWOOD JABLOME :wink: Gabe, you wouldn't know my name from any other sportsmans name in this state so it would do you no good. As far as you worried about my credibility....I already told you I could give two ****s less what you think about my credibility as you have none yourself. SOOOO, we will just leave it at that and you can go about your ramblings and me with mine. :wink:

Rember though....if you ever find that you don't like this site, its moderators or the way it is run you can always just not show up here. So.....by then. 8)

BTW I don't listen to too much modern country gabe. Reference some old stuff and you might have my attention. (that should keep you busy and happy for awhile anyway.lol) Oh yea, you ever thought about the hobby suggestion I gave ya earlier? Might do ya good is all I'm sayin. :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> OKOKOK....here it is HAYWOOD JABLOME


Nice example of mature dialogue.

led, it might surprise you who I might know that might know you! :wink:

I do get off the place now and then and meet quite a few people.

But hey, if you aren;t worried about your credibility on here being affected by the childish name calling and accusations with no proof to back them up, by all means please don't let my critic of your comments bother you, keep up in the manner you have as long as you wish!

Even without a real identity, your comments go a long way to show the type of people supporting these issues when these threads are shared with people outside the oligarchy. :wink:


----------



## indsport

gst: So indsport, simply because you "do not accept" the future generations arguement, it is not valid?????

answer: gst, learn to read. I, personally, do not accept the future generations argument. If the present landowner issues a permanent easement, whether for a power line, a telephone line, a conservation program, any future landowners, even someone who inherits or buys the land, should not be able to change the easement.

Shaug: So once again indsport, simply because you do not "accept it" or "think it is valid" you dismiss any number of alternative ideals held by other organizations??

Answer, wrong again. I stated my own opinion. What others may think is their opinion. I never said I dismissed their opinion.

Shaug: As I said indsport the ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND do not agree that perpetual easements have a place here in ND. That is fact.

Answer: Not a fact. My own elected representative to the legislature supports permanent easements as do a number of others.

Shaug: as I am not a disciple of Plainsman, my answers follow your comments.

According to Plainsman and his disciples,
it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights, Agree

it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals, Agree It should not be, but there a numerous severed rights in North Dakota for underground versus above ground ownership. Just ask any number of landowners in the Bakken.

it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised, Disagree

it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody, Disagree, but I would rather have the land open to those who ask rather than those who pay. Leasing is what is eliminating public hunting in other states like Texas as a big example.

it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights, Don't understand. If you are a rancher and renting grazing land, it, once again, is up to the land owner (the lessor), not the renter (the lessee) to determine the "rights" but they can be negotiated. If you are talking public land, the landowner is all the people of the state (for state land) and all the people of the US (for federal land).

it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant, Disagree.

Shaug: However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?

Because a payment for an easement is not a subsidy, it is a payment, just like a rancher renting his neighbors land for his cows in a multiple year contract.

Shaug: These programs are already adequately funded. The G/F is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior is adequately funded.

Answer: I disagree and do not think there is enough money for conservation programs in USDA (according to the NRCS and USDA people I spoke with just this past weekend at a meeting) and the future federal budget is going to really cut back on those programs. G/F is not adequately funded (according to NDGF personnel I spoke to personally this past week). Further, since you know Terry Steinwand personally, why not ask him who he would recommend for the 4 positions on the panel if you are so worried about it. Get back to us and let us know what he said.

Let's get back to the original topic. Why does NDFB oppose the initiated measure? We have heard interminably about the easement issue so that is beating a dead horse, but what other reasons? In my personal opinion, it is because the NDFB does not get a seat at the table (unless one of the members is appointed by the legislature or the Governor) and they are mad they may not get a chance to determine where the money goes or doesn't go.

As to clarification on the panel, my further thoughts on dispersal of the money is that one of the many good places to put the money would be to add additional money on top of existing various voluntary farm conservation programs funded by the state or non profits, ducks unlimited or pheasants forever, etc.... like WHIP, EQIP, food plots, grazing practices, 20 year easements, winter wheat program of DU, etc. Contrary to Shaug, there is not enough money to fund all the requests and further, what landowner would turn down additional money on top of what they are already getting?

BTW, what is the NDFB position on USDA and non profit conservation money? Do they consider those subsidies?
Are they opposed to willing landowners taking money for conservation practices?(which is one of the stated purposes of this money in the initiative)

Back to the regular back biting, ad hominem attacks, and off topic discussion.


