# what low water means to farmers



## joel barber (Sep 17, 2002)

Our group has been contemplating what the low water conditions will mean in terms of field conditions. While we tend to look first at the water issue we have found that an important and often overlooked variable in predicting duck behavior is available food sources. Admittedly, I don't have a clue what the drought conditions will mean in terms of farming harvest practices. Does the lack of rainfall and lower crop yield result in less waste grain on the ground? Does it mean farmers tend to wait until later to harvest or do they harvest earlier? I suppose a lot of it depends on what the farmer is growing. Do some farmers not harvest if it gets bad enough? If a farmer does choose not to harvest at all do they tend plow under what did come up producing a viable food source for the birds? A favorable answer to some of these questions makes me ask if the field considered "baited".

I'm full of questions aren't I.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

For small grains, drought conditions usually means an earlier harvest. The amount of waste grain that is left will probably be less if the bushells per acre is way off of normal.

ANd yes, if they just till the grain under, that is considered a bait field, and all waterfowl not just in that field, but going to and and from it are off limits too. We had a heck of a time 1.5 years ago in ND as the corn was stunted, and the farmers "rolled" the corn (no harvest) and those fields were deemed by the USFWS as baited. And the SNows were in them thick.


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

it means they'll make more money for doing nothing thanks to our government. farming should just be another word for welfare.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Roostbuster, I realize farmer get there share of your tax dollars, but you must stop and think, we eat awefully cheap here in the USA. If the farmers didn't get sub. You would pay more at the store, dont you think. Roost buster eating is the cheapest thing you can do to stay alive? I think everybody would be alittle crabby if the had to pay $5.00 for a loaf of bread or $15.00 for a pound of flour. Think about it!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Think about it!


He usually just writes before he thinks!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: 
Maybe you should print up that statement and show it to all the farmers you ask to hunt on their land!! I am sure they would be impressed!


----------



## dlip (May 16, 2004)

roostbuster said:


> it means they'll make more money for doing nothing thanks to our government. farming should just be another word for welfare.


Man, I thought the ignorant comments ended when MT left...I was way wrong.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

Low water levels to most of the farmers I know means a chance to reclaim tillable acres. The ground is too dry to till right now, but if they get some moisture, you may not be able to differeciate between the former location of potholes and the rest of the field this fall. I would imagine a lot of sloughs are burning right now in preparation there of.

From what I'm told, most of the small grain harvested in the east apparently made the grade despite the lack of water.....The crop had a good start this spring and recieved just enough water at the right time to pull it through. Canola, corn, flowers and beans is about all thats left to cut in a lot of areas. The beans were hurting before the most recent showers moved through. Don't know if it helped.

There should be plenty of food in the fields.....that is if it doesnt sprout or rot should the weather turn wet now. IMO, better it stays on the dry side now. Water with no food is probably worse for hunting than no water at all.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

roostbuster said:


> it means they'll make more money for doing nothing thanks to our government. farming should just be another word for welfare.


My daughter farms in the Petersburg Area and caters their land free of charge to a lot of Folk from Forks.....

I just e-mailed her you quote.....sending a check for signage to keep the likes of you out :******:

Will bring a printout of this discussion to hang in the pub come September


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Roostbuster...give it a rest! Sorry not being mean here and your not an idiot....just ignorant!!!! :roll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Hey Dakota, Please don't blame all hunters for an ignorant post like that. Not all of us feel that way. I do not hunt in the petersburg area anymore but I know that ground up there is tougher to come by. Please encourage your family to keep the ground open for resectful, courteous hunters.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dakota, Lock it up tight, I even send you some signs 8)


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

roostbuster said:


> it means they'll make more money for doing nothing thanks to our government. farming should just be another word for welfare.


You ARE an idiot !


----------



## hoosier dhr (Jul 24, 2003)

Better the farmer get my tax $$ than the worthless at the homeless center. Hey, the farmer feeds them also.

Thank a farmer every chance you get. :beer:


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Like Ry Cooder said...'the farmer is the man who feeds us all"


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

Don't even know what to say. :eyeroll: :******:


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Roostbuster... Why don't you spend a while working on a farm and then give us your thoughts. I will pretty much assure you that you couldn't handle it.


----------



## tombuddy_90 (Aug 5, 2004)

roostbuster Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it means they'll make more money for doing nothing thanks to our government. farming should just be another word for welfare. 
:******:

that just ticks me off. i am a senior in high school down here in iowa and my whole family farms and i do to.

i live in monona county and it is one or THE WORST for crops. crops not irrigated in sh*t and stuff irrgated isn't worth anything because gas prices are so high that it hardly paid off. but you guys know what the government is going to give us for our desaster. LOW INTEREST LOANS. 
BULLSH*T is all i have to say about that.

and to the question about what drought is doing to farm ground. well atleast down here with the drought we are/were haveing 1 week ago. the ground was like concret. there is no way you are goin to be able to get any stakes in the ground just lets decoys sit on top. (tuff for silo hunters)

and with the drought corn havest is sooner but also there main be more crops on the ground because of how fields that are allready bad farmers will go faster and lose more because once the yield is below insurance level than it doesn't hurt really to lose more grain.

just what i have to say ( AN IOWA FARMER)


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

This article is from the LA Times - just food for thought.

