The "NEW" SB 2315 - Pucker Up Buttercup!

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,976
Likes
35
Points
261
Even if most of my relatives farm I can't support landowners if it's a one way street. They complained on the radio today about the expense. I'm sick of my expense April 15 that they get their greedy hands on.

I hope they do read these forms because I didn't contact Wanzec from district 29 for his opinion, I contacted his aggogant ass to give him my opinion. I voted for him in the past, but I'll vote for someone else next time even if the are a striped hermaphrodite illegally from Mars.
He was by far one of the rudest legislators that replied to my email to him. I told him my concerns with the database and what they should fix. I also proposed other ideas to fix this issue. All he did is chew my ass by saying I had a bunch of excuses to not help landowners and said because of whiny sportsmen that he was now going to post all of his land. Sounds like a great representative for the people of ND!
 


Dirty

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Posts
1,897
Likes
35
Points
181
Location
Bismarck
Capture.JPG
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,221
Likes
810
Points
483
Hunters have many groups! RMEF, MDF, DU, Delta, Pheasants Forever, BHA, NWF, many local sportsmen and wildlife clubs, etc.

The problem is most sportsman aren't actively involved. These orgs are then accused or labeled as not representing "Real Sportsmen" by the various ag groups in the state. The debate on this bill is far from over but if the sportsmen in North Dakota don't start getting involved and paying attention 365 days a year, there will be more of this type of legislation because the opposition doesn't rest. Sending an email or two every other year isn't enough to keep what we have. Sportsmen spend thousands of dollars and countless hours hunting and fishing but often don't do jack shit when it comes to conservation and being a voice for sportsmen. Bitching on NDA may be cathartic but it's far from effective when it comes to directing state policy.

Have been a member of the United Sportsmen of North Dakota for years. They don't introduce legislation but do monitor and give their recommendations. Happy to receive emails from them. This concerning 2315:

The vote on this bill will probably take place TODAY. Contact your Senator RIGHT NOW.

Hi all,


This is the bill that will hit the Senate floor (my notes are what was amended in Senate Ag). The big takeaway - the bill was amended to get it to pass the Senate, the proponents of the bill know that they have more power in the House to put “teeth” back in this thing.

We really need to target ALL senators this weekend if we are going to kill this thing. Please encourage your friends, family, and neighbors to call or email their senators today. You probably have this number memorized by know, but here it is again: 701-328-3373

Or forward them this link which sends an email to the entire senate:

https://secure.everyaction.com/midgeoTGxEOW97n62cZJUg2

All was good until I opened the link provided. Mutha Fuka
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,620
Likes
1,248
Points
558
Location
Drifting the high plains
He was by far one of the rudest legislators that replied to my email to him. I told him my concerns with the database and what they should fix. I also proposed other ideas to fix this issue. All he did is chew my ass by saying I had a bunch of excuses to not help landowners and said because of whiny sportsmen that he was now going to post all of his land. Sounds like a great representative for the people of ND!

We need to somehow get rid of lobbyists. Maybe our representatives don't get rolls of bills in their pocket, but deals are made for their benefit. It's not only the Washington swamp that needs draining it's Bismarck too.
 


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,221
Likes
810
Points
483
Yep, it's time to ween them off the government teet. Might as well go after the anti-corporate farming law too. Allow conservation groups to buy farm land too.

The anti-corporate farming law was adopted by initiated measure in 1932. It was a different time. Lately Farm Bureau has taken the lead to do away with it. The courts dissected the whole case and gave some wins and losses. Farm Bureau is evaluating if it wants to proceed.

Maybe someday Farm Bureau will be successful overturning it.

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

SLE

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
1,168
Likes
325
Points
263
I will note the senators that I received responses from saying they were not in favor of the bill did indeed vote against it. I let the Senator of my district (that voted for this bill) know how I would be supporting his re-election efforts.
 