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> gst: So indsport, simply because you "do not accept" the future generations arguement, it is not valid?????
> 
> answer: gst, learn to read. I, personally, do not accept the future generations argument. If the present landowner issues a permanent easement, whether for a power line, a telephone line, a conservation program, any future landowners, even someone who inherits or buys the land, should not be able to change the easement.
> 
> indsport, I simply read what is written! :wink:
> 
> So then if these people, "should not be able to change the easement." should the other entity be able to either? If there are programs out there that have this stipulation, do you support them?
> 
> Shaug: So once again indsport, simply because you do not "accept it" or "think it is valid" you dismiss any number of alternative ideals held by other organizations??
> 
> Answer, wrong again. I stated my own opinion. What others may think is their opinion. I never said I dismissed their opinion.
> 
> Shaug: As I said indsport the ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND do not agree that perpetual easements have a place here in ND. That is fact.
> 
> Answer: Not a fact. My own elected representative to the legislature supports permanent easements as do a number of others.
> 
> indsport, how does the law here in ND stand rearding perpetual easements? What was the vote the last time it was addressed
> 
> Shaug: as I am not a disciple of Plainsman, my answers follow your comments.
> 
> According to Plainsman and his disciples,
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights, Agree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals, Agree It should not be, but there a numerous severed rights in North Dakota for underground versus above ground ownership. Just ask any number of landowners in the Bakken.
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised, Disagree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody, Disagree, but I would rather have the land open to those who ask rather than those who pay. Leasing is what is eliminating public hunting in other states like Texas as a big example.
> 
> How about in the form of a "perpetual lease"?
> 
> it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights, Don't understand. If you are a rancher and renting grazing land, it, once again, is up to the land owner (the lessor), not the renter (the lessee) to determine the "rights" but they can be negotiated. If you are talking public land, the landowner is all the people of the state (for state land) and all the people of the US (for federal land).
> 
> Insport, have "agreed" rights to grazing on lands originally meant to be "multiple use lands" ever been taken away by the Federal govt entities which manage them?
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant, Disagree.
> 
> Shaug: However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?
> 
> Because a payment for an easement is not a subsidy, it is a payment, just like a rancher renting his neighbors land for his cows in a multiple year contract.
> 
> indsport, I think you pointedly missed shaugs point concerning the rhetoric posted on here! They are ALL Federal dollars what you call how they are used is somewhat splitting hairs to justify your position. Currently anyone of these two forms of dollars are being defficiet spent.
> 
> Shaug: These programs are already adequately funded. The G/F is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior is adequately funded.
> 
> Answer: I disagree and do not think there is enough money for conservation programs in USDA (according to the NRCS and USDA people I spoke with just this past weekend at a meeting) and the future federal budget is going to really cut back on those programs. G/F is not adequately funded (according to NDGF personnel I spoke to personally this past week). Further, since you know Terry Steinwand personally, why not ask him who he would recommend for the 4 positions on the panel if you are so worried about it. Get back to us and let us know what he said.
> 
> Why were the positions simply spelled out in the original wording as a result of the sponsors cooperatively involving agriculture in the creation of this measure prior to going to the Sec. of States office as was done with the one position on the"panel" ?
> 
> Let's get back to the original topic. Why does NDFB oppose the initiated measure? We have heard interminably about the easement issue so that is beating a dead horse, but what other reasons? In my personal opinion, it is because the NDFB does not get a seat at the table (unless one of the members is appointed by the legislature or the Governor) and they are mad they may not get a chance to determine where the money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> And why should an ag group not get anymore of a direct say than the ND Wildlife society? Had the sponsors of this measure approach and included ag based groups like the NRSC, ND Grazing Lands Coalition, any number of soil conservation districts, NDSU range Sciences Dept, Ect.... (ag based groups proactively working with conservation and enviromental stewardship programs) Perhaps other ag groups would not be opposing this. Instead these sponsors, some of the same ones from the HFH measure and others with hardline noncompromising voices from other conservation/ag issues including the perpetual easement did not inclusde agriculture at all in developing this measure, NOW they come and wihs for ag's blessing?
> 
> Then throw in the fact many in agriculture live in the areas that this money is been taken from and STRONGLY beleive that even if it was ALL put back into infrastructure it would not be enough to repair what is needed.
> 
> As to clarification on the panel, my further thoughts on dispersal of the money is that one of the many good places to put the money would be to add additional money on top of existing various voluntary farm conservation programs funded by the state or non profits, ducks unlimited or pheasants forever, etc.... like WHIP, EQIP, food plots, grazing practices, 20 year easements, winter wheat program of DU, etc. Contrary to Shaug, there is not enough money to fund all the requests and further, what landowner would turn down additional money on top of what they are already getting?
> 
> I agree there are many valuable programs within where you list. But how can you or anyone ensure that is where these dollars will go?
> 
> BTW, what is the NDFB position on USDA and non profit conservation money? Do they consider those subsidies?
> Are they opposed to willing landowners taking money for conservation practices?(which is one of the stated purposes of this money in the initiative)
> 
> Back to the regular back biting, ad hominem attacks, and off topic discussion.


indsport, perhaps as a sportsman on this "sportsmans" website, if you and other sportsmen, more directly involved yourself and held those responsible accountable for their "back biting" comments and "ad homiem attacks" and demand they end to the management of this site instead of piously sitting above the fray, they would eventually end. Ever gave a thought there?

