# Farm Subsidies Gone Wrong



## taddy1340

I can't believe some of these guys get subsidies...unreal....a billionaire, Scottie Pippen? Yeah, they need them! There are some major issues with the current Farm Bill...no surprise there, but this still shocked me a little. I see Dorgan is mentioned in regards to changing the cap.

Mike

*New light shed on farm subsidy payments*

Billionaire, sports star and lobbyist among those getting government funds

Nathaniel S. Butler / Getty Images
Former basketball star Scottie Pippen is listed by the Environmental Working Group as receiving nearly $79,000 in farming subsidies during 2003-2005

Updated: 2:35 p.m. CT June 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - From Texas billionaires to Washington lobbyists, it's no secret that wealthy people can get federal farm subsidies.

But now, for the first time, new Agriculture Department data makes it easier to see exactly who benefits from the nation's generous farm subsidy program.

Instead of having to sift through a complex web of corporations, partnerships and other business entities, the USDA has assigned a specific dollar amount to the individuals behind the businesses.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

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

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the new data could affect farm bill negotiations this year as lawmakers consider reducing direct payments to farmers.

"It's going to be harder than ever before to defend the status quo," he said. "I think the defenders of big payments, their position is going to be severely weakened."

The Environmental Working Group, a public interest group that has long pushed for more equitable distribution of farm subsidies, has compiled the data and will post it online for users beginning Tuesday.

Rethinking the farm bill
EWG president Ken Cook said he hopes the new information will help spur reforms as Congress and the Bush administration consider what a new multibillion-dollar farm bill should look like.

"It really does raise the question why shouldn't we at least impose some sort of reasonable test of means before we disperse all this money," Cook said.

The database includes about 358,000 beneficiaries who received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.

That includes Texas oil billionaire Lee M. Bass, who qualified to receive $242,787 in subsidies from 2003-2005. Former NBA star Scottie Pippen received $78,945 over the same period in conservation subsidies for land he controls in Arkansas. And Washington uber-lobbyist Gerald Cassidy got $10,540 for maintaining a portion of his Dorchester County, Md., farm as wetlands. Politics

The current farm bill, which expires Sept. 30, limits farmers to $360,000 in subsidies per year, but that ceiling is filled with loopholes that allow many farms to exceed it.

The Bush administration has proposed closing the loopholes and halting subsidies to anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income. Last month, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced legislation that would cap individual farm payments at $250,000.

Opposing viewpoint
Those changes would target people like Maurice Wilder, a Clearwater, Fla., developer listed on the new EWG database as the nation's top beneficiary of farm payments in 2005, the most recent year for which information is available.

Wilder received nearly $1.8 million in farm subsidy benefits that year, according to the database. He owns a corporation worth $400 million and controls about 180,000 acres of farm and ranch land in more than a half dozen states.

"I don't think they should change farm subsidies for sure," Wilder said. "Suppose a farmer was doing $500,000 in business and if he lost $200,000, then he wouldn't be entitled to any government money. I think that's wrong."

The new data released by USDA was compiled at the request of Congress and obtained by EWG and several media organizations under the Freedom of Information Act.

According to EWG's analysis of the new data, just 10 percent of farmers received 66 percent of federal farm payments from 2002-2005. But those figures don't trouble everyone.

"That's probably in the same proportion as the food they produce," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn. "That's the way it's designed to work. I have more concern about landowners who are not farmers getting payments."

It's not just wealthy individuals who get farm subsidies - state governments are reaping the benefits too. In Arkansas, for example, EWG ranks the state's Department of Correction as the top subsidy beneficiary, pulling in nearly $2.3 million from 2003-2005. The University of Illinois is first in Illinois, with nearly $1.3 million in payments for the three-year period.

Misleading database?
James Bost, farm administrator for the Arkansas Department of Correction, defended the subsidies.

"What we do benefits every farmer in the state of Arkansas as well as every other taxpayer," Bost said.

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a longtime supporter of farm programs, was the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee before he left Congress in 2005. He now works as a Washington lobbyist and was the city's top beneficiary of farm subsidies from 2003 through 2005.

Stenholm, who received payments totaling $168,626 for farming wheat and cotton with his son on his Texas farm, says EWG has in the past organized its data in a misleading way to prove a point.

"Most American people do not support farm subsidies," Stenholm said. "Anything you can do to make them look as bad as they possibly can works to your advantage."

Still, he said, he believes Congress is moving toward a reduction in direct payments, which are not based on current crop production or prices. Harkin supports this approach, and many members believe it would free up money for other programs.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## Plainsman

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.


----------



## g/o

> CRP started that way, but farmers lobbied and got the no posting removed.


Plainsman, Why do you keep making up things??????????????? That never happened and the government does not want to open CRP up because of liability reasons.. Please Plainsman tell the truth once in a while.


----------



## Plainsman

Dig deeper g/o, and you will find it was jerked from the first CRP program. It may have been jerked even before presentation, but that portion was opposed by farm organizations as the program was being drafted. Just because your ill informed don't mean others are liars.

The government doesn't want to open it up because of liability reasons????? What are you talking about? Who's liability, yours? Why would they care about that? They sure were not worried about liability, there are millions of acres of public land that they would be liable for before they would be liable for your little kingdom.

You know I never did see that first draft of the CRP in the farm bill, I just heard about it. However, since you are going to say I make up things evidently you have access to it. Post that up would you so I can read it for myself. The very first one that is.


----------



## Jiffy

I don't believe Plainman's integrity has ever faultered. We all know he is such a liar. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Thank you Jiffy.

I was just up town having coffee and a very liberal and very political active fellow I know remembers the same thing I do about the CRP program as it was first drafted.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, It never was an option go check with the FSA people. CRP land is owned by people such as myself, along with liability there is no possible way the governmant can give you permission to enter my land. This is America yet isn't it? Thanks Jiffy :lol:


----------



## brianb

> CRP land is owned by people such as myself, along with liability there is no possible way the governmant can give you permission to enter my land.


Sure there is. It could be a stipulation of the contract. Kinda like PLOTS. If the landowner wants the money from the gov, then they allow access. If they don't want to allow access then they don't get the money.

Next.


----------



## Plainsman

g/o there are people who seen that draft before any local yokel FSA office did. Like I said dig deeper. It's clear you think you're a sovereign nation, but your just not the magnate you think you are.

Brianb, the State Game and Fish habitat program (can't remember what it was called) was or is like that. You couldn't post it unless it was within 440 yards of your house. My brother had his farm in that program in the 1990's. You are absolutely right, if it's in the contract and you sign it because you want the money you couldn't post. Simple really.


----------



## brianb

I own a small parcel with my sisters in Wisconsin. We are entering it into a managed forest program, there is one tax rate for closed to hunting and another very much lower rate for open to public hunting. Your choice.


----------



## Plainsman

> It never was an option


Your right, it never was an option, but only because it was stricken before offered.


