# It's about darn time!



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

A step in the right direction.
http://grist.org/sustainable-food/2011- ... gmo-seeds/

Now, to help fix ALL the other ills in this country, we just need to get rid of the constitutional amendment that allows corporations to be treated equally as people! Heck, Cargill, Monsanto, BP Petroleum all have more rights than my favorite hunting partner, who is a dog. Something isn't right!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

While I don't have a thing against GMO's they should not have the ability to sue a farmer because pollen from a GMO blew into a neighbors field. The ability of an organic farmers to sue I'm still thinking about. It's not going to be possible to control pollen. I hope the courts have some common sense here. I suppose if an organic farmer starts a field in cattle country with no fields, but then a neighbor moves in next door and plants something that could contaminate him he should be protected by the grandfather clause and have the right to sue. If however he buys a field in the middle of already heavy grain production he can't expect his neighbors to shut down for him. Any judge that hears this case has a headache on his hands.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Bad Dog said:


> A step in the right direction.
> http://grist.org/sustainable-food/2011- ... gmo-seeds/
> 
> Now, to help fix ALL the other ills in this country, we just need to get rid of the constitutional amendment that allows corporations to be treated equally as people! Heck, Cargill, Monsanto, BP Petroleum all have more rights than my favorite hunting partner, who is a dog. Something isn't right!


Um, not that I disagree with you on the corporations having too much power, but the constitutional amendment you are referring to is the first amendment (freedom of speech). I believe that the SCOTUS struck down the campaign finance law because they declared it violated the first amendment and that they are to be considered as individuals.

Just outlaw monetary lobbying and it will take care of itself.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog said,



> all have more rights than my favorite hunting partner, who is a dog.


The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, with the intentional artificial selection and cross-breeding of dogs to create new breeds of dogs.

Bad dog, your dog looks like a chocolate lab in your avatar. Yellow and black labs make good hunting dogs when a person buys a puppy from hunting dogs that are proven working parents. The breeders who got the first color phase of chocolate just kept breeding them even if their nose didn't work. They mostly multiplied their numbers because of the color, not because they had any skill. Genetic manipulation.

You should probably get him nuetered.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

shaug said:


> Bad Dog said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OH SNAP


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

shaug said:


> Bad Dog said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops! 

Ahhh yes another agriculture based topic on a "hunting and fishing website". One could ask the question what are you guys even on here posting these ag topics for???? , don;t you do any hunting of fishing you can talk about!!!!!!  :wink:

From the link provided. 
_
Genetically modified seed giant Monsanto is notorious for suing farmers [PDF] in defense of its patent claims. But now, a group of dozens of organic farmers and *food activists have*, with the help of the not-for-profit law center The Public Patent Foundation, sued Monsanto in a case that could forever alter the way genetically modified crops are grown in this country_

Now a link to other articles written by this author.
http://grist.org/author/tom-laskawy/

Perhaps he qualifies as a "food activist"!!! :-?

From the tag line at the top of the page for this publication

_Support independent *green* news!_

The word "radical" gets bantered about here quite often by a few folks, lets see if they use it in this instance or if it is reserved soley for......................................................................well you likely get the picture. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> One could ask the question what are you guys even on here posting these ag topics for????


It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives. Of course in the past two years drainage has been of more concern. Those in the cities want less, and some groups want less control and more drainage. Notice how I got past the drainage without pointing fingers.  I hope people can figure out who that is though. :wink:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> Bad Dog said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, just wow.

Either someone just learned to use google, or they feel the need to make smarta$*ed comments. Not sure which.

Huntin1


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > One could ask the question what are you guys even on here posting these ag topics for????
> 
> 
> It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives. Of course in the past two years drainage has been of more concern. Those in the cities want less, and some groups want less control and more drainage. Notice how I got past the drainage without pointing fingers.  I hope people can figure out who that is though. :wink:


Really?????????

It took about 5 minutes to find this oldie but goodie.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782

Here is a quote from the second post in this thread in this link. 
Note the very first statement.

by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am

*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all.*_ It's like a puppy chasing it's tail. More support prices, the farmer makes more money, so he goes out and tears up prairie to plant more. Production goes up, the surplus increases, prices go down, and the farmer needs more price support. He gets his price support, and goes out and tears up more prairie. 
I think we should pay for more conservation programs like CRP. Take land out of production, reduce the surplus, and the market will adjust to higher prices. Of course the danger then is the farmer will leave his CRP in and tear up more prairie. That's already happened. Still, it's a better answer than support prices. Direct payments lead to more surplus. That's why the farmers agree that no one should be able to sell anything to Cuba except for them. Somehow they need to dump their surplus. When we were in the cold war we were selling wheat to Russia. Our prices went up in the grocery store and in essence we were supporting the farmers and Russians. 
So what do we get out of it. We pay for conservation, and we would pay more at the grocery store. Well, we get to be humanitarian and that's about it. Oh, it would be a novel idea if the government didn't allow conservation acreage to be posted. After all it is public funds paying for it. If farmers don't like it, don't enroll. CRP started that way, but farmers lobbied and got the no posting removed. We will need a lobbyist in Washington also._ end quote

Now plainsman, here more recently I thought you have said you are for payments going to farmers???

Anyway, it seems there has been these type threads popping on this site fro some time now. And it seems there is a couple of the same players involved then that are still now. And hey it is not shaug or me! :wink:

Hey here is a quote from that thread that seems to sound abit like what we hear today.

by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:31 pm

_Ya Ya Ya, It's not me that has the problem g/o your the one that thinks property rights means you can do anything. Try draining a big wetland without a permit, and se if the feds can do anything. There are a lot of things you can't do, and society can demand others. You don't think so? That means you think you're a sovereign entity. What do you posted signs say "Abandon all hope yee who enter hear, you are entering the sovereign domain of king g/o"? I think in the very short future we will hear you whining more and more. 
Most of the time when I hear "landowner rights" it means someone wants something for nothing, or they are about to shaft someone. Or it's an excuse for exhibited dislike of humanity._

:-? Yes indeed, it must be sahug and I!!! :wink: :roll:


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

The reason I post news on agriculture on this site is because I don't see habitat/wildlife and agriculture as mutually exclusive. The way I see it, habitat/wildlife needs agriculture for the long haul, and SUSTAINABLE agriculture needs habitat/wildlife. The articles I post I believe do not represent SUSTAINABLE agriculture and may of the topics demonstrate not only doing harm to habitat/wildlife but also to agriculture.

As for my hunting partner, she's no lab!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > One could ask the question what are you guys even on here posting these ag topics for????
> ...


Perfect example of the my way or the highway mentality of GST. If you don't agree with him 100%; you are against all of agriculture 100%. All Plainsman did was voice his opinion in the first quote and the second was taken out of context since there is nothing to show what he was commenting on. You need to grow up and realize everyone is entitled to an opinion not just you.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Reversing roles, farmers sue Monsanto over GMO seeds


I really don't see how this can be construed as ag bashing? Isn't it a pro-farmer article rooting for the little guy to stand up to the big corporations?

I guess anything typed on Nodak by anyone but GST, or Shaug is automatically ag bashing. It must be a default setting I wasn't aware of.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Whoa there swift, pull that burr out from under your saddle man!!!!  , No one said anything about plainsman's ability to have an "opinion" here, only that these "opinions" were being made far before shaug or I ever got on this site in response to this claim below.



Plainsman said:


> It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives.


Note the dates on the posts by plainsman and the date I joined this site. :-?

Swift, would you please show where ANYONE said this was "ag bashing"???????

Out of context????? I gave the link to the whole thread it was taken from and posted the entire quote???? How much more in "context" do you need?  

Easy there big fella, your "willie" is showing! :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad Dog said:


> The reason I post news on agriculture on this site is because I don't see habitat/wildlife and agriculture as mutually exclusive. The way I see it, habitat/wildlife needs agriculture for the long haul, and SUSTAINABLE agriculture needs habitat/wildlife. The articles I post I believe do not represent SUSTAINABLE agriculture and may of the topics demonstrate not only doing harm to habitat/wildlife but also to agriculture.
> 
> As for my hunting partner, she's no lab!


Bad dog, I actually agree with your first statement whole heartedly. But it all depends on what you consider "sustainable agriculture" as to wether it "needs" wildlife and habitat. To simply produce food and fiber in a manner that is sustainable to continue to produce food and fiber by putting as much or more back into the health of the soil than you take out is NOT dependant on wildlife and habitat. That is simply the way it is.

For me "sustainable agriculture" is indeed producing as much as I can from the land all the while putting more back than I take out of my soil health and profile, while maintaining habitat and wildlife within the process because without them there is no "sustainability" to agriculture from my perspective as a sportsman as well as an agricultural producer. I like seeing wildlife as much as I like seeing the yeild moniter tick 80 bushels in a barley field.

It is why we as a farming and ranching operation are involved in programs thru the NRCS and support programs like the NDSA enviromental Stewardship programs just to name a couple. But simply because I point out the hypocrasy and disingenuous nature, wether intentional or not, of some peoples comments concerning ag on here, a small gaggle of people seem more inclined to make things personal rather than realizing they are talking with an advocate for many of the "sustainable agriclutural" practices they as sportsmen see benefits from.

Indeed agriculture and wildlife and opportunities for sportsmen are mutually linked. The reality is more is being asked of agriculture than ever before and for wildlife ,habitat and sportsman opportunities to be a continueing part beside agriculture into the future, the rhetoric you see on this site by a small handful of people does more to harm the process than help.

Like it or not, people in todays society care more about the cost of their food than wether someone has a place to shoot ducks. It is a reality of todays society. So what is to be gained by alienating agriculture with the type rhetoric we see on this site rather than cooperatively working with agriculture and producers in mutually beneficial programs as more and more wildlife groups are realizing.

Like it or not GMO's will play a significant role in allowing more food to be produced for a growing global population on a declining number of global arable acres. Are there concerns, yes there are, and they need to be addressed, but the reality is some means to produce more with less will be required and plant technology will be the answer.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

No but you did come in with the smart *** coment about ag topic on a hunting and fishing site. For some that would make it sound like only certain people are allowed to discuss agg. I hear enough of it any way at the local gas station. It is to wet, it is to dry hell i think it would be easier to please a woman before a farmer but i guess with enough time to have morning coffee, lunch coffee and then after noon coffee you need more to talk about other than the price of wheat in china. I know, i know that they work long hours and i help in spring and fall just had to mess with you a little.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KurtR said:


> No but you did come in with the smart a$$ coment about ag topic on a hunting and fishing site


Kurt, apparently you have missed the times plainsman has "asked" me what I am doing on this "hunting and fishing" site as I never post anything related to "hunting and fishing". He and a couple of others have even gone so far as to suggest I am not a "sportsman" because I do not post pictures of the fish I catch or deer I shoot. :-?

Smart a$$ or tongue in cheek?????? :iroll: I guess that is all up to individuals "opinions" :wink:

_*by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:31 pm*

Ya Ya Ya, It's not me that has the problem g/o your the one that thinks property rights means you can do anything. Try draining a big wetland without a permit, and se if the feds can do anything. There are a lot of things you can't do, and society can demand others. You don't think so? That means you think you're a sovereign entity. What do you posted signs say "Abandon all hope yee who enter hear, you are entering the sovereign domain of king g/o"? I think in the very short future we will hear you whining more and more. 
Most of the time when I hear "landowner rights" it means someone wants something for nothing, or they are about to shaft someone. Or it's an excuse for exhibited dislike of humanity_ end quote

plainsman, from this quote from 5 years ago I am now confused, are you claiming Federal regulations can prevent things like draining and feedlots on river bottoms or they will not as you seem to have been suggesting lately. 