Jonah Goldberg

August 3, 2006

FOR THE FIFTH SUMMER in six years, I'm driving across the country. Aside from the country's immense beauty, the decency of its people and the relative difficulty of finding a good cup of coffee near the interstate, one of the things you start to appreciate when you've seen a lot of the United States is how sparsely populated it is, particularly in the middle. It seems the welfare recipients need a lot of room.

I'm referring, of course, to American farmers. Or, more precisely, American farm owners, a.k.a. Welfare Kings.

There are few issues for which the political consensus is so distant from both common sense and expert opinion. Right-wing economists, left-wing environmentalists and almost anybody in-between who doesn't receive a check from the Department of Agriculture or depend on a political donation from said recipients understand that Americans are spending billions to prop up the last of the horse-and-buggy industries.

At this nation's founding, nearly nine out of 10 workers were employed in agriculture. By 1900 that fell to fewer than four in 10. Today, fewer than one in every 100 workers is in agriculture, and less than 1% of gross domestic product is attributable to agriculture. Yet this country spends billions upon billions of dollars subsidizing a system that makes almost everyone in the world worse off.

Our system is so complicated - i.e. rigged - that it's almost impossible to know how much agricultural subsidies cost U.S. taxpayers. But we know from the Washington Post's recent reporting that since 2000 the U.S. government paid out $1.3 billion to "farmers" who don't farm. They were simply "compensated" for owning land previously used for farming. A Houston surgeon received nearly $500,000 to alleviate his hardship. Cash payments have cost $172 billion over the last decade, and $25 billion in 2005 alone, nearly 50% more than what was paid to families receiving welfare.

But those sorts of numbers barely tell the story of our appallingly immoral agricultural corporatism. Subsidies combined with trade barriers (another term for subsidy) prop up the price of food for consumers at home and hurt farmers abroad. This is repugnant because agriculture is a keystone industry for developing nations and a luxury for developed ones. This keeps Third World nations impoverished, economically dependent and politically unstable. Our farm subsidies alone - forget trade barriers - cost developing countries $24 billion every year, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis. Letting poor nations prosper would be worth a lot more than the equivalent amount in foreign aid. But Big Agriculture likes foreign aid because it allows for the dumping of wheat and other crops on the world market, which perpetuates the cycle of dependency.

Then, of course, there's the environment. Subsidies wreak havoc on the ecosystem. One small example: There's a 6,000-square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, larger than Connecticut. It's so depleted of oxygen because of algae blooms caused by fertilizer runoff that shrimp and crabs at the Louisiana shore literally try to leap from the water to breathe. This is endangering the profitable Gulf fishing industry. Most of the fertilizer comes from a few Midwestern counties that receive billions in subsidies (more than $30 billion from 1997 to 2002, according to the Environmental Working Group).

But, again, the full environmental costs are incalculable. If you're hung up on global warming, consider that American farming is hugely energy intensive. Those energy costs are not fully borne by the producer, so in effect the taxpayer is paying for greenhouse emissions that do not benefit him. Moreover, across the U.S., swaths of forests and wetlands have been cleared or drained to make room for farmland that would never earn a buck were it not for the generosity of Uncle Sam. Who knows how much cleaner the air and water would be with those resources intact? And who knows how many more dubious "wetlands" would be free for productive economic development?

There's a lot of romance about the family farm in this country. But that's what it is: romance. Most of the Welfare Kings are rich men - buffalo farmer and CNN founder Ted Turner is one of the biggest. Of course, there are small farmers out there, but they have no more right to live off the government teat than the corner bakery I so loved as a child but that couldn't keep up with the times. We don't have a political system addicted to keeping bakers rich.

Meanwhile, our system - chiefly the Senate, which gives rural states outsized power, and the Iowa presidential caucus, which forces politicians to whore themselves to agricultural welfare - is rigged to prevent real free market reform.

I'm all in favor of farming when it's economically feasible. And while many of these folks I meet on my adventures are the salt of the earth, I don't see why they shouldn't pull their own weight.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

LA Times huh... they have their finger on the pulse of the farming community I bet.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Other than that he is from LA, what does he say that is wrong? One fifth of the country lives in LA, they may not know farming but they pay 20% of the bill and some say in how it is spent.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

STRIP THIS COUNTRY FROM THE RURAL FARMER AND YOU'LL BE AT THE MERCY OF NAFTA AND CORPORATE FARMS....SPENDING YOR DAMN 20% AT THE GROCERY STORE FOR FOODS SPRAYED WITH BANNED CHEMICALS AND OF WHICH MIGRANT WORKERS DEFECATED ON BEFORE THEY PICKED IT. ....BUT THEN AGAIN....THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S RIGHT UP CALIFORNIA'S ALLEY.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

TOMBUDDY_90

You are graced with a lifestyle all but extinct in this country....The way my dad and grandad were raised and lived...You represent what America once was....and 99.98% of this country today don't have the faintest notion of what I'm saying...........Pass it on to your children in hopes that they will make it better for all of us in the future.


----------



## itchy (Aug 15, 2006)

No family farmers=no corn,beans,wheat,etc=no ducks,geese,pheasants,turkey,deer=no hunting. Commercial farms=posted land with no one to ask permission to hunt. I have a farmer friend and have great admiriation for what he does, no way I would want that job 24/7,365. Any sportsman/person who complains about farmers "handouts" can be covered by the old saying "ignorance is bliss"


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

LA Times reporter.......What a tool. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I have "news" for you, the era of the "family" farm is history. Having 10 guys working for you is not a Family farm in my opinion, yet the Govt says it is. Many farms in Mn are going that way. They are small business farms. The era of a guy having 2 sections in ND and eeking out a living is gone, you need 5 sections minimum now a days. And sections in S MN corn belt region.

