Just wondering what opinion everyone has on this measure.  It can sound good from both points of views, and it can sound bad from both points of views.  Your thoughts?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-end-of-bush-tax-cuts-means-for-you.html

 North Dakota Game and Fish Department

May 16, 2012

For more information contact:

Craig Bihrle, communications supervisor,(701) 328-6300

 

Game and Fish Launches New Website

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department website has a new look this morning.

 

Rich with graphics and added features, but retaining all the reliable functions that information seekers and license buyers have come to expect, the site still resides at gf.nd.gov.

 

“It’s been a few years since we last redesigned our site,” Craig Bihrle, Game and Fish Department communications supervisor said. “The new version gives us more options for using images and video to promote our programs and events. We’ve still got some odds and ends to work on, but we wanted to get it out there when a lot of hunters and anglers are coming to our site to apply for deer licenses or buy their fishing licenses.”

 

While the Game and Fish home page looks different, Bihrle says the online licensing process for buying or applying for licenses will look familiar. “Once you decide to buy a license online, you’re redirected to the same secure site as before.”

 

Now that the website redesign is complete, Bihrle says Game and Fish will start working on a mobile application as soon as possible.

 

To comment on the new website or report any issues, email the Game and Fish Department at ndgf@nd.gov.

 

 

 

Study calls ND property tax abolition 'risky'

• Story
• Discussion

Here's a letter that was written by Dave Pieper who's the head of the Forest Service in Bismarck.  I wonder if our Governor really gives a hoot about the wilderness areas in the badlands? 

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/protect-badlands-roadless-areas/article_ce60404a-9dd9-11e1-9c3f-001a4bcf887a.html

Wyoming is the best place for overall tax rates in the country. It has low taxes across the board, including one of the lowest gasoline taxes in America, at 14 cents per gallon. It also has low property taxes and sales tax, and leives no personal or corporate income tax.

I think its time ND give its residents a break on some taxes. Measure 2 might just pass because people are tired of getting ripped off.

We should be more like Wyoming in the tax department.

North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment, Measure 3 (June 2012)

Share this article:

Religious Freedom Amendment
Quick stats
Type:	Constitutional amendment
Constitution:	Article I, North Dakota Constitution
Referred by:	citizens
Topic:	Religion
Status:	On the ballot

North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment will appear on the June 12, 2012 ballot in North Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment.

According to the proposed initiative, a person's right to act or refuse due to a religious belief may not be burdened by the government unless the government proves it has a "compelling interest" in regulating behavior.^[1][2]

Text of measure

The measure as it appears on the ballot reads:^[3]

This initiated constitutional measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution stating, "Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."
YES – means you approve the measure as stated above. NO – means you reject the measure as stated above.

Constitutional changes

The proposed measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution. The proposed section reads as follows:^[4]

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

Support

The measure is supported by North Dakota Family Alliance. "To a great degree, that's really a measure of the people in government, whether it's in local government or state government, that they are discriminating against people of faith because of their religiously held beliefs. And this is an opportunity for the people of North Dakota to vote on a measure to protect those rights given to us in the First Amendment," said Tom Freier of the North Dakota Family Alliance.^[5]

Path to the ballot

See also: North Dakota signature requirements

The petition is valid for one year and may still appear on the 2012 ballot. The petition is valid until May 2, 2011. According to new census numbers, the measure now requires a minimum of 26,904 valid signatures in order to qualify for the 2012 ballot.

According to reports, in mid-April 2011 supporters submitted an estimated 30,000 petition signatures, exceeding the minimum requirement. Secretary of State Al Jaeger had until May 25, 2011 to verify the signatures.^[6]

On May 25, Jaeger announced that supporters collected more than 28,000 valid signatures thus qualifying the proposed measure for the statewide ballot.^[7][8]

2010 effort

Amendment supporters were required to collect a minimum of 25,688 valid signatures by August 4, 2010 in order to place the measure on the 2010 ballot. However, as of the state's August petition drive deadline, supporters had only collected an estimated 22,000 signatures, falling short of the requirement.^[9]