Aw, okay, maybe a little of both!!!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Swift wrote,



> I guess anything typed on Nodak by anyone but GST, or Shaug is automatically ag bashing. It must be a default setting I wasn't aware of.


I do not believe I said "ag bashing." My post has a point. Over the e-ons of time man has continuely invented, manipulated, managed, modified his surroundings to better his exsistance. Back in the sixties the fear was that there would not be enough food to feed the people. Enter the green revolution. Enter Norman Borlaug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Huntin1, you gotta check out this wikipedia site. Ain't the internet great. It is called progress. When you are on that wikipedia site take notice that certain foundations took Borlaugs work and spread it around the world. Foundations were created by Congress years ago to do philanthrophy work. Red Cross etc. Pre-tax dollars from profits earned could be placed in them. Meaning tax dollars are diverted away from the general treasurey. Over the years the law has been watered down and now the money doesn't have to go specifically to certain charities.

501(c)3's can now be the recipients of this money. Non-profit non-governmental status. There are many foundations. Ford, Heinz, Pew, Rockefeller and on and on.

http://activistcash.com/

The amount of money here is astounding. Each foundation has a board of directors. They decide where, how much and for what purpose the funds will be used for. Sometimes money goes to anti-second amendment orgs and some even finds its way into North Dakota. The money can be used for education (sometimes propaganda like global warming is real) or to steer people into a desired direction. Sustainable Ag is one of their favorites. Bad Dog, do you belong to either one of these listed below?

http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... ce-council

http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... ral-action


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Everybody likes to go to the Environmental Working Group and get a little dirt on farmers collecting subsidies, right. Well, here is a little about the EWG.

http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... king-group

The EWG has long argued in favor of organic agriculture, claiming that pesticides are a danger to our health and a horrible threat to humanity. What they're not telling us, of course, is that most of the pesticides we find on fresh produce are natural, and manufactured by plants themselves. In a 1995 interview with Vegetarian Times magazine, the award-winning Berkeley biologist Bruce Ames insisted that "99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants to ward off insects and other predators&#8230; Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% of ingested pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates."

And even that small portion of agricultural pesticides that are synthetic have resulted in tremendous gains for humanity, despite EWG's unfounded assertions to the contrary. Man-made agricultural chemicals have been in use for over 50 years in the United States, and they are among the most rigorously tested and heavily regulated products in the economy. They have undeniably made fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper and more readily available for Americans, especially for the economically disadvantaged. The U.S. Public Health Service says that "such nutritional advances are largely responsible" for much of the 30 years of increased life expectancy that we've all gained in the last 100 years. Organics aren't necessarily any healthier; only one in ten toxicologists thinks that "organic or 'natural' products are inherently safer."

Motivation
Why does the Environmental Working Group issue so many obviously faulty statements and press releases in order to gin up fear among American parents? The answer is simple: There are big bucks to be made in the fearmongering business.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Heres another:

http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... ssociation

On the right side of the page be sure to check out quotes, financials and connections. The connections category is an eye opener.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782&start=40

Earlier today I didn;t take the time to check out the second page of this thread in the above link. Boys are home today and took advantage of their help getting ready for calving.

But holy crap there is a lot of relavent conversation from 5 years ago contained in there. Even talk of the head of this site Chris demanding less "venoumous" and "personal" attacks. 

*by Poop » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:46 pm*
_Read through all of your posts on this thread Plainsman and tell me who is negative (and ignorant). Are you positive? I haven't found a post of yours yet where you weren't fitching about one thing or another.

Again (for all of you good ol boys here who seem to feel like this is "your" place to vent) ALL ANYBODY DOES HERE IS GRIPE!

Why does the guy from out of state or the guy who makes you fumble for answers become the black sheep?

If all you want to hear is what you want to hear then why don't the 6 or 8 of you who constantly destroy your arms patting each other on the back, whilst crying in your beer... just email each other?

Nope! This is on the WWW and you get what you get.

I have written hunting stories here for you to read (two of which have been published). I have given advice on decoys (I carve them and they have been featured in Shooting Sportsman Magazine) and blinds and calling here over the years( I have 35 years of experience in 5 states and 2 provinces)...I have been PMd by a lot of you who blow hard here but are decent folk one on one... I have been PMd by a lot of people who read this stuff but dont want to get involved, thanking me for saying what they wish they could say but are to intimidated by your gang to do so.

Lots of positive stuff.

Do those things evaporate as soon as I call you on the carpet?_
*
by R y a n » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:29 am*
_Chris is very serious when he mentioned that this fall we will be much stricter on creating and maintaining an environment here that is respectful, productive and informative. Posts that are nothing but venom and/or take pot shots at people will not be tolerated. It is one thing to have a strong opinion about an issue. It is entirely different to have a personal agenda against an individual member or group. If you intend to remain posting on this site, you'll need to keep that in mind_.

It seems as if this type thing has been going on far before I ever got on this site plainsman. Apparently those "rules" mentioned here are long gone??????[/size] :roll:

*by ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:53 am *

_WOW There are some moderators that will be biting the dust on this forum by Chris's new stricter rules. They spew just as much venom as anybody!!Seriously I'm just an occasional reader and getting less as I see there is only one side that is always right on outdoors issues !_

*by R y a n » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:19 pm*

_Hopefully we can work to make this place have equal shares of viewpoints that can be made in a respectful manner. *I'm not sure I've ever seen a moderator have venom in their post. Venom implies intentional harsh words designed to personally attack an individual. It *does not mean having an alternative viewpoint. _

*by ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:45 pm *

I read the threads of interest top to bottom so I do get the tone. 
_Venom--------- defined as spiteful or malicious So some of the posts aimed at farmers, go's , game farms , people who use guides , people who pay to hunt or sometimes just differing opinions have had lots of venom or venomous spit their way by mods. Maybe not meant that way but thats how it reads. IMHO_

*by Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:04 pm*

_ALLSUNND 
A am guessing there will be a lot of new people (13 posts for you) asked by the high fence operators to come on and attack anyone that supports the new measure to ban them. There was little complaints about mods until about two weeks ago. It grew rapidly, and that is why I pulled out of much of the debate, on some of the threads. 
Allsunnd, out of curiosity you say you have been around a long time. Were you just reading before? Were you recruited? I would guess there will be a lot of dirty pool. There are plenty of people to argue both sides so I will not take part that much anymore. *However, I will be watching for violation of rules*._

*Raghorn » Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:24 am*

_Plainsman wrote:
asked by the high fence operators to come on and attack anyone that supports the new measure to ban them.

So YOU are feeling 'attacked' plainsman? Funny...._

*by dieseldog » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:49 pm *

_So if no one is allowed to attack others on here, why is Plainsman constantly allowed to come on here and attack every farmer on this site about our occupation. Yes we get gov payments from tax money if you don't like it that is fine just don't attack me for running my business the best that i can with the resources offered to me. _

Yes indeed only since shaug and I have got on this site!  

But the best quote of the page...................................................

*by Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am *
_* I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it.[/b] I don't care if it only cost me a penny*_*.

Indeed there it is in black and white, "greed at it's darkest"!!!!!!!  oke:*


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > One could ask the question what are you guys even on here posting these ag topics for????
> 
> 
> *It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives. * Of course in the past two years drainage has been of more concern. Those in the cities want less, and some groups want less control and more drainage. Notice how I got past the drainage without pointing fingers.  I hope people can figure out who that is though. :wink:


So plainsamn, given the thread above from 5 years ago, according to your Bible study group, would this underlined statement you made be akin to "bearing false witness"???   oke:

Okay, a little more smart a$$ than tongue in cheek!

But hey, some might think it deserved. :splat:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I think the suit is a good step forward, farmer cannot spray his field when he knowingly will have drift and cause damage to his neighbors! What this suit will do I think is cause the high courts to step in and put some sanity into this! There is no possible way any farmer organic or those that chose not to use GMO grains or those that do use GMO variety can control wind,insects etc....!

I see this as a push back. Not maybe the best group, but heck I agree with gst once an a while!

This may seem a threat to some in the Ag world but I really do not! Friends of mine raise and sell certified seed! We have talked about this very issue a number of times and they both wondered when someone would file a suit like this! Wifes relatives farm organic in central ND! I cringe when we go by their fields with the weeds and such but they make good money! As of late though they have had buyers testing their grains for GMO genes! Is there right to farm that way not a property right and should their livelihood be threatened?

Same for their cattle, meat is being tested randomly for chemicals and growth hormones! They depend upon the label being correct. Thus the people packaging the product need to know they are not unintentionally selling a product that has been cross contaminted even if it is unintentional!


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The problems in the Tappen area were started by RDO corporation.People in that area have been farming organically for over 20 years. RDO comes in buys big pieces of land and plants potatoes and does much of the spraying with airplanes.Wind drift carries the spray onto the organic farmers crops.These are USDA certified organic farmers. Their crops are continually tested by the company that certifies them, if any of these chemicals show in testing they lose their certification.Small family farmers vs huge corporation.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Again GST what does a post from 5 years ago have to do with an Ag friendly post now? What it says to me is... anything written by Plainsman will be challenged, berated, and drug through the mud just like a classic schoolyard bully I pegged you for several years ago.

Keep representing Ag as pompous know it alls. Fortunatly we know you only represent yourself and most ag producers cringe at your "opinions".


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> Everybody likes to go to the Environmental Working Group and get a little dirt on farmers collecting subsidies, right. Well, here is a little about the EWG.
> 
> http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... king-group
> 
> ...


OK, so I can buy the fact that plants produce their own pesticide. But the pesticide produced naturally by plants does not contaminate groundwater and surface water in ag areas like synthetic pesticides do.

I also agree that ag producers have made tremendous gains though the use of synthetic pesticides. While the amount of pesticide consumed on fresh produce may be low, you say nothing of the water-insoluble pesticides such as chlordane which tend to remain and even build up in the animals and fish that ingest them, both wild and farm raised, which are then ingested by those at the top of the food chain, us.

I don't buy organically grown veggies exclusively, but I do buy them sometimes. And when I spend more money on the organically grown stuff, I do expect them to be free of the synthetic pesticides normally used in ag, and at times misused. We have all been out there watching a field being sprayed in windy conditions, how much of that pesticide drifts to areas that it shouldn't be?

I have no easy answers, and I do not advocate abolishing the use of pesticides. I just wish that some ag producers would be more careful when using them.

huntin1


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

I remember growing up and my family and friends that were farmers, were quite an independant bunch. They thrived being their own boss, doing what they wanted when they wanted. They didn't like anyone telling them what to do. Just by looking at how many of today's farmers have bought off on the GMO lies, I can't understand why the majority would allow a world dominating corporation like Monsanto, dictate to them what to plant. I find it eerily similar to a drug dealer (Monsanto), and an addicted user (Am farmer).

When did it become ok to not want the elected officials of our government in your bussiness but it is ok to let a mega corporation like Monsanto dictate your livelyhood? The real enemy is right before you!

This is old but still interesting: 
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technol ... akota.html


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Again GST what does a post from 5 years ago have to do with an Ag friendly post now? What it says to me is... anything written by Plainsman will be challenged, berated, and drug through the mud just like a classic schoolyard bully I pegged you for several years ago.
> 
> Keep representing Ag as pompous know it alls. Fortunatly we know you only represent yourself and most ag producers cringe at your "opinions".