So indsport, what does this rhetoric we see this site backand forth slamming ag and ag orgs. andthe thousands of producer members that make them up accomplish???

Insport, do you know how a pendelum works? Inorder for iot to swing as far as it does one direction, something else hasto pull it a correspondingly far direction thother way?

insport, in this pendelum cycle of ag/conservation/sportsmen/wildlife, where do YOU think we should be?

What orgs or groups do you think are there?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> OKOKOK....here it is HAYWOOD JABLOME
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of mature dialogue.
> 
> led, it might surprise you who I might know that might know you! :wink:
Click to expand...

Kind of what I thought gabe. So baisically what you are saying is you want to know my name so you can run around and run a smear campaign using my name?lol Well good luck bro. If you haven't noticed, the majority of my posts are aimed at you're radical stance on pretty much every ag issue brought up. Even if you did try to run a smear campaign on my name to my friends I wouldn't worry in the least gabe. BTW....get a hobby man...have I told you that before? :wink:


----------



## indsport

indsport, I simply read what is written! :wink:

So then if these people, "should not be able to change the easement." should the other entity be able to either? If there are programs out there that have this stipulation, do you support them?  I don't know of other programs so I cannot be sure if I support them. 

Shaug: So once again indsport, simply because you do not "accept it" or "think it is valid" you dismiss any number of alternative ideals held by other organizations??

Answer, wrong again. I stated my own opinion. What others may think is their opinion. I never said I dismissed their opinion.

Shaug: As I said indsport the ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND do not agree that perpetual easements have a place here in ND. That is fact.

Answer: Not a fact. My own elected representative to the legislature supports permanent easements as do a number of others.

indsport, how does the law here in ND stand rearding perpetual easements? What was the vote the last time it was addressed  Read my previous post, I do not know for sure. I do not recall a vote recently on perpetual easements but I only know my representative would vote in favor of allowing them. 

Shaug: as I am not a disciple of Plainsman, my answers follow your comments.

According to Plainsman and his disciples,
it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights, Agree

it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals, Agree It should not be, but there a numerous severed rights in North Dakota for underground versus above ground ownership. Just ask any number of landowners in the Bakken.

it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised, Disagree

it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody, Disagree, but I would rather have the land open to those who ask rather than those who pay. Leasing is what is eliminating public hunting in other states like Texas as a big example.

How about in the form of a "perpetual lease"?  That is what is happening in Texas 

it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights, Don't understand. If you are a rancher and renting grazing land, it, once again, is up to the land owner (the lessor), not the renter (the lessee) to determine the "rights" but they can be negotiated. If you are talking public land, the landowner is all the people of the state (for state land) and all the people of the US (for federal land).

Insport, have "agreed" rights to grazing on lands originally meant to be "multiple use lands" ever been taken away by the Federal govt entities which manage them?  Don't know, I am not a rancher. That being said, if the lessee violates the contract, the grazing rights should be rescinded. 

it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant, Disagree.

Shaug: However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?

Because a payment for an easement is not a subsidy, it is a payment, just like a rancher renting his neighbors land for his cows in a multiple year contract.

indsport, I think you pointedly missed shaugs point concerning the rhetoric posted on here! They are ALL Federal dollars what you call how they are used is somewhat splitting hairs to justify your position. Currently anyone of these two forms of dollars are being defficiet spent.   Did not miss shaug's point. You missed mine. If the easement comes from duck stamp money, it is not deficit spending and not tax dollars. 

Shaug: These programs are already adequately funded. The G/F is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior is adequately funded.

Answer: I disagree and do not think there is enough money for conservation programs in USDA (according to the NRCS and USDA people I spoke with just this past weekend at a meeting) and the future federal budget is going to really cut back on those programs. G/F is not adequately funded (according to NDGF personnel I spoke to personally this past week). Further, since you know Terry Steinwand personally, why not ask him who he would recommend for the 4 positions on the panel if you are so worried about it. Get back to us and let us know what he said.

Why were the positions simply spelled out in the original wording as a result of the sponsors cooperatively involving agriculture in the creation of this measure prior to going to the Sec. of States office as was done with the one position on the"panel" ? Because according to one of the sponsors I know, ag groups declined to participate in initiated measure but I do not know their reasons or how the offer was made. Ask the sponsors and the ag groups. 