----------



## taddy1340

brianb said:


> I own a small parcel with my sisters in Wisconsin. We are entering it into a managed forest program, there is one tax rate for closed to hunting and another very much lower rate for open to public hunting. Your choice.


True that. I too own land there and that is a very real program. Two total different rates for allowing/restricing public access.


----------



## Dick Monson

> I own a small parcel with my sisters in Wisconsin. We are entering it into a managed forest program, there is one tax rate for closed to hunting and another very much lower rate for open to public hunting. Your choice.


Great idea but it makes too much sense to be used here.  We had posed a similar plan to our Congressmen for CRP. If you allowed access, you'd get a dollar more per acre, no access, a dollar less. Net cost difference would have been zero, or even a cost savings to the program. So naturaly it didn't go through. NRCS did have a "no hay" provision that gave the landowner more points in one of the signups.


----------



## g/o

> g/o there are people who seen that draft before any local yokel FSA office did. Like I said dig deeper. It's clear you think you're a sovereign nation, but your just not the magnate you think you are.


Ya right Plainsman!!!!!!!!! When you compare a state programs such as PLOTS and a federal program such as CRP you are working with two different bureaucracies. For Christs sakes Plainsman I don't think I'm a sovereign nation. I'm a private property owner, I thought you were smarter than that, I guess not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Ya Ya Ya, :fiddle: 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"? :bowdown: 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. :eyeroll:


----------



## ndfarmboy

Sooooo...........
what do you guys think about the people with no CRP acreage getting payments? I have river bottem land that I let people hunt on along the cannnonball that I get paid on if I have a loss. We have not had a crop for the past 7 years. What are your thoughts? The premium has gone down to 11 bushels an acre? I pay more than that in Federal Crop premiums just to get it insured! If someone is making money on that I wish they would tell me how!! The wheat crop and the pheasent crop is looking good this year but its a long way to the bin yet!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

ndfarmboy

Can you get that flooding river bottom land into a state habitat program? Your taking to many losses you need to do something. I guess I wouldn't have a big problem if you raised pheasants so they are your birds released them and charged to hunt. My problem is land that gets federal money, has wild animals that belong to the state, and the farmer charges to hunt them. They call it access, but would anyone pay for access to a summer fallow field? If your paying taxes on that land, and you can't make any money from it you need to do something.
I see your problem farmboy. Isn't it odd though that it's normally the richest ones out there that are the gready ones. You can tell a lot about a landowner by the land he posts. Although sometimes there are circumstances that we know nothing about.


----------



## dieseldog

> If farmers don't like it, don't enroll


Then they would still farm that land and you already are complaining about subsidy payments so either way the farmer is getting some type of payment off of it. Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too.

Either pay for CRP or pay a grain subsidy, either way tax dollars will go the farmer. Live with one or the other.


----------



## Plainsman

I think grain subsidies are on their way out. I see the Bush administration would like to cut back substantially. The more this gets aired the more likely they will be to get cut. The public isn't aware of just how much is going to ag support. I would like to see everything but conservation practices dropped. These practices are not just for hunters. The intention is to lower crop surpluses and preserve the land for the current farmer and future generations. Hunting is a fringe benefit not the original primary purpose.


----------



## ndfarmboy

Hey plainsman,
It's not an issue of flooding river bottom. Its an issue of droughting out. I understand what you guys are saying about the payments. It is sad about people that make way too much money and collect on these payments and they don't even know where the land is that collecting on! It makes me sick that people like that are collecting and the ones that need it get a bad name or can't get any help at all. I'm just trying to make a living like anyone else. I agree that there needs to be an overhaul of the subsidies program. I don't agree with some of the guidlines that are in place but how do we change that? We need to get this assistance to the farmers that need it and cut it out to the people that make 500,000 a year and get 250,000 in subsities. How do we do it? I'm a home grown ND boy that just wants to stay in ND. If I can't make it what do I do? I would peck [email protected] with the chickens just to stay in ND.


----------



## angus 1

With the high grain prices this year there probably won't be any grain support ( LDP). The figuring of LDP is something else. Plainsmen mentioned dropping everything but conservation programs. Well that is the way things are headed. The government pays very well for no till seeding. CRP is in trouble, high grain prices will certainly take a lot of that out of the program. Now we can not hay it, what will this do to the wildlife? I'm not saying hay it yearly but how about every 5 . BUT did you know that Crop Insurance punishes the farmer for not planting a crop? If a farmer chooses to give the land a rest ( being a good steward) his base bushels goes down, now if he is able to collect crop insurance it will be considerably less. There are so many loop holes a guy has to jump through and for the most part the bar is set to high for the family farmer to even think about jump'n. To talk about LDP, Crop Insurance , Direct Payments all at once would be too much. I kind of went all over here , If we pick just one I could try and explain it but it would lead to another. Just plain complicated and needs an overhaul.


----------



## Plainsman

You know there would be nothing wrong with a few hunters and farmers walking into the state secretary of agricultures office and making a pitch together. It looks like you fellows need a law degree to run a farm when you get involved with the government. Next time you fellows have a good idea, or an ag bill comes up you need to let us know on something like the etree. I call our congressmen often.


----------



## angus 1

That wouldn't be a bad idea. Someone other than the farmer saying "hey they need this" or "hey this isn't working or its not fair" . All I know is that the current program doesn't help the family farmer.


----------



## angus 1

I should add that it doesn't help the sportsman either. CRP is in trouble.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

G/O, the Wetbank program of the 70's and 80's had provisions of public use in them. The landowner could only post the land to hunting or fishing access if it was within a specific distance of a home or occupied farm site. Most of the use and rules pertaining to the Wetlbank program where used in the original drafting of the bill.

If you get a chance sometime, talk to Dorgan about the removal of public use access from the CRP program. He was very straight forward about why the farmers and landowners in states like TX and KS did not want it included and the threat of boycott of the program was championed by FU and other farm lobby groups.

To some extent it was a legitimate reason, the original bill did not provide liability protection if state law did not. Just about every set aside program until CRP has had some form of limited public use included in it. I was not around during the Soilbank days and cannot speak of that program, but Wetbank, and even some of the current programs require public access with provisions.

A friend of mine recently received Fed grant money to restore some land to native grasses. For a period of 10 years he has to allow access to hunting when livestock are not present, with the land around his farmstead for 800 yards also being exempt.

When you agree to take the payment from the Gov, it is no different than Joe hunter walking up to Joe Farmer and giving him a handful of cash and signing a hunting lease agreement for exclusive access.


----------



## g/o

> When you agree to take the payment from the Gov, it is no different than Joe hunter walking up to Joe Farmer and giving him a handful of cash and signing a hunting lease agreement for exclusive access.


Thank You Ronnie for answering the question. Now who is LIABLE?????????? Why don't you ask the game and fish about who is liable once money changes hands???????????

