# ND Measure 5



## dropem32 (Aug 3, 2010)

Thoughts?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

At this mornings Bible study we were talking about the deception out there for the measures that are coming up. It appears not many people have a problem lying these days. Mostly we talked about measure #1 and that the only thing it does is put something in the constitution that protects the right to life bills we have already passed.

Likewise people talk about number 5 and say land will be purchased with it and no one can stop them. Well, the county commissioners still have to approve, the governor would have to approve that, and so nothing will change. Then they say that X amount of dollars has to be spent each year. No, it doesn't say that, it says X amount of dollars must be allocated each year. Much less needs to be spent. Those allocated dollars can wait years until worthy projects are proposed.

We have all watched the results of CRP going away. Our deer population is down, and people blame everything from the Game and Fish to fairies dancing on the moon. The truth is CRP was winter thermal cover along with good all year around habitat. That could be supplemented with this money to make it more attractive to some farmers. Buffer zones could be paid for to clean the chemicals from the tile water that will soon be in our rivers and lakes. Bottom line is I see this as a last chance for wildlife, habitat, and sportsmen. If you carry a firearm or a bow in the fall this measure is of great benefit.

Let the lies begin. Anyone from Farm Bureau on here should respond with a their talking points.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

As a retired obstetrician who has delivered upward of 4000babies I'm going to vote an ABSOLUTE no! NO, NO on measure One! I is conceived as a feel good well meaning bill, but from,a,medical,and social view it is terrible in many, many ways!

Definitely YES on measure 5! If this gets voted down, then I expect to see no more complaining about nowhere to hunt, not much game left,etc.

Being retired and hunting very little these days I have no dog in this fight other than for my grandkids and their grandkids who I'd sooner see out in some wetland than getting obese at home in front of a video game! 
You are right about all the lies, Plains.....DU, PF, NWTF, RMEF all out of state money!?! Good grief! What's tragic is that so many N Dakotans actually believe a lot of this! Maybe a lot of those North Dakota Jokes are true! If the shoe fits......

Measure 7 , after going back and forth on this one, I'm going to vote against, though this isn't a perfect solution either......kind of like measure 5.....

Few things are ever simple and cut and dried, yes or no in politics, unless you are like 95% of voters who vote strictly along party lines without thinking or often even knowing the pros and cons of things and measuring!them and coming up with a personal opinion! That opinion may be wrong but at least it takes a bit of brain activity!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I see Dalrymple and the oil people are going to throw us sportsmen a last minute bone to try to sway votes against measure 5! As a long term once card carrying Republican, I can say that I now trust those guys ZERO! Especially after getting to know a few of them regarding hunting things! I now realize they are lying only when their lips are moving! 
Wish we could get John Hoeven or Ed shaeffer back......they weren't perfect, but they weren't solidly in the pockets of big oil!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know, I think Shaeffer would be my first choice. I think the liberals disliked him simply because he had money. I don't begrudge anyone money, I just wish I had more. Because I don't isn't his fault.

As far as democrats and republicans like you I have zero trust for both. Agriculture has had most North Dakota politicians in their pocket. Today they have to share that pocket with big oil. Don't get me wrong, just like Palin I was also saying drill baby drill. I however have never said drill baby drill with no regulations. I think measure 5 is the perfect tool to offset the habitat damage done to our natural resources. Perhaps all of that extraction tax on public property should have gone to measure 5. Currently everyone is trying to set themselves up to be the receivers of that extraction tax. Farm Bureau and Farmers Union think that should be farmers. The only difference between Farm Bureau and Farmers Union is that Farm Bureau I'm sure thinks all the Farm Bureau farmers should get it. Everyone is looking for the money, but groups like Farm Bureau I think want it all.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

To the thread starter, I look at this measure as while not perfect but a last chance for ND to retain what we have and prevent any more decay of habitat in the state. This is a lot of money, not ever going to argue that, but the state is less than 800,000 people and we are projecting a budget of $5.5 billon for the next biennium. I think the Leg can do all that is required and then some with the amount left.