Let's get back to the original topic. Why does NDFB oppose the initiated measure? We have heard interminably about the easement issue so that is beating a dead horse, but what other reasons? In my personal opinion, it is because the NDFB does not get a seat at the table (unless one of the members is appointed by the legislature or the Governor) and they are mad they may not get a chance to determine where the money goes or doesn't go.

And why should an ag group not get anymore of a direct say than the ND Wildlife society? Had the sponsors of this measure approach and included ag based groups like the NRSC, ND Grazing Lands Coalition, any number of soil conservation districts, NDSU range Sciences Dept, Ect.... (ag based groups proactively working with conservation and enviromental stewardship programs) Perhaps other ag groups would not be opposing this. Instead these sponsors, some of the same ones from the HFH measure and others with hardline noncompromising voices from other conservation/ag issues including the perpetual easement did not inclusde agriculture at all in developing this measure, NOW they come and wihs for ag's blessing? See above answer. Ask the sponsors, not me. From what I heard from the sponsors, the initiative approached the ag groups for support and were turned down. Further, I brought up easements in general and you were the one who brought up perpetual easements and none of the sponsors of the measure, to my knowledge, have even discussed it yet. 

Then throw in the fact many in agriculture live in the areas that this money is been taken from and STRONGLY beleive that even if it was ALL put back into infrastructure it would not be enough to repair what is needed.  The initiative has not been passed yet so no money has been taken. Further, the governor and legislature including those who represent the oil areas, have stated over and over in the media that there is enough money to fix the infrastructure. If you do not think so, bring it up to them, not me. I have no say in the matter. 

As to clarification on the panel, my further thoughts on dispersal of the money is that one of the many good places to put the money would be to add additional money on top of existing various voluntary farm conservation programs funded by the state or non profits, ducks unlimited or pheasants forever, etc.... like WHIP, EQIP, food plots, grazing practices, 20 year easements, winter wheat program of DU, etc. Contrary to Shaug, there is not enough money to fund all the requests and further, what landowner would turn down additional money on top of what they are already getting?

I agree there are many valuable programs within where you list. But how can you or anyone ensure that is where these dollars will go?  "Read the initiative. the legislature will get a report on every dime every year. Do you trust the legislature to do their job?

BTW, what is the NDFB position on USDA and non profit conservation money? Do they consider those subsidies?
Are they opposed to willing landowners taking money for conservation practices?(which is one of the stated purposes of this money in the initiative)

Back to the regular back biting, ad hominem attacks, and off topic discussion.[/quote]

indsport, perhaps as a sportsman on this "sportsmans" website, if you and other sportsmen, more directly involved yourself and held those responsible accountable for their "back biting" comments and "ad homiem attacks" and demand they end to the management of this site instead of piously sitting above the fray, they would eventually end. Ever gave a thought there? "Take it up with those doing the attacks, not me. I find it tedious and annoying which is why I post just once a week. 

So indsport, what does this rhetoric we see this site backand forth slamming ag and ag orgs. andthe thousands of producer members that make them up accomplish??? None, and please point out either my back and forth or slamming ag. I disagree with some of the NDFB positions but that is all. 

Insport, do you know how a pendelum works? Inorder for iot to swing as far as it does one direction, something else hasto pull it a correspondingly far direction thother way? From my four physics classes in college, I think I know something about pendulums

insport, in this pendelum cycle of ag/conservation/sportsmen/wildlife, where do YOU think we should be? In my personal opinion, the ag/sportsman problems rarely existed in the mid 80's and before. Land all around my location was unposted, now 98% of it is. Further, ag changed. First the CRP program came (and is now leaving), the wildlife populations exploded, and the number of hunters, both resident and non resident more than doubled. Leasing for hunting also more than doubled. Commodity prices rose dramatically. I still have a picture of posted land that said on the poster, you can hunt all you want when wheat goes to $4 a bushel and corn is more than $3 a bushel. Native prairie is being plowed up for corn and beans at a rate not seen since the 50's. It comes down to money, plain and simple. The initative money will be spent to conserve what little is left by providing incentives with money to willing landowners that they accept instead of putting land into crop agriculture. 

What orgs or groups do you think are there? [/quote]  Don't understand your question, be more specific