And when the Govt is giving out the checks to the MN farmers--it is about Corporate welfare. How come I can not get a huge check of the weather does cooperation in my line of work?

Yet in Mn in 2004 the average income for farmers was $78K.  I sure wish I could make that much working, ooops that is right, I do not get a corporate welfare check. :gag:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I believe that Goldberg column is actually reprinted from the National Review from a week or two ago.

M.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

You too Fowler, bring that stuff you just wrote with you when you hunt here or there and show that to the farmer you are asking to hunt his land. Better yet, just buy a few sections of land and be a corporate welfare millionairs if it is so easy!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Field Hunter said:


> Roostbuster...give it a rest! Sorry not being mean here and your not an idiot....just ignorant!!!! :roll:


I would switch the ignorant and idiot around in that phrase.

Roostbuster you really are somthing else. uke:

And as for you Fowler you must be taking you daily idiot pills again. I wish I could know as much as you think you know. :roll:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

There is a smattering of truth in what both sides say. Hate to be the bringer of reality but there are farmers who work hard every day to make a living and there are corporations who make a killing doing little or nothing to get their hands dirty. The two have melded some in the last 25 years or so.

Numbers are deceptive. Whomever said that the average income of a farmer these days is like 78 large, needs to take into consideration that that is gross...not net. My gross is like 46 grand a year but what I pay bills with is more like 30. And I dont have much overhead.

+ that farmer figure doesnt take into account the fact that the 78 may have to support more than one family. A farm is a farm but that does not take into account how many people work that farm.

Wanna scrap about somthing? How many of you out there have wives who earn more than you do? (I am raising my hand). Back in the day, most women stayed at home and Charlie went to the plant every day and they got by.

Now, Id bet that it is about a horse apiece, man to wife so the earning potential per household has doubled. (Dam women!) The kids suffer for it (in my estimation) but money wise, things are equatable if not easier than they were back in the day. Times change.

If your wife doesnt work you have one hell of a good job.

The role that the farmer plays has changed.

When the small farmer was losing his A$$ back when they had all the auctions in the late 70s early 80s, how many of you were on the bandwagon to help them out then so that things could stay the way they were since the 50s?

Tell you what, Ill give you 78 grand, you do the work and take out of that 78... fuel, overhead (machinery...) and factor in your time and taxes and whatever health care and insurance plan you can get into for you and your wife and your 2 boys and their wives and kids and see what is left over at the end of the month.

Most of the guys who gripe about it do not run their own business. They punch in and somebody else takes care of the taxes and the insurance and figuring out who to pay when and how the profit will be made...or not.

Granted, it is not the good old days of one guy on 100 acres making a living by the sweat of his balls. The dirty end of the stick is that if things would have stayed that way, you guys would care a heck of a lot less about the price of a gallon of "towel head juice" and more about the price of a loaf of bread and a pork chop.

For crying out loud. People eeked out a living selling eggs during the depression. Now you can buy a dozen for a buck? Do the math.

Cargil and the like have eradicated the small timer with 14 kids to keep schools open and the local shoe store in business but they have also kept prices from soaring on commodities.

Im not saying that I am happy about it for what it has done for recreation but some of you guys need to get beyond the notion that recreation = life. We are so dam spoiled in this country that we can actually take the time to bi+ch about such things. You and I didnt earn that. It simply happened.

You think that in the 30's when we were closer to being a 3rd world country than a superpower with fat assed kids and SUVs that the main concern was who was getting screwed out of a place to hunt (or golf or waterski...)?

Here is an example:

In 1962 a house in Cornfield, Mn was $10,000 and today that house lists for $100,000.00

In 1962 a new Chevy Impala cost $4,000.00, the annual income of Joe Blow was around $4,000.

In 2006 the price of an Impala is pushing $30,000.00 and the average income of Joe Blow is around that.

In '62, a gallon of gas was a quarter and today it is $3.00 and we act like we are being raped. (they have been pay 4-5 bucks a gallon in Europe for over a decade)

In '62 a loaf of bread was 26cents and today is is $1.60.

Look back in time and see what prices were on farm products and how they compare with today and how they kept pace with the price of everything else.

Bottom line...
Were it not for the subsidies and corporations we'd all be a lot skinnier.

On a personal level...for those of you with your noses out of joint about the percieved "welfare", I want you to honestly ask yourselves what you would do if you were in the farmers shoes. Would you say "no way! I refuse the payments and dry up out of principle"? Lose the farm that has been in the family for 100 years? Let Cargil take it over and have the owner live in LA while the people who work it are salaried? I doubt the heck out of it.

Cripes! You make it sound like todays farmer is equatable to the trailer trash in this country who have figured out that it is more lucrative to sit home and watch Opra and have babies than to get a job and be productive.

Farmers have always been good businessmen (except in the 70s when they listened to the bankers) and they still work and produce something which you and I need. You cannot blame them for how they go about it unless you are willing to do what they do (or do it for the same price but in a less painful fashion).