If you use the opponents own numbers, over a 25 year period this fund will not have taken in and spent what the Leg is going to spend in Jan! Couple that with the fact that if this is not working the Leg (which I have no doubt will can put it back up for a vote in years and in 25 it sunsets if not re-authorized via a state wide vote.

Things it is likely to be used for is new parks and enhancement of existing parks, possible state run set aside program like CRP was. Lots of natural flood retention projects that can be funded here vs fighting over it at the state levels between parties. Feed lot work to protect watersheds from runoff contamination, the list goes on and on and only a fool would believe the Leg will step up and do these things properly!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This is the alternative to the ND Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure. Enjoy the future pheasant season.










Check page 32 of the ND State Budget, "General Revenue by Major Source", projected all sources at $5.5 billion.
http://192.168.1.1:8181/http://www.nd.g ... 013-15.pdf

Ok............

Do the math using opposition numbers. 5% of the oil extraction tax = $150 million for measure 5.

Each percent therefore = $30 million.

Measure funding leaves 95% of the extraction tax X $30 million for general revenue, amounting to $2.85 billion per year.

That is $5.7 billion dollars per biennium, from the extraction tax alone. The oil production tax adds almost that much more, giving a total revenue of slightly over $10 billion dollars just from oil taxes.

Using opposition numbers that revenue alone will be apx 140% of the last state budget which was apx $7 billion in total.

And opponents tell the public there will not be enough money. Make no mistake, Big Oil needs to defeat this measure to get the oil tax returned to them.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Fargo Forum comes out opposed:

http://www.inforum.com/content/forum-ed ... bout-money

Hey Dick, is that a burned out cattail slough? Did all the Canada Thistle seed get burned up too? Was burning the Thistle seed probably the objective?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

shaug said:


> Fargo Forum comes out opposed:
> 
> http://www.inforum.com/content/forum-ed ... bout-money
> 
> Hey Dick, is that a burned out cattail slough? Did all the Canada Thistle seed get burned up too? Was burning the Thistle seed probably the objective?


Not I my home area it is not for the most part especially since the headlands and other areas are full of thistles and are not touched, the intent is to remove the foliage to allow wind and sun better access in order to plow and plant. Burning is not all bad but the scorched earth syndrome that prevails has little if anything to do with weed control shaug and you know it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> scorched earth syndrome that prevails has little if anything to do with weed control shaug and you know it.


I know many farmers who burn in the fall so the wetland doesn't hold snow and they have a better chance of planting in the spring. I am also sure Shaug blames wetlands and any wild area for all of his weeds. Maybe I should remind everyone that leafy spurge got here when farmers wanted more tons of hay per acre and the experiment begin with Smooth Brome grass. The seed came from the Eukrain and because seed cleaning wasn't that good back then they brought weeds including leafy spurge with the brome grass seed. Now many farmers blame birds for leafy spurge. It's always wildlife and wild land that is the culprit with guys like Farm Bureau members.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Leafy spurge and pheasants are natives of China. When chinese couley labor was brought in to work on the first railroads they brought both.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Leafy spurge and pheasants are natives of China. When chinese couley labor was brought in to work on the first railroads they brought both.


 Our leafy spurge was brought in with brome grass seed from the Eukrain. Some went to Nebraska. Fourteen students took it home with directions to plant two acres, and weigh the grass taken off the plot. For four years I met with ag profs, traveled out of country, and met with the U S Dept of Ag entomologist that was stationed in Europe for 13 years searching for insects that could be used for biological control and yet not damage our 39 native Euphobiacea species. Leafy spurge in the eastern U S is of European origin. Perhaps western U S has different origins.
Humorous fairy tales though Shaug.


----------



## Bagman (Oct 17, 2002)

Good job on the commercial for measure 5, Dick. I will be supporting the measure. Let's hope the people see through the lies and hysteria. As soon as I heard that Al Carlson opposes the measure....I knew it was a GOOD thing!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This Sunday's Fargo Forum front paged the ND Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Measure polling results to be voted on Nov.4th:

The latest poll shows 44% Yes, 37% No, 18% Undecided. With the margin of error it is too close to call.

The measure would dedicate 5% of the state oil extraction tax to wildlife habitat improvements, public hunting lands, clean water projects, and parks for ND. (ND ranks 49th in acreage of state parks).

