• RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
fishin58

Measure 5

Recommended Posts

I'm voting yes. Is it perfect? No. But the way I see it, $150 million per year to safeguard habitat and our hunting tradition is a bargain. Plus that's a mere pittance compared to the remaining $2.9 BILLION left over. There's plenty of oil tax revenue to go around. I think North Dakota's wild places deserves a fair share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not from North Dakota but am rooting for it. I feel it would be a win for the outdoors. Had a hard time believing that there is that much opposition to it. Seems like there is a real fear of government owned land there. I will say that I am happy that we have as much public ground as we do in Minnesota, wish we had twice as much. Think that there could be a lot of good things done with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in MN but ND is my home and I really hope this fails. Everyone supporting this (mostly those in the RRV) has been sold a lie that this is the answer to their problems accessing land but it will do nothing but exacerbate it, with out of state special interest groups in complete control...and that should raise a red flag for anyone on this...why so much out of state money pouring in to support this measure?

On its face it sounds like a good deal, and that's how they're selling it by preying on people's emotions, but when you peel back the layers it is not pretty once you realize the consequences if this passes. The language is far too loose.

There are already mechanisms in place to do much of what this measure proposes and could be made to be even more effective if some tweaks are made to bump up the dollars placed into this already existing fund. Putting a pot of money on the table surrounded by special interest groups and large out of state corporations is asking for nothing but trouble.

Once the land grab starts it ain't coming back, boys. Private land ownership is a very special opportunity we have in this country and something we should cherish and protect at every chance we get, and we have that chance by voting 'no' next month. I'd really think twice about it and put your selfish wants aside before making that vote.

Please, vote no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private land ownership when in the hands of enormous corporations isn't helping "us" LMIT.

I will admit I am not real verse on this but caution that "privatization" isn't always a benefit either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private land ownership when in the hands of enormous corporations isn't helping "us" LMIT.

Which is exactly why this measure needs to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole land-grab argument is nothing but fear mongering. Please, tell me how out-of-state nonprofits are going to be able to utilize these funds to gobble up tracts of ag. land in a state with one of the strictest land acquisition laws in the lower 48??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me how they are going to spend $150M a year? It ain't by building duck houses.

Read the full text of the measure and tell me you are comfortable with the extremely loose language as it is written.

And sorry, the 'Is it perfect, no' comment doesn't pass the smell test. We heard the same thing in MN and ended up with a dumpster fire and a lot of buyers remorse.

Spending money just because it's there also doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it's just plain foolish.

There is a reason this measure is being pushed by out of state special interests and if you think they are doing it for the benefit of North Dakotans you are extremely naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also be largely opposed by out-of-state special interests. Pot, meet kettle.

They don't HAVE to spend $150 million a year! It needs to be ALLOCATED. Huge difference.

Look, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. I just hope, for the tradition of hunting and the wild places in our state, that something is done sooner than later. I see the writing on the wall (heck, check out my corner of the state sometime and let me know if you'd be willing to spend dollars to stay here and hunt for a week. Ha!) I moved to North Dakota for the hunting and wide-open spaces. I hope my son gets to experience that some day, too. To me, Measure 5 could help assure that. I'm voting for my son, and other's like him who may never have the chances I've had in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see one very compelling reason for "out of state" interests to push for something like this. What goes on within a state's "boundaries" can have impacts outside those boundaries.

So, take waterfowl for example. If ND (hypothetically) allocates dollars to improve nesting habitat and set aside PERMANENT land for the betterment or restoration of wetlands this will not just help ND. It will help the states to the South as well as the ducks migrate.

Water quality. Where does the Missouri river flow? It doesnt stop and start at the ND borders. You reduce nutrient loading and it will have a profound effect downstream.

The cheapest way to fix a problem, any problem is at its source.

You cannot create more wildlife by looking at where they spend their winters when reproduction is the problem.

I wish more states had the "problem" ND has with their surplus. Perhaps they should do a revenue sharing with the rest of the states like is done in the NBA because we dont want one state making too much money now do we? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all no conservation group is going out looking to buy prime ag land. Lots of good things could be done with the money, make programs that pay people not to put sensitive land in production. Protect/replace some of the tree shelterbelts, leave some overgrown draws and wetlands. I think a section with a small percentage of the right habitat can be way more productive than a high percentage of poor habitat. Also I am a huge supporter of public lands, again not prime ag land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you moved to ND for the hunting and wide open spaces then why did you move to Fargo?

If you're voting for your son, then vote No. He'll thank you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all no conservation group is going out looking to buy prime ag land.