Okay swift, one last time.

plainsamn said this.
*Plainsman » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:24 am* 
[_u]It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives.[/_u]

Swift, "I" "showed up" on this site 3 years ago. 
gst
*Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:30*

So these posts from "5" years ago simply shows this attitude and comments regarding agriculture were happening on this site far before shaug and I "showed up".

If you can not understand a simple chronological order, your "willie" is clearly blocking your ability to reason. 

swift, I beleive plainsman posts quite a fair amount of things on this site that are not "challenged, berated, and drug through the mud". But yet it appears virtually every post I make on this site is "challenged, berated, and drug through the mud" by yourself. :-? :wink: :roll:

Apparently Chris's "rules" from 5 years ago for this site have fell by the wayside. Perhaps that has a bit to do with why only a couple of people from that 5 year old post are still posting on this site and others have left. ! :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad Dog said:


> I remember growing up and my family and friends that were farmers, were quite an independant bunch. They thrived being their own boss, doing what they wanted when they wanted. They didn't like anyone telling them what to do. Just by looking at how many of today's farmers have bought off on the GMO lies, I can't understand why the majority would allow a world dominating corporation like Monsanto, dictate to them what to plant. I find it eerily similar to a drug dealer (Monsanto), and an addicted user (Am farmer).
> 
> When did it become ok to not want the elected officials of our government in your bussiness but it is ok to let a mega corporation like Monsanto dictate your livelyhood? The real enemy is right before you!
> 
> ...


Bad dog, it seems as if you and plainsman long for the "good old days" to the point you can not grasp that farming has changed because it has had to. Indeed I wish I could make enough of a living farming 4 quaters and running 30 cows to suppport a family of 4 kids as farmiung operations did when you wre "growing up", but it is simply not the case.

Are there concerns we need to be dilligent to in regards to farming technologies adn advancements? Yes, but we simply can not go back to the way things were when you were "growing up" and maintain the production of food necessary in todays world as well as economic profitaility in todays ag production demands.

If you wish people to take you serious, understand that agricultureal production has changed from what it was 50 years ago and realize we have influences and demands placed on it far beyond what was realized "back then".


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog,

That is a very interesting site. It would seem that they are opposed to more than just GMO's. Check it out:

http://www.treehugger.com/style/pact-un ... video.html

They say watch the video and learn to live beyond dirty coal. I watched the video but they really didn't give any solutions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what these non-profit, non-governmental orgs have in common is that they only continue to get funding by identifying problems. The special interests who fund them do so in order to promote a controlled opposition group.

On this site I see only persons identifying problems, no solutions. Talk forums are an option until Plainsmans or swift stick their heads in the door and start hollaring Farm Bureau wants "NO" regulation or subsidy sucking farmers or planes are unloading spray all over the place.

There are many special interests out there that have turned everything into a zero sum game debate. Everyone knows Plainsman advocates for the wildlife society. Their motto should be:

"It's hard to please everybody with a program that matters. So the smart thing to do is create a program that doesn't matter. Our side will be glad the government did something and their side will be glad that what we got wasn't much. But increments add up for us, that is our political genius."

Bad Dog, which green org do you advocate for?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, isn't one of the problems of grain prices that there is a surplus that keeps the market price down? Isn't that why they need the government support?
Now before you blow your stack I am asking these questions because like you say I remember the good old days. That is the way it was when I left the farm. How is it now?

I forget where you stand on ethanol, but isn't it impossible to be for ethanol and worried about enough food? I mean if the world needs food you can't be for ethanol right?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

This site Bad Dog posted is certainly rich with useless information. Here is their take on ethanol.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-res ... hanol.html

Anyone one can outline and define a problem. As usual, "no solution."

Edit by Plainsman: I goofed and made this comment on shaugs post. My intention was to edit and add to my post. Sorry for the rectal crainial inversion.  


> I'm not sure who you mean has no solution. I don't think Al Gore has any solutions, and he simply grabs onto anything he can to promote himself.
> 
> Build the Keystone pipeline and forget ethanol would be a good start to a solution. I am sure there are ag regulations we can get rid of. At one time I asked for suggestions, but no one named any. I think we can put money into agriculture for conservation. It doesn't have to be thought of as wildlife, look at it as conserving the land for the next generation. The money spent protecting Devils Lake could have been used to pay for water programs to hold water on the land. Yes, I know many wetlands are full , but many are also drained. With half that money we could have paid double what the land was worth. I don't mind spending money when we have it, but just because we have it is no excuse not to use it wisely.
> 
> It's hard to find solutions when five politicians have five different ideas. If one has a good idea the other four say it's terrible. The first step in the solution process is get rid of Obama.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What did I do? Shaug I must have gone back to edit my post and posted on yours. I will go in and put quotes around what I wrote. Sorry.

I'm not sure who you mean has no solution. I don't think Al Gore has any solutions, and he simply grabs onto anything he can to promote himself.

Build the Keystone pipeline and forget ethanol would be a good start to a solution. I am sure there are ag regulations we can get rid of. At one time I asked for suggestions, but no one named any. I think we can put money into agriculture for conservation. It doesn't have to be thought of as wildlife, look at it as conserving the land for the next generation. The money spent protecting Devils Lake could have been used to pay for water programs to hold water on the land. Yes, I know many wetlands are full , but many are also drained. With half that money we could have paid double what the land was worth. I don't mind spending money when we have it, but just because we have it is no excuse not to use it wisely.

It's hard to find solutions when five politicians have five different ideas. If one has a good idea the other four say it's terrible. The first step in the solution process is get rid of Obama.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

shaug said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> This site Bad Dog posted is certainly rich with useless information. Here is their take on ethanol.
> 
> ...






Plainsman said:


> *What did I do? Shaug I must have gone back to edit my post and posted on yours. I will go in and put quotes around what I wrote. Sorry.*
> 
> I'm not sure who you mean has no solution. I don't think Al Gore has any solutions, and he simply grabs onto anything he can to promote himself.
> 
> ...


So plainsamn, it appears as a "super moderator you have the ability to go back and edit things on others peoples comments? 

Hmmmmm. What type of monkey business could this lead to? oke:

plainsman, it appears you wish to simply ignore your disingenuous claim (bearing false witness) you made directed at shaug and I. Perhaps as a "super moderator" if you stepped up and acknowledged what you stated was simply not true and that this type of dialogue regarding agriculture has been happening on this site for quite some time, your credibility would not take such a hit.

You claim to wish to engage in meaningful dialogue and yet will not even address when you make claims that are simply disingenuous rhetoric? I can hardly beleive you really wish to engage in an open and honest discussion regarding agricultural issues given your history.

From these 5 year old posts aimed at agriculture, it appears to be a pattern from long before shaug or I ever got on this site. 
Credibility

If you wish to know my stance on ethanol, simply go to the thread in politics. You remember that one right!


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

shaug said:


> It's hard to find solutions when five politicians have five different ideas. If one has a good idea the other four say it's terrible. The first step in the solution process is get rid of Obama.


I've always believed Congressional term limits would give us (we the People) back a functional government and mitigate any
damage special interests or a President like Obama could do to the country. 
Until that cold day, there won't be any solutions.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spentwings said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to find solutions when five politicians have five different ideas. If one has a good idea the other four say it's terrible. The first step in the solution process is get rid of Obama.
> ...


Throw in tort reform and you got something!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,



> What did I do? Shaug I must have gone back to edit my post and posted on yours. I will go in and put quotes around what I wrote. Sorry.


I cannot edit your posts. Hmmmm



> I'm not sure who you mean has no solution. I don't think Al Gore has any solutions, and he simply grabs onto anything he can to promote himself.


Al Gore is doing fine now. He promoted global warming and then made off with millions from the carbon credits scheme.



> I think we can put money into agriculture for conservation. It doesn't have to be thought of as wildlife, look at it as conserving the land for the next generation


The land I leave to my son is in better condition then when I found it. I am a conservationist. However, when you start putting words out there about how "we" can put money into conservation, I get stood off. You are really saying the taxpayers can pay for conservation through the Farm Bill. Will you be attending the fly-in?

http://www.teaming.com/2012-fly-sponsors

Plainsman, you talk a good game how this country is broke and we all need to make cuts. The farm bill is looking at $23 billion. Yet, look at the groups you advocate for. They want to deficit spend. They want no cuts.

In fact they continuely are looking for dedicated spending. Or deficit spending. Why don't they just ask for an earmark?

http://teaming.com/dedicated-funding

These guys are very good at conveying to the people all the threats and fears to wildlife. They only wanted $40 billion back in 2000. (CARA) And of course they told the people it wasn't coming out of the US General Fund, it was to come from oil and gas lease money that actually goes into the US General Fund. Mostly they want the money to purchase land. Is it really about wildlife?

Now we have a similar situation here in ND. A 5% oil money revenue ballot measure to go towards wildlife. The money can be used to buy land. The template is always the same.



> It's hard to find solutions when five politicians have five different ideas


Politicians listen to their constituency. When groups form like the ones listed below:

http://www.teaming.com/2012-fly-sponsors

the politicials listen. These are not sportsmens orgs, they are government advocacy groups. They need to stop spending.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Are there concerns we need to be dilligent to in regards to farming technologies adn advancements? Yes, but we simply can not go back to the way things were when you were "growing up" and maintain the production of food necessary in todays world as well as_* economic profitaility *_in todays ag production demands. ".


Hahahaha....I love it when you start talking about being "economically profitable" gabe.lol You're life was "set up" for you to be "economically profitable" from the beginning. The old silver spoon mantra as well as uncle sam massaging you continually will guarantee you live an "economically profitable" life so don't worry about it. I do find it funny that the super rancher is so proud of himself for being a top dog rancher/farmer when a crippled monkey could make your set up "economically profitable". :lol:

Just pointing out the obvious gabe. Once again I can't stand the arrogance you emit....thats it plain and simple. Your ideals are toxic to the best interestes of the common sportsman/sportswomen in ND and that is a FACT.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I cannot edit your posts. Hmmmm


Of course you can't. Well, I wanted to be honest about it and let you know what happened. I am sorry I messed up your post. I left what I wrote instead of just deleting it and instead decided to explain the stupid thing I had done. It would have been easy to hide, but that is not what I did. Isn't that honest enough for you?



> The land I leave to my son is in better condition then when I found it. I am a conservationist.


That is good and I am happy to hear it. I would think most people who are going to pass land on down to their children would be conservationists. Sadly that isn't always true.



> However, when you start putting words out there about how "we" can put money into conservation, I get stood off. You are really saying the taxpayers can pay for conservation through the Farm Bill. Will you be attending the fly-in?


I hope you noticed this part of my comment:


> I don't mind spending money when we have it, but just because we have it is no excuse not to use it wisely.





> Plainsman, you talk a good game how this country is broke and we all need to make cuts. The farm bill is looking at $23 billion. Yet, look at the groups you advocate for. They want to deficit spend. They want no cuts.


I don't really advocate for anyone. Also, I don't agree with deficit spending. When asked where I thought we should cut I said everyone is going to take a hit. Then people wanted me to agree on targeted hits. I don't feel well enough informed at this time to do that so I did not answer. When I said everyone that leaves no one out so to keep asking about one thing was simply looking for a thing to complain about rather than mutual agreement.