I don't talk to Sen. Dorgan I doubt he would have time for someone such as myself. Evidently you must speak to him, as you know Ronnie CRP never was intended to be a wildlife program it was for highly erodible land. Until Bush 1 with DU wanting the wetlands most of ND did not qualify. But you knew that, right,Ronnie.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

G/O Thanks, I used the wrong example. Yes liability comes back to the landowner if he leases it for hunting. Liability does not come back when the payment is in the forum of cash rent related to production of the land even if public access is tied to it.


----------



## g/o

Your Welcome :lol: This whole liability issue will get blown wide open some day. The game and fish claims if you let people hunt you are protected under some clause the state has for this. I personally think some ambulance chaser will set an example someday and the state will be in for a fight like they are with Jim Cook. I would much rather pay the insurance and even that will not be enough if they want to come after you.


----------



## deacon

Back to the topic of subsidies, from recent article in Fergus Falls Daily Journal, check out the quote at the end

LOCAL SUBSIDIES

Top 20 Subsidy Beneficiaries of 568 located in Fergus Falls from 2003-2005

• Ronnevik Farms $533,297

• Bradow Farms $464,036

• David Stock $419,400

• David Stock Farm Services Inc. $359,448

• Henry T. Stock $293,493

• Justin Stock $293,405

• Peter Aasness $289,007

• Donald Bradow $208,816 **

• Loomer Bros. Inc. $205,188

• Frank Haataja $180,952

• Barry Fabian $178,548

• Loomer Farms Inc. $178,027

• Richard Ronnevik $177,755 **

• Rolf Ronnevik $177,748 **

• Ross Johnson $176,693

• Wayne A Miller $175,816

• Kurt Erlandson $168,618

• Larry Bucholz $163,979

• Deborah Stock $163,545 **

• Donald Stock $160,934

Source: U.S. Department

of Agriculture subsidy records.

** - Subsidies benefits were attributed by USDA only as pass-throughs from one or more subsidized farm business(es).

"We're in the business to make money," Stock said. "*If there are programs in place to help us, we're going to take advantage of them.* We don't have anything to hide"

So Farmers may be taking advantage of programs they do not need?


----------



## Gohon

If the government walked up to you and said we know you have a new truck but because you qualify by driving a particular brand we will give you a brand new decoy trailer to pull behind it for free. All you have to do is fill out this paper work. I wonder how many of you would take the offer. I kind of think the majority of you would take it. Appears to me the fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.


----------



## g/o

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Gohon


----------



## angus 1

well said!!!!!!!


----------



## deacon

I just asked a question, did not make any acquisations!

Finger pointing or the facts? Just the facts from this cat. Except of course the politicians need to correct the system instead of doing whatever it takes to get reelected. Dare I say term limits!!


----------



## Plainsman

G/O


> as you know Ronnie CRP never was intended to be a wildlife program it was for highly erodible land. Until Bush 1 with DU wanting the wetlands most of ND did not qualify


The second time CRP came up the Government Accounting Office said it didn't meet the cost benefit ratio. I didn't think any of the farm programs did. Anyway, some government agencies had a lot of data on CRP. As you know they can not lobby congress, but some private organizations filed a written request for information through the freedom of information act. Through that process they obtained enough data and lobbied congress to direct the Government Accounting Office to add wildlife values to the cost benefit ratio. CRP would not have existed for a second run without it. It had nothing to do with Bush.


----------



## taddy1340

Gohon said:


> If the government walked up to you and said we know you have a new truck but because you qualify by driving a particular brand we will give you a brand new decoy trailer to pull behind it for free. All you have to do is fill out this paper work. I wonder how many of you would take the offer. I kind of think the majority of you would take it. Appears to me the fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.


Just because people are willing to take it...that doesn't make right. Like most things, the programs intent was probably one thing but with human involvement it becomes fudged up and taken advantage of.

I'd sure love to be an heir to the Stock family. Are all those listed from the same fam? WOW!!!


----------



## g/o

> It had nothing to do with Bush.


I forgot Painsman he was only the president, sorry I doubt the president would have much say in the matter. Let alone pull some strings.

[/quote]I'd sure love to be an heir to the Stock family. Are all those listed from the same fam? WOW!!!


> Taddy, Tell me why is it they should not be entitled to it? What is wrong when a family is successful are we to punish success? I can't for the life of figure where you guys are coming from.


----------



## huntin1

g/o said:


> Taddy, Tell me why is it they should not be entitled to it? What is wrong when a family is successful are we to punish success? I can't for the life of figure where you guys are coming from.


Why do they, or you, think that they are "entitled" to it. It's BS pure and simple.

Let me ask you this. If I were the owner/operator of a business, say photography. The going rate for a studio sitting is $50, but the economy here in Jamestown is depressed to the point that all I can charge is $30, will the government provide a $20 "subsidy" so I don't lose money and can stay in business? Would I be "entitled" to it? Why not? I am in the business to make money. Why aren't the same subsidy entitlements in place for me.

You can substitute any business in place of photography, it's still the same. The only owner/operators who are paid government subsidies are farmers. It really appears to me that some of these farmers would not be a success if it weren't for the huge subsidy payments they receive.

Where is it that you are coming from?

huntin1


----------



## Gohon

> Just because people are willing to take it...that doesn't make right.


Nobody is saying it is right but it is being offered and people are going to take it. huntin1 can't get that $20 subsidy at his studio sitting but if it was available I bet he would jump on it......... :lol: ......... if he had a studio. Point is, rich, middle or poor makes no difference. Farmers are going to take what is offered to them and I see no reason to come down on them. I damn sure take a tax deduction for my wife as a dependent and my mortgage payments along with everything else I can come up with. Someone else paying as much monthly rent as I pay in mortgage payments doesn't get to deduct their rent payments. How many of you say it ain't right so I don't need those tax deductions at tax time? I'll just let the government keep that money and use it for something else. If you want to see change, get the law changed.


----------



## taddy1340

g/o said:


> It had nothing to do with Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot Painsman he was only the president, sorry I doubt the president would have much say in the matter. Let alone pull some strings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taddy, Tell me why is it they should not be entitled to it? What is wrong when a family is successful are we to punish success? I can't for the life of figure where you guys are coming from.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked if they're from the same family because farmers will use other family members names to register property/crops to obtain subsidies. It's an avenue to add $ they wouldn't receive if all of it was under the same name.

I wouldn't equate "success" with receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government. If that's the case, there's all kinds of "successful" people here in Oklahoma living off of welfare.

My point being is I don't think this is what the program was intended for. I'm sure if you go to many of these farmers' yards, you'll see brand new John Deere's, trucks, etc. It pi$$es me off because people have used the government subsidies (pick a program) to deepen their pockets. Now, I believe the subsidies are well used by those farmers barely getting by and can't even afford the new machinery, trucks, etc.