Just saw on the Tribune website that Ryan Taylor is running for gov. He could be the first strong Democrat candidate in a long time. Makes for the most interesting race I can remember in the last 20 years.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/taylor-officially-enters-governor-s-race/article_43baadb0-24bf-11e1-9b22-0019bb2963f4.html

what do other nd residents think.turkeys are residents only gives north dakotians a chance at using the resorces of the state. now paddlefishin is so big with out of staters now days. people that live here there whole lives get shut out because season closes early i think residents only sounds right to me or at least up the price for out of state tags montana is alot higher than $ 7.50 any comments

I don't know if this has been talked about before, but Hardwaterman had some good advise on the Animal Cruelty thread.  I would't want to sidetrack that discussion so thought it fitting to start this one.  I had started with a response on the other thread which went like this:

Hardwater, words of wisdom. The HSUS is indeed a threat to farmers so do not pass it. I suppose I should get the exact wording of the NDFB measure, but the scary part is they say no new laws may be made regarding agriculture. Now if our formers of the nation had known about the automobile I am sure they would not have said no laws may be made regarding automobiles. It would be great out on the road with teenagers and no speed limit. Likewise this is just a power grab by the NDFB.

Go to the NDFB home page. They call for the abolishment of agriculture regulations. If any of you have any experience with business tell me what ones have no regulations. Tell me what ones you would like to see with no regulations. Then tell me what business you would like to pass a law for that says no laws may ever be made against them. I don't now about any of you, but I don't have a crystal ball that tells me what is in the future for agriculture. I am sure there are some very destructive things that will come up in the next 100 years. We can trust 95% of the farmers out there, but what about that other 5%? Do you want them to drain anything they want?What if it's drained onto you? Do you want them to be able to spray the most dangerous pesticide right across the road from you?

If this amendment to the state constitution that the NDFB proposes was aimed at HSUS why didn't they address animal husbandry specifically? My "opinion" is they left it broad on purpose. My "opinion" is they want to do anything they want to with no consequences.

So everyone get out your dictionary now because we more than likely will have to debate what an opinion is.  Be prepared to "substantiate" your opinion. 

I'll look for the exact wording.  I have that stored somewhere.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department recently paid $484,822 in taxes to counties in which the department owns or leases land. The 2011 in-lieu-of-tax payments are the same as property taxes paid by private landowners.

The Game and Fish Department manages more than 200,000 acres for wildlife habitat and public hunting in 50 counties. The department does not own or manage any land in Traill or Renville counties.

Following is a list of counties and the tax payments they received.

 

County	Tax Due	County	Tax Due	County	Tax Due
Adams	141.18	Grand Forks	11,837.01	Pierce	2,157.23
Barnes	4,687.02	Grant	668.47	Ramsey	3,706.43
Benson	3,320.89	Griggs	388.62	Ransom	1,220.33
Billings	0.00	Hettinger	3,020.48	Richland	14,959.16
Bottineau	4,313.42	Kidder	9,671.99	Rolette	18,860.49
Bowman	1,470.22	LaMoure	6,881.08	Sargent	12,822.69
Burke	748.67	Logan	1,462.03	Sheridan	60,835.67
Burleigh	25,622.37	McHenry	1,551.15	Sioux	395.44
Cass	6,508.24	McIntosh	7,109.54	Slope	1,583.42
Cavalier	21,375.08	McKenzie	32,468.02	Stark	233.17
Dickey	16,428.27	McLean	50,570.15	Steele	8,588.51
Divide	1,407.01	Mercer	10,874.90	Stutsman	7,675.51
Dunn	6,673.06	Morton	16,583.30	Towner	2,049.83
Eddy	3,572.13	Mountrail	9,088.82	Walsh	8,652.13
Emmons	3,330.99	Nelson	4,766.52	Ward	91.63
Foster	2,983.80	Oliver	2,475.03	Wells	46,414.47
Golden Valley	185.20	Pembina	14,744.34	Williams	7,647.71

 

Saw this on another site, can't believe this could go through.

Bill to shift authority over federal land near border nears U.S. House vote

By TRISTAN SCOTT of the Missoulian | Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012 5:45 am

WHITEFISH – A controversial bill that aims to shift authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. border to the Department of Homeland Security could be nearing a vote on the House floor, a development that has renewed debate over the measure’s applicability in places like Montana, where it would strip dozens of environmental protections from Glacier National Park and designated wilderness areas.