Conservationists support it, big Ag and big oil oppose it.

The poll showed demographics for and against. The young /old supported it more than the middle aged. Women supported it more than men.

Usually ND splits their vote east versus west but on this issue they are very similar in their view.

When I collected signatures to put this on the ballot I found that demographic surprising. As a sportsman I thought men would see the necessity but it was women with children who signed immediately. (Damn, my wife may have been right these 39 years  )

So far $5 million has been spent pro/con on the campaign and it might turn out to be the most expensive campaign in ND history.

The American Petroleum Institute just kicked in $1.1 million to the Vote No side to defeat the measure.

Intent of the the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure:
• Protect clean water in our rivers, lakes and streams.
• Create and improve parks in communities across North Dakota.
• Provide places and education programs for our children to learn about and enjoy the 
outdoors.
• Provide funding for farmers and ranchers to participate in voluntary conservation 
programs.
• Protect wildlife and fish habitat.
• Provide access for hunting and fishing.
• Protect our communities and private property from flooding by improving natural 
flood controls.

Hot time in the old town tonight.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains said,



> Our leafy spurge was brought in with brome grass seed from the *Eukrain*. Some went to Nebraska. Fourteen students took it home with directions to plant two acres, and weigh the grass taken off the plot. For four years I met with ag profs, traveled out of country, and met with the U S Dept of Ag entomologist that was stationed in Europe for 13 years searching for insects that could be used for biological control and yet not damage our 39 native Euphobiacea species. Leafy spurge in the eastern U S is of European origin. Perhaps western U S has different origins.
> Humorous fairy tales though Shaug.


Eukrain isn't a word.

Leafy spurge was transported to the United States possibly as a seed impurity in the early 19th century. First recorded from Massachusetts in 1827, leafy spurge spread quickly and reached North Dakota within about 80 years. It now occurs across much of the northern U.S., with the most extensive infestations reported for Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. It has been identified as a serious weed on a number of national parks and on reserves of The Nature Conservancy in eleven northern states.

Plains, I know you are old but didn't realize you were around in the early 19th century. And leafy spurge occupies land owned by the Nature Conservancy. But wait........They say they restore the land. Anyone who lives near their properties knows they are dirty neighbors.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'll be voting yes on 5. We need to try to protect the wildlife we have left out there.

[sarcasm]and anything conservation related that shaug and his Farm Bureau buddies are against is probably good for sportsmen and wildlife[/sarcasm]. :wink: :wink:

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Eukrain isn't a word.


Your right, I have no idea why I typed it that way. I do know I was thinking it would be a Eucharistic miracle where you loose all of your prejudices. Maybe it was simply a nanosecond of short out between fingers and brain. 

As far as leafy spurge at least we got you away from your racist blaming China. Your still wrong about North Dakota spurge though. I believe there is still a gap in states between the east coast and the great plains. At the national leafy spurge symposium in Minneapolis years ago one of the speakers presented the entire history of leafy spurge in North America. It came in along the east coast very early in ships ballast. It came into two states in the Midwest. It came into the ag colleges of North Dakota and Nebraska.

Now all you need to do is learn a little about wildlife history and how pheasants got here. Next you will tell me carp got here when Chinese coulees brought them in tea pots. :rollin:

Don't let the Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, and the other big money groups that have joined the fray dump on sportsmen and wildlife again. Vote yes on measure 5. I noticed groups lie about measure 1 also. I don't think I have seen so many lies in an election. There is no integrity anymore.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I'm with you about lies, Plainsman! But probably from a medical point of view, many lies about measure 1! Never ceases to amaze me why normal intelligent well educated people choose to believe a panel of old supposedly celebate grey haired old guys in Italy, about contraception and stuff like measure 5, over modern medical thinking! I shake my head....To me at least, Measure 5 is purely a Margarat Sitte Christian Sharia aimed squarely at abortion, while totally ignoring EVERYTHING that works regarding reducing the need for abortion towards the zero mark! Cheap shots, that's all. I've heard and read Dobson and EVERYTHING he says, almost everything that is, is pure medical nonsense.......A paid Lobbyist, nothing more.......
No for one, yes for 5, - I don't have any opinion about the school starting dates,, maybe a bit about the Board of Higher Education one......