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> indsport, I simply read what is written! :wink:
> 
> So then if these people, "should not be able to change the easement." should the other entity be able to either? If there are programs out there that have this stipulation, do you support them?  I don't know of other programs so I cannot be sure if I support them.
> 
> indsport, there has been significant talk of the Dakota Grasslnads Initiative. Within this program the USF&WS are engaging in perpetual easements win which they retain the ability to change the parameters of the easement at any time. Do you support this program under those guidelines?
> Shaug: So once again indsport, simply because you do not "accept it" or "think it is valid" you dismiss any number of alternative ideals held by other organizations??
> 
> Answer, wrong again. I stated my own opinion. What others may think is their opinion. I never said I dismissed their opinion.
> 
> Shaug: As I said indsport the ELECTED representatives of ALL the citizens of ND do not agree that perpetual easements have a place here in ND. That is fact.
> 
> Answer: Not a fact. My own elected representative to the legislature supports permanent easements as do a number of others.
> 
> indsport, how does the law here in ND stand rearding perpetual easements? What was the vote the last time it was addressed  Read my previous post, I do not know for sure. I do not recall a vote recently on perpetual easements but I only know my representative would vote in favor of allowing them.
> 
> 
> ND law prohibits an easement of longer thatn 99 years.
> Shaug: as I am not a disciple of Plainsman, my answers follow your comments.
> 
> According to Plainsman and his disciples,
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever hunting rights, Agree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell or sever minerals, Agree It should not be, but there a numerous severed rights in North Dakota for underground versus above ground ownership. Just ask any number of landowners in the Bakken.
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to accept a subsidy from the taxpayers for grain raised, Disagree
> 
> it is not OK for a landowner to lease hunting to anybody, Disagree, but I would rather have the land open to those who ask rather than those who pay. Leasing is what is eliminating public hunting in other states like Texas as a big example.
> 
> How about in the form of a "perpetual lease"?  That is what is happening in Texas
> 
> 
> Indsport, you did not answer the question, is it okay for someone to leasetheir hunting rights in an perpetual lease? Yes or No?
> it is not OK for a rancher to have grazing rights, Don't understand. If you are a rancher and renting grazing land, it, once again, is up to the land owner (the lessor), not the renter (the lessee) to determine the "rights" but they can be negotiated. If you are talking public land, the landowner is all the people of the state (for state land) and all the people of the US (for federal land).
> 
> Insport, have "agreed" rights to grazing on lands originally meant to be "multiple use lands" ever been taken away by the Federal govt entities which manage them?  Don't know, I am not a rancher. That being said, if the lessee violates the contract, the grazing rights should be rescinded.
> 
> 
> indsport, there are numerous instances of political driven changes to multiuse contracts that have denied the ability to maintain currentleases even when being followedto the letter of the lease. They have been referenced earlier in this thread
> it is not OK for a landowner to sell corn to an ethanol plant, Disagree.
> 
> Shaug: However, it is OK to take some of the taxpayers money and give it to banker Craig Larson because he sold a perpetual easement to the USFWS. How come no one calls banker Craig a subsidy sucker?
> 
> Because a payment for an easement is not a subsidy, it is a payment, just like a rancher renting his neighbors land for his cows in a multiple year contract.
> 
> indsport, I think you pointedly missed shaugs point concerning the rhetoric posted on here! They are ALL Federal dollars what you call how they are used is somewhat splitting hairs to justify your position. Currently anyone of these two forms of dollars are being defficiet spent.   Did not miss shaug's point. You missed mine. If the easement comes from duck stamp money, it is not deficit spending and not tax dollars.
> 
> 
> indsport, it has been referenced that thefunds for the perpetual eassement programs of the DGI are NOT coming from duck stamp monies but rather oil and gas extraction taxes from intercontinental shelf drilling that could infact be directed by Congress to pay down this nations "extreme debt" which IS being deficeit spent when not used for this purpose.
> Shaug: These programs are already adequately funded. The G/F is adequately funded. The Department of the Interior is adequately funded.
> 
> Answer: I disagree and do not think there is enough money for conservation programs in USDA (according to the NRCS and USDA people I spoke with just this past weekend at a meeting) and the future federal budget is going to really cut back on those programs. G/F is not adequately funded (according to NDGF personnel I spoke to personally this past week). Further, since you know Terry Steinwand personally, why not ask him who he would recommend for the 4 positions on the panel if you are so worried about it. Get back to us and let us know what he said.
> 
> Why were the positions simply spelled out in the original wording as a result of the sponsors cooperatively involving agriculture in the creation of this measure prior to going to the Sec. of States office as was done with the one position on the"panel" ? Because according to one of the sponsors I know, ag groups declined to participate in initiated measure but I do not know their reasons or how the offer was made. Ask the sponsors and the ag groups.
> 
> indsport this question was indeed posed to Steve Adair from DU who is the main sponsor of this measure recently. I can speak directly to the fact one ag group in particular that has their own enviromental stewardship program and award was NOT contacted to be a part of developing this measure so how could they decline to participate? Perhaps this sponsor youknow would wish to come on here and directly speak to this issue?
> 
> Let's get back to the original topic. Why does NDFB oppose the initiated measure? We have heard interminably about the easement issue so that is beating a dead horse, but what other reasons? In my personal opinion, it is because the NDFB does not get a seat at the table (unless one of the members is appointed by the legislature or the Governor) and they are mad they may not get a chance to determine where the money goes or doesn't go.
> 
> And why should an ag group not get anymore of a direct say than the ND Wildlife society? Had the sponsors of this measure approach and included ag based groups like the NRSC, ND Grazing Lands Coalition, any number of soil conservation districts, NDSU range Sciences Dept, Ect.... (ag based groups proactively working with conservation and enviromental stewardship programs) Perhaps other ag groups would not be opposing this. Instead these sponsors, some of the same ones from the HFH measure and others with hardline noncompromising voices from other conservation/ag issues including the perpetual easement did not inclusde agriculture at all in developing this measure, NOW they come and wihs for ag's blessing?
> See above answer. Ask the sponsors, not me. From what I heard from the sponsors, the initiative approached the ag groups for support and were turned down. Further, I brought up easements in general and you were the one who brought up perpetual easements and none of the sponsors of the measure, to my knowledge, have even discussed it yet.
> Perhaps the sponsors themselves should then come onhere and provide answers directly.
> 
> Then throw in the fact many in agriculture live in the areas that this money is been taken from and STRONGLY beleive that even if it was ALL put back into infrastructure it would not be enough to repair what is needed.  The initiative has not been passed yet so no money has been taken. Further, the governor and legislature including those who represent the oil areas, have stated over and over in the media that there is enough money to fix the infrastructure. If you do not think so, bring it up to them, not me. I have no say in the matter.
> 
> I would guess perhaps this will indeed be discussed regarding this issue.
> 
> As to clarification on the panel, my further thoughts on dispersal of the money is that one of the many good places to put the money would be to add additional money on top of existing various voluntary farm conservation programs funded by the state or non profits, ducks unlimited or pheasants forever, etc.... like WHIP, EQIP, food plots, grazing practices, 20 year easements, winter wheat program of DU, etc. Contrary to Shaug, there is not enough money to fund all the requests and further, what landowner would turn down additional money on top of what they are already getting?
> 
> I agree there are many valuable programs within where you list. But how can you or anyone ensure that is where these dollars will go?  "Read the initiative. the legislature will get a report on every dime every year. Do you trust the legislature to do their job?
> 
> 
> outside of reading a report, what power does the legislature actually retain regarding the control of this measure? Read the measure and realize the 4 representatives they appoint are out numbered. The question here is do you trust the Wildlife Society and the G&F ! :wink:
> BTW, what is the NDFB position on USDA and non profit conservation money? Do they consider those subsidies?
> Are they opposed to willing landowners taking money for conservation practices?(which is one of the stated purposes of this money in the initiative)
> 
> Back to the regular back biting, ad hominem attacks, and off topic discussion.