The best I can relate it to is hunters taking government money for their families in the forms of WIC, food stamps, etc but they spend thousands of dollars on hunting accessories. :eyeroll:

I can't remember the name, but Russell Crowe was in a movie as a boxer and he was very poor. When he had to use government assistance, it tore him up. Once he had enough money he actually went to pay it back. I know its a movie, but it helps my point. Have I been eligible for WIC? Yes! Did I take it, no because I couldn't justify it when I'm spending $2k+/yr on hunting.

Just my thoughts...

Mike


----------



## Plainsman

> Farmers are going to take what is offered to them and I see no reason to come down on them.


Your have a point, and I have thought about that. I don't blame the farmer, and I think anyone else would take advantages of programs also. I blame the politicians mostly, and the voting public second. My point is these are not entitlements and I think many of them should no longer be offered.

G/O I know how the last CRP went and I'll say it again, Bush had nothing to do other than signing off on it. Congress was informed by the Government Accounting Office of the poor cost benefit ratio. Congress was lobbied and agreed to add wildlife values to meet the required cost benefit target provided by the Government Accounting Office. That rewritten draft passed and was signed by the president. Not anything worth arguing about, just thought I would pass on what happened.


----------



## Gohon

> Have I been eligible for WIC? Yes! Did I take it, no because I couldn't justify it when I'm spending $2k+/yr on hunting.


Mike, in my opinion you just put your finger on the base of the problem. If you had $2,000 of disposable income to spend on a hobby then you should not have been eligible to receive WIC or food stamps in the first place. But the law is written in such a way that some people can take advantage of the system or abuse it in some minds. Your decision not to take anything was a personal moral decision. You cannot regulate your morals on someone else. I fully understand what you are saying but the billionaire that pays millions in taxes just might figure he deserves some of that tax money back whether he needs it or not. In your original post you quoted.... "The Bush administration has proposed closing the loopholes and halting subsidies to anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income." Seems to me that is the answer to what everyone is angry about. With that restriction in place Sen. Dorgans cap of $250,000 wouldn't be needed.

BTW....... the name of the movie was Cinderella Man. Outstanding movie.


----------



## taddy1340

Gohon,

Great points...all taken. I think we're on the same page with most of it. The program is flawed and I don't think it's the farmers' fault. Our politicians need to make it right.

Enjoy your weekend...

Mike

BTW, where are you in OK? I'm down in Altus.


----------



## Gohon

I'm sitting right on the north end of Lake Eufaula next to the state park near Checotah. A cow elk and a year old calf escaped from the park a few weeks ago and have been camping out next to my home. Found tracks in my cantaloupe patch this morning, about a 100 feet from my back door. The cow is pregnant so they can't tranquilize her so they are trying to bait her into a pen they set up. To bad she isn't wild and I don't have a elk tag......... I'd coax her into staying around for awhile. If you need any of this humidity I'll be more than happy to send some your way. have a good weekend yourself.


----------



## JustAnotherDog

VIEWPOINT: Anatomy of a farm
By Ralph Kingsbury,
Published Monday, August 13, 2007
Only by misinterpreting and misinforming the public can critics of farm legislation say farmers get paid for not growing a crop. You have to be the judge of the critics' intents.

Based on past growing history and yields, a particular piece of ground has acres and yield assigned to it for one of the program crops (wheat, corn, barley, oats, and a few specialty crops, but not potatoes, sugar beets, or edible beans). Assume that is 100 acres out of 160, and that the yield is 40 bushels per acre. Under the Direct Payment program, that field has a program yield of 4,000 bushels. Of those 4,000 bushels, the farmer is assigned 85 percent, just because. This 3,400 bushels is multiplied by 52 cents a bushel, or $1,768, just because. That is the amount the farmer receives for that piece of land. If the farmer plants 80 acres of potatoes on this land, he would lose that part of the payment on the 20-acre excess of potatoes, or $353.60.

The farmer probably has several quarter sections. He can combine each field into as many "farms" as he wants. Say he farms 20 quarters. He could have one farm, or one farm of eight quarters and two farms of six quarters each, or any other combination he prefers. There are valid reasons for doing it, but he cannot change which land is in which farm from year to year.

This is where the critics' complaint of farmers getting paid for not growing a crop comes from: in order to encourage farmers to plant crops with the greatest demand, the farmer's history may be based on one program crop such as wheat, but he is allowed to substitute planting any other program crop. Today, with the high demand for corn, it makes sense in some areas to plant more corn and less wheat, which is in surplus, and that will push the price of wheat down even more. If he grows some corn, he still receives a certain amount of payment based on his wheat history. He gets paid for not growing wheat, but he doesn't get paid anything for the corn acres is he growing on his wheat base.

Part two

There is a second part to the farm payments. Called the counter cyclical payment, the farmer is guaranteed a set target price for any commodity in the farm history. When the "effective price," which is the annual true market price, is below the target price the government pays the farmer the difference. This payment is based on the farms established yield, and if it is determined a payment is to be made. The farmer receives the payment whether he grew those acres in that crop or not.

Neither the direct payment nor the counter cyclical payment is related to how many bushels of a particular program crop the farmer grows in a year. They payments are subsidies. They directly increase the money the farmer has in the bank, and that money is spent in the economy of this area just as all the other income the farmer receives.

Every year of this program the farmer has received a Direct Payment. Because of higher prices, last year, and it is expected this year, there was not, nor will there be, any Counter Cyclical Payment for wheat.

There is another part of the farm program that is related to actual production and actual market prices. It is called the loan deficiency payment. At their current levels, when a farmer receives a payment under this program, I will guarantee you the farmer is not making any money growing that crop in that year.

The way this program works is there is an established loan rate for a crop. Every day, the county Farm Service Agency, surveying selected marketers, establishes the posted county price, more or less the average price paid for that crop on that day around the county. If the posted county price is less than the loan rate and the farmer brings proof of selling bushels, he receives the difference between the two figures. Sometimes, it is just a few cents. Sometimes, it is dollars per bushel.

Because of the increase in market prices, there has not been any loan deficiency payments for the past two years. Not having received this payment or the counter cyclical payment does not mean the farmer has less money. It means that the farmer has received his income from the market, and not from the government. Every farmer I know prefers it this way.

As you can see, the government money follows the land, not the farmer. That means the more land one farms the larger the payment to the farmer. A dollar limitation per individual results in a distortion of the competitive market because one farmer receives a larger subsidy, and a larger gross income per acre than does another. It has the same effect of giving a property tax break to one income producer and not another.

Kingsbury writes a weekly column on the local economy. He can be reached at [email protected]m or (701) 738-0028.

T


----------



## Poop

Plainsman,

I dont quite understand your vantage point.

Are you against anybody who makes more money than you do? (There are a lot of people who dont go to college and resent those who do when the "College boy" ends up making more money...odd as that may seem...it sounds a lot like you and your arguement here).

Are you upset that there are folks who own land (which you obvioulsy don't) and are grasping at straws to justify your access to that land?

Are you upset about the handful of guys making big bucks through corporate farming and CRP... simply because they won't let you hunt the land that they own? Or...is it anybody who accepts CRP payments, does the work and pays the money to get it started and keeps it maintained and as a by- product, produce more game for you to shoot elswhere.