> Now we have a similar situation here in ND. A 5% oil money revenue ballot measure to go towards wildlife. The money can be used to buy land. The template is always the same.


Nationaly we are in trouble and much of that money should go to pay down the national debt. Within North Dakota we are not in trouble. Our state money should not go into the national debt which may bail out California. It isn't up to hard working people in North Dakota to bail our a freeloader mentality state.
In North Dakota I would be for that 5% towards land acquisition. With rising populations there will be increased need for outdoor recreation. What's our choices in North Dakota? The need for land access will only grow, but for many not in the oil field the pay to play isn't an option. Public land is the only option for me on a retirement income. I'm not complaining I am happy, but that's just the way it is. The young fellow working for $15 an hour with a wife and two children can not afford the pay to hunt option. I think we are still the state with the least public land in the United States. I think the bill passed by our legislature in 1977 violated the rights of all who are not landowners. Well, actually it perhaps violated landowners more than anyone else. Denying them the freedom to sell to the highest bidder was a violation of landowner rights.

The problem is many young hunters can't pay to hunt. At the same time through our legislature landowners have made it nearly impossible for acquisition of public land. These young people are being squeezed from both ends. Something has to give.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

So what you are saying is you think the government should acquire more land. Make it available to public hunting etc. You say the funds to do this are not always available. When have the been available. This country has been deficit spending for many years. In 1964 Lyndon Baines Johnson signed legislation moving social security monies over to the general fund so they could spend it.

The money would have to be borrowed from China at interest to fund your scheme. Also, land that has been acquired for the public playground is no longer available to mining and agriculture. New wealth can only be created by mining and agriculture on this earth. By taking land out of production this will mean less jobs and opportunities for our children. With less jobs, how will our children repay the loan from China at interest?

But our children will have cleaner air and water as they pedal their bicycles around looking for jobs that don't exsist, won't they?

Plainsman said,



> The problem is many young hunters can't pay to hunt. At the same time through our legislature landowners have made it nearly impossible for acquisition of public land. These young people are being squeezed from both ends. Something has to give.


How do you feel about Obama giving away free cell phones to the poor?

How much public land is enough?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

For a short while I thought perhaps Chris's "rules" had caught someone, but apparently not! :roll:



leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > Are there concerns we need to be dilligent to in regards to farming technologies adn advancements? Yes, but we simply can not go back to the way things were when you were "growing up" and maintain the production of food necessary in todays world as well as_* economic profitaility *_in todays ag production demands. ".
> ...


From awhle ago! 

by R y a n » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:29 am
_Chris is very serious when he mentioned that this fall we will be much stricter on creating and maintaining an environment here that is respectful, productive and informative. Posts that are nothing but venom and/or take pot shots at people will not be tolerated. It is one thing to have a strong opinion about an issue. It is entirely different to have a personal agenda against an individual member or group. If you intend to remain posting on this site, you'll need to keep that in mind.[/i]

led, you speak as if you know me personally and have an intimate knowledge of what I experienced in the 30 plus years I have been involved in production agriculture. Is that indeed the case or are you simply and annonimous individual on an outdoor website holdig a grudge for some reason wishing to make every conversation regarding agriculture personal?

Either way, you add very little value to the discussion when you carry on in this manner.

plainsman, do you know anything about the "stricter" rules Ryan mentions?? :roll:

Perhaps if you truly were to want to have a meanigful productive conversation regarding agriculture and how it coincides with wildlife, habitat and hunting opportunities it would be much more sincere if you preformed your duties as a "super moderator" in more ways than just editing other people posts for them without their permission and enforced what apparently at one time were the rules for this site!  oke:_


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

shaug said:


> Plainsman.I cannot edit your posts. Hmmmm





Plainsman said:


> Of course you can't. Well, I wanted to be honest about it and let you know what happened. I am sorry I messed up your post. I left what I wrote instead of just deleting it and instead decided to explain the stupid thing I had done. It would have been easy to hide, but that is not what I did. Isn't that honest enough for you?


I know this may not be "on topic" but as this thread has already strayed, the following is a bit curious to me.

So apparently from this exchange,it appears plainsamn CAN edit other peoples posts, but they can not edit anyone elses or his. Hmmmmmmmm is right! :wink:

So just for a moment consider this, plainsamn acuses someone of stating something and then later removing that statement. It appears that as a super moderator, plainsman has the power to do this to that persons posts himself wether that person knows it or not!!! 

Or perhaps there is always the possibility the statement was never made! :roll:

I have to admit, prior to this little slip up, I was not aware that people such as plainsamn had the power to edit other peoples posts?

shaug, plainsamn has made it very clear that "everyone will have to cut" in this time of "extreme national debt". He just won;t address where those cuts should come from when they are targeted a little closer to what he beleives important. :-?

It appears this kind of conversation regarding agriculture has been occuring on this site far before you or I ever came here! Even right down to the good old EWG website. :wink:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Ryan? Isn't he that guy that was kicked off the site?

Of course he can edit anyone's post, he's a moderator, the rest of us aren't, what is there about that concept that you don't understand.



shaug said:


> New wealth can only be created by mining and agriculture on this earth.


Not quite, new wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Tell Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Pierre Omidyar, Mark Zuckerberg and any number of dot.com millionaires that the ony way to create wealth is by mining and agriculture. They'll laugh at you and then get on their private jet. What kind do you own?

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Just so people understand this internet thingy. As long as you are on here there are people who can go on your computer and edit/ change anything they want. They hacked CIA computers i am guessing your firewalls are not that tough to get around. So dont act like some one was peeping on you in the shower when a moderator changes some thing or mistakenly posts some thing on some one elses thread. When on here you truley have no privacy or not as anonymous as you think. Like the movie Enemy of the State some one is always watching. I need to go get my tinfoil hat back on now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kurt thanks for explaining that. However, I think everyone already knows that. There are a few that can't pass up the cheap shot. When you can't bend everyone to your will attack the messenger.

I have tried for some serious discussion in the past few posts. Wouldn't it be great if we could do that?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Huntin1 said,



> Ryan? Isn't he that guy that was kicked off the site?


He went to the baitplie website. This site wasn't big enough for him and Plainsman.



> Tell Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Pierre Omidyar, Mark Zuckerberg and any number of dot.com millionaires that the ony way to create wealth is by mining and agriculture.


dot.com millionares eh? Hunt, do you plug your computer into the wall or what?



> They'll laugh at you and then get on their private jet.


Really, what is that jet made out of? The tarmack it sets on is made out of what? What kind of fuel does it burn?



> What kind do you own?


I have a wrist rocket. Use it to out run cops.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> dot.com millionares eh? Hunt, do you plug your computer into the wall or what?


Sure, that's were the electricity comes from. Right?



> Really, what is that jet made out of? The tarmack it sets on is made out of what? What kind of fuel does it burn?


They paid someone to fashion existing resources into the form of a jet. And someone fashioned existing resources into the form of the tarmac, and someone else produced the fuel, again from existing resources. Are you starting to recognize a pattern?

Perhaps you could explain for us just how agriculture creates new wealth.



> I have a wrist rocket. Use it to out run cops.


Nice, finished 8th grade yet?

huntin1


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

huntin1 said:


> Of course he can edit anyone's post, he's a moderator, the rest of us aren't, what is there about that concept that you don't understand.


Why should anyone be able to edit /"change" the wording or add to anyone elses post???

If as a moderator the post is in violation of a rule ( not that this site apparently as any) remove the entire post rather than edit/change the wording of it.

Seems like a more simple and hoest "concept" to me.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KurtR said:


> Just so people understand this internet thingy. As long as you are on here there are people who can go on your computer and edit/ change anything they want. They hacked CIA computers i am guessing your firewalls are not that tough to get around. So dont act like some one was peeping on you in the shower when a moderator changes some thing or mistakenly posts some thing on some one elses thread. When on here you truley have no privacy or not as anonymous as you think. Like the movie Enemy of the State some one is always watching. I need to go get my tinfoil hat back on now.


Hey if someone wants to break what I am assuming there is a law against and hack into my computer to change somethig I have written, that is one thing. But if a moderator on a site like this retains the power to change what people say rather than just deleting the entire post if something is offensive or breaking a rule (why else would there be aneed to "change" something?) THAT is entirely different.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

:roll:


Plainsman said:


> Kurt thanks for explaining that. However, I think everyone already knows that. There are a few that can't pass up the cheap shot. When you can't bend everyone to your will attack the messenger.
> 
> I have tried for some serious discussion in the past few posts. Wouldn't it be great if we could do that?


Plainsman why would you as a moderator have the need to "change" /edit someone else post or add to what they have written as if it were their own words????????

If there is something "venoumous" and crossing some line or breaking some rule(which does not seem to exist on here) simply delete the entire post.

So please explain why you would have to change or add to what someone said without their permission in a manner that would allow people to beleive that person other than you made the statement?

Oh and plainsman, acusing someone of saying something and then going back and changing what was said on more than one occassion and never being able to substantiate your accusations it was done, (and in the case of your FBO claims of changing things even when they can not be edited after 30 minute) might just be considered a "cheap shot". :roll:

And considering the history of your comments going back years regarding agricultue even before shaug and I came on your site :wink: ., it is no wonder anyone other than your old "cronies" :wink: would care to engage in a "serious" conversation with you regarding agriculture, you have proven yourself incapable of having one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Farmers: Can you tell us what regulations hamper your operation that you think could be eliminated? Just about everything is over-regulated. Since Obama is screwing things up so bad the political climate is right to abolish useless regulations. I could even go along with the NDFB if they didn't word it in such a way that to me it looks like they want to abolish all regulations. Perhaps that is not their intent, and it's just the way I interpret it. Farming has changed but my friends who farm need some ball and chains removed. Which ones would be easy targets?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bad Dog, sorry I drug this off topic didn't I? Well if I get an answer I'll start a different thread so I don't disrupt this one. Again, sorry about that.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

Plainsman, no worries. A thread goes where a thread goes.

Saw an interesting site the other day on hwy 281 south of Jamestown. Approximately 5-8 mi south on the west side of the hwy is a large outcropping of some fairly steep hills. These hills have been native prairie since native prairie began. Last fall some one told me that the hills appeared to have been roundup'd. Well, as I recently drove by, the hills are now black and the prairie is forever gone. These are steep hills, not rolling hills. I would have loved to see them getting that equipment up and down those hills. When I think about the erosion that will now take place, it just makes me mad. This individual is not a 'Steward of the Land'. What really gets my goat is the arrogance the individual that destroyed this prairie must have. I would bet nine cents on the dollar that the indidvidual that did this does not actually own the property, they rent it. By renting it, they don't actually give a crap what will happen to it in 2-3 years. They'll just move on. I call it rape and pillage!
Thank God for Monsanto for allowing this type of disaster to be even possible!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When working in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana I noticed some of the grazing land is abused also. You can stand on a fence line and compare land. The private is well taken care of, but like you say when they rent it they don't care as much. Some of the government land is well taken care of while some is grazed down to the dirt. My friend and I called them 10/80 pastures because a cow has to have a mouth ten feet wide and graze at 80 mph to stay alive.