If you are not a farmer and are POd because when your job lets you down there is no safety net, then by all means, take up farming. (or teaching or being a cop or a city worker or a game warden...any other job that is so easy to make a living at.) What is stopping you?


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

It seems to me that there are different positions that farmers fall into. Not so much by choice but more by other various conditions. Where your family farm is located(quality of land) are you in the valley or the coteau? How many children are active farmers. How savy you are about working the programs. There are farmers that fall into all the right catagories some good land,sons or daughters active farming, working the programs to the max. These people are doing very well. There are farmers who do not fit many or none of the right catagories that are working their butts off and doing everything as good as could be done and they are just sraping out a living and nothing more. If your farm is in the valley,you have 2 or 3 siblings active farming,you have beets,and can work the programs life is good. If your farm is in the coteau or the dry southwest and you are trying to work it with one son or daughter its not an easy life. The playing field is not level. I have worked on farms and have family that are farmers.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Maybe I am drawing a conclusion that is not there, but no one seems to doubt that farmers could not exisit without government assistance. Therefore are they are living off the US taxpayer?

Also, where is it written that the current system of farming is the best one for hunting and fishing? Look at the National Grasslands at Pierre - they are managed for wildlife not livestock and it is a great resource. What would the opportunities look like in ND if there were no cows on the grasslands near Kindred or in the western part of the State and the resource was managed for wildlife?

Does anyone disagree with the LA Times writer's points about the effect of our ag subsidies on developing Nations?

P.S. I think our cancer rate in ND is higher than the national average. If it is , could that be a result of all the chemicals dumped on the crops every year?


----------



## itchy (Aug 15, 2006)

ND annual death rate per 100,000 1999-2003 165.5 (average)
US annual death rate per 100,000 1999-2003 195.7 (average)

http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/m ... &1&6&0#map


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Just google - cancer risks due to farm chemicals - I don't think anyone would say farm chemcials are good for the enviroment. Some might say they don't hurt, but most will say they are a risk.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Cinder It seems to me that developing nations have a very hard time feeding themselves so our subsidized commodities help them not hurt them. It doesnt make sense to corelate govt assistance to chemical use. Farmers use as little as possible to get their crop.They want to put money in their pocket not into the ground. Glad you brought up the chemical subject. The big companies switch labels and sell the stuff cheaper in Canada than they do here. They use chemicals in South America that are banned here. South American honey should be considered toxic waste. Most EU subsidies are much higher than ours.We have the best farmers in the world with a level playing field they would kick ***.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Old hunter ... I agree with you posts about the EU. However, if a country can not feed it self ... cash would be much cheaper for us and better for them. The shipping industry and the farming industry insists we send ship loads of grain to Africa - eating up a big chunk of gift, i.e most of the cost goes to buying and storing grain - and then shipping it. We spend a dollar, but only about 10 cents actually gets to the people that need it, plus we compete with the local farmers. The local farmers, however small, will never get a market going if we give grain away.

P.S. Where does the honey that Sam's club sells come from?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Farming is not a way of life, It's a buisness.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Farming is not a way of life, It's a buisness.


Thank you very much for pointing that out. One of my biggest frustrations with many politicians and farm groups is that they play the lifestyle card. Trumpeting the family farm and the farming lifestyle, while romantic, is probably one of the greatest disservices that politicians and farm groups do.

This attitude frustrates the non-farming public and it also gives some farmers the false sense that the non-farming public is under an obligation to prop them up, even when the decisions they have personally made put them where they are. This attitude does nothing to foster efficiency but makes it even more painful, in the end, for a producer who doesn't have the managerial skill to be running a business.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

g/o said:


> Farming is not a way of life, It's a buisness.


I agree. After working for a farmer this summer I learned a lot of things that I never thought of before. If I had to make some of thier decisions it would make me a nervous wreck.
I could not believe the amount of cash flow that is needed to farm. Its just plain staggering. I am mainly a truck driver for them,hauling corn ect, but seeing what was going on. example

My truck decided to take a rest on the freeway(service call) not cheap to tow a 80,000# rig. (twice)

Watched the tanker come in with 20,000 gal. of fuel at $3.00 a gal.do the math.

Watched the seed truck come in with corn at $80.00 a bag.

Wore out my steering tires $400.00

Replaced 8 tires on the Verstile(not even gonna guess at that one)

Flat tire on the same tractor inside duel,(paid the guys wages for two weeks)

Did I mention chemical OOPS I cant even count that high.

I could go on with 50 more examples but it would bore you to tears.

Any farmer who can stay in buisness this day and age has to be one hell of a good business man.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

ahhhh family farm another good one. They are all family farms in ND, some family farms I know, farm in several states and over 50,000 acres. Father runs the operation the wife does the marketing and bookkeeping. The son and grand son manage the planting harvesting etc. When the politicians refer to family farms they still want you to believe its a section of land with a 4020 a few hogs, chickens and a couple of milk cows. Those days are over.

This is one reason hunting has gone the way it has also.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

g/o said:


> This is one reason hunting has gone the way it has also.


Agreed.

If a person does not think farming is BIG business, just *follow the $!*


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

itchy said:


> ND annual death rate per 100,000 1999-2003 165.5 (average)
> US annual death rate per 100,000 1999-2003 195.7 (average)
> 
> http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/m ... &1&6&0#map


Get your facts straight http://www.cdc.gov/NCCdphp/publicat...kota.pdf#search='CDC, cancer in North Dakota'

JUST LOOK AT THE FIRST BAR GRAPH BEFORE YOU READ ON...THEN

Remember, ND constitues about .002 % of the nations population. In the tables you'll find in this CDC link, multiply the national average by .oo2 and that is what you would eXpect for ND..do your own calculations.....TELL ME THERE AIN'T A PROBLEM......