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Ron Gilmore said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > Fargo Forum comes out opposed:
> ...


Burning is a very effective weed control management option. Heat the seeds up to 150F and they cannot reproduce. Works great in areas you cannot get your sprayer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > shaug said:
> ...


Not all weeds. Some native species require scarification to germinate.

On another note I got a robocall from a power company yesterday against measure 5. I just got off the phone with the consumer protection division of the AG office. I had the time and number on my phone so that helps. It wasn't anyone I was familiar with, so it wasn't the local power company that I am a member of.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Just talked to some friends that had moved to California from Dickinson last June. They got a phone call this week from big oil to vote no on 5.
  Nothing like covering all the bases.


----------



## goose blaster (Jan 24, 2006)

Why is so much out of state money being poured into the passing of this apple pie, motherhood and the flag amendment? What do the out of staters have to gain?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> Now all you need to do is learn a little about wildlife history and how pheasants got here. Next you will tell me carp got here when Chinese coulees brought them in tea pots.


Nope, carp were brought here by the US Fish Commission.

Common carp, native to Eurasia, were first introduced in North America in 1831 [44] and were intentionally released throughout most of the United States by the U.S. Fish Commission in 1877-1898 [45], [46]. Now considered an invasive nuisance, common carp are established in every U.S. state except Alaska [47], and seem to have established almost completely across their potential distributional range [15]. The impact of common carp on native aquatic species has been primarily through habitat modification, as it stirs up substrates, uprooting plants and muddying the water [46], [48]. Common carp occupy many microenvironments, are highly fecund, and spawn in shallow, slow-flowing water [49].


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

goose blaster said:


> Why is so much out of state money being poured into the passing of this apple pie, motherhood and the flag amendment? What do the out of staters have to gain?


Why all the out of state money being spent to defeat the measure, what do they stand to gain?

I know what DU and others do in regards to conservation, I see the state of ND shutting such org out from being able to y do good work and projects. It stands to reason at least from DU history of seeking to restore wetlands and habitat that they see this as a way for such actions to take place. Since state law will still restrict them in ownership and easements my bet would be partnership with instate entities that can do this and they have the experts and background to assist.

Now AG wants fence row to fence row farming, big oil wants to drill and have the taxes lowered or go away. Kind of see where this sits!! The state is looking at a $10 billion dollar biennium from recent reports. For a state with less than 800,000 people that is enough money to take care of schools, taxes and roads and still have money left!!!


----------



## goose blaster (Jan 24, 2006)

Still doesn't answer my question, why all the out of state money and interest?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

goose blaster said:


> Still doesn't answer my question, why all the out of state money and interest?


I would guess D U interest is because of the lower 48 states we are the duck factory. There is nothing else left of the once productive Prairie Pothole region. It has been destroyed in Iowa, Minnesota, and large portions of South and North Dakota. For many people there is an urgency to conserve what remains.

Edit: Often one does not appreciate what you see every day. In California the lumber companies would like to cut the last redwoods. Around the rest of the country they want to preserve something they see as a national treasure much like Yellowstone and Denali. People go to Glacier National Park for the spectacular mountains, and to Grand Canyon for the spectacular views. People come to North Dakota to hunt, but I talk to many who come for out Badlands, and our Prairie Pothole Region. Most of the wetlands that remain in North and South Dakota are in the Missouri Du Coteau. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coteau_du_Missouri


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

With poor commodity prices forecasted for the next few years, people will be rushing to put ground back into CRP. Measure 5 is not needed. $6 corn is go for no one.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

goose blaster said:


> Still doesn't answer my question, why all the out of state money and interest?


Really? Big oil wants this not to pass in order to have higher surpluses so they can lobby for tax reductions on oil, national farm orgs do not want public ownership or non profit ownership of lands. They view gain by preventing anything that they see doing any of the above.

Conservation orgs see benefit by more lands and dollars to effect restoration and permanent protections! Now that is as straightforward and accurate reasons as to why!!