Whoever owned that land you noticed just got shafted. So did all of the other farmers. Grow enough poor crops on poor land and you drive the average bushel per acre down for the county. I don't know how it works now, but county average was important years ago to determine payments for failures. I suppose I didn't get that perfect so it will lead to a lot of squealing, but hopefully someone can tell us exactly how county average affects them without the fit.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst said:


> Plainsman why would you as a moderator have the need to "change" /edit someone else post or add to what they have written as if it were their own words????????If there is something "venoumous" and crossing some line or breaking some rule(which does not seem to exist on here) simply delete the entire post. So please explain why you would have to change or add to what someone said without their permission in a manner that would allow people to beleive that person other than you made the statement?


Plainsamn, as a moderator on here one would think you would accept the responsibility of explaining your necessary requirements as a moderator to those that particpate on this site. After all we are the ones whose posts you can edit are we not?

So if you would please address the question posed to you as a moderator in the above quote.

And plainsman as a moderator, could you please explain the statement Ryan made regarding the owner of this sites statement from those earlier posts in regards to what will be tolerated in posts on this site and what will not in a clear and presise manner?

by R y a n » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:29 am
_Chris is very serious when he mentioned that this fall we will be much stricter on creating and maintaining an environment here that is respectful, productive and informative. Posts that are nothing but venom and/or take pot shots at people will not be tolerated. It is one thing to have a strong opinion about an issue. It is entirely different to have a personal agenda against an individual member or group. If you intend to remain posting on this site, you'll need to keep that in mind._

plainsman as a moderator on this site during this time, were you familiar with this cahnge in standards as apparently set forth by the site owner? Or was this simply something Ryan was making up? If this standard still is in effect, do you feel as a moderator you have held people posting to this standard? Do you beleive this could possibly be why looking thru the older posts from this site, many of the people that once posted on here no longer do?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Huntin1 wrote,



> They paid someone to fashion existing resources into the form of a jet. And someone fashioned existing resources into the form of the tarmac, and someone else produced the fuel, again from existing resources. Are you starting to recognize a pattern?
> 
> Perhaps you could explain for us just how agriculture creates new wealth.


Hunt, If I give you a hair cut for ten bucks and you do my laundry for ten bucks, how much new wealth has just been created?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug I understand what you and huntin1 are saying I think. You start with resources produced by mining or agriculture, but when labor is added their is added value to a finished product. A rock with some iron in it is worth nothing until someone separates all the minerals. When someone else casts a steel ingot, and someone else machines it into a part, and someone else assembles the parts value is added at each step. New wealth is added at each step. If this was not true China would not be rising as such an economical powerhouse. It's the cheap labor that is giving China it's economic muscle, certainly not it's farming nor it's mining.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

It is all right here.

CALAMITY HOWLER/A.V. Krebs
Creating 'New Wealth'
To many today the dominant principle of our national economy has become simply the idea of money changing hands. Rather than perceiving money as a convenient medium of exchange making it easier for us to equitably satisfy our many wants and needs, of which food is the most basic, we have instead seemingly adopted a concept that the acquiring of money is an end in and of itself.

In that process, however, we have ignored a certain logic of economics. Initially, every transaction on earth has a debit (a charge) and a credit (money). In all such transactions, save one, the equation thus reads, the individual debited, the individual credited. Only one transaction which comes out differently, however, is the one that sees nature's bounty harvested, and that transaction reads, the individual debited, nature credited, for the gift of nature is a profit, or social surplus, within the economic system.

When raw materials are thus harvested from nature they are turned into money. This is done through a pricing system whose equation is production times price equals income. Any operating economy therefore divides itself into two divisions: income and cost.

Producing what we want requires a continuous supply of raw materials: food and fiber, minerals, timber and energy. As such raw materials are grown and extracted each year from the earth and sea they produce what we call "new wealth." Here lies the key to a healthy economy for it is here where the actual exchange of money begins.

Take, for example, the growing of wheat.

After the farmer has cleared the land, plowed the ground and planted the seed, where there was nothing, wheat is grown -- new wealth. Harvested, the grain is taken to the miller, where the farmer is paid for the wheat. From such income farmers should be able to pay their workers, their production costs and their families' own cost-of-living expenses.

After the miller has ground the wheat and sold the flour it produces to a bakery, the miller's revenue is used to pay the milling company's production costs, including its employees' salaries. The bakery in turn uses the flour to bake bread, which is sold to a grocery store, which then sells it to the consumer.

Throughout this entire process, of course, money is changing hands, but it is the wheat, not the money, which is the focal point of the process. Ideally, the money earned should not remain stagnant, but rather be used by the people involved to buy other goods and services. Thus, the money will be constantly multiplying as it makes its way through the marketing process.

But because each part in this process depends to a very large extent on the other, a certain balance must be maintained if this economic system is to function properly and equitably.

A fair sharing of the national income as it is progressively distributed between the various divisions of labor not only provides an equitable, reciprocal market for all of the goods and services produced, but these goods can also be paid for at the same time with the cash (earned income and profits) already received in the annual economic cycle.

The price, for example, that farmers receive from the miller should properly correspond with the buying power of urban workers, which would include, of course, their production costs. This is what is meant when we discuss the concept of parity: a proper balance among the various parts of our economic system.

An equitable national income should not be based on simply the number of dollars one can accumulate, but rather on the precision of the distribution of those dollars. As the late banker Vincent E. Rossiter Sr. explained it, the key to that distribution is dependent on economic equilibrium, and economic equilibrium is based:

1) upon that amount of increase in raw material production needed annually to provide the needs and the wants of the modest increase in population, and vital to this factor is

2) the absolute necessity to price this raw material at a floor of 90% of parity in order to provide the cash to assure its production and consumption, without the injection of excessive debt.

Since most "new wealth" begins with what is produced from our natural resources, of which farming is the largest, it is essential that the creators of this "new wealth" receive their fair share of the income, for as their income rises or falls, so too will that of all the other parties in the process.

The production of raw materials and the subsequent industrial conversion and ultimate consumption of those materials have also traditionally been financed by ever larger bank loans at each step as value is added.

While raw material production is monetized "as though it were gold" by the commercial banks, the economy is being fueled by added loans which at the same time increases the total money supply, profits, dividends, wages and salaries, etc., as value is added. When consumers finally spend their money for the finished product, the money that was created in the value-added process is used by the retailer to pay back to the bank the money that was borrowed.

Thus, all the debt that was created after the original "monetization of the raw material" is eliminated, completely repaid, leaving the economy with only the "new wealth" created by the monetization of raw materials.

When Carl Wilken, mathematician and economist, began to study the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s, he soon found a direct relationship between "new wealth," unemployment and the prosperity of the overall economy. He found whenever gross farm income equaled approximately one-seventh of the national income the national economy prospered. Further studies have shown that initial earned income from our natural resources multiplies from five to seven times as it progresses through the economy.

Yet in the past 55 years the US's so-called "cheap food policy" has successfully brought about a distortion in the nation's economic picture. Not only has such a policy resulted in a reduction of agriculture's share of national income in spite of its increased production, but it has also brought about a decline in small business income and thus a systematic destruction of our rural communities.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)




----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Although the process starts with the raw materials mentioned in the article each step that adds labor adds value. That value economically is as valuable as the raw product if the finished product requires labor to be a viable sale item. Without the raw material there is nothing to make, but conversely without labor their is no refined product.

Perhaps it is how we measure wealth. I think world wide we consider material things wealth. However, do we not also consider money wealth? Some money is silver coins and some is paper. We in the past backed up our paper with gold and it was more secure. Perhaps paper money is more of a gamble, but I can still trade it for beef, bread, diesel fuel, etc. The wealth of our community here in Jamestown is not only farming, but industry, business etc. It is the sum of our raw materials and labor. This is something I have not considered before, but I have a hard time not considering an hour labor having near the same value as a pound of beef in economic terms. Sure, I can't eat money, but I can purchase food with it. Now if our economic system collapses sure I would rather have a freezer full of food than a freezer full of money, but Obama hasn't made things that bad ---------- yet. 

I'll continue to think about it shaug. Right now I can't bring myself to accept the premise.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Shaug, your analogy above is a false premise. The wheat farmer did not create wealth from nothing. The land that he planted his seed on is not nothing. It grew grass before wheat, the grass would have fed cattle which could then be sold for profit. The seed he planted did not appear from thin air. Nor did the fuel in the tractor that he used to plow the land and plant the crop.

If I take a photograph of something and sell it for $500 have I not created new wealth? I did, for me, but it was created by manipulating existing resources, just like the farmer in your analogy manipulated existing resources to make money from his wheat seed.

Huntin1


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

huntin1 said:


> Shaug, your analogy above is a false premise. The wheat farmer did not create wealth from nothing. The land that he planted his seed on is not nothing. It grew grass before wheat, the grass would have fed cattle which could then be sold for profit. The seed he planted did not appear from thin air. Nor did the fuel in the tractor that he used to plow the land and plant the crop.
> 
> If I take a photograph of something and sell it for $500 have I not created new wealth? I did, for me, but it was created by manipulating existing resources, just like the farmer in your analogy manipulated existing resources to make money from his wheat seed.
> Huntin1


Simply because you do not understand a premise does not make it false.

Please show me one country whose "wealth" is based on the "value" of a photograph.

Leave your bias against agriculture at the door and take the time to acually read shaugs article with a somewhat open mind.

plainsamn, as a moderator apparently you do not wish to accept the responsibilities that go with the taking of that position on this site and explain why you would need the ability to edit/change or add something to someones post as you did to shaugs?

Even if you continue to dodge answering for your actions, please realize that from here on when you acuse someone of saying something and when being asked to "please show where" it was said and you can not because it simply was never said and you then throw out the acusastion a post was "edited", it will be pointed out that YOU as a moderator not only have the ability to change and edit others posts, but in fact have.

If as a moderator you are as concerned with the reputation of this site as you claim to be, one would think you would not want the question of wether a moderator on here could change what someone states hanging over the sites reputation. If a post is in violation of some rule this site may have, if there are any, simply remove the entire post. But for a moderator to have the ability to change what someone wrote as if the person themselves wrote it is crossing a line. Particularily on the WWW where any google seach can turn up a statement someone makes on an issue. *One would beleive this site would have the intergrity to at least ensure that what is posted on here is the actual posters words, and not that of a moderator. * But then again perhaps not


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Stopping by for my almost weekly visit (traveling the last 10 days) and see even this discussion devolved into a shouting match for the most part. On the other hand, shaug did actually post something interesting I will comment about. There are two problems in the post.

"After the farmer has cleared the land, plowed the ground and planted the seed, where there was nothing,..." is incorrect. It was not nothing. At one time it had a lot of bison on it that fed people. After that, cattle were grazed on the grasslands. This creates new wealth and clearly is not "nothing".

"This is done through a pricing system whose equation is production times price equals income. Any operating economy therefore divides itself into two divisions: income and cost." The problem with this statement (relative to crop production agriculture) is the costs for breaking out prairie into ag land is not fully realized in the cost of crop. If you raise wheat on the same ground year after year without adding fertilizer, you would eventually exhaust the land of its resources to raise a good crop while if you grazed the land, it can be sustainable for many generations. Further, grasslands retain the soil while many cropping practices result in loss of soil due to wind or water erosion, removing the very resource that agriculture needs to keep producing crops. That "cost" is rarely accounted for in the pricing system. Another simple example, there are over 1 million acres in North Dakota that raised wheat or other crops for a few years but have now become too saline or were too saline to raise almost any crop. If it had remained in grass, the outcome would probably have been different.