indsport, perhaps as a sportsman on this "sportsmans" website, if you and other sportsmen, more directly involved yourself and held those responsible accountable for their "back biting" comments and "ad homiem attacks" and demand they end to the management of this site instead of piously sitting above the fray, they would eventually end. Ever gave a thought there? "Take it up with those doing the attacks, not me. I find it tedious and annoying which is why I post just once a week. 


So yo are saying you do not wish to step up and be a part of ending the rhetoric and simply wish to stop by know and then to garce us with what you "will not accept"?   
So indsport, what does this rhetoric we see this site backand forth slamming ag and ag orgs. andthe thousands of producer members that make them up accomplish??? None, and please point out either my back and forth or slamming ag. I disagree with some of the NDFB positions but that is all. 

I do not beleive I have ever stated you specifically are "slamming ag, simply the retoric you sit backand allow on here is "slamming ag". 

Insport, do you know how a pendelum works? Inorder for iot to swing as far as it does one direction, something else hasto pull it a correspondingly far direction thother way? From my four physics classes in college, I think I know something about pendulums

So then indsport, how do you stop the swing of a pendelum?

insport, in this pendelum cycle of ag/conservation/sportsmen/wildlife, where do YOU think we should be? In my personal opinion, the ag/sportsman problems rarely existed in the mid 80's and before. Land all around my location was unposted, now 98% of it is. Further, ag changed.  First the CRP program came (and is now leaving), the wildlife populations exploded, and the number of hunters, both resident and non resident more than doubled. Leasing for hunting also more than doubled. Commodity prices rose dramatically. I still have a picture of posted land that said on the poster, you can hunt all you want when wheat goes to $4 a bushel and corn is more than $3 a bushel. Native prairie is being plowed up for corn and beans at a rate not seen since the 50's. It comes down to money, plain and simple. The initative money will be spent to conserve what little is left by providing incentives with money to willing landowners that they accept instead of putting land into crop agriculture. 

indsport, do you beleive hunting and sportsmen have changed as well? 

What orgs or groups do you think are there? [/quote]  Don't understand your question, be more specific[/quote]
What specific orgs do you beleive exist that are quietly working to engage conservation, wildlife habitat and production agricultre in mutually benefitial programs?