The proposed legislation, called the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or H.R. 1505, would exempt Homeland Security from compliance with 36 federal environmental protection laws in order to expedite border security, including the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The bill’s proponents say it is a critical step toward securing the nation’s borders and granting more control to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, who are frequently stymied by burdensome environmental regulations and uncooperative federal land managers.

Critics argue that the bill’s language is ambiguous and its intent unnecessary and overreaching. They say it would invite Homeland Security to disregard key environmental laws on cherished public lands, wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges.

In Montana, the law would affect a 100-mile corridor that comprises nearly one-third of the state, including Glacier National Park and portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests. It would also apply to five of Montana’s Indian reservations, as well as the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and broad swaths of Bureau of Land Management lands.

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is one of 59 legislators who have co-sponsored the measure, which was introduced in April 2011 by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

On Friday, one year after attaching his name to the bill, Rehberg defended the legislation on a statewide radio talk show.

The bill is not a federal “land-grab” as some critics have asserted, he said, but a means to improve coordination between agencies that are charged with disparate missions, and that too often clash in a manner that compromises national security.

“We have a food fight going on between federal agencies,” he said, adding that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are not cooperating with the U.S. Border Patrol, and calling the situation a “bureaucratic turf war.”

“People of America need to know that this lack of cooperation exists,” he continued. “They are hiding under environmental laws to keep our law enforcement agencies from stopping drug traffickers or human traffickers.”

Former superintendents and employees at Glacier National Park and the district ranger for the Hungry Horse-Glacier View District of the Flathead National Forest, both of which hug the U.S.-Canadian border, say they have found a great deal of ongoing cooperation between their staffs and the Border Patrol.

“I question what the bill actually seeks to fix, and what level of bureaucracy it is inviting,” said Mick Holm, who retired as superintendent of Glacier National Park in 2008. “When I was superintendent, we had a very good working relationship with the other agencies, be it the Forest Service or Border Patrol or our Canadian counterparts. Anytime there was a difference of opinion we were able to seek common ground and resolve it with discussions at the local level.”

Jimmy DeHerrera, district ranger in the Hungry Horse-Glacier View District of the Flathead National Forest for the past 14 years, echoed Holm on the subject of interagency cooperation.

“I would highlight that locally, working with the Whitefish office of the Border Patrol, we have a very good cooperative working relationship,” DeHerrera said. “We all respect each other’s missions and, even though we have separate missions, we do whatever it takes to accommodate the needs of Border Patrol agents in a way that still accomplishes our resource management objective.”

***

A 2009 memorandum of understanding signed between officials from the Interior and Homeland Security departments also addresses Border Patrol access to public lands and comports with the opinions of local land managers who praised interagency collaboration.

The cooperation was also affirmed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials who testified against the bill before Congress last July, saying the agency “enjoys a close working relationship with the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture that allows us to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the environment.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified this March that the bill is “unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”

The bill would “prohibit the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands.”

And without having to adhere to the National Environmental Protections Act, or the Wilderness Act, or the Endangered Species Act, or any number of other measures, the Border Patrol would not have to answer to the National Park Service before conducting six activities: building fences; cutting new roads to access federal lands (or opening existing roads to patrol vehicles and ATVs that are currently closed to motorized use); installation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of “temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.”

Jed Link, communications director for Rehberg, emphasized that land managers maintain control of the federal parcels and H.R. 1505 does not give Border Patrol agents unchecked power. It merely allows them to gain “operational control on a porous border where, in Montana, one out of every two miles crosses federal lands.”

“It does not allow them to do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. It allows them to gain operational control of a porous border,” Link said. “Nobody wants to hurt the environment or undermine wilderness. But we have a security problem that we know exists, and the solution is to get rid of this bureaucratic turf war.”

***

In a telephone interview Friday, Congressman Bishop said that critics of the bill are misguided in their strictures and misinformed about the measure’s intent. The memorandum of understanding between agencies is “inadequate,” he said.

“Right now, environmental laws and policies prohibit the Border Patrol from doing their job on federal lands, and that has become the avenue of choice for criminals and illegal immigrants,” he said.

