Sb 2315 - reborn after house gutting!

[fireone]

The idea of saving the family farm for family agriculture sounds good in theory except it is other farmers buying up that land and driving the young people out. Everybody wants to get bigger and they don't want competition at a land auction so they can get a cheaper price per acre. Which shoots "property rights" in both feet. The fundamental freedom of willing seller/willing buyer is tossed under the bus.

njsimonson and some of you other guys have good ideas about 2315, etc. I hope hunters can move the idea forward in the coming months.

 

[eyexer]

CORPORATIONS CARE ABOUT PROFITS!!!!! NOT wildlife, NOT habitat, NOT hunters, and NOT what is even good for the land!!!! They won't think twice about bulldozing every tree, slough, grass patch, or drainage if it means they make more money. Just look at what is happening to the shelter belts, sloughs, and other habitat on ag land right now and that's the doings of private landowners. What do you think will happen when it's a corporation making the decisions?? Careful what you wish for when it comes to allowing corporate farming folks.

little to nothing would change. You just made the case for it lol

 

[KDM]

little to nothing would change. You just made the case for it lol

Except the speed at which wildlife habitat and available land open for hunting would be lost, the finality of every acre turned into corporate land would stay corporate land, and the assurance that every corporate acre would be priced out of even above average common folks reach should it even be put up for sale, you're correct eyexer, very little would change.

 

[eyexer]

Except the speed at which wildlife habitat and available land open for hunting would be lost, the finality of every acre turned into corporate land would stay corporate land, and the assurance that every corporate acre would be priced out of even above average common folks reach should it even be put up for sale, you're correct eyexer, very little would change.

majority of the farmers are corporations now. And the head of the corporation is the government (taxpayers). Most are operating at max profit potential now. Corporations in the way your thinking would hardly change any of that. Companies like green giant haven’t caused any worse effects in the states they operate. If major corporations owned the land they would simply contract with current farmers to grow what they desired to grow. Just like green giant contracts farmers to raise peas and corn etc. but preservation companies could own land to help habitat such as pheasants forever. There’s absolutely no reason why PF shouldn’t be allowed to own land in this state.

 

[Kurtr]

The preservation companies would not be able to out bid the for profit corps.

 

[KDM]

majority of the farmers are corporations now. And the head of the corporation is the government (taxpayers). Most are operating at max profit potential now. Corporations in the way your thinking would hardly change any of that. Companies like green giant haven’t caused any worse effects in the states they operate. If major corporations owned the land they would simply contract with current farmers to grow what they desired to grow. Just like green giant contracts farmers to raise peas and corn etc. but preservation companies could own land to help habitat such as pheasants forever. There’s absolutely no reason why PF shouldn’t be allowed to own land in this state.

Then vote it if it's so great. The facts remain that neither PF, nor any of these so called "preservation groups" have now, or will have in the future, the financial horsepower that say the seed companies have or the ag chemical companies or how about the ethanol plants have for buying power. How about the feed lot cattle companies buying pasture land to hold their cattle. If any of these corps start buying ag land and the chances that land EVER sees private ownership again is about zip, while the chances that that land will be locked up to protect the company from any "Liabilities" is conversely, quite high, but to each their own.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

majority of the farmers are corporations now. And the head of the corporation is the government (taxpayers). Most are operating at max profit potential now. Corporations in the way your thinking would hardly change any of that. Companies like green giant haven’t caused any worse effects in the states they operate. If major corporations owned the land they would simply contract with current farmers to grow what they desired to grow. Just like green giant contracts farmers to raise peas and corn etc. but preservation companies could own land to help habitat such as pheasants forever. There’s absolutely no reason why PF shouldn’t be allowed to own land in this state.

The people have spoken:

The ​

North Dakota Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment, Measure 5

was on the ​

November 4, 2014 ballot

in ​

North Dakota

as an ​

initiated constitutional amendment

, where it was ​

defeated

.​

[h=2]Election results[/h]

​

North Dakota Measure 5
Result	Votes	Percentage
No	199,305	79.38%
Yes	51,775	20.62%

 

[Meelosh]

Fritz, as usual, is being disingenuous at best. There was more to Measure 5 and its defeat than the land ownership aspect.

 

[bravo]

When I mentioned non-profits, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of MDF, pheasants forever, DU, etc purchasing land. If in order for that to happen corporate farming also would have to be allowed, then I guess I would be against that.