Would you please direct us to the provision in the Measure that states this is true?

There are too many open ended items in this proposal for anyone to be comfortable with to cast a yes vote, and those in favor are clearly doing so based on emotion, not logic.

When they trot out the ol standby of 'it's for the kids' you know something is rotten in Denmark. Talk about fear mongering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you moved to ND for the hunting and wide open spaces then why did you move to Fargo?

If you're voting for your son, then vote No. He'll thank you later.

What, Fargo isn't North Dakota enough?? I get all the benefits of living here and we're only three hours from the Twin Cities where a majority of our extended family lives. Do I get more pull if I move closer to Bismarck? Is that how this stuff works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, you want your cake and eat it too.

Typical Valley attitude.

Hahahahaha! Do you need binoculars to see us from so high up on that horse???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, you want your cake and eat it too.

Typical Valley attitude.

Coming from someone who lives in MN. LOL

He sure likes telling you REAL ND residents how to vote when he has no skin in the game. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from someone who lives in MN. LOL

He sure likes telling you REAL ND residents how to vote when he has no skin in the game. :-)

You couldn't be more wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... I get that there are strong opinions on this.. but frankly... let's keep this on topic and off character attacks.

Thanks guys

marine_man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... I get that there are strong opinions on this.. but frankly... let's keep this on topic and off character attacks.

Thanks guys

marine_man

Very good point. I know its hard because when it comes to things we all care about people get passionate one way or another.

I know what LMIT is getting at. Nothing is guaranteed and its not. His point I think is more along the lines of fool me once... you know the drill. Been there done that and not falling for it again.

Hopefully whatever is decided it makes for better opportunity. Whether that is passing this measure or voting it down to have it reworked.

We can all agree something needs to happen. The devil is in the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are.

oh puhleese limit. I can respect your opinion on this an hesitation around some legislation that has loopholes but you yourself have said you live in mn so HOW do you have a vote or skin in this game? In this case your voice counts exactly as much as mine which is zero as a mn resident.

I do hope to make it to ND pheasant hunting later this year since mn cannot seem to figure out how to create what is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • big dave 2 and leech, darn good lookin meals!!!!  Dave have a good weekend!!!!
    • Ok Dave have a good weekend. Hope you get over the whole butt hurt Leech deal! Not sure where you got that I don't like folks smoking or grilling things?  I know I do enough. Have fun! 🙂  
    • Heavy rains across northwestern Wisconsin last weekend and early this week have flooded some roads and caused washouts on some highways, roads, state parks, forests and trails. According to the National Weather Service the area has received 7 to 12 inches of rain from Friday through Monday.Several park system property or portions of properties are closed due flooding. Amnicon Falls State Park, closed temporarily but has reopened, though some roads, trails and observation areas remain closed. Pattison State Park is open for camping only; all trails, observation areas, picnic and day-use areas are closed. There are washouts on the dam that forms Interfalls Lake and Highway 35 over the dam is closed. A campground and horse trail are closed at Governor Knowles State Forest and the day use areas along the river at Interstate Park are underwater.Water was roaring over Little Manitou Falls at Pattison State Park.Photo credit: Gervase ThompsonAll rivers in the region are running extremely high. The falls at both Amnicon and Pattison are roaring, but road closures mean observing the falls now is challenging. The Bois Brule and Flambeau rivers are high enough that some canoe launches and campsites are underwater. The water is making its way downstream and the Lower Wisconsin River is running very high with all sandbars submerged and canoeing and kayaking not recommended. The river is expected to crest Muscoda this weekend at 40,000 cubic feet per second. .
    • I'm still going to smoke this fatty while camping this weekend whether Leech likes it or not.....😋       See you fellers on Monday........
    • Rick didn't like all the "My Grills bigger and better then yours" posts!  😅
    • We switched to a new server. Had a glitch in our dB that lost a couple days of posts.
    • I ripped a hole in one of my favorite pairs of fishing shorts just need a decent sized patch to cover her up
    • I am not sure what happened either but we lost all of the posts last couple days not just this thread. And it looks like the same thing happened over on FM site as well. I know the site was down last night while I tried look at it.
    • We had no problems but only brought 10 extra gallons over.  We fished 5 days, pretty much running wherever we wanted and ended with 7 gallons remaining in the boat.  So, we burned 30 gallons of fuel in a 1785 Lund with 90 hp Mercury 4 stroke.   I thought that was pretty good!
    • Seems to me that we are missing an entire page from this thread that was here yesterday.... what gives?