“People are saying we are going to crisscross the land with new roads and asphalt, but most of the concern applies to existing roads that were gated and where Border Patrol agents are being restricted access,” Bishop continued. “The notion that Homeland Security is going to be building new roads and infrastructure is not based in reality.”

The bill is endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) which represents 17,000 Border Patrol Agents and the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBO).

Zack Taylor, vice chairman of NAFBO and a former Border Patrol agent in Arizona, said it is a mistake to allow environmental protection laws to supplant measures aimed at tightening national security and improving public safety.

“The Border Patrol is being shut out of the national forest land. It’s that simple,” he said.

Taylor said drug smuggling and human trafficking is a much larger problem along the southern border, but that smugglers are already established in areas along the Yaak and Kootenai river valleys.

“Those are ideal places for smugglers,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester has vigorously opposed H.R. 1505, likening it to the Patriot Act and REAL ID in its unprecedented extension of powers to the federal government.

“Count me among the Montanans who have serious problems with this bill. But like the Patriot Act and REAL ID, this one can’t be fixed,” Tester said. “It needs to be scrapped altogether because no matter how you spin it, it gives the Department of Homeland Security total control over the land we all use.”

***

Doug Morris of Victor is a retired National Park Service employee who was superintendent at Saguaro National Park in Arizona and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. He said the argument that a lack of cooperation exists between the Park Service and Border Patrol is “horribly untrue.”

“The agencies have all agreed to cooperate and support one another’s goals,” he said. “Whatever conflicts once existed between these agencies are gone, so there is no need to move forward with this legislation that will have real consequences to almost a third of the acreage of National Park Service lands. I don’t think that is understood by very many people.”

Steve Gniadek, a biologist who worked at Glacier National Park for 32 years, has staunchly opposed the bill because he says it would have deleterious effects on elk habitat, and access to federal lands has never been a problem.

“The bill assumes that there is this resistance and that federal land managers are preventing border patrol agents from doing their job. I just don’t see any evidence of this in Montana,” he said.

Missoula Flathead Valley Bureau reporter Tristan Scott can be reached at (406) 730-1067 or at tscott@missoulian.com.


Link to article: http://missoulian.com/news/local/bill-to-shift-authority-over-federal-land-near-border-nears/article_f25738ca-9715-11e1-99a7-001a4bcf887a.html

 Here is a video of Uncle Ted at the NRA convention last week.

http://www.kcci.com/Nugent-If-Obama-wins-I-ll-be-in-jail/-/9357770/10959980/-/b3p07v/-/index.html

 http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11386852-south-korea-retailers-stop-selling-us-beef-in-wake-of-california-mad-cow-case?lite

Lee Jae-Won / Reuters

A shopper picks up Australian beef at a Lotte Mart store in Seoul, South Korea, on Wednesday. Lotte Mart was one of two major South Korean retailers to halt sales of U.S. beef.

By msnbc.com news services

SEOUL, South Korea -- Two major South Korean retailers suspended sales of U.S. beef Wednesday following the discovery of mad cow disease in a U.S. dairy cow. Reaction elsewhere in Asia was muted with Japan saying there's no reason to restrict imports.

South Korea's No. 2 and No. 3 supermarket chains, Home Plus and Lotte Mart, said they have "temporarily" halted sales of U.S. beef to calm worries among South Koreans.

"We stopped sales from today," said Chung Won-hun, a Lotte Mart spokesman. "Not that there were any quality issues in the meat but because consumers were worried."

South Korea is the world's fourth-largest importer of U.S. beef, buying 107,000 tons of the meat worth $563 million in 2011.

The new case of mad cow disease is the first in the U.S. since 2006. It was discovered in a dairy cow in California, but health authorities said Tuesday the animal was never a threat to the nation's food supply.

USDA confirms 4th mad cow case in US

Reuters reported that the first U.S. mad cow case, which was identified in 2003, caused a $3 billion drop in exports. It took until 2011 before those exports fully recovered.

US confirms first case of mad cow in 6 years

The U.S. government has confirmed the first case of mad cow disease in six years, but the government is stressing there is no threat to human health. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is fatal to cows and can cause a deadly human brain disease in people who eat tainted beef. U.S. authorities said the dead California cow has what scientists call an atypical case of BSE, meaning that a random mutation in the animal rather than infected cattle feed was the cause.