It doesnt really matter who owns the critters now does it? If they are on private land, why should you not have to pay (or at least get permission) to get at them? Would you be happier if the landowner didn't accept payment for somebody to shoot the birds but also allowed no access at all?

If I were a farmer in Nodak and had a choice between taking payment for access to hunt the state owned critters who call my land home or letting anybody with a shotgun and a license hunt it or not letting anybody hunt it at all...guess how the order would shake out.

I have as much (probably more) invested in the Federal CRP prgram than you do. That being said (and by your logic) I should have as much right to that private land enrolled in a government program as you do and yet you feel that a NR coming out there and crowding out your "tradition" is abhorrant. If it is about investment...you are way outta line.

Here is what I want you to do. You sit down and figure out from your Federal taxes just how much you have paid in, which subsidised CRP. I then want you to break that down into each, seperate CRP operation existing in the lower 48 states. I then want you to consider that some dude in California may be paying more towards that whole ball of wax but has never been hunting in his life and never will. Is he getting screwed too? Should he be able to walk on to a 180 acres of NoDak CRP and pitch a tent and play his sitar for a week or two without asking anybody?

It is pretty narrow minded and selfish to look at the issue soley in regards to how it affects your hobby when you are such a small part of the big picture. Everybody pays taxes but not everybody hunts. And since CRP does more for a tax paying hunter in NoDak than it does for a skateboarding tax payer in California...who are you to gripe?

Are you against anybody who makes money resulting from a tax base that you might have a small share in? If that is the case, you had better have it in for teachers and county workers and highway patrol officers (I help foot the bill with my taxes but I cannot jump in their trucks and drive them around because of it.)

Are you against CRP as a wildlife enhancement program (for what ever justification in keeping the program)? Would you rather that your tax contribution to the CRP program stay in your pocket, the habitat and environmental benifits all be gone (fewer ducks and pheasants and deer...) have it all go back under the plow...and you still cannot hunt it?

If it makes you feel any better, my CRP contract is up this year and I cannot renew it. I will keep it in wildlife habitat in an effort to produce more ducks down the flyway than I have ever shot. If you would like, PM me your mailing address and I will gladly send you the .003 of a penny that you had invested in it over the last 10 years. And by the way...you'd still have to ask me to hunt it.

Doesn't suprise me at all that the biggest whiners about posting and what is "fair" have no more invested in the arguement than the taxes they pay (just like the rest of us) and the license they buy (just like the rest of us).

Buy some land Plainsman. Pay the taxes on it. Plant wildlife habitat out of the goodness of your heart with no help from the Govt. Put out a sign that says "WELCOME HUNTERS" and then come back here and spew your garbage.


----------



## Poop

Oh...and by the way Plainsman...all of the talk of "I know this legislator... I am aware of this loophole or that" just proves to me that you dont know where your bread is buttered.

If you went to a NoDak farmers house and started your quest for permission to hunt with what you have written here about how farmers are working the system or how the Government needs to shut down subsidies and CRP type programs...you may as well buy a skateboard and move to California.


----------



## Plainsman

Actually a lot of my friends are farmers, and most of my relatives are. I can't get to the jerks because there are to many good landowners that would get hurt. I wish there was a way to rectify that. There are some that deserve to go bankrupt. They farm the system and the taxpayer not the land. I support 95% of them, but if they were all like you poop I would be for ending subsidies tomorrow. 
Check on the nonresident comments I have made. You will see that I am fair about things. The only reason I would reduce their numbers would be for a better hunt for them and the other waterfowl hunters in North Dakota. It's evident you know nothing about me or my motives because I just started hunting the early goose season last year. It's the first I have hunted waterfowl for years. Also I have more land to hunt than I will get to the rest of my life. There are many things I don't explain. I don't need to it's nobody's business. 
Poop, take your meds and calm down, life is to short. I just don't get it, all you do is complain. I complain too, but there are things in life that make me happy. Some non residents make me happy. When I see them hunting, and they are cureous, I am absolutely estatic. Your whole life can't be poop, poop, think positive.


----------



## Poop

Nice reply Plainsman.

Like most people here...you answered nothing. You blow hard until somebody backs you into a corner and you puss out.

"I have many friends who are farmers...I have many relatives who are farmers"... ("I have many black friends"...but I still wear the hood...).

B.F.D.!

I have friends and relatives in Nodak who farm too! (Doesn't haul wood)
Doesn't put me in their shoes or make me any more "one of them" than it does you.

I don't cry because they make a couple extra bucks off of CRP that I pay for as much as you do (if not more). I have shot ducks in Minnesota that were banded in North Dakota (probably in CRP that I helped pay for but will never hunt). Were is the downside of that?

Cripes, I haven't set foot Passed Fargo since I retrieved my decoys from a tin shed south of Valley City 7 or 8 years ago. I don't whine because a few families got rich off of farming. (Glad somebody did). (Where were you when thousands of them got foreclosed on?)

No skin off my nose either way. Paying for insurance is a lot more painful than my Federal taxes! I didn't quit hunting there because of the shortened time or the increased fees. I quit hunting there because of who was behind all of that and why. Same reason I stick my nose in here from time to time. I know I cannot open your eyes by what I say. You are too narrow minded to even consider what I have to say. I just do it for therapeutic reasons.

I dont know you? Well you dont know me either. Until you do a few laps in the Nike's of a guy who owns land and provides a place for you to hunt or critters to grow, then don't you be so high and mighty either.

My hope is that those guys (the farmers) can stay on the farm and keep it all in grass forever regardless of the peanuts it costs me personally and regardless of if I ever set foot on it.

You seem to have a bone to pick because you don't like paying a pittance for land with no access but that which does the sport a hell of a lot of good. Grow up! Do the math on how much you pay for it!

If you are a member of DU you get less bang for your buck than what you pay in Federal Taxes that goes towards CRP.

The wildlife of North Dakota belongs to the citizens of North Dakota...what a joke!

If you are adamant about that and you truly care for each resident of the state...then round up every deer so that every resident in the state gets one and then everybody is happy? Not everybody likes deer or hunts but they all pay state taxes same as you. That stance only carries water with those who have an interest in those things.

Can't you see how "special interest" you are when it comes to how all of "our" tax dollars are spent?

You pay a lot more taxes for a lot of other stuff that you don't have access to or control over than what you shuck out for CRP regardless of who "gets rich off of it".

Admit it! You are just more interested in hunting ducks or pheasants or how ever else you are feeling screwed over in your little corner of a state which few US, tax paying, Citizens can even find on the map... than sitting in a living room or walking on a dike in Louisiana. (Which you probably have more invested in than CRP).

Do you spend a lot of time on other websites peeing and moaning about how your taxes get spent on welfare and education and the military? How bout special interests like logging and spotted owls or the whales?