Final comment. Economists declare their profession a science when in fact, if it is a science, it is very inexact, particularly trying to account for all the "costs" and "benefits" of the land and the article was an example of how wrong they can be. 
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled shouting match.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

led, you speak as if you know me personally and have an intimate knowledge of what I experienced in the 30 plus years I have been involved in production agriculture. Is that indeed the case or are you simply and annonimous individual on an outdoor website holdig a grudge for some reason wishing to make every conversation regarding agriculture personal?

Either way, you add very little value to the discussion when you carry on in this manner.

Led said
Gabe quit being a little baby. Christ, you sound like a 4 year old little kid tattling on his little brother. You tell me why any one of us would try to add "value" to a conversation you are involved in when all you do with the info is cut and paste parts of the "valued info" we post and twist it around to make it sound the way "you" want it to? It's pointless gabe. You are an arrogant crybaby who rants and raves and twists stuff around to try to make everyone believe you are getting picked upon and we should all feel sorry for you. Well, i say go to hell really. I mean if you aren't going to show us any respect why in sam hell would I or anyone else show respect to you? The main difference between the way you and I post comes in the form of why we do post on this site in the first place. I am a sportsman first and foremost as well as involved in ag. You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think :wink:

So you just go ahead and take a few snippets of this post and concoct another one of your twisted tales that makes you feel all fuzzy inside and we will just move on to the next post/topic. Oh yea, I notice you constantly *****ing about this site lately too. You know what they did in the olden days if they didn't like a website?......they didn't go to that website anymore :wink:

So......by then 8)


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

gst said:


> [plainsamn, as a moderator apparently you do not wish to accept the responsibilities that go with the taking of that position on this site and explain why you would need the ability to edit/change or add something to someones post as you did to shaugs?
> 
> Even if you continue to dodge answering for your actions, please realize that from here on when you acuse someone of saying something and when being asked to "please show where" it was said and you can not because it simply was never said and you then throw out the acusastion a post was "edited", it will be pointed out that YOU as a moderator not only have the ability to change and edit others posts, but in fact have.
> 
> If as a moderator you are as concerned with the reputation of this site as you claim to be, one would think you would not want the question of wether a moderator on here could change what someone states hanging over the sites reputation. If a post is in violation of some rule this site may have, if there are any, simply remove the entire post. But for a moderator to have the ability to change what someone wrote as if the person themselves wrote it is crossing a line. Particularily on the WWW where any google seach can turn up a statement someone makes on an issue. *One would beleive this site would have the intergrity to at least ensure that what is posted on here is the actual posters words, and not that of a moderator. * But then again perhaps not


I don't know about plains but I was hoping like a dog tick you'd get enough blood and fall off. :lol: 
Show me one instance gst where plains edited a post to benefit his point of view. It just hasn't happened.
And as always, I really appreciate indsport's drive-by above the fray wisdom.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Huntin1 wrote,



> Shaug, your analogy above is a false premise. The wheat farmer did not create wealth from nothing. The land that he planted his seed on is not nothing. It grew grass before wheat, the grass would have fed cattle which could then be sold for profit.


We might just be making a little headway here. Wheat has to be coaxed from the ground. Grass grows wild. Cattle can take a blade of grass that no one was going to use for anything and turn it into new wealth. However, people like to eat that beef with a loaf of bread.

indsport wrote,



> If you raise wheat on the same ground year after year without adding fertilizer, you would eventually exhaust the land of its resources to raise a good crop while if you grazed the land, it can be sustainable for many generations. Further, grasslands retain the soil while many cropping practices result in loss of soil due to wind or water erosion, removing the very resource that agriculture needs to keep producing crops. That "cost" is rarely accounted for in the pricing system. Another simple example, there are over 1 million acres in North Dakota that raised wheat or other crops for a few years but have now become too saline or were too saline to raise almost any crop. If it had remained in grass, the outcome would probably have been different.


Actually indy, I rotate my ground. Alfalfa/grass for 5 years or more than small grains and row crops. It would seem a handfull of persons on this web-forum have a fascination with grass or expansive grasslands. In the end it is the consumer who decides. If they do not not want to purchase bags of grassroots to eat or grassmats to sleep on then for what purpose would I want to plant my land all back into grass that I cannot sell.

Plainsman, There are some young people with impressionable minds who do read these forums. When you write things such as "greed at its darkest" "the farmers have their hands in our pockets" and all that stuff, some take it to heart. There is that element out there that can be influenced by you. You are like a mentor to them.

Leadfed said,



> Gabe quit being a little baby. Christ, you sound like a 4 year old little kid tattling on his little brother. You tell me why any one of us would try to add "value" to a conversation you are involved in when all you do with the info is cut and paste parts of the "valued info" we post and twist it around to make it sound the way "you" want it to? It's pointless gabe. You are an arrogant crybaby who rants and raves and twists stuff around to try to make everyone believe you are getting picked upon and we should all feel sorry for you. Well, i say go to hell really. I mean if you aren't going to show us any respect why in sam hell would I or anyone else show respect to you? The main difference between the way you and I post comes in the form of why we do post on this site in the first place. I am a sportsman first and foremost as well as involved in ag. You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think


Plainsman, that right there had to be a proud moment for you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

spentwings said:


> I don't know about plains but I was hoping like a dog tick you'd get enough blood and fall off. [b]Show me one instance gst where plains edited a post to benefit his point of view.[/b] *It just hasn't happened*.And as always, I really appreciate indsport's drive-by above the fray wisdom.


 *
How would you know*??????? :wink:  THAT is the whole point in pointing this out.

Spent, I do not beleive I have ever said he has. But why does the possibility need to exist???

On the other hand, plainsman HAS acused me of "editing a post to benefit" a point of view. That as well has never happened.

So why not go to a system like FBO has were posts can only be edited for 30 minutes to do things such as correct spelling or wording that was typed incorrectly. After the 30 minute time frame NO ONE can "edit" these posts, only the moderator can remove them in their entiritey. Why would the option of a modertor exist to edit/change someones post if it is never to be used?

Even plainsamn now knows that posts can not be "changed" on FBO after making an acusation it was done over there also! :wink: :roll:

So spent, just out of curiousity, would you consider the following a true statement?

by Plainsman » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:24 am 
_It very rarely happened until you and shaug showed up. You two have been the catalyst. The closest we came was talking about habitat improvement incentives_

Given just the one single thread from 5 years ago it would seem as this statement was a bit disingenuous. If you wish, I'm sure more can be prvided. And there in lies the issue. A small handful of people on this site claim to want to have "serious" conversations about agriculture and yet their back ground of posting on here suggests they indeed have a little different basis for their "discussions" regarding agriculture. It is not one of understanding and realizing most of agriculture, wildlife, opportunities and production can all co exist, (how many "serious" conversations have you seen in threads related to that on this site)?????????????? It is all about bashing agriculture and producers every chance they get.

Right here in this thread both Bad Dog and plainsman go off on an example of what they consider "poor" management of land. I guarntee you in Bad dogs drive he traveled past acre after acre that are producing the food and fiber he as well as everyone is dependant on in any manner of good stewardship practices and yet how many threads have you saw on this site regarding the posititve production practices agriculture is expanding in??????

*Really please show me a thread that is positive regarding agriculture on this site.* And yet people wish us to beleive they want to have a "serious" conversation about agriculture here????

Take the time to actually read thru the thread from 07 I posted. And then tell me how the atitude posed by the small group that was referenced in that thread by "poop" towards agriculture is any different then from what it is today. A "serious" conversation about agriculture on this site??????

Even you spent should see the impossibility of that.

I'm sure that at some point I will tire of pointing out the disingenuous statements made on this site time and again regarding agriculture and dealing with the way this site is moderated just as so many others have and quit posting and just as it has in years past as shown, the same small little gaggle of people will continue making the same disingenuous statements and insinuations about agriculture and ag orgs and the thosands of producers that make up their grassroots membership and this site will continue to be what it has been, is and always will be given the attitudes of it's moderators.

Posts such as those by led and others that are not only tolerated but excused and thus encouraged will ensure that. The link to the thread from 5 years ago shows it to be how this site is run.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> The main difference between the way you and I post comes in the form of why we do post on this site in the first place. I am a sportsman first and foremost as well as involved in ag. You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think


Led, indeed I am an ag producer "first and formost", I realize that being a "sportsman" is a recreational activity and choose to put providing a living for my family "first and foremost". Perhaps at some point in your life as you mature you will also realize this.

And please realize, there are far more "differences" in the way you and I post than just that.

Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true.

The fact is you know little about me or my operation. It is obvious from the content of your posts referencing a "silver spoon". If you wish to insinuate you do and have any credibility given to these claims, post your identity so it can indeed be determined that you " know you more than you think"

Otherwise even though you may not realize it, your posts come off as a petty, juvenile, anonimous idividual that for some reason wishes to hold a grudge rather than offer anything of substance in what he posts.

So led, if you wish to gain credibility in your claims to " know you more than you think", you will have to come out from behind your computer and accept a degree of accountability for the claims you make or your posts will simply be looked at for what they are, more of what is tolerated and encouraged on this site.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, There are some young people with impressionable minds who do read these forums. When you write things such as "greed at its darkest" "the farmers have their hands in our pockets" and all that stuff, some take it to heart. There is that element out there that can be influenced by you. You are like a mentor to them.


In that case let me tell them I enjoyed this perspective (even though I try not to eat to much starch):



> We might just be making a little headway here. Wheat has to be coaxed from the ground. Grass grows wild. Cattle can take a blade of grass that no one was going to use for anything and turn it into new wealth. However, people like to eat that beef with a loaf of bread.


 :thumb:

Let me also say this. We don't talk that much about all the good things farmers do because we don't want them to change that. We do talk about things we don't like in the hopes some of them will change that. So yes we do dwell on the negative, and knowing that these young people should then take the time to understand the good things. Then decide what they think is good, and what practices they see as bad, and as a citizen of a democracy take action to change it even if that action is minor. Even if that action is only complaining to those who do it. It's not a personal condemnation of an individual, it's a simple denunciation of a poor practice.

Here is a truth for you. No one can consider themselves a warrior for property rights while at the same time denying them the right to sell to whoever they want. It's a prime example of a hypocrite.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Let me also say this. We don't talk that much about all the good things farmers do because we don't want them to change that. We do talk about things we don't like in the hopes some of them will change that. So yes we do dwell on the negative, and knowing that these young people should then take the time to understand the good things


So plainsman, how then will the "young people" undertand the "good things" if they are "not talked about that much" and you "dwell on the negative"???????????

So by not acknowledging good stewardship practices and only pointing out the "bad" practices and maligning ag orgs, there producer members and agriculture itslef, you think you are proactively helping farmers continne to do the "good things" ???

Here is a news flash, all that accomplishes is for most in ag to look at this site and roll their eyes and go about their business.

Credibility.

Your above methodology provides this site none in agriculture.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Here is a truth for you. No one can consider themselves a warrior for property rights while at the same time denying them the right to sell to whoever they want. It's a prime example of a hypocrite.


This coming from someone that claims they support property rights and ag producers while at the same attempting to deny them the right to engage in a legally approved animal agriculture enterprise on their own private property. :eyeroll:

Hey isn;t that kind of what groups like HSUS and PETA try to do?????  

And yet palsinam, you claim to not support HSUS and PETA?? :-?  But yet what you attempted doing was so similar to their agenda they came into our state and supported the attempt. 