----------



## indsport

Back again. Only a couple of questions from gst merit answers: 1) Yes, landowners should be able to sign perpetual leases for hunting rights (as distasteful as that is to me personally) and they already do but a lease is not necessarily an easement, but they should also be able to sign perpetual easements with the government and any non profit as well. 2) I do trust the governor and the legislative leaders to pick members to the panel that represent all north dakotans and further that the legislature and the state auditors office will do a good job with oversight of the panel. 3) yes, sportsmen have also changed but so have the numbers. simplest example, total number of hunters both resident and non resident in the late 80's were roughly 40,000. By the late 1990's, it was over double that. 
4) yes, groups like DU and PF are doing a considerable amount on the land

lastly, I noted that there was a conflation of the federal easements and easements by others. Two entirely different contracts governed differently in North Dakota law. I also noted that the Dakota Grasslands initiative is now in the conversation but a number of erroneous statements have been made. First, it is entirely a USFWS federal program. Second, find the facts here and then make up your mind. https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... uth-dakota and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02 ... 2-3650.pdf
Third, as noted in the above references, money for the DGI comes from the land and water conservation fund WHICH DOES include Duck stamp dollars that are NOT taxpayer dollars. Fourth, if one looked at the federal House budgets proposed the past two years, the land and water conservation appropriations were eliminated in those budgets so DGI most likely will never get funded. Fifth, with the budget cutting going on in Congress, the sportsmen as well as ag are all going to take cuts. 
As I said, read the references I posted above and clear up the misinformation in your own mind.


----------



## gst

ind, it appears you are "cherry pickin" what questions to answer! 

You missed a couple I am curious about.

_indsport, there has been significant talk of the Dakota Grasslnads Initiative. Within this program the USF&WS are engaging in perpetual easements win which they retain the ability to change the parameters of the easement at any time. Do you support this program under those guidelines?_

_Insport, have "agreed" rights to grazing on lands originally meant to be "multiple use lands" ever been taken away by the Federal govt entities which manage them?_

indsport, what percentage of dollars going into the DGI come from duckstamp dollars and what percentage come from offshore oil and gas lease revenues?

Indsport wrote:
"_From what I heard from the sponsors, the initiative approached the ag groups for support and were turned down_".

Have you talked with your fella that was a sponsor as to what ag groups were "approached" prior to this measure being written for support and input?

I am curious to know your answer to this one.


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> 2) I do trust the governor and the legislative leaders to pick members to the panel that represent all north dakotans and further that the legislature and the state auditors office will do a good job with oversight of the panel.


*So then indsport, you must as well trust this same Governor to make the right choices in regards to the process land sales to nonprofits go thru as well as the legislature that designed the process and the makeup of the panel*?

Hopefully this question will receive your approval of being deemed worthy of an answer as I am quite curious to hear your response.


----------



## gst

indsport, do you beleive the ND Wildlife Society should be identified as a permanent seat on the panel?

Given the stance their national parent org takes regarding perpetual easements do you beleive the state chapeter will not look to make these programs perpetual thru transfering them to a federal entity?

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

Do you beleive there should be a tax exemption on the dollars received for perpetual easements differeant than a shorter term easement?


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> Fifth, with the budget cutting going on in Congress, the sportsmen as well as ag are all going to take cuts


Both you ans plainsamn havenow suggested this. I am curious, what programs you beleive should be cut? Plainsman seems hesitant to answer that question.


----------



## gst

ind, from the link you provided. 
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... dakota#p-8

A note for your claim "a number of erroneous statements have been made"

I have repeatedly identified this as being a USF&WS program.

And from the link.

The Federal money used to acquire conservation easements is from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11; funds received under this act are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property), and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps [Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452)].

What "erroneous" claims were made?


----------



## gst

Also from the link. 
posting.php?mode=reply&f=3&t=96811

_The Service has involved the public, agencies, partners, and legislators throughout the planning process for the easement program. At the beginning of the planning process, the Service initiated public involvement for the proposal to protect habitats primarily through acquisition of wetland and grassland conservation easements for management as part of the Refuge System. The Service spent time discussing the proposed project with landowners; conservation organizations; Federal, State and county governments; tribes and other interested groups and individuals. The Service held three open-house meetings on December 14, 15, and 16, 2010, at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South Dakota; respectively. These open houses were announced in local media. _

The meeting in Minot was the one I attended. The other two were attended by representatives of various ag orgs. At everyone of these meetings the overwhelming response was while supporting conservation programs the perpetual term was opposed vocally and in writing by an vast majority of the people in attendance.