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*joel asked:*


> Our group has been contemplating what the low water conditions will mean in terms of field conditions....1 Does the lack of rainfall and lower crop yield result in less waste grain on the ground?... 2 Does it mean farmers tend to wait until later to harvest or do they harvest earlier? 3 Do some farmers not harvest if it gets bad enough? 4 If a farmer does choose not to harvest at all do they tend plow under what did come up producing a viable food source for the birds?


1 Probably not measureably.
2 Earlier.
3 Yes.
4 Sometimes it's bailed off so all the grain is gone. Sometimes they let it stand to catch snow and prevent erosion. If it stays dry there will be less tillage. Also if it stays dry more wetlands will be burned off and worked down.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Gandergrinder,

I take it that you are under the impression that the farmer (since he is a businessman) should not recieve the assistance that keeps farms in ownership by many instead of few (even by today's standards) and prices low and not every square inch in production?

There are fewer farmers today than there were 10 years ago farming the same land. Yoink subsidies and you will speed up that process. Do you really want 1 guy next year, with the access say so over what 10 guys have this year?

Here is what I dont get about people's perception of the worth of dollars:

People dont want to pay high prices for gas. (its a business and nobody owes you cheap gas.) (We should have been weaned off oil years ago but it would cost and people dont want to pay)

People dont want their taxes to go up, but they want a quality education for their kids, good roads to drive on (even though the higher gas prices effect the cost of road maintenance...and everything else) decent law enforcement... the cost of providing all those things goes up exponentially and people still feel like their taxes shouldnt change with the same drama.

People gripe about health care and insurance costs...businesses... the list goes on.

Of the many businesses which provide goods or services that are percieved as neccessities, people in this country seem to want the government to keep affordable. Am I right?

Why then should farming (the production of food and fuel and textiles...) be any different?

Anybody who wants the government to keep their fingers out of farming better darn well never say boo about the govt's lack of action when it comes to any other business that they cannot "get by" without.

Cripes, a diamond is a worthless peice of rock for anything other than it's industrial value (which is when it is in a state of dust) and the only reason it is so expensive is because the DeBeers family owns all the mines. (not a scarce mineral) (See monopoly). How many of you guys have purchased a diamond ring to put on a girls finger for over $1000.00 (which makes you no more married than a good heart and a cigar band)?

You cant have it both ways.

nobody *****es about the price of a house jumping from 160 grand to 400 grand in less than 10 years. (They have been selling like hotcakes for the last 3 years.) They either pay it or they stay put.

Nobody seems to care that a duck call which costs 10 bucks to make costs them 150 bucks at Cabelas. (I know that some here think that Tim Grounds or some other "pro" whittles them out one by one but they dont)

Hunting land that was $300.00 an acre 10 years ago you cant touch today with $2000.00 and yet they line up to buy it.

Some NRs who feel that paying double, for half the time to hunt in NoDak is peanuts will drive 20 miles on fumes to save 3 cents on a gallon of gas.

Gas is high you... want the govt to keep it down, or force GM to come up with more economy, but how many have given up the Ford F 300000...status symbol, and opted for a higher mileage foriegn rig? Or...Heaven forbid...dont drive so much...dont scout so much, dont travel to hunt or fish so much?

Point being, keep pushing for farmers to be self sustaining w/o Govt subsidies and CRP type programs, stay small and take it on the chin so you have happy hunting grounds, and you will be s.o.l. when it comes to the price of food not to mention your precious "free run access" of the countryside.

I am not an economics or business major but...
Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Bert . . . I did take economics in college, but only a minor and a very long time ago. My feeling is the govt subsidies have just the opposite effect of what I think you think the effect the subsidies have.

For instance, if I understand it a farmer is basically guaranteed $1.80 a bushel for corn, or something like that, due to the ldp. Now if I am a farmer and I own a tractor and a big plow, I may as well raise as much as I can if I can make it on the price the govt is paying........so I say, "I need more land, so I go and rent land right up to the break even point and hope for a good crop and a better price. All my neighbors do the same and pretty soon we have huge surpluses because the govt pays at least $1,80 and they have to take all the grain we produce.

I say if the ldp and crop insurance was not there, corn would not be grown unless there was a market. I think the government sets the floor, but very quickly it becomes the ceiling too. They also distort the market because if a crop is not subsidized and protected with crop insurance, then it is not grown even if there is a market for it.

Bert, do you have a problem with limiting payments to say $100,000 or even $200,000? (and don't let one farmer set ten family members up as separate entities?) I have grandkids and maybe you have kids or grandkids too. We have saddled them with so much debt I really worry about their future. We have to start cutting back everybody's benefits soon, i.e. medicare, social security, tax breaks for the rich, and on and on...(and pay more taxes). I think that is a better approach than saying everybody get's a break........which is how, sad to say, politicians get elected now a days.

Thanks for listening and I sure don't want to antagonize anyone, I just feel I am doing something if I can share my opinions.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Cinder,

I do not argue that it is a viscious circle. Subsidies are an incentive to farm bigger and CRP is an incentive to keep more of it out of production.