If you fail to grasp that and understand well then you are looking for an answer that is not accurate!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> With poor commodity prices forecasted for the next few years, people will be rushing to put ground back into CRP. Measure 5 is not needed. $6 corn is go for no one.


Really? Just how many acres are going to be eligible for the CRP from the Feds? I know of 9 quarters right now that the owners have been trying to keep enrolled and it is not about the dollar amount! It is all about the Fed score!!!

Couple that with the other program needs that are never going to see adequate or any funding from the Leg !

I disagree with your take completely!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Please tell me what exactly measure will do. They just want to money and then decide what will happen with the money. The measure needs to have a clear path of where exactly they are going to spend the money. From the groups of students at college that are pushing measure, could never answer that question fully, just saying that it will help create natural habitat. Well how will it do that? They also said that money from measure 5 will also fund CRP. That is a flat out lie.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

There are no specifics listed in this measure intentionally. To do so would have bounded strictly for that use.As it is written now It can be used for A variety of programs. What those programs are going to be will remain to be seen But it is clear that such programs as a state-run CRP invasive species prevention and such are all going to be brought to the table. I have no problem with people wondering where the money is going to go But it is important to understand The intent of why it is Written in the manner that it is.

I could go on and on but the point being that Limiting the measure to strictly one item or two items o is not going to maximize the ability of this program if passed I. And would make it an unworkable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Please tell me what exactly measure will do. They just want to money and then decide what will happen with the money. The measure needs to have a clear path of where exactly they are going to spend the money. From the groups of students at college that are pushing measure, could never answer that question fully, just saying that it will help create natural habitat. Well how will it do that? They also said that money from measure 5 will also fund CRP. That is a flat out lie.


That sounds a lot like the liberals wanting Bush to tell them every move in Iraq, and date an exit, and give his exit strategy. I don't know of a single program that details exactly how money will be spent. Not even the dept of agriculture after years can do that for you. It's simply a scare tactic that some swallow. 
It's not a lie that a state CRP program could emerge from this measure. At least it could supplement a federal program to make it more profitable hence appealing to land owners. I have always thought it would be cheaper to pay a very good price for wetland restoration north of Devils Lake. They have had a lot of problems up there, and they could be partially alleviated with wetland restoration. I have relatives that farm north of Devils Lake, and their drained wetlands are not full as some people will tell you on these forms. Their wetlands are dry. What price do you think would have to be offered to restore wetlands?

Growing up on the farm I would think of these things even at a very young age. I remember living on the farm through the soil bank program. Our farm was in the Sheyenne river valley, and I remember the guy who farmed above us. He abused the land and our soil bank caught all his good topsoil. He sprayed and killed the juneberries I picked as a kid and I thought how reckless of him. At a young age growing up on the farm I thought when I grew up I would be more in favor of conservation of farm land than I would support prices. I remember the neighbor so angry because he wanted to sell wheat to Russia. Even though a cold war was going on we did sell wheat to Russia. I could not understand feeding the enemy to get prices up so our neighbors and town folk had to pay more. Only the farmer and the Russians came out ahead while everyone else lost. I lived on the farm, but I knew what was happening. My parents although their life was the farm didn't agree with selling to Russia either. They were Americans first and farmers second.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Ron Gilmore said:


> There are no specifics listed in this measure intentionally. To do so would have bounded strictly for that use.As it is written now It can be used for A variety of programs. What those programs are going to be will remain to be seen But it is clear that such programs as a state-run CRP invasive species prevention and such are all going to be brought to the table. I have no problem with people wondering where the money is going to go But it is important to understand The intent of why it is Written in the manner that it is.
> 
> I could go on and on but the point being that Limiting the measure to strictly one item or two items o is not going to maximize the ability of this program if passed I. And would make it an unworkable.


But not having an outlying plan is where this fails. All of the money that measure could take, could end up only being put to use on private land, and the public would not be able to see the benefits. And that is what worries me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But not having an outlying plan is where this fails. All of the money that measure could take, could end up only being put to use on private land, and the public would not be able to see the benefits. And that is what worries me.