Buy some land, pay the taxes on that land on top of your income tax, do the work, plant the grass, mow or spray the weeds, plant the trees (replant them if you dont get rain and they die...out of your pocket entirely), deal with the govt. and then..............................................

open it all up to guys like YOU for hunting or whatever and then you come talk to me about how farmers or landowners are getting rich and you are ****** because you cannot come and play on their land! Otherwise...YOU take your meds and shut up!

Again. I DARE anyone of you with an axe to grind about farm subsidies and CRP and how the farmer is making out like a bandit by the volume of YOUR tax dollars...here...to start out your next "cold call" on a farmer for permission to hunt with that same crap. If he gives you permission, I'll buy you breakfast. Hell, I'll buy you a dozen decoys!

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?

If I have anything to say that flies in the face of your collective selfishness or counterproductive practices directed at keeping it "1955" (to you guys who don't live where most hunters in Nodak lived in 1955) I am "negative"?

Got news for ya. It ain't ever gonna be 1955 again and you live in Fargo or Valley City or Grand Forks! Not on 300 acres out in the sticks!

If someone other than you guys, gripes here, someone from somewhere else who makes sense...you tell them to take their meds? Do you ever read your own words?

If you guys would take the time to read through all of the posts on hot topics...factor in who posts them...do the math on how much of it is "positive"...you'd find that "POOP" aka good ol Bert is way down on the "negativity" list.

(Yes Dljeye...do something...wave your arms and scream really loud) (Give me an example of how what you have done to date has had a positive impact on the way things are) (especially when you are entering a drought cycle and NRs and GOs are the least of your problems).

What to do? I cannot give you an answer other than to state that what you have done has alienated a lot of people like me who would be on your side and fed the GOs and leasing that you all hate so much.

Me? I am not your problem anymore. Havent been for a long time. What I write here doesn't mean anything. I don't care what happens to your "Tradition".

I used to care because it USED to be my "tradiditon" too. But you saying that limiting me is good for me makes me want to puke because you dont care about me...you care about you. Be honest.

When do you heavy hitters even find time to scout or rig your gear or hunt or do your jobs for that matter. Seems like most of you are wasting a good bit of your lives typing on a computer about issues that you really have no control over anyway. Life is short. Yes it is. I have no hidden agenda. I am not begging for a cheap way to ever hunt Nodak again.

I swore off hunting in Nodak of my own volition.

Why do I post here then? Most of it is to poke some of you geniuses with a sharp stick.
What keeps me coming back is the irony of it all.


----------



## bioman

Bert, I have a question: how many words can you type a minute???


----------



## Plainsman

> Do the math on how much you pay for it!


I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it. I don't care if it only cost me a penny. The truth is agriculture cost a heck of a lot more than the Iraq war, but you don't hear much about it. Give that math another shot poop.

So what is your point other than complaining about North Dakota hunters and Fargo people in particular?

I know your just looking for someone else to get into it with, and good luck with that.


----------



## R y a n

Poop said:


> Why do I post here then? Most of it is to poke some of you geniuses with a sharp stick.
> What keeps me coming back is the irony of it all.


*WOW!* For someone who _swore_ they weren't coming back to this site until the end of the season.... looks like you couldn't stay away for a week...

Seems you have a real axe to grind here and can't let it go...

It's one thing to have a comment or two... but when you take _*that*_ much time to type up a whole page of nothing but negative venom.... :eyeroll: I think you've more than made your point, and now you are just repeating yourself and looking to stir the pot here. Are you *****ing just for *****ing's sake? What is you overall point other than to tell people your opinion of them and nothing of the topic issue?

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.

Ryan


----------



## ALLSUNND

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 !


----------



## R y a n

ALLSUNND said:


> 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 !


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.

As an occasional reader, I'm sure you'd agree that you don't get a chance to view the daily interactions amongst the frequent posters of the site, and therefore probably don't have as accurate and complete an impression as someone who is a daily contributor?

Please take the opportunity to come back more often and offer up your own viewpoints on issues.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## ALLSUNND

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


----------



## Plainsman

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

Plainsman said:


> 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....


----------



## dieseldog

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.

Hey Plainsman what do you think about the govt talking about bailing out the subprime mortgage fiasco? Sounds like tax money at work to me.


----------



## Plainsman

> Hey Plainsman what do you think about the govt talking about bailing out the subprime mortgage fiasco?


I don't much care for bailing out anyone. I didn't like it when they bailed out Dodge. They are better vehicles now, but back then they tried to produce junk, people didn't buy it, and they were going toes up. I simply don't like the redistribution of wealth, that's not an attack. If I get something for my money, no problem, but if I am just a sucker I don't like that. What makes you think I should work my rear off and give you money. Not wanting to do that is an attack???? This isn't an attack, you just don't want attention drawn to it. Hang the messenger right?? Don't I have a right to question where my tax dollars are going. Everyone else who is an American citizen does. I don't remember giving up that right.

What is the problem, I might convince someone?

You have a right to ask for subsidies, I have a right to ask they stop.



> You know there would be nothing wrong with a few hunters and farmers walking into the state secretary of agricultures office and making a pitch together. It looks like you fellows need a law degree to run a farm when you get involved with the government. Next time you fellows have a good idea, or an ag bill comes up you need to let us know on something like the etree. I call our congressmen often.


Do you call this an attack? Do you know who wrote this?


----------



## dieseldog

Heres some reading for you guys:

Why every U.S. citizen should support the farm bill

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:07 PM CDT

To the editor:

It happens every five to seven years, the U.S. Congress takes up debate on a new U.S. farm bill.

For the past couple of decades, U.S. farm bills have been authorized for a five to seven year time period. When the time comes for renewal of U.S. agricultural policy through the farm bill, every high level think tank filled with intellectuals, seems to feel that giving negative input on this issue is necessary. These groups include the Environmental Working Group, Cato Institute, Washington Post, Raleigh News and Observer newspaper and many news columnists. That these "think tanks" do not have a clue on how American agriculture operates in the 21st century, is apparent from the statements they've made.

Let's take a look at the 2002 farm bill. Officially titled the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, the term of this new legislation ran from 2002 through 2007. This new bill, increased an authorized level of spending on U.S. agricultural programs by $73.5 billion. Added to a baseline of $361.7 billion, the total comes to $435.2 billion.

Most of us cannot even comprehend what $1 billion is much less $435.2 billion. What is lost in all of the negative farm bill press however, is this level of authorized spending is stretched over 10 years which brings the annual spending to $43.5 billion. That's still a large number, but a level that the U.S. Congress deals with on a daily basis.

*Did you realize that this level of agricultural spending is still only one percent of the total U.S. government budget? Is investing one percent of the total U.S. budget justified in keeping the safest and most stable food supply in the world?*

*Contrary to most people's thinking, a majority of U.S. farm bill spending does not end up directly in farmers' pockets. Looking more closely at the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, you will find that more than half the funding went to entitlement programs. Entitlement programs include food and nutrition assistance for low income citizens, school hot lunch programs, commodity food programs and the like.