I would not be against a cap on payments however, Id like to see everybody capped the same so that the RD Offutts of the world were in the same boat (not likely to happen.) Were that the case, you could expect to pay a lot more for a bag of french fries at McDonalds.
If they said "well, you are this big so you get x amount but this guy is twice your size so he gets twice as much"... one of two things would occur and niether is a good scenario.

I still find it interesting that most people want the government to step in and make gas affordable and healthcare and insurance... (I do too) but when the government stepped in with a farm plan to keep consumer costs down and created CRP for critters and slow overproction and save topsoil for the future, those same people say "farming is a business and if they have a bad year, they should suffer the consequences because that is what happens to me". It is rediculous. It makes it sound like farmers are the bad guys.

If people really feel that way, then gripe to or at the Govt. about it not the farmers. But...like I said before...be careful what you wish for.


----------



## jb (Feb 8, 2005)

h2ofwlr said:


> For small grains, drought conditions usually means an earlier harvest. The amount of waste grain that is left will probably be less if the bushells per acre is way off of normal.
> 
> ANd yes, if they just till the grain under, that is considered a bait field, and all waterfowl not just in that field, but going to and and from it are off limits too. We had a heck of a time 1.5 years ago in ND as the corn was stunted, and the farmers "rolled" the corn (no harvest) and those fields were deemed by the USFWS as baited. And the SNows were in them thick.


not to get off topic but I thought if it has not been touched in something like 20 days you can hunt it heck our public areas in Mo flood standing corn for you to hunt and disc up sunflowers for doves I guess I dont see what the differance is, understand Im not saying your wrong but why is it consedered "baited" when the same thing in Mo is just a good place to hunt?? Im guessing you guys have done some research on the topic but I just dont see the how it can be a baited feild


----------



## joel barber (Sep 17, 2002)

jb,

You did not get "off topic" - you got back on it. Thanks.

I really thought my questions would lead to some interesting conversation... about the factors that would influence duck patterns this fall, not about the farming issue. Admittedly the farming & subsidies issue is one that a lot of folks have a strong opinion about. Personally, I think most people on the site have the utmost respect for those that are farming. Roostbuster appears to gets his jollies out of seeing people get amped up about things - just look at the anonymous name he uses.

If you expect nonsense from Roostbuster it won't be so aggravating when you see it posted on the site and you can ignore it for the nonsense that it is & deprive him of the satisfaction he gets from seeing the emotional response that a lot of us are tempted to post.

Thanks to Dick Monson, dakota 31400 and the few others who weighed in on the original questions before the topic got off course. To my ND friends; may it rain on your each and every day.


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

It's a little nauseating to listen to some of your opinions on American farmers.
I work more than probably all of you people complaining about farmers combined. That's not a complaint.
If you think the govt keeps my family farm in business, think again. If you think the govt makes me rich, well, thanks for the laugh. If the avg income for a farmer in ND is indeed in the 70 g range, looks like I need to relocate.

....and yes my wife does make more than I do. :eyeroll:


----------



## jb (Feb 8, 2005)

off the topic I dont see what the differance is between a farmer and any other line of work we all work for.............you quessed it money and if a farmer can get a little help (or a lot of help) from the U.S. then good for him or her who is to say it is wrong or right but if it was that easy to make money farming everone would do it I know I would. You could go on forever with things like this why is it if a minority bids on a gov. job they get a 10% over ride from a white male that dose the same line of work is it wrong??? and guess who pays for it all......you guessed it we do.....we pay more money for the same job because of race not workmanship but all you have to do is put your business in your wifes name and wham you are now a minority owner is that wrong or just working the system????? I say its just smart business

:-? On the topic can anyone answer my question about the baited feilds????


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

well... again it only takes one stick to stir the pot...

Lets get back to talking hunting and leave the agribusiness to another thread...

Farmers will most likely never convince any non-farmers why their way of life is essential and non-farmers will never convince farmers that their input to the rural economy is very important also... so someone start that thread somewhere else and lets talk about this fall.

Thank you for being open-minded...


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Gandergrinder,
> 
> I take it that you are under the impression that the farmer (since he is a businessman) should not recieve the assistance that keeps farms in ownership by many instead of few (even by today's standards) and prices low and not every square inch in production?
> 
> There are fewer farmers today than there were 10 years ago farming the same land. Yoink subsidies and you will speed up that process. Do you really want 1 guy next year, with the access say so over what 10 guys have this year?


Before I go into anything else let me say this first. I don't have any problem with the farmers. I know lots of farmers and work with them on a daily basis. These people are hard working and very down to earth good people. My frustration comes with the system we have designed for them to work within. If I was a farmer I would use every program to maximum advantage. If I don't, my neighbor will and soon enough he would be farming the land that I was.

The farm program is a form of socialism (now don't get your underwear in a wad here), simply because it subsidizes using tax dollars. It is structured to benefit everyone no matter how much you pay in taxes. Food is important so we need to keep it cheap.

Just like socialized medicine. (I'm not a fan of socialized medicine. It takes away the incentive for you to make healthy decisions. Example. If you smoke you should pay higher premiums. I'm not a fan of paying for others stupid decisions. It also makes the medical system less efficient. Take away the incentives for high profits and you will slow medical advancements.)