Carcass quarantined
The infected cow, the fourth ever discovered in the U.S., was found as part of an Agriculture Department surveillance program that tests about 40,000 cows a year for the disease.

The USDA is still tracing the exact life of the infected animal, and the carcass of the cow is under quarantine and will be destroyed.

The cow was found at a rendering plant, which processes diseased or sick animals into mainly non-edible products for use in things like soap or glue.

Gosia Wozniacka / AP

The latest U.S. mad cow case is centered on the Baker Commodities transfer station in Hanford, Calif.

First discovered in Britain in 1986, the disease has killed more than 150 people and 184,000 cows globally, mainly in Britain and Europe, but strict controls have tempered its spread. The first U.S. case was found in late 2003 in an animal imported from Canada, followed by two more in 2005 and 2006. Two of those cases were also "atypical".

The news spread quickly in South Korea, which imposed a ban on U.S. beef in 2003 along with China and other countries because of mad cow disease concerns. Seoul's resumption of U.S. beef imports in 2008 sparked daily candlelight vigils and street protests for several months as many South Koreans still regarded the meat as a public health risk.

South Korea imports U.S. beef from cows less than 30 months old and there is no direct link between U.S. beef imported into South Korea and the infected animal, the country's agriculture ministry said in a statement. The infected U.S. cow was older than 30 months.

Public concern
But the ministry decided to step up inspections of U.S. beef and request detailed information on the case from the United States — initial measures to appease public concern while avoiding possible trade conflicts.

"We are still reviewing whether we will stop quarantine inspections," Chang Jae-hong, deputy director of the ministry's quarantine policy division, told The Associated Press by telephone.

Halting quarantine inspections would prevent U.S. beef from being delivered to stores as it couldn't clear customs.

At a Home Plus store in southwestern Seoul, some shoppers said they were not worried about U.S. beef as long as officials had said there were no health risks.

But others criticized the U.S. government as "arrogant" and "inconsiderate" in asserting that the discovery of an infected cow would have no impact on its meat exports.

"I won't eat meat from the countries where mad cow disease was found," said Kim Woo-sig, a self employed 47-year-old.

In Japan, officials said the country's import policy was unchanged.

'No need for change'
Japan, the world's third-largest consumer of U.S. beef and veal, restricts its imports of U.S. beef to cows of 20 months or younger.

"There is no need for change," in Japan's import rules, Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told reporters.

But the latest mad cow case may jeopardize moves to expand American beef sales in Taiwan, where the government recently sparked protests by allowing sales of U.S. beef containing ractopamine, a growth additive.

Taiwan's legislature on Wednesday indefinitely postponed a planned discussion on U.S. beef imports. It is likely the government engineered the delay, fearing that the opposition would stoke sentiment against U.S. beef.

There was no immediate response from China's government. Beijing no longer has an outright ban on U.S. beef but exporters have been unable to overcome continued barriers involving inspection of the meat.

The news comes at a time of booming beef exports, with total shipments reaching a record last year thanks to expanding markets in countries like Russia and Canada, according to Commerce Department data.

But exports to Japan, Mexico and South Korea, which bought more than 80 percent of U.S. beef and veal exports in 2003, have yet to match their earlier peaks, with many of them maintaining certain restrictions that may help temper any fallout.

Mexico, which buys more U.S. beef than any other country, said it has no plans to halt imports and that it would maintain the same regimen of inspections for trade across the border.

Vietnam, which suspended U.S. beef imports between December 2003 and September 2011, also said it had not changed its policy on U.S. beef in response to the latest news.

It has also been a difficult period in the domestic market, with firms still reeling from fallout over a ground beef filler that critics called "pink slime", which was pulled from grocery store shelves and forced one producer to idle several factories and another to file for bankruptcy.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Another ND building attack? Minn. leaders refer to Fargodome as 'The Box'

ST. PAUL - Minnesota leaders apparently cannot stop their North Dakota attacks. Rep. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, asked during a Monday night committee meeting if the proposed Vikings stadium could be compared to “The Box,” as the Fargodome is known.

By: Don Davis, Forum Communications Co., INFORUM