Some people will say prove it, but I seen the proposed CRP before it was picked apart by the big farm groups. It would have been open to hunting. It could be put to use on private land and the public not see benefit beyond habitat and perhaps flood retention. If the public sees benefit as hunters is in your hands as a landowner. You could receive money for wetland restoration, prairie restoration, grass plantings, erosion control, but it will not be the failure of this measure if hunters don't get on. If will be because of landowner attitude. That's why to help with public access I would like to see a variable pay scale with extra money for access. The ball will be in your park blhunter.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> But not having an outlying plan is where this fails. All of the money that measure could take, could end up only being put to use on private land, and the public would not be able to see the benefits. And that is what worries me.


Where does the vast, vast majority of wildlife call home? Public land? Wrong! Private land provides a vast majority of the habitat. If money funded by Measure 5 goes toward habitat improvement on private land, and even IF that doesn't involve hunting access, I'm 100 percent behind that. The way I see it, the animals need to live somewhere. And they might eventually trickle out to public property. Plus, with PLOTS being so closely tied to CRP, I could see the state creating it's own CRP-type program and again linking PLOTS to it where applicable. Habitat and access from oil tax dollars. Win-win in my book.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Duckslayer100 I have always said that if we can increase wildlife populations by 10% on private land it's better than increasing it 100% on public land. The reason being there is so little public land in North Dakota. 
The people of North Dakota have many interests, and many of those interests includes the outdoors. I'm not advocating forgetting our farmers I think this measure will benefit them. What I am advocating is thinking of other people and not only agriculture and oil like our legislators do.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The problem with all of this will be that it will be government funding on private land. There are already loads of programs landowners can do, but guess what? The rules and regulations that come with the programs are a nightmare, that is why so little of them are used. What good does having piles of money to throw at a problem in there are too many hoops to jump through to do them?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> The problem with all of this will be that it will be government funding on private land. There are already loads of programs landowners can do, but guess what? The rules and regulations that come with the programs are a nightmare, that is why so little of them are used. What good does having piles of money to throw at a problem in there are too many hoops to jump through to do them?


Lets leave it up to each individual landowner what hoops they are willing to jump through. Your free to turn it down, but shouldn't your neighbor have a choice? I see a couple of the strong opponents on fishingbudy have all kinds of excuses and falsehoods to be against it, but the truth is that 95% isn't enough for some. They equate conservation with ag erosion prevention when we all know it's much more than that. Unfortunately when they belong to an ag promotion organization they are expected to march in lockstep and not think for themselves. The member individual's are often ok, but unlike individuals organizations have no soul and no conscience. Good or bad they are as a group self centered. All groups ag or wildlife. We as voting individuals have a chance to do something good for many North Dakota people who our legislators refuse to represent. 
One fellow on fishingbuddy refuses to acknowledge that our legislators are disproportionately ag connected. Here in Stutsman count you and I know that our reps are all ag people. Have you received a card yet from tbe three democrats running against them. I did and all three start their pitch with "family farmer". This isn't anti ag blhunter, it's just a fact I am not being represented. Look at the population of Stutsman County then look at the percentage of farmers and non farmers.

OK bl now tell me how you would feel if all your reps were from Ducks Unlimited for tbe last few ter.s and no farmers. That puts the shoe on the other foot and hopefully you can see my point.


----------



## goose blaster (Jan 24, 2006)

" We have to pass this bill so we can find out what is in it.".......sound familiar?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.


Thats you, and your free to make those choices. Are you going to deny others the right to make their own choices?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.


Exactly so a program that is not federally controlled but set up instate for our state land types makes more sense and less hassle.

In regards to increased wildlife we had a landowner that had very good habitat but restricted hunter access to just a few. People would complain but his actions actually benefited everyone in the area. It was here that the few phesants where able to survive and floorish when more habitat hit the landscape. Deer as well and this is one of the only areas in my home area where you can see and find partridges.

Increases in wildlife on grounds like this means spillover into adjacent areas and most of those are open to almost.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.


Exactly so a program that is not federally controlled but set up instate for our state land types makes more sense and less hassle.

In regards to increased wildlife we had a landowner that had very good habitat but restricted hunter access to just a few. People would complain but his actions actually benefited everyone in the area. It was here that the few phesants where able to survive and floorish when more habitat hit the landscape. Deer as well and this is one of the only areas in my home area where you can see and find partridges.