_In addition, two public meetings were held, in Bismarck, North Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, on June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively. These meetings were announced in advance in local media. Approximately 50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings. The Service received 10 letters from agencies, organizations, and other entities, and 347 general public comments. After all comments were received, they were reviewed, added to the administrative record, and incorporated into the environmental assessment (EA) if substantial._

Additionally ag representaives were at these two meeting as well and the vast majority once again while in support of conservation programs opposed the perpetual terms of the easement.

So I wonder if these opposition comments and concerns were "substantial" enough to be added to the enviromental assessment? :-?

There was a show of hands taken at the Minot meeting as to the support of the perpetual natue of the easement and it was roughly a 90% opposition to the perpetual term tallied.

Perhaps indsport can provide a link to that so we could see if the comments and vote taken is on record?


----------



## shaug

indsport wrote,



> lastly, I noted that there was a conflation of the federal easements and easements by others. Two entirely different contracts governed differently in North Dakota law. I also noted that the Dakota Grasslands initiative is now in the conversation but a number of erroneous statements have been made. First, it is entirely a USFWS federal program.


Yes indsport, the DGI is a federal program. The 5% oil tax revenue rip off measure in North Dakota is a state issue. The comparison was made because the template is also the same. The fed/gov is experiancing extreme national debt because they spend like there is no tommorrow. This state has money now but not if we spend it unwisely or loosely. The 5% oil tax revenue rip off has more than enough federal employees who are sponsors of it.

In the year 2014 the Land Water Conservation Act will sunset. No more fed/gov money. The well is dry. True conservatives are going to be elected and they will not soon borrow more money from China at interest. Mike McEnroe and company at the ND chapter of the wildlife society and the ND wildlife federation are well aware of this and are desperately looking to find another source of dedicated funding. Hence, the 5% oil tax revenue rip off ballot measure in ND.

If their measure were to pass it would mean that about 80 million dollars per year will be diverted away from the general treasurey into their coffers. The oil extraction in ND could go up by eight times in the future meaning they have the potenial to be in charge of $500 million per year.

On Friday 3/30/12 and Saturday 3/31/12 these wildlife pretenders hosted meetings about the Future of Hunting. Of course the media will try to make it sound like there was a gymnasium full of hunters there. Truth be known, there were about 70 people present. Fifty percent of those were USFWS or NDG/F. Mandatory attendees. The usual newspapers. Brian Goering Bismarck Trib, Bill Mitzel Dakota Country, Patricia Stockdill for whomever. Some of the usual High Fence Initiative persons who always attend this stuff were there. Except Roger Kaseman. I think they threw him away like yesterdays gabarge. They couldn't win "without" him because they needed him to get those signatures but then....... they couldn't win "with" him either.

Anyways, think about it. These very same individuals want to be entrusted with $500 million dollars of the taxpayers money per year. Wondering out loud, how much mischeif could they create with that kind of $$$$$$$????

And another thing indsport. David Alan Brandt is a sponsor of that 5% oil tax revenue rip off. At the meeting on Friday there was a gal there speaking for Hunting Work$. David asked her if Hunting Work$ was going to endorse his 5%oil tax revenue rip off measure. She couldn't answer for the group as a whole but promised to look into it. He pressured her that Hunting Work$ has several sponsors and one of those is Farm Bureau who has taken a position against his measure. Farm Bureau was in the room and he didn't care if he was getting offensive. He wanted Hunting Work$ to endorse his measure.

So here is the deal indsport, you do not like comparisons made between the fed/gov program, Dakota Grasslands Initiative and your now state ballot measure (5% oil tax revenue rip off) that you guys are pursuing. Lloyd Jones is promoting the Dakota Grasslands Initiative. He is a fed/gov employee for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. David Brandt is promoting the 5% oil tax revnue rip off ballot measure. He is a fed/gov employee with the United States Geological Survey.

They are both ND wildife society. The template is always the same. And no one supports that when it is put into context. It is the peoples money and you fed/gov people need to stop dreaming up ways to steal.

And while I got you here indsport, let's try one more time again. You said earlier that you worked with Bruce. Which department?


----------



## Plainsman

> The 5% oil tax revenue rip off measure in North Dakota is a state issue.


Let me get this straight. If this is an instate tax and 5% is set aside for conservation why do some say we need it to pay of the debt? North Dakota doesn't have a debt. If your saying we should use a state tax to pay off the national debt I think a responsible state like North Dakota shouldn't bail out states like California where they have had so many benefits that they have driven themselves into the ditch. It would be like our people paying the benefits for another state. Explain this whole thing to me further. I don't bump into the people I worked with in the past. As a matter of fact it's been four months since I have seen one of them. I am not up to date on some of these things.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Let me get this straight. If this is an instate tax and 5% is set aside for conservation why do some say we need it to pay of the debt


plainsamn show where this has ever been said as you claim.


----------