Now, what would you rather have happen with your tax money? Give it to the 10 most efficient farmers or spread it out between 100 farmers some of which are not very good at what they do.

If we already have a structured system that is centrally planned by the government (socialism). Why don't we have the 10 most efficient farmers growing the crops on the best land and use the rest of the land for other purposes. (Growing wildlife, holding water, etc, etc). You get the idea. We are headed for 10 farmers or 1 farmer under the current system. If we are going to make the rules (which we do already) why don't we do it so it benefits us all.

I advocate for intelligent use of resources and this isn't it. Here's a quote from Tombuddy that illustrates my point. This land shouldn't be farmed.



> i live in monona county and it is one or THE WORST for crops. crops not irrigated in sh*t and stuff irrgated isn't worth anything because gas prices are so high that it hardly paid off. but you guys know what the government is going to give us for our desaster. LOW INTEREST LOANS.
> BULLSH*T is all i have to say about that.


I like this quote from the article, as it makes me laugh. Does this person like the lifestyle that they live? You can thank dependency for that. This person doesn't understand the main rule in life. You are either a slave or you are a slave owner. People don't like when I use those terms but its the truth.

Why do we send food to poor countries? It only increases the suffering. They just have more children that need more food. What's the difference between us and the animals? Nothing, we are all fighting for scarce resources. Survival means preying on others. It's delusional to think otherwise.



> But those sorts of numbers barely tell the story of our appallingly immoral agricultural corporatism. Subsidies combined with trade barriers (another term for subsidy) prop up the price of food for consumers at home and hurt farmers abroad. This is repugnant because agriculture is a keystone industry for developing nations and a luxury for developed ones. This keeps Third World nations impoverished, economically dependent and politically unstable. Our farm subsidies alone - forget trade barriers - cost developing countries $24 billion every year, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis. Letting poor nations prosper would be worth a lot more than the equivalent amount in foreign aid. But Big Agriculture likes foreign aid because it allows for the dumping of wheat and other crops on the world market, which perpetuates the cycle of dependency.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Gander,

Socialized medicine would be fantastic!

Right now, you and I are paying higher insurance premiums (dang near a quarter of my paycheck and it only does me any good in the case of a catastophic illness or accident) because not only do people smoke but many of those who smoke do not pay "more" for their healthcare, they dont pay at all! You and I pay it for them!

How is that a better system?

Back in the day when folks felt shame for having to suckle at the public teat, it wasn't an issue. There was such a thing as a concience. (read lots of historical stuff about the Great Depression in America)

Nowadays, you have the rich (who dont feel it) and the poor (who have babies as a means of income and still get medical assistance, smoke, drink, play the lottery and watch Jerry Springer and Nascar every day believing that both have some bearing on reality) and you have the middle class which not only feels the pain but has to support both the top and the bottom.

Farmers were on the low end of the totem pole for eons. (Hayseed, hick, *******...) If they banded together today, they would rule the world.

Just so happens that it is not because they are lazy and shiftless that they get govt. assistance to stay in business but because they can produce more than we can use and the leftovers are a huge part of the world economy and politics. (Thank God they dont band together and rule the world).

Farmers went to college, invested money, got smart, never lost sight of the fact that to make a buck from the land, you have to do whatever it takes and are really good at what they do. As a result, they got too good. How many American industries can say that? I am glad that the Govt. stepped in and created CRP and other programs and limitations to keep it from being a fencerow to frencerow free for all.

Iran and N.Korea have nukes. Our only "ace in the hole" (other than sending a lot of young men to get killed) is sanctions. You know what sanctions amount to dont you?

How many generalized vocations can state that "we got so darn good at doing what we do that the govt. has to pay us to slow down and keep up all at the same time"? None of the ones which will multiply exponentially the cost of somthing that you cannot live without.

At least socialized medicine like they have in Sweden doesn't take everything out on the middle class.

My son broke his toe a few years ago. They x-rayed it, concluded that it was fractured, gave him a boot (to put on himself) and sent him packing. 
When I got the breakdown of the bill, it read like this...

Office visit-$60.00 (no problem)
X-ray-$75.00 (no problem)
Plastic boot-$20.00 (again...no problem)
FRACTURE CARE.........$225.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Problem!)

I called and asked "if the x-rays had proven that it was not fractured, only bruised, he would have recieved the same care only it wouldnt have cost so much"? (They admitted...Yes...that would be the case)

I called up the chain and got passed along until I talked to the head of the Merit Care system in Fargo and he informed me that "fracture care" was a deal that they had with my insurance company that "any time there was a "fracture" an automatic $225.00 would be charged" (regardless if there was any "care" involved).

Then he goes on to state that "your insurance covers it so dont sweat it".

I thought about it...drank a beer...got on the phone...

I told him that there is no reason in heck that other peoples' rates should go up and the system should recieve more to offset those who can't or don't pay because you have a "deal" and you get away with it because most people dont give it a second thought.

I then went on to explain that I own several laying hens and one of them just happens to be worth $225.00 and I will crate it up and send it to him personally as payment. Of course he thought I was nuts, but then when he realized that I am, in fact, nuts, he agreed to reduce the charge which goes to show me that he understands that the system is BS just like I do.

Socialized medicine doesnt look all that bad to me. Perhaps when you have a wife and kids to take care of and pay for, you may think likewise.