I'll give you this plainsamn, you may very well have an intimate knowledge of the meaning of the word hypocrite! :wink: 

Including right down to the definition of "bearing false witness" when it came to denying HSUS involvement in your agenda


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Even if that action is only complaining to those who do it. It's not a personal condemnation of an individual, it's a simple denunciation of a poor practice


 :rollin: On this site with this moderating????? Rrrrrrriiiiight :rollin: :roll: :bs: :lol:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> It's a prime example of a hypocrite.


 :wink:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

:-? Golly gst!
How many times do I have to say there's a lot of ag bashing in Hot Topics.

Personally, I like the fact that I can go back and edit my posts.
Especially when I've been inhaling to much ethanol while posting and have a mess to* try *and and clean up.
What's your excuse? :beer:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

:rollin: On this site with this moderating????? Rrrrrrriiiiight :rollin: :roll: :bs: :lol:[/quote]

Ummmm....bye then gabe. You don't like the site, leave. :wink:


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

spentwings said:


> Personally, I like the fact that I can go back and edit my posts.
> Especially when I've been inhaling to much ethanol while posting and have a mess to* try *and and clean up.


On second thought, if the rules were enforced in this forum,,,I wouldn't have to.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true. .


Liar.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

gst, your comprehension is skewed again. I am not bashing agriculture. You seem to think that because I don't agree with everything that you and shaug say that I am bashing agriculture. I did disagree with shaug's claim that only mining and agriculture create new wealth. And the article that he posted as proof is based on a false premise.

The wheat crop created was not created from nothing, the seed used to grow that crop did not materialize out of thin air, neither did the land that it was planted on. The farmer had to purchase it, an existing resource, the equipment used to plant, maintain and harvest that crop was made from existing resources, the fuel used to bring in that crop was an existing resource. The farmer sold the wheat and made a profit, creating new wealth for himself. So how is that different than say purchasing thread, weaving it into cloth and then selling the cloth at a profit thus creating new wealth for the weaver.

It does not matter whether you believe that a photograph could create wealth. And I never said that any country based it's wealth off of a photo, however, the person selling that photograph is now $500 richer, to him it created wealth.

I am not disputing that wealth is created by agriculture, it most definately is. I am disputing the claim that ONLY mining and agriculture create new wealth. New wealth is created in many ways.

You really need to get over yourself. Agriculture in and of itself is important to all of us, you, not so much.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

gst said:


> So why not go to a system like FBO has were posts can only be edited for 30 minutes to do things such as correct spelling or wording that was typed incorrectly. After the 30 minute time frame NO ONE can "edit" these posts, only the moderator can remove them in their entiritey. Why would the option of a modertor exist to edit/change someones post if it is never to be used?
> 
> .


Your saying tim can not edit any thing any time he wants to on FBO, i think not


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kurt, I'll give you an answer. Often a thread is two or three pages and then there is a post that fits in, is interesting, but sneaks in some spam. I will delete the spam portion and then write EDITED BY PLAINSMAN FOR SPAM. I have also edited for language. I try to keep my moderating in this form to a minimum. Also, when I goof up I admit it. How much easier would it have been just to delete what I wrote and do a new post. However, unlike Obama I really am transparent. :beer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....*that I am sure of*. You will deny it but *I might know you more than you think*





gst said:


> Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true.





leadfed said:


> Liar.


Led, you have claimed you know more than I think in regards to this claim you have made. Now would be a good time to prove it.

So led if you wish to have any credibility, please state who has "hired/delegated" me to be on this site.

This should be intereting!


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman,

I find it interesting that when I stated a few times that my posts had been deleted or altered and even stated that another lady had her posts deleted who posted on here during the High Fence issue, Plainsman you basically tried to make it look like I was delusional. I never accused you of being the one doing it, but obviously someone who had the capabilities to do it, DID do it.

I posted on FBO many times during the high fence issue and never once were my posts deleted or tampered with. I believe that is because FBO and Tim did not have anything to gain in doing so, but here on Nodak many of the moderators and regulars were sponsors (11 coming from Nodak) of the High Fence initiative and Nodak was used as a platform for this issue.

At one point my ISP California work address was even revealed on this board during the high fence issue, but again Plainsman you told me that the only time ISP addresses were obtained was in issues of threats. Really?

Okay, back to lurking.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Huntin, it is your comprehension that is off abit, I never suggested your commments in regards to shaugs post were bashing ag, merely the history of a small group of people that have made it a habit thruout several threads on this site.

huntin, where did the wheat seed come from???? Was it manufactured, did someone build it, bake it, assemble it, repair it, ect...... Where did it come from? What about the grass those cattle eat??? What about the oil, gas, minerals, wood, iron ore ect.....

The premise you are missing that shaug's article references is there is a base core of wealth creation. Yes indeed other thing may be added to that base to garner more wealth (ie fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides ect in the case of farming) but the fact reamins there are core sources of where all other wealth is generated.

In the example of your photo, if the wood for the paper had not been grown where would your wealth from your photo be. If the oil and minerals for the construction of your camera were not pulled from the ground, where would the wealth from your photo be??

From shaugs article:
_Since most "new wealth" begins with what is produced from our natural resources, of which farming is the largest, it is essential that the creators of this "new wealth" receive their fair share of the income, for as their income rises or falls, so too will that of all the other parties in the process.

The production of raw materials and the subsequent industrial conversion and ultimate consumption of those materials have also traditionally been financed by ever larger bank loans at each step as value is added.

While raw material production is monetized "as though it were gold" by the commercial banks, the economy is being fueled by added loans which at the same time increases the total money supply, profits, dividends, wages and salaries, etc., as value is added. When consumers finally spend their money for the finished product, the money that was created in the value-added process is used by the retailer to pay back to the bank the money that was borrowed.

*Thus, all the debt that was created after the original "monetization of the raw material" is eliminated, completely repaid, leaving the economy with only the "new wealth" created by the monetization of raw materials*._

Just because one does not understand or agree with a premise does not mean it is flawed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

LT, I'm only a moderator not an administrator. Sometimes you demand answers I don't have, or insinuate something I thought was simply to stir the pot. If you want to stir the pot you may have to stand in line.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....*that I am sure of*. You will deny it but *I might know you more than you think*
> ...


I got my sources gabarinski :wink: I see you are still *****ing about this site and the moderators. I'll state it again. If you don't like it just leave.

Alrighty.....bye then. 8)


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KurtR said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > So why not go to a system like FBO has were posts can only be edited for 30 minutes to do things such as correct spelling or wording that was typed incorrectly. After the 30 minute time frame NO ONE can "edit" these posts, only the moderator can remove them in their entiritey. Why would the option of a modertor exist to edit/change someones post if it is never to be used?
> ...





Plainsman said:


> Kurt, I'll give you an answer. Often a thread is two or three pages and then there is a post that fits in, is interesting, but sneaks in some spam. I will delete the spam portion and then write EDITED BY PLAINSMAN FOR SPAM. I have also edited for language. I try to keep my moderating in this form to a minimum. Also, when I goof up I admit it. How much easier would it have been just to delete what I wrote and do a new post. However, unlike Obama I really am transparent. :beer:


Kurt does Tim "edit posts to change what was written? Or does he simply delete the entire post if there is something within it that crasses a line or breaks a rule??

BIG difference.

My words that are on an internet site for the entire world to see should be my words and mine alone. If there are rules saying no spam allowed, and there is "spam" in a post, delete the entire post. If there is "language" that is inapropriate or against the rules, delete the entire post. Why should someone else to have the ability to change something someone else writes so others may beleive it was written by the original poster is simply crossing a line and is simply a statement of what this site is.

So Kurt, if you were to post in a thread "I like eating deer" are you okay with the fact a moderator on here if he gets peeved at you personally could go back a year from now and "edit/change" your post to read "I like screwing deer" ???

What about if you made a stateent" last election I voted for McCain" in a thread and someone (not you) were to go back and edit it to read "I voted for Obama last election" wold you apreciate their ability to do so??? Now what if that statement were copied and pasted to another site or forum without you knowing it had been edited? Stop and consider what could be the consequences of someonelse being able to change what you have wrote as if it were your own words.

So what do you suppose would happen if someone were to edit your post and make a threat against the President life as if it were your own statement???

Now tell me why a moderator needs the ability to edit posts and change what is written other than just the ability to delete a post in it's entirety?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > leadfed said:
> ...


Then it should be no problem for you to prove your claims as true. :wink:

Credibility.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said,



> If you want to stir the pot you may have to stand in line.


LT is standing in a line of people who do not like you Bruce. The line is long.

Huntin1, Your take on existing resources is one interesting one. Food for thought doesn't replace the real thing. Without mining and agriculture existing resources are simply that.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Then it should be no problem for you to prove your claims as true. :wink:

Credibility.[/quote]

Pretty sure I'm not going to be posting source names on here gabarinski.lol Like you have said before....I get my information from people who's word I trust a hell of a lot more than you bud.

Still don't like this site or the people who moderate it do you.

Ok....bye then. 8) Really if you hate it so much why so you spend half your day here? :lol:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

leadfed said,



> Still don't like this site or the people who moderate it do you.
> 
> Ok....bye then. Really if you hate it so much why so you spend half your day here?


For every action there is a reaction.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

shaug said:


> leadfed said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An object in motion will stay in motion.....


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

gst you are missing the point.

Shaug claimed that only mining and agriculture creates new wealth. I disagree, new wealth is created when we find new ways to utilize existing resources. Mining and agriculture do indeed create new wealth, but they are not the only endeavors that do so.

The wheat seed is an existing resource, and the land that the seed was planted on, as is the wood and the paper that results for the photo to be printed on. Yes the wheat seed was raised by a farmer who sold it to the farmer in the story. Where did the first farmer get his seed so that he could grow enough to sell? And the farmer before that? This wheat seed did not just magically appear from thin air.



> After the farmer has cleared the land, plowed the ground and planted the seed, where there was nothing, wheat is grown -- new wealth.


This is the premise that is flawed. Specifically, "where there was nothing". Who determined that there was nothing on the land before the farmer planted wheat. You said it yourself,


> What about the grass those cattle eat???


 what indeed? Was there not something on that land before the farmer plowed it under? Would that grass have also produced new wealth without the farmer planting anything? Is that grass an existing resource?

huntin1


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

shaug said:


> Since *most* "new wealth" begins with what is produced from our natural resources, of which farming is the largest, it is essential that the creators of this "new wealth" receive their fair share of the income, for as their income rises or falls, so too will that of all the other parties in the process.


Huntin one, please note the wording of the premise you say is flawed that is underlined and emboldened.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> "Pretty sure I'm not going to be posting source names on here gabarinski.lol Like you have said before....I get my information from people who's word I trust a hell of a lot more than you bud".
> 
> :lol:


As I said led, Credibility.

If you wish people to beleive your claims without substantiating them, it is of a great value to have it. Hiding behind a computer screen with a made up name making accusations you will not or can not prove as factual does not lend itself to creating any............................................................................................................................................

Credibility. :roll:

Hey this "source" you have isn't the same two fellas plaisamn met out in Billings are they?????  :roll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

huntin1 said:


> > *After the farmer has cleared the land, plowed the ground and planted the seed, where there was nothing, wheat is grown -- new wealth.*
> 
> 
> *This is the premise that is flawed. Specifically, "where there was nothing".* Who determined that there was nothing on the land before the farmer planted wheat. You said it yourself,
> ...