Increases in wildlife on grounds like this means spillover into adjacent areas and most of those are open to almost.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In regards to increased wildlife we had a landowner that had very good habitat but restricted hunter access to just a few. People would complain but his actions actually benefited everyone in the area. It was here that the few phesants where able to survive and floorish when more habitat hit the landscape.


Classic population response to protection. There are areas that are populations sinks (poor habitat where animals are drawn in, but do not reproduce), and areas that are population contributors. Simply because you find a section you can't hunt doesn't mean it isn't valuable to you as a hunter. I know one farm that no one has got to hunt for 40 years. However, for some odd reason everyone wants to hunt as close as they can to it. Lucky me I get to hunt the farm between the federal refuge and the posted farm. I have not hunted geese for I think three years. I don't have time for everything. As I remember the hunting was gooooood. I still visit with that farmer often and try shoot as many of his coyotes as I can. Another of my good friends owned more land next to the posted land and let me hunt. I had that farm surrounded. That friend passed away way to young at 42. The last I talked with him he asked me to take his son bow hunting. Then there are those with the audacity to call me anti ag.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.


That's funny...a lot of farmers I talked to were clamoring to get CRP acres enrolled again, but couldn't because the Feds reduced the overall cap. Sounds to me like ND is ripe for another such program at a state level....


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Duckslayer100 said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > We already have choices plainsman and none of them are worth the hassle.
> ...


Can North Dakota pay for state run CRP long term? Its not only a cap on the CRP at the federal level its the classification system that bars some land from CRP. How long it take for North Dakota to be able to get those programs running. Would piles of money just go to consulting firms for years and not the program or habitat, like what is happening in Fargo with the diversion?

There is too many unanswered questions that come with measure five.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> Can North Dakota pay for state run CRP long term? Its not only a cap on the CRP at the federal level its the classification system that bars some land from CRP. How long it take for North Dakota to be able to get those programs running. Would piles of money just go to consulting firms for years and not the program or habitat, like what is happening in Fargo with the diversion?
> 
> There is too many unanswered questions that come with measure five.


Who knows?? But we shouldn't even try because it might not last? That sounds wonderful. Why bother doing anything if that's your attitude?

Even if it was for just five years, the benefits from possibly enrolling hundreds of thousands or even millions of acres back into CRP would be worth it. We're riding the final tail end of the peak 3 million acres of CRP that ND used to have. We're at around 1.5 million now. One good drought and I bet they even limit gratis tags. THEN watch the landowners whine about habitat...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Duckslayer100 said:
> 
> 
> > blhunter3 said:
> ...


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Duckslayer100 said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Can North Dakota pay for state run CRP long term? Its not only a cap on the CRP at the federal level its the classification system that bars some land from CRP. How long it take for North Dakota to be able to get those programs running. Would piles of money just go to consulting firms for years and not the program or habitat, like what is happening in Fargo with the diversion?
> ...


A lot of the CRP that ND use to have should have never been put into CRP, in the first place, and a lot of CRP should have never been taken out of CRP.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> A lot of the CRP that ND use to have should have never been put into CRP, in the first place, and a lot of CRP should have never been taken out of CRP.


I'll agree with that. I have seen very good land, and level at that, that should never have met the standards. I guess somebody knew somebody that forced people to let them get it in. Big landowner too. When I see you I'll tell you who I am talking about. He would let no one hunt. He even used live traps for mice and turned them loose far from the buildings.

Then there is the rocks and sand that they took out of CRP. That would never happen if it wasn't for the government behind them so today it's impossible to loose.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A little insight into the "we can't afford the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure " arguement:

Current balances:

Legacy Fund $2.8 Billion

Abandoned Well reclamation fund $7.9 Million

Foundation Aid Stabilization fund $473 million

Common schools trust fund $2.885 billion

Resources trust fund $486 million

General Fund $3.2 billion

Property Tax relief fund $657 million

Strategic Investment & Imprmt Fund $1.1 billion

Environmental & Range Protect Fund $5.6 million

State Disaster Fund $90 million

Total $10,504,500,000 (that would be billion, and yes, it is current)


----------