Long story I know...nothing to do with duck hunting. It does however point out the fact that health care and insurance, cost what they do because if I were a zillionaire with no concience about how it affects other people I wouldnt care.

If I were trailer trash and had no job or insurance I, likewise wouldnt care because I would get the treatment regardless (and go to the emergency room for a hangnail).

I understand that you have many farmer friends, and you are knowlegeable in the ways of business and finance. However, some socialism in its pure form is not all bad in a democracy which has become anything but pure. Hell, Communism in its pureist form is ideal, just nobody has ever figured out how to make it pure when human nature comes into play (and nobody ever will).

When is the last time you have voted for someone not because of party or personal beliefs (who knows what that amounts to?) but because that name on the ballet was simply, in your mind, the lesser of the evils?

Why do we send commodities to third world countries?
Why are we in Iraq? Why were we in Vietnam? Why did we have so much trouble in Somalia and Bosnia...(the list goes on...)

Because all you have to do to create world conflict is be the "have" in a country of "have nots". Keep your people starving and ignorant and tell them that some "greater power" will give them all the rice and M.T.V. they want in the next life, and you will have an army of people who will hole up in caves and blow up buildings with airliners.

Survival of the fittest? Cmon Gander. If that were the case, we'd nuke most of the world back to the stoneage and then wait around until we could take over. We have that capacity. Thank God we havent stooped to that yet.

You dont have a problem with the farmer, just the system? Tell me what you are doing to change the system.

Not necessarily you, but most people with an axe to grind over what a dick job it is to be a farmer (or cop or game warden or teacher), not only aren't willing to be a farmer (or cop or game warden or teacher) but dont do thing one to change the system which they percieve as being screwed up without having a back up plan. They also cannot grasp that perhaps it is not in their financial or sporting or family interest to screw with the system or the farmers (or cops or game wardens or teachers).

Bottom line is that todays American farmer is too dam good at what he does. Isn't that the goal of all capitolist Americans?

Russian farmers could care less weather or not they produce, they guy who is good gets paid the same as the guy who sucks. (Communism in an unpure form). They dont help anybody else in the world (believe it or not, the little kid in the third world feels and hurts and cries just like hungry kids do over here) and consequently, they pay more for a loaf of bread and drink lots of vodka to dull the pain of being losers.

Geeze I like to write. Take it all with a grain of salt.

Peace

Bert


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Socialized medicine would be fantastic!
> 
> Right now, you and I are paying higher insurance premiums (dang near a quarter of my paycheck and it only does me any good in the case of a catastophic illness or accident) because not only do people smoke but many of those who smoke do not pay "more" for their healthcare, they dont pay at all! You and I pay it for them!


Then we already have socialized medicine. Under the current system I at least have the choice not to take part. Under government run socialized medicine I have to pay no matter if I make good life decisions or not and I am left with one less choice.



> Iran and N.Korea have nukes. Our only "ace in the hole" (other than sending a lot of young men to get killed) is sanctions. You know what sanctions amount to dont you?


I think that reporter was pretty upset about our ace in the hole. That dependency is a terrible thing. :wink:



> When is the last time you have voted for someone not because of party or personal beliefs (who knows what that amounts to?) but because that name on the ballet was simply, in your mind, the lesser of the evils?


Everytime I've voted since I was 18.



> Why do we send commodities to third world countries?
> Why are we in Iraq? Why were we in Vietnam? Why did we have so much trouble in Somalia and Bosnia...(the list goes on...)
> 
> Because all you have to do to create world conflict is be the "have" in a country of "have nots". Keep your people starving and ignorant and tell them that some "greater power" will give them all the rice and M.T.V. they want in the next life, and you will have an army of people who will hole up in caves and blow up buildings with airliners.


Wait until the oil runs out in countries who have squandered their resources and not worked on infrastructure and education. Then you will really see a bunch of people who believe in the next life. It's going to get worse before it gets better. The president of Iran knows one thing. When the oil runs out they are in deep trouble. They are staking thier future on the only bargaining chip that the West will pay attention to. Mutual destruction.



> Survival of the fittest? Cmon Gander. If that were the case, we'd nuke most of the world back to the stoneage and then wait around until we could take over. We have that capacity. Thank God we havent stooped to that yet.


We don't need to nuke them back into the stone age. Many of these countries are still in it. They will never crawl out of it either. Their belief system is such that no matter what they do they are screwed. If you don't use half of your human capital (females) it will take you twice as long to get to the level of all the rest of the countries that do.



> You dont have a problem with the farmer, just the system? Tell me what you are doing to change the system.


Educating myself on the workings of said system. At my age you don't get very far in politics. It's a catch 22 though. Compromise your beliefs to get to power or keep your beliefs and never get far enough to make any changes.



> Bottom line is that todays American farmer is too dam good at what he does. Isn't that the goal of all capitolist Americans?


I love that farmers are good at what they do. I love that they work the system to maximum advantage.



> Not necessarily you, but most people with an axe to grind over what a dick job it is to be a farmer (or cop or game warden or teacher), not only aren't willing to be a farmer (or cop or game warden or teacher) but dont do thing one to change the system which they percieve as being screwed up without having a back up plan.


No axe to grind. I just like to discuss things.

Always have a back up plan. Always.

There are really only three things I hate. 
1) Fewer personal choices. 
2) Stupid people.
3) Communists.

2 and 3 are really the same thing and 1 is usually caused by 2.


----------