Also, measure 5 was poorly written and that is why it was rejected. There was an alarming amount of money that HAD to be spent per the language of the measure (aka wasted). Add to that that groups on the radical side of conservancy (PETA etc.) were in play when it came to who could control land. The measure could have been a decent idea but got mixed up lacked a clear path forward. I don’t believe the measure failed because PF wanted to put some acres into CRP, Fritz.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

The North Dakota Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment 5 wasn't improperly written as much as it was properly opposed. It had several templates in other States to use as a model. Minnesota in 2008 passed the Lessard-Sams Act or a sales tax diversion to conservation. It can be used to buy land. Last year some Representatives in MN. proposed what we in North Dakota have the "no net gain law."

Had North Dakota passed Measure 5, this is what we would be staring at:

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...net-gain-bill-just-tip-anti-public-lands-push

Opinion[h=1]Conservationist's View: 'No net gain' bill just the tip of an anti-public lands push[/h] Written By:David A. Lien | Feb 17th 2019 - 4pm.

• AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to Facebook
  Share to Twitter
  Share to Reddit
  Share to Email
  
  Share to Copy Link
  
  
  
  

On Feb. 7, 2019 the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers - along with other hunting, angling, and conservation groups - held a second-annual "Rally for Public Lands" at the State Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul. Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, was the keynote speaker.
The rally was organized in response to anti-public lands legislation being pushed by some state and congressional legislators. For example, as reported Jan. 25 in Outdoor News, "no-net-gain" legislation has been introduced by state Rep. Steve Green, R-Fosston. Is it possible he doesn't realize that out of roughly 51 million acres of land in Minnesota, 76 percent is in private ownership?

​

Perhaps he isn't aware that in 2008, when times were tough across the country, Minnesotans overwhelmingly passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy constitutional amendment, the "Legacy Amendment." That's right. Minnesotans voted to increase the state sales tax on themselves to raise nearly $300 million a year for fish and wildlife habitat, parks, trails, and the arts. Unfortunately, our Minnesota Republican Party platform supports repealing the Legacy Amendment, according to a June Outdoor Insights report.
"It's a horrible idea," Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Vice Chairman Erik Jensen said in the Jan. 25 article regarding "no net gain." "It's bad for hunting and fishing opportunity."
"It's very important to realize that these land-acquisition programs that are there - the DNR isn't driving this," Bob Meier, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources assistant commissioner, said in February 2017 in Outdoor News. "It's citizens and your constituents out there who want this, who voted for the constitutional amendment. ... (They are) the ones telling us to do this, driving our mission."

This is one of those fun ones. The DNR assistant Commissioner, Bob Meier claims it is citizens telling the DNR what to do. What he doesn't want anyone to know is that non-profit non-governmental orgs behind this are actually surrogates of the DNR or controlled opposition orgs that his government employees belong to.

​

"Though I'm optimistic that 'no net gain' and other dumb anti-public lands bills won't progress this session, ... yours truly has meetings set with his state senator and ... representative to explain that casters and blasters are the nation's first environmentalists," added Rob Drieslein, Outdoor News managing editor, in the Feb. 1 issue.
"While access and opportunity to hunt on these lands may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, opposition to acquiring more public land exists in our state and federal government," Howard K. Vincent, president and CEO of Pheasants Forever, said in the Jan. 25 Outdoor News. "We need to stand together as an outdoor community to protect the places we hunt, fish, hike, and paddle."

​

As explained by outdoors writer Sam Cook in the April 30, 2017, News Tribune, "This is who we are. We love the outdoors. We bust our behinds all week, and then we get outside. We hunt deer and birds and turkeys. We catch walleyes and sunfish and trout. ... We camp and hike and look at the stars. ... Minnesota's outdoor experience defines our way of life. It is our passion, our renewal, our inspiration."

I suggest Rep. Green is out of step with the vast majority of Minnesotans - and Americans. And it's important to point out that not all Republican politicians agree with his apparent anti-public lands agenda. For example, state Sen. Carrie Rudd was quoted in the Jan. 26, 2018, Outdoor News stating, "That is so much the wrong direction. ... Cass County has no-net-loss. That is where we should be going."
However, bad ideas are like weeds; they never really go away. So it goes with the cyclical schemes to liquidate America's great public lands estate. Thirty-five years ago, it was the Sagebrush Rebellion. This year, in Minnesota, it's "no net gain" legislation. Make no mistake about it, this is just the tip of an anti-public lands agenda iceberg that should concern every American. We must keep pulling weeds.

This is one of the best word smith pieces yet. It "is a scheme" to try to sell or trade a piece of public land but it is "not a scheme" on their part to desire to aquire more private land and make it public.

David Lien of Colorado Springs, Colo., and formerly of Grand Rapids, is a former Air Force officer and the founder and former chairman of Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (backcountryhunters.org). He's the author of "Hunting for Experience II: Tales of Hunting & Habitat Conservation." In 2014, he was recognized by Field & Stream as a "Hero of Conservation."



​

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

The North Dakota Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment 5 wasn't improperly written as much as it was properly opposed. It had several templates in other States to use as a model. Minnesota in 2008 passed the Lessard-Sams Act or a sales tax diversion to conservation. It can be used to buy land. Last year some Representatives in MN. proposed what we in North Dakota have the "no net gain law."

Had North Dakota passed Measure 5, this is what we would be staring at:

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...net-gain-bill-just-tip-anti-public-lands-push

OpinionConservationist's View: 'No net gain' bill just the tip of an anti-public lands push

Written By:David A. Lien | Feb 17th 2019 - 4pm.

• AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to Facebook
  Share to Twitter
  Share to Reddit
  Share to Email
  
  Share to Copy Link
  
  

On Feb. 7, 2019 the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers - along with other hunting, angling, and conservation groups - held a second-annual "Rally for Public Lands" at the State Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul. Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, was the keynote speaker.
The rally was organized in response to anti-public lands legislation being pushed by some state and congressional legislators. For example, as reported Jan. 25 in Outdoor News, "no-net-gain" legislation has been introduced by state Rep. Steve Green, R-Fosston. Is it possible he doesn't realize that out of roughly 51 million acres of land in Minnesota, 76 percent is in private ownership?


Perhaps he isn't aware that in 2008, when times were tough across the country, Minnesotans overwhelmingly passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy constitutional amendment, the "Legacy Amendment." That's right. Minnesotans voted to increase the state sales tax on themselves to raise nearly $300 million a year for fish and wildlife habitat, parks, trails, and the arts. Unfortunately, our Minnesota Republican Party platform supports repealing the Legacy Amendment, according to a June Outdoor Insights report.
"It's a horrible idea," Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Vice Chairman Erik Jensen said in the Jan. 25 article regarding "no net gain." "It's bad for hunting and fishing opportunity."
"It's very important to realize that these land-acquisition programs that are there - the DNR isn't driving this," Bob Meier, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources assistant commissioner, said in February 2017 in Outdoor News. "It's citizens and your constituents out there who want this, who voted for the constitutional amendment. ... (They are) the ones telling us to do this, driving our mission."

This is one of those fun ones. The DNR assistant Commissioner, Bob Meier claims it is citizens telling the DNR what to do. What he doesn't want anyone to know is that non-profit non-governmental orgs behind this are actually surrogates of the DNR or controlled opposition orgs that his government employees belong to.



"Though I'm optimistic that 'no net gain' and other dumb anti-public lands bills won't progress this session, ... yours truly has meetings set with his state senator and ... representative to explain that casters and blasters are the nation's first environmentalists," added Rob Drieslein, Outdoor News managing editor, in the Feb. 1 issue.
"While access and opportunity to hunt on these lands may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, opposition to acquiring more public land exists in our state and federal government," Howard K. Vincent, president and CEO of Pheasants Forever, said in the Jan. 25 Outdoor News. "We need to stand together as an outdoor community to protect the places we hunt, fish, hike, and paddle."



As explained by outdoors writer Sam Cook in the April 30, 2017, News Tribune, "This is who we are. We love the outdoors. We bust our behinds all week, and then we get outside. We hunt deer and birds and turkeys. We catch walleyes and sunfish and trout. ... We camp and hike and look at the stars. ... Minnesota's outdoor experience defines our way of life. It is our passion, our renewal, our inspiration."

I suggest Rep. Green is out of step with the vast majority of Minnesotans - and Americans. And it's important to point out that not all Republican politicians agree with his apparent anti-public lands agenda. For example, state Sen. Carrie Rudd was quoted in the Jan. 26, 2018, Outdoor News stating, "That is so much the wrong direction. ... Cass County has no-net-loss. That is where we should be going."
However, bad ideas are like weeds; they never really go away. So it goes with the cyclical schemes to liquidate America's great public lands estate. Thirty-five years ago, it was the Sagebrush Rebellion. This year, in Minnesota, it's "no net gain" legislation. Make no mistake about it, this is just the tip of an anti-public lands agenda iceberg that should concern every American. We must keep pulling weeds.

This is one of the best word smith pieces yet. It "is a scheme" to try to sell or trade a piece of public land but it is "not a scheme" on their part to desire to aquire more private land and make it public.

David Lien of Colorado Springs, Colo., and formerly of Grand Rapids, is a former Air Force officer and the founder and former chairman of Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (backcountryhunters.org). He's the author of "Hunting for Experience II: Tales of Hunting & Habitat Conservation." In 2014, he was recognized by Field & Stream as a "Hero of Conservation."



​

Many citizens of MN agreed that hunting and fishing were important in their lives and made sure their elected officials recognized that. Do you not like average citizens being engaged and lobbying their elected officials to act on their behalf?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

State and federal agencies belong to the people and provide a service to the people. They cannot use the people's money to lobby the people for even more money to expand their agencies. However, they do use their surrogates to do exactly that.

Uncle Jimbo: Do you like these non-profit non-governmental orgs DU, PF and way too many to name, beggaring the people for more money to buy more land expanding the holdings of federal and State agencies?

The wildlife industry likes to grow as surely as any business.

 

[bravo]

Land that belongs to everybody is sold to a private entity so it can be zoned/developed/taxed = scheme.
Land sold by a willing seller, paid for by taxpayers/donors, now open to use for everybody = not a scheme.

Also, measure 5 was improperly written. How funds were allocated was sketchy. The amount of money would have been 5% of the state’s oil extraction tax. At the time it was written, that was over $150,000,000 per year. Then add the fact that no matter what, 75% of that HAD to be spent no matter what. I agree that it was properly opposed. Every ag group there is painted it as direct competition with farming.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Land that belongs to everybody is sold to a private entity so it can be zoned/developed/taxed = scheme.
Land sold by a willing seller, paid for by taxpayers/donors, now open to use for everybody = not a scheme.

Also, measure 5 was improperly written. How funds were allocated was sketchy. The amount of money would have been 5% of the state’s oil extraction tax. At the time it was written, that was over $150,000,000 per year. Then add the fact that no matter what, 75% of that HAD to be spent no matter what. I agree that it was properly opposed. Every ag group there is painted it as direct competition with farming.

The North Dakota Chamber of Commerce was the largest opponent. bravo, can you explain this?

Donor	Amount
Greater North Dakota Chamber	$443,450
North Dakota Farmers Union	$50,000
North Dakota Petroleum Council	$50,000
Associated General Contractors of North Dakota	$12,500
North Dakota Farm Credit Council	$10,000
North Dakota Stockmen's Association	$5,000
United States Durum Growers Association	$5,000
North Dakota Motor Carriers Association	$1,000
Credit Union Political Action Committee	$1,000

 

[bravo]

Because it earmarked a lot of money to conservation, and left little room for tax relief for oil and gas companies. It was also inflexible as to how much would be spent. I’m not even guessing, those are Jon Godfread from the chamber’s words. The ag groups were opposed for obvious reasons.

I know you’re trying to play your gotcha game with me Fritz but I don’t know why.

 

[Meelosh]

Because he’s not an honest person.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Fritz your buddy Adam Schiff has nothing over on you. Every time there is a conservation effort you come up with scary stories. What was it you do again for the Farm Bureau? Mostly I remember something very bad about them and you proudly spoke up and said "I wrote that". Your just trying to help us though right?????

 

[Fritz the Cat]

No gotcha game. It is a constant theme.Why can't the non-profit NGO's buy land in North Dakota?

Republican lawmakers in Minnesota are now considering adopting our North Dakota No Net Gain Law.

In the article above the preservationists claim the Minnesota Republic Party Platform has a resolution to repeal the MN clean water land and legacy amendment. That horse left the barn in 2008 and now out of state orgs are holding rally's at the Capitol to make sure the money keeps flowing into their coffers.

Anyway, this thread is about trespass signage and it was derailed by the we want more public land crowd.

 

[Kurtr]

Fritz your buddy Adam Schiff has nothing over on you. Every time there is a conservation effort you come up with scary stories. What was it you do again for the Farm Bureau? Mostly I remember something very bad about them and you proudly spoke up and said "I wrote that". Your just trying to help us though right?????

Your the Minnesota Vikings of measures in North Dakota been close but never won the big one that counts. Law of averages though you got to get one eventually.

 

[bravo]

Lol. Yeah this got a tad off course.