Please reread the post above for the premise that I indicated was flawed. I made it bold for you since you seem to have a problem picking it out.

huntin1


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Huntin one the statement you emboldened does not make the entire premise flawed unless you have such a willie over crop production on these grounds you can not understand the concept the author is making.

Realize man did not create that wheat seed, it existed just as the grass plant existed. Man only manipulated where it grew.

As a rancher who would like to see more land in grass I can apreciate your position, but please realize it does not change the premise of where "most" of the core wealth of a country comes from as explained in shaugs article.

Wealth can be "derived" from a photograph, but ultimately it was NOT the photograph that "created" that wealth.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

quote="leadfed"]I got my sources gabarinski[/quote]



leadfed said:


> You are straight up ag and are hired/delegated by someone or some ag. org. to come on here and post your bs....that I am sure of. You will deny it but I might know you more than you think :wink:


led, one question for you, if you "know more than I might think", and you "got your sources", shouldn't you know if I am hired or if I am merely delegated by someone to come on here. :-?

So which is it led, am I "hired" or am I "delegated"?? :wink:

I mean just think of the story you could "break" with your "sources" led..............gst hired by____________ to come on Nodak outdoors, a second rate outdoor site to champion ags cause. 

Pulitzer prize winning stuff! 

Do they give a Pulitzer for fiction??? :roll:

Credibility :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> Pretty sure I'm not going to be posting source names on here gabarinski.


led, no need to post "sources" names, ( I would hate for them to have to think they need to go into witness protection for simply falsely stateing I am "hired or delegated" to be on this site   I mean I promise I won;t make them swim with the fishes  I'm not "connected" :wink: ) simply post your name.

I have done so several times on here. You see often times once someone's identity is known, there are outside influences that many times explain the personal bias exhibited in the claims they may make. It simply gives people a basis to determine one's "credibility" regarding those claims.

I mean even a reporter "breaking" a story while not revealing his "sources" will sign his name to his claims. It is the basis of the credibility he establishes so people accept his story. It is what keeps him from printing outright lies as there is a real identity to tie the claims he makes to rather than some made up name. :-? I mean you can understand that right leadfed? :wink:



leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > Your statement above claiming I am here at the request of someone or as a result of being "hired" is simply not true. If you "know me more than you think" please prove what you say is true. .
> ...


After all led with this statement you kind of backed yourself into a corner. Most reasonable people who are not blinded by personal bias will not simply accept the word of an anonomous person hiding behind a computer screen to substantiate a claim such as those you have made, particularily when the person themself has a history of such blind juvenile personal bias towards the person he is accusing.

Credibility.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

gst said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > gst said:
> ...


If that happened i would leave the site after one last post witch would probally be deleted any way. I am in some one elses house here and if that is how they roll so be it. If they changed some thing like i said a 270 is better than the .308 than that would be fighting words as that is just stupid. Also it is the interweb i could really care less what any one thinks except for a select few


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

For a guy who doesn't like this site very much I still find it funny it's one of the first sites you visit in the AM. :lol: I also appreciate the fact you think of me so early in the morning....I guess I should feel proud the super rancher acknoweldges me on this fine morning. :lol: The powers at be give you a call and tell you get to work on nodak this morning. :lol:

Credibility eh? Show me where you are credible and not skewed by the fact that you are completely biased by being a "super rancher" posting on an sportsman site. Most would call all your "credible" posts null do to a conflict of interest....credible?

You call nodak a second rate site. I've also heard you call it a dying site as well as other things.

Why do you visit it constantly?

ummmm.....by then. 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> LT is standing in a line of people who do not like you Bruce. The line is long.


On my knees grasping at my heart: It's the big on Martha, here I come. :rollin:

Has anyone noticed that this thread started out in support of agriculture and in agreement? What happened?

Oh, ya, post number four nonsense by shaug, and post number six????? We often wonder how radical Muslims can hold a grudge for thousands of years. Post six shows that same mentality. Brace yourself for the holy grazers jihad. :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KurtR said:


> Also it is the interweb i could really care less what any one thinks except for a select few


I agree with you on this one, and I guess as you put it, it is "their house" and indeed no one is being forced to participate. But I wonder if it is spelled out to people joining the site that the moderator has the power to change "language" in the posts they make to something that suits them?

Spin it how ever one wishes, that in the end is what this does.

It is merely my opinion that a site with a level of intergrity would simply hold people who violate set rules accountable by removing the entire post rather than changing the "language" as plainsman suggests he has done. But if there are no apparent rules (apparently the ones Chris set that Ryan mentioned in that old post are merely imaginary) I guess there is no measure other than a moderators standard what should be allowed to happen on this site.

And if he as a moderator, doesn't like what is posted by an individual, he can always change it! :wink:

Plainsman, as a moderator left with the responsibility of enforcing the rules of this site, are the ones Ryan mentioned in effect or not?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Has anyone noticed that this thread started out in support of agriculture and in agreement? What happened?


plainsman, in case you are not aware, (I know how you are not quite up to speed on current agricultural practices) the vast majority of agriculture uses GMO's such as what is mentioned as created by Monsanto.

Fromthe link Bad dog provided.

_But now, a group of dozens of organic farmers and food activists have, with the help of the not-for-profit law center The Public Patent Foundation, sued Monsanto in a case that could forever alter the way genetically modified crops are grown in this country_

So explain how a thread started out supporting a small group of people (dozens) suing what a majority of ag producers use in current production methods can be veiwed as being in "support of agriculture and in agreement"????? 

Most with any understanding of agriculture realize that some form of GMO's will be required to meet the increasing demand for food a growing world population needs.

Perhaps this sheds a little light into your own sense of what is "in support of agriculture". :-?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

led, the comment it is a "dying site" actually came from the tittle of a thread about this site someone else wrote.

But led lets just concentrate on one thing at a time here.



leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > leadfed said:
> ...


 led which is it have I been "hired" or "delegated" . There is a difference between the two. What do your "sources" tell you led! 

You claim to "know more than I think", (which at this point would not be hard to do as I "think" you do not "know" much of anything) but claiming this, one would "think" you "know" which it is, "hired" or "delegated"????

Actually after you made that claim that I was either "hired/delegated" to come on this site, I do not "think" you "know" anything, as a matter of fact, I "know" you do not "know" anything even though you "think" you "know" something because what you claim to "think" you "know" simply is not true!  :wink:

So led, which is it you "think" you "know", hired????? Or "delegated" 

Lets get thru this claim you made first and then we can address why I am even on this site. :wink:

Credibility


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I think Bad Dog wants to believe in organic ag so bad that he takes anything they say at face value.

From the link Bad Dog provided:



> But now, a group of dozens of organic farmers and food activists have, with the help of the not-for-profit law center The Public Patent Foundation, sued Monsanto in a case that could forever alter the way genetically modified crops are grown in this country


Just because a non profit printed something, it doesn't make it true. Are their motives pure? Where does the 501(c)3 get its funding and are those peoples motives pure? Or........

http://truereform.piausa.org/Pubpat.html

Public Patent Foundation -
Who funds Pubpat? Could it be that they are funded by the same corporate raiders who are so often found guilty of stealing others innovations? Are they truly an advocacy group, or just paid assassins? They should come out publicly and release the names of their principal funding sources.

Has their director, Dan Ravicher, ever practiced patent law? Has he ever filed a patent application or ever litigated, licensed, or sold an invention? In short, does he have any first hand knowledge of the patent system? To our knowledge he does not other than a brief stint with one law firm of a couple of months. He did not graduate from law school until 2000 and started Pubpat in 2003 according to his bio on a Stanford web page. Yet he claims to have "extensive experience litigating, licensing, prosecuting, and otherwise counseling clients with respect to patents" as on the Echoinggreen web site.

Organizations that pretend to be working in the public interest are often controlled and funded by large multinationals as a means of camouflaging their real motives. These are the same large companies who blatantly "borrow" the creations of small entities and then cry wolf when caught red handed.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Here is a timely story from Beef magazine.

For those that suggest ag should be proactive in telling their story, we are. It is surprising who doesn't want to listen!

Sustainability Has A Whole Lot Of Meanings
by Troy Marshall in My View From The Country

Feb. 23, 2012 4:50pm
Meat industry and environmental groups come to the table on sustainability, so why aren't the organic folks cheering the effort? 
.
There were a couple of big announcements recently. First, McDonald's announced it is looking at phasing out the use of gestation stalls among its pork suppliers. And, a host of big players in the meat business - among them, JBS, Cargill, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and others - announced that they, along with groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the Nature Conservancy, were forming a non-profit organization - the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) Learn more at http://www.sustainablelivestock.org.

The group says it's "an action-oriented initiative consisting of multiple stakeholders who recognize and respect the important role a sustainable beef supply chain plays in feeding the growing global population." GRSB aims to facilitate "a global dialogue on beef production that is environmentally sound, socially responsible, and economically viable. It provides stakeholders and interested parties with the opportunity to jointly develop global solutions to advance sustainable beef production."

One would think that such an alliance would be heralded and welcomed by those promoting sustainable agricultural production. However, it's been amazing to read the reactions from those "green" groups and people who hold themselves up as supporters of sustainability. *In their minds, sustainability is synonymous with anti-corporate, anti-capitalism, anti-modern agriculture, anti-technology and, for many, anti-livestock.*

Thus, the very idea that these mega corporations could be part of the sustainability answer is apparently impossible for these folks to comprehend. *And, the realization that we have a swelling global world population whose feed and fiber needs will be a top priority is also heresy, because the food and fiber powerhouses that these groups oppose inherently need to be part of any solution.*

That increasing yields and the use of technology to improve efficiencies might be part of the solution is worse yet, as it tends to coincide with both size and scope of the entities. *And, if one looks at the U.S., which has fewer than 7% of the world's cows but produces 20% of the world's beef, it presents a strong argument in favor of the sustainability of modern agriculture. But that's bad news for the organic movement and others also aligning with these green groups.*

* In essence, the GRSB appears to be a real threat to many of these activist green groups because it purports to actually focus on sustainability from a factual and not just a philosophical viewpoint.* As the GRSB press release notes, "The GRSB roundtables comprise representatives from industry, non-profit organizations, associations, academia and think tanks. They work to identify measurable, scientific methods to reduce environmental impact and help stakeholders implement them." *That isn't the type of sustainability these activist groups support.*

There was a lot of heartburn in our industry when the first Global Conference on Sustainable Beef was held in Denver last fall. For good reason, the industry was concerned that this would be yet another means to remove sound science in the name of sustainability. The jury is still out but, if nothing else, having someone out there talking about sustainability in a true sense of the word is probably a positive. [b*]If an effort like GRSB can help turn the conversation toward a discussion of true sustainability based on sound science - and away from politically correct or agenda-driven concepts - then that's something everyone can support.[/*b]

End article.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

gst,

I went to their website and there is a page on partners.

http://www.sustainablelivestock.org/partners

I noticed the National Wildlife federation is listed. Might I suggest that all meetings conferences etc. be video taped. Get everything in writing. And of course take names. Who worked where and with whom.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

shaug I was going to see if any one else caught that!  There are those within our industry that indeed are watching these "cooperative" ventures closely.

_There was a lot of heartburn in our industry when the first Global Conference on Sustainable Beef was held in Denver last fall. For good reason, the industry was concerned that this would be yet another means to remove sound science in the name of sustainability. The jury is still out but, if nothing else, having someone out there talking about sustainability in a true sense of the word is probably a positive_

Indeed the jury is still out.


----------