Birdhntr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2015
Posts
4
Likes
0
Points
61
Does it say anywhere in this disaster of a bill that it is only the land owner that has the say in what happens to their land, or does the land renter have control? Is the farmers name going to be in the database for every parcel they farm? Without names on posted signs it is going to be near impossible to know who to ask.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,740
Likes
721
Points
438
Location
williston
I've heard this from alot of folks, too. Then things would get really interesting. Didnt you hear? The senate voted yesterday to give themselves final input on initiated measures. Essentially making them the final gate keepers, again. They just can't STAND that voters have an opinion or an overide so they had to go undo it. Unfreaking believable.

They push any harder and they will start flipping red to blue.
I don't believe the legislature can do that without approval from the citizens

- - - Updated - - -

SB 2315 came out of the Ag Committed with a 5-1 Do Pass recommendation and passed the Senate with a 28-18 vote. Time to focus on our Representatives.
do you have the list of senators and how they voted?

- - - Updated - - -

at least my senator voted against it.
 


CrankB8

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
214
Likes
7
Points
135
Location
Just south of Canada eh
He was by far one of the rudest legislators that replied to my email to him. I told him my concerns with the database and what they should fix. I also proposed other ideas to fix this issue. All he did is chew my ass by saying I had a bunch of excuses to not help landowners and said because of whiny sportsmen that he was now going to post all of his land. Sounds like a great representative for the people of ND!

That's laughable coming from a guy that already posts ALL his land...or his son and nephew that farm with him do. TMT Farms
 

fireone

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Posts
786
Likes
71
Points
168
Does it say anywhere in this disaster of a bill that it is only the land owner that has the say in what happens to their land, or does the land renter have control? Is the farmers name going to be in the database for every parcel they farm? Without names on posted signs it is going to be near impossible to know who to ask.

The farmer/renter can post it under this law.
 

Bed Wetter

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
7,094
Likes
436
Points
368
Location
Cold
Can I get Clift notes of what this bill is going to do? I need to threaten - er, um, reach out to my house reps and “encourage” them to vote correctly.
 

BBQBluesMan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Posts
1,578
Likes
34
Points
231
Location
Da Upper
Although I was completely opposed to this bill from the get-go, I was pleased to see that the Senate had taken steps to make this a workable bill for both sides. Is it perfect, no. But the amended bill is not a complete disaster like the original. I was irritated on the amount of time it took for the final amended bill to be made public compared to the Senate vote, which was less than 2 hours I think? Barely enough time to digest legal lingo and make comments in time before the vote occurred. The amended bill passed by a wide margin, but this is not over yet folks.

Many of the supporters are NOT happy about the amended bill and are seeking to have revisions in the House. Just go and read the ND Stockmens Assc. Facebook page comments. Expect more revisions to be pushed forward for this bill, none of which are likely to benefit sportsmen/women/children or the landowners who are fine with the way things are. Part of me wants to reject the amended bill completely, but part of me also realizes this bill has gained way more momentum than it ever has. I am debating on my stance on the amended bill and how my comments will be directed when I contact House Reps. I personally think it is a decent compromise, but would like to see a study done before it becomes law. Just my opinion, please don’t rag on me for that.
 
Last edited:


guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
29,524
Likes
6,673
Points
1,108
Location
Faaargo, ND
Grand Forks Herald:

The bill passed on a 28-18 vote. No one spoke in opposition to the bill, though Sen. Erin Oban, D-Bismarck, questioned logistics, including what happens if the database does not get to a functional point and whether there was a fiscal note or appropriation attached to the bill.”
 

fireone

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Posts
786
Likes
71
Points
168
Can anyone speak once it goes to the Senate floor? If not how can the public speak out on a bill if they keep it hidden until the vote?

Only a Senator can speak once it goes to the floor. The bill language was kept hidden so citizens could not address it and so Erble could gather votes to support it.
 

Obi-Wan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
9,065
Likes
5,967
Points
933
Location
Bismarck
Only a Senator can speak once it goes to the floor. The bill language was kept hidden so citizens could not address it and so Erble could gather votes to support it.
That's what I thought but wasn't sure
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 441
  • This month: 164
  • This month: 162
  • This month: 142
  • This month: 117
  • This month: 111
  • This month: 102
  • This month: 99
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 89
Top Bottom