Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 176844" data-attributes="member: 373">Nothing. Take away Ms Donovans LIBERAL ideologies in what she writes and plainsmans wild accusations and the actual story  is a bit different.- - - Updated - - -And predictably the Liberal EWG site comes up. Mr. Foul, do you know that the Constitution requires fair and just compensation whe  the govt "takes" something from someone? Do you understand the Farm program "takes" the ability to manage ones lands as they see fit in a mutual agreement whereby the govt compensates the farmer for that "takings"? Do you know that these ag programs are part of this nations food security program were by you the consumer receives the actual end benefit? Do you  know that not one of those dollars from that listing are buried in a can in my back yard, but have all flowed thru the JD dealer, Ford Dealer, Menards, Macs, Home of Economy, a variety of ag supply and seed stores, Vet clinics, .................maybe even a business that pays your pay check.......so who actually is receiving this "hand out"? And the simple truth that I have advocated for on this very site is that these food security programs designed to ultimately benefit YOU are for the ag producer like a snake eating its own tail. For every bite one things they gain, it is in essences simply contributing to the snakes demise. If I was independently wealthy and not borrowing operating loans from a bank that REQUIRES one to enroll in govt ag programs I would not. It is why I would MUCH rather ranch than farm. So my statement still stands that the Federal govt is making more and more people dependant on their hand outs rather than industry. And yes that includes farming. but hey here is the org you post from. So is it just a personal thing that gets you to that site or is it on your "favorites" list? <a href="http://www.ewg.org/key-issues" target="_blank">http://www.ewg.org/key-issues</a>Pick an ag story and we can show you where what is printed is full of holes and bullshit. You and plains sure like to post stuff from these liberal websites, EWG, The Sierra Club ect.......the trouble is they are so agenda driven most often what they write is as bad as CNNs fake news.  ;:;badidea- - - Updated - - -  No I do not feel that nor have I ever suggested that. Many Federal lands are being managed by those that strongly believe in honoring multiple use promises. But there was a number of years where those people were either replaced or quit our of frustration (I beleive there was one that was posting on here that had quit that explained how these environ groups like EWG and the Sierra Club BCHA (you know the ones people on here like to post from) and others had forced their policies that tied the hands of those managers)When I speak of how these Federal lands are being mismanaged and promises broken, THOSE are the examples I am referencing of which over the last 20 years there has become an increasing number of. Here  in ND, for the most part (out side of those environ groups trying to change residue management on these grasslands to require cover grass height after grazing that was actually taller than the native species grew as a means to limit grazing) the managers of these Federal lands here work pretty well with the multiple users in our state.- - - Updated - - - Speaking for myself, I have no wish to see the grasslands developed as private lands are. That is why I actually think this statement that plainsman and some seem to want to ignore may hold a solution. From the article.......""The delegation requested Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Attorney General Jeff Sessions work with North Dakota and the affected counties to find a “mutually acceptable settlement.”"ndlongshot, my question to you is should the state these lands are located in have any say in their management? Perhaps an example one can consider is an elk herd reduction program. Should the state have had any say on that? So what else should the state have a say on? Maybe as a means to reach a "mutually acceptable settlement" as was done with the elk reduction? - - - Updated - - -The only reason I bothered to post on this thread is to once again try to curb the stupid accusations and wild claims that tie into the ideology behind the author of the article posted that some here try to hide their own support of. People need to understand there is a pendelum that is at work when it comes to these public lands. There are those on both ends pushing and that is how it swings further and further. Conversations void of the bullshit need to be engaged in to try and keep the management somewhere in the middle of that pendelum.I personally think those conversations are easier to have and more fruitful when speaking with local state representatives. Unless you guys are impressed with how easy it is to speak with those like Sen Heitkamp, or those from other states like Schummer and Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Boxer, Sanders, Pocahauntus/Warren......and others  directly.........Remember THOSE are the people that vote on how these Federal lands are managed here in ND. Stop and think about that for a moment (if it doesn;t make you shake your head) and tell me how your voice is heard when it comes time to vote on something on "your" public lands here in ND. </blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA