swift Said:
I used to be when I had Nodak Mutual but their extremist hold sportsman hostage for political gain turned me away to another insurance company.  Anybody remember the Swampbusters boycott of hunters in the 80's or the boycott of hunters over haying CRP in the 90's or.... the list is long.  Thank the NDFB for propagating them.

NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

North Dakota Farm Bureau has taken action to oppose a proposed constitutional ballot measure to create a special fund for wildlife and conservation programs. The action was taken by the NDFB Board of Directors during its recent meeting in Fargo.

Related Downloads

eklindworth Said:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q. What is the North Dakota Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage constitutional amendment?
A. This measure would use five percent of the state’s oil and gas extraction and production tax revenue to create a fund to sustain the high quality of our natural resources.

Q. What will North Dakotans get from this measure?
A. If passed by voters, this amendment will protect our quality of life in ND by:

 protecting our clean water
 improving natural flood control
 conserving natural areas by creating parks and other recreational areas
 protecting wildlife and fish habitat
 supporting and encouraging beginning farmers and ranches

Q. How will this money be used?
A. North Dakota’s Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund can be used for grants for a broad set of purposes including protecting and enhancing the state’s water, wildlife and working farms and ranches. Projects authorized by the measure could include improving water quality of rivers, streams, and groundwater; natural flood control improvements; providing habitat for fish, game and wildlife; improved parks and public for outdoor activities; and conservation incentives for working farms and ranches and beginning farmers and ranchers . Any state agency, local government entity, tribal government or non-profit corporation is eligible to submit a grant application for funding by the conservation fund.

Q. Will this increase my taxes? Will this increase anybody else’s taxes?
A. No and no. Oil and gas production in North Dakota is rapidly increasing, and as a result, tax revenues from this source are also rapidly increasing. This measure will take a small portion of the growing tax revenue projected over the coming years. Programs currently funded through oil taxes (water projects, school funding, roads and other energy impacts, local governments) will also see significant additional tax revenue, and the growth in oil tax revenue will generate new money for many other necessary purposes.

Q. Will this increase oil and gas taxes paid by oil companies?
A. No, the level of taxes is set by the legislature and this measure does nothing to either increase or decrease those taxes. This measure takes a small portion of the current oil and gas production and extraction taxes not designated for any other uses and sets those dollars aside to improve our environment—our water and our land.

Q. Will this increase the price I pay for gasoline at the pump?
A. No, as indicated above, this measure does nothing to increase or decrease taxes paid on the production of oil and gas. This measure has no effect on the economics of oil and gas production in North Dakota.

Q. Who decides how it will be spent?
B. The measure creates a nine-member citizen board, which implement a competitive grant program to protect clean water, improve flood control, protect natural areas and wildlife and fish populations and encourage beginning farmers and ranchers in our state. The legislature will appoint four members, the Governor will appoint four members, and the state’s wildlife professionals will appoint one member.

Q. How much money will the measure raise?
A. Predicting future oil production and future oil prices is extremely difficult. However, if we accept the assumptions used by the 2011 North Dakota State Legislature in making plans for the two-year period beginning July 1, 2011, this measure would raise about $50 million annually for conservation programs in North Dakota.

Q. Do we really need this much money for conservation purposes?
A. North Dakota’s clean water and wildlife--critical to our quality of life and tourism economy – are being threatened, and we need to invest more just to protect what we have. Yet, federal funding for agricultural and other conservation programs currently makes up the vast majority of spending for conservation in our state and is likely to decline significantly due to reduced federal spending. Our forests, our water and wildlife habitat are threatened by invasive species such as emerald ash borer, zebra mussels and saltcedar. Many residents are concerned that oil activity threatens the quality of their drinking water. Maintaining what we have in the face of significant new threats will require a serious financial commitment by our state.

Q. Will this measure take money from schools, water development and flood control or property tax relief?
A. No, this measure contains specific language protecting that current distribution of the oil and gas tax to ensure that no funds are taken from important state programs such as water development, education and local government in the counties affected by energy development. This biennium, state oil and gas revenues are projected to bring over $2 billion into state coffers. All experts see those dollars going up. We are only talking about using a small portion – five percent – for conservation. North Dakota’s budget is in the enviable position of having growing amounts of tax revenues available for already established priorities while still being able to establish new priorities such as protecting our water and our land.


Q. Why amend the constitution for this measure?
A. North Dakota has a long history of amendments to the constitution by the citizens of the state. Since statehood, citizens have initiated constitutional measures to change the constitution forty-five times. Just since 1990, the state’s voters have approved twenty-six changes to the constitution. For example, in 2000, voters amended the constitution to identify hunting, fishing and trapping as “a valued part of our heritage.” North Dakota is at a pivotal moment when we must make a decision to invest in maintaining the high quality of our natural resources. North Dakota state government has not addressed this critical issue, and so the citizens must act. A constitutional measure will ensure that these funds are used for this purpose and that the will of the voters is followed.


Q. How can we be certain that the money this measure generates for natural resources will be managed in a common-sense, fiscally responsible manner?
A. This measure requires that the State Auditor review the fiscal operations of the fund and that these findings be reported to the citizens when the state legislature meets every other year. The measure requires that all project funds be spent in North Dakota to benefit North Dakota’s natural resources. Finally, the measure caps how much money can be spent on administrative overhead

Also to read the actual wording of the ammendment see page 6 of this link.

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf

Couple things to note...line 2-e and line 8.

 

Tim Sandstrom Said:
Allen,

Are you saying it is ND's responsibility to fix on it's own and fund it's own a failedand severely outdated program that was never directly designed for wildlife?

Tim Sandstrom Said:

swift Said:
I used to be when I had Nodak Mutual but their extremist hold sportsman hostage for political gain turned me away to another insurance company.  Anybody remember the Swampbusters boycott of hunters in the 80's or the boycott of hunters over haying CRP in the 90's or.... the list is long.  Thank the NDFB for propagating them.

What is the Farmer's Union stance?  Stockman Association's?

Look, spreading around a little money might not hurt but holy smokes, we gotta make sure we take care of other things that are immediate.  There's some big chunks of change and those with blind eyes only see what happens when a feel good easement is signed.

Below is the entire story instead of a nice little "grab gotcha one" linked above.

NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

 

North Dakota Farm Bureau has taken action to oppose a proposed constitutional ballot measure to create a special fund for wildlife and conservation programs. The action was taken by the NDFB Board of Directors during its recent meeting in Fargo.

 “Environmental groups want an unrealistic share of the state’s oil revenues each year,” said Doyle Johannes, NDFB president.

5% is unrealistic?
 

 

Funding would be derived from five percent of all oil and gas gross production taxes and oil extraction taxes collected by the state. According to a memorandum prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council, the fund would generate $175 million each biennium, or $87.5 million per year.

 

“A significant number of these dollars could be dedicated to acquiring wetland and grassland conservation easements,” explained Johannes. “While farmers and ranchers support voluntary land conservation practices, NDFB policy opposes these types of long-term easements. They are detrimental to future landowners.

 

Johannes said a great deal of money is already spent by the federal government and nonprofit wildlife organizations to acquire easements in North Dakota. “Additional money spent on wildlife habitat is simply unnecessary.”

How much money is actually spent on wildlife habitat? Not CRP or some other ag program, but actual wildlife conservation programs.
 

 

The fund would be used to create wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands, as well as establishadditional parks and other recreation areas.

 

“If the money can be used to purchase land for parks and recreation areas, the state agency and/or political subdivision would have to maintain them,” said Johannes. “How much land should the government own? And how much more taxpayer money should be spent to maintain it?”

How much is the ag industry getting in subsidies, cheap grazing leases, disaster payments, etc.? How much more taxpayer money should be spent on that???
 

 

Grants could also be made to restore and protect rivers, streams, lakes and groundwater.

 

“Wildlife and recreation should not take precedence over agricultural production. Many of these conservation programs limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to manage the adjacent land. Wildlife, recreation and agriculture can all co-exist with sound land management.”

The problem is there is becoming less and less of "sound land management" and more of "get the money while we can" in most industries like ag and energy. Just look at most of ND right now, it's becoming a baren wasteland, but as long as we can grow corn on it 4 or 5 months out of the year so be it. The hell with wildlife!

 

The constitutional amendment would establish a water, lands and outdoor heritage fund and create a nine-member governing board.

 

Grants could be made available to state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political subdivisions and nonprofit organizations.

 

If this measure were to pass, a $175 million reduction would have to come from the property tax relief fund, state disaster relief fund, the strategic investment and improvements fund (most of which has been for roads and western North Dakota infrastructure) or the general fund. 

 

Audio: NDFB Newsline is a new 1:30 weekly audio feature in an mp3 format that highlights current issues of importance to agriculture from a Farm Bureau perspective. This week’s audio features NDFB President Doyle Johannes talking about the proposed constitutional wildlife fund ballot measure. 

Related Downloads

2011 April-May Focus

2011 August-September Focus

2011 December 2012 January Focus

2011 Feb-March Focus

2011 June-July Focus

2011 Oct-Nov Focus

2011 Oct-Nov Focus insert

Constitutional wildlife fund ballot measure

So you want to move to the country

What good is to be gained by rhetoric bashing ag orgs? As Meelosh stated common ground can and has been found and held thru out the history of this state. It is why we have some of the best opportunities for agriculture, wildife and recreation of any state there is.



swift Said:

What good is to be gained by rhetoric bashing ag orgs? As Meelosh stated common ground can and has been found and held thru out the history of this state. It is why we have some of the best opportunities for agriculture, wildife and recreation of any state there is.



Why is opposing a view of an organization known as ag bashing?   Isn't it the right of everyone to have an opinion and sometimes those opinions are in opposition.  The very idea that questioning the opinion of anybody or any organization is bashing that organization is truely elitism. 

I have been very vocal against many of the ideas, resolutions and policies of the NDFB.  I researched the organization.  Read their own documents and formed my opinion based on their own printed documents.  If opposing many of the NDFB's ideas that directly negatively impacts my own life is bashing; then guilty as charged.

swift Said:

What good is to be gained by rhetoric bashing ag orgs? As Meelosh stated common ground can and has been found and held thru out the history of this state. It is why we have some of the best opportunities for agriculture, wildife and recreation of any state there is.



Why is opposing a view of an organization known as ag bashing?   Isn't it the right of everyone to have an opinion and sometimes those opinions are in opposition.  The very idea that questioning the opinion of anybody or any organization is bashing that organization is truely elitism. 

I have been very vocal against many of the ideas, resolutions and policies of the NDFB.  I researched the organization.  Read their own documents and formed my opinion based on their own printed documents.  If opposing many of the NDFB's ideas that directly negatively impacts my own life is bashing; then guilty as charged.