Look at these statistics:

€ $251.4 billion was earmarked directly for entitlement programs - that is 57.7 percent of the total $435.2 billion authorized spending level.

€ $17.079 billion was earmarked for conservation of our natural resources in the U.S. - this amounts to 23 percent of the total.

€ Worth mentioning is that $1.323 billion was to be spent on Research for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, Organic Agriculture and Youth Organizations - amounting to 1.8 percent of the total

€ Only $1.144 billion will be spent on trade programs including Food for Progress and International Food for Education - accounting for 1.6 percent of the total.

This leaves 15.9 percent to spend directly on agricultural commodity programs and the like.*
Governments in post-World War II Europe experienced what famine and starvation was all about. Since that time they have built national food security programs that virtually guarantee their citizens never will run out of staple food commodities again.

Consequently the European Union (EU) is the U.S.'s most formidable competitor in world agricultural trade. That is why the EU is out-spending the U.S. $87 to $1 on exporting its surplus agricultural commodities. During a year's time, *EU countries spend $277 per acre while the U.S. spends only $48 per acre on its domestic agricultural spending.*

In the U.S., we have not had a true famine since the Civil War era. Most U.S. citizens take our stable food supply for granted.

Another deception the intellectual think tanks are promoting is that the farm bill causes higher food prices for U.S. citizens. Yes, a stop at the supermarket will leave you with sticker shock when you see bread at $3 per loaf and breakfast cereal at $3.50 per box.

*Did you know that one bushel of wheat will produce 42 half-pound loaves of bread? At $5.75 per bushel for spring wheat, the farmer's share of your loaf of bread is only 13.7 cents. There is likely more cost in the packaging of that loaf than for the wheat in it.*
Yet American consumers spend only 9 cents out of every dollar they earn on food. This is the lowest in U.S. history and the lowest of any developed country in the world. You can verify this by contacting the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or going to their Web site at: (http://www.bls.gov/cex/

home.htm.

U.S. farmers and ranchers have weathered many challenges through time including droughts, floods, other natural disasters and economic hard times. Farm and ranch numbers peaked in the early 1930s and have declined ever since. Currently, less than one percent of the U.S. population is directly involved in the production of food and fiber.

Now the U.S. farmer and rancher produces enough agricultural commodities to feed and clothe themselves and another 132 people. As an industry, they have become so efficient, that more than 50 percent of our agricultural commodities need to be exported to other areas in the world to avoid excessive surpluses.

This type of efficiency is what insures the U.S. citizen freedom from food shortages and allows almost countless choices of food products when you go to the supermarket. The farm bill helps make this a possibility. _*The typical U.S. family of four will spend only a dime a day, as a taxpayer, to fund the farm bill.*_
With the exception of a few short cash-market rallies, average farm gate prices for basic agricultural commodities have varied little during the past 30 years. Yet the average cost of production has easily increased 120 percent to 150 percent during that same time period.

The intent of any U.S. farm bill is to support family farms and keep them in the business of producing food and fiber for our citizens. Direct farm payments through a farm bill are not necessarily a subsidy to the farmer; rather they keep him in business through good times and bad so the cost of food and fiber to each U.S. citizen is cheap and affordable.

Our U.S. food system also ensures an abundant, safe, secure food supply of highest quality. If U.S. citizens allow this system to fail, the U.S. will become dependent on foreign countries for its food supply. Do we really want this to happen?

In other areas of the world, food is produced under less sanitary conditions with little or no food safety regulations. A case in point is the recent contaminated wheat gluten imported from China that found its way into the pet food industry and killed many cats and dogs. This could have just as well ended up in our human food supply, because wheat gluten is used in many baked goods and breakfast cereals.

Another case in point is our current situation with imported crude oil. Every American citizen has felt the pressure from the higher cost of imported crude oil produced in unfriendly, unstable foreign countries. Do we want to experience the same thing with our food supply?

U.S. agriculture used to be the backbone of the favorable American balance of trade. However, in the last few years, the U.S. has imported more agricultural commodities than it has exported for the sake of cheap foreign food items. The early warning signs are there.

In North Dakota, agricultural production is a $4 billion industry. Agriculture is key to the economic well-being of our state and many more in America's heartland. Agriculture generates new wealth from our renewable land and water resources. For each dollar of new wealth generated by agriculture, five more dollars will be generated in our economy.

America cannot exist without agriculture to support her. The average net income for farmers and ranches is not well understood in the urban press and intellectual think tanks. According to the North Dakota Farmers Union, the average net farm income for a North Dakota farm family in 2006, was about $76,000, but 80 percent of that income came from off-farm income, meaning one or both spouses worked off the farm. That leaves true farm income of only about $12,000. Does this sound like farms and ranches are receiving lucrative incomes at taxpayer expense?

Before the August recess, the U.S. House of Representative passed their version of a new farm bill. It is not too much different from the 2002 farm bill. This legislation will be discussed energetically by the U.S. Senate in coming months, along with versions to be introduced by farm-state senators.

Rather than believing half-truths, misleading information and distorted messages from urban news media and intellectual think tanks, the time has come for U.S. citizens to become educated on 21st century agriculture. As Farm & Ranch Guide stated in an editorial earlier this spring, "We have a fantastic story to tell, this nation enjoys the most safe and affordable food supply of any country in the world and now the ag industry has taken on the additional responsibility of supplying renewable energy for a growing demand. But we can't be shy and just modestly poke around in the soil with the toe of our boot while these other entities feed the public with misinformation and ridiculous ideas. Agriculture needs to launch a positive public relations campaign and the time to start is now, before it's too late."

We can do this individually and by getting involved in our many good farm organizations and commodity groups. The fact is, we need to get the word out by basing our discussions on sound information, not half-truths and deceptive statements used by anti farm bill opponents. The U.S. farm bill needs the support of every U.S. citizen and those citizens need to know why. Let's get the job done!

Tim Semler

County ext agent

Just some reading material for you guys that are so against any ag subsidies. These are cold hard facts.


----------



## angus 1

dieseldog, 
Thanks for the article . It was right on. I can't wait to see how the fine sportsmen pick this article apart while wondering where to hunt next weekend.


----------



## Poop

Plainsman...

How do you figure that you get "nothing" out of CRP that you cannot hunt?

Do you have any idea at all how many migrating waterfowl and travelling deer and moving pheasants would not be around were it not for that habitat?

Redistribution of wealth? Huh? Do the same research you have done finding out which farmers make a lot of money off of taxpayers, on big business...oil corporations...politicians...special interest groups...the people who supply the military with weapons...

The farmers dont even appear on that radar.

The last few posts sum that up pretty good.

Thing is, the farmers are the ones you have it "in" for because they own the land where you want to hunt otherwise, you would not be on a hunting forum writing about how they are screwing you.

NRs and GOs are the ones that most of you here, have it "in" for.

If anybody really belives that paying taxes should give you the "right" to hunt ground that is operated on tax dollars...then what do you call that person? A "pay to hunt... hunter" of course.

Every look up how much property you help fund through your tax dollars that you dont have access to besides CRP? Why isnt that a big issue with you guys? Because your special interest is HUNTING of course.

You pay more property taxes towards schools than you do Federal income taxes which support the farm subsidies and CRP. Why dont you post up about how teachers are getting rich off of you and you cannot have a set of keys to play basketball in the gym which YOU paid for whenever the spirit moves you? Don't you like basketball?

Ryan...

How is what I wrote off of the topic of "farm subsidies gone wrong"?

Plainsman put in his two cents worth and I did likewise.

It may drift in and out of how ironic it is that most everybody who frequents this site (and agrees with you) wants to limit NRs and GOs and force farmers into changing their business practices to suit the hobby of hunting (it is subsitance for no one here)...has a cabin over here in Minnesota and think nothing of your impact.

Does the fact that I can type really fast make me more venomous than a guy who basically sez "up yours" to farmers who accept subsidies or CRP payments without giving him the "keys to the gate" for his major contribution? Or do you guys just read really slow and get frustrated?

If you notice that the post is from POOP or Bert...you are not forced by law to read it you know. Those who are super offended by me speaking my mind (within the confines of the language and personal attack restrictions in place by whomever) why don't you just ignore me?


----------



## g/o

Don't worry Plainsman CRP is just about a thing of the past. Say thanks to ethanol!!!!



> Group Asks for CRP Acre Release
> Compiled By Staff
> September 4, 2007
> 
> Fearing tightening grain and oilseed carryover levels, the National Grain and Feed Association as urged Ag Secretary Mike Johanns to "seriously consider" measures to make tillable, non-environmentally sensitive acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program more available in 2008.
> 
> In a letter to Johanns, NGFA said it conservatively estimates the United States will need to plant at least 4 million to 5 million additional acres of wheat, corn and soybeans in the 2008-09 crop year than were planted this year to avert potentially dangerous supply disruptions for U.S. domestic and export customers. While the United States appears to have "dodged a bullet" with respect to corn stocks this crop year, the NGFA said, the global stocks-to-use ratio for that commodity is expected to decline from 13.8% to 13.3% in 2007-08. USDA also projects that 1.25 billion bushels of additional corn will be required for ethanol production during the 2007-08 crop year, with further growth expected in 2008-09.
> 
> Among the options available to Johanns is to allow producers to terminate CRP contracts without penalty. The NGFA encouraged Johanns to act "relatively soon," given the time required for landowners and producers to evaluate whether to remove tillable, non-environmentally sensitive land from the CRP and prepare idled land for planting.


----------



## Plainsman

g/o

Corn ethanol will quickly become a think of the past also. It is energy inefficient and not economical. I hope cellulose ethanol will catch on. I know it takes a couple years before there is profitable production for a farmer. I would like to see a program like CRP combined with cellulose ethanol production. We pay the farmer for the first two years, he could harvest for ethanol the third year, we could pay for the fourth, he could harvest the fifth and so on. I think it would take two to three years to establish the cover, then it could be harvested most efficiently every other year. If a farmer had three or four fields they could be done on a rotational basis so all fields were not harvested the same year. 
I also would like to see payment years based on a three payment scale. 
For example only:
For land that has posted: $40/acre
For land that is not posted: $45/acre
For land with restored wetlands and not posted $50/acre
For land that is hayed (emergency hay) $0/acre

I have not hunted ducks for many years, but I would like to see restored wetlands for them, and land that is not posted would help restore the landowner/hunter relationship that has suffered so much with lease hunting.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, When is the last time you checked the grain prices, and land prices? The futures prices on new crop wheat is $7.25, beans are over $9.00, corn is $3.50. Think about things for a minute, if you were a landowner or farmer would you put land into CRP, or leave it in for $40.00? The reality is CRP is pretty much over with, and when they approve early outs we will see a mass exodus. So in the near future you will not have to worry about PLOTS or hunting CRP because we will have none. The only ones to leave land in CRP will probably some outfitters, and then you will have to pay at this window. I can't wait!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

You missed an important part of my post:



> For example only:


I don't know what the price should be. I do know that in Iowa they get near $200/acre for CRP. I would be for supporting conservation practices that made them appealing. So what do you think that cost per acre would be? I'm not talking prime farm land, I am talking about highly erosion susceptible land like the CRP enrolments.


----------



## djleye

(


> Yes Dljeye...do something...wave your arms and scream really loud) (Give me an example of how what you have done to date has had a positive impact on the way things are) (especially when you are entering a drought cycle and NRs and GOs are the least of your problems).


Bert/Poop,

You really know nothing about me, so please don't even try that crap here. I refuse to get into a one-up game of who has done what. I am very comfortable with what I have done and what I try and do for my passions (hunting and fishing). I hope you are too.
As I have stated before, I want to keep the dream alive for the youth of today. Hopefully that is important to you as well.
If you believe that any state can become a free-for-all where any person can come and hunt/fish and still have an enjoyable trip, you are wrong. See Dead Lake, MN and then tell me why it cannot be. Even though I don't live there, I bet you would take a $$$ contribution for your fight. Even with no "vested" interest on my part???


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

g/o said:


> Plainsman, When is the last time you checked the grain prices, and land prices? The futures prices on new crop wheat is $7.25, beans are over $9.00, corn is $3.50. Think about things for a minute, if you were a landowner or farmer would you put land into CRP, or leave it in for $40.00? The reality is CRP is pretty much over with, and when they approve early outs we will see a mass exodus. So in the near future you will not have to worry about PLOTS or hunting CRP because we will have none. The only ones to leave land in CRP will probably some outfitters, and then you will have to pay at this window. I can't wait!!!!


What's going to happen when all of those acres go back into production? Can you say grain surpluses? Can you say falling prices? Around and around we go!


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, They need to double the rate they are paying now to be in the ball park. It's not happening or will it happen. You would have had one chance to save some but people here are not concerned about CRP. In my area new CRP rates are at $65.00 an acre if you qualify for a 10 year extension. If PLOTS payments were to increase from $2.00 an acre to $15.00 you could save some for the public. Of course that would require a higher license fee's. When this has been suggested it goes unnoticed, the game and fish are well aware of it. PLOTS as well as CRP will be on the way out in the very near future. But what the hell why worry about that we have bigger things to worry about like ethics.

Huntnfish, Apparently you did not read this:



> In a letter to Johanns, NGFA said it conservatively estimates the United States will need to plant at least 4 million to 5 million additional acres of wheat, corn and soybeans in the 2008-09 crop year than were planted this year to avert potentially dangerous supply disruptions for U.S. domestic and export customers. While the United States appears to have "dodged a bullet" with respect to corn stocks this crop year, the NGFA said, the global stocks-to-use ratio for that commodity is expected to decline from 13.8% to 13.3% in 2007-08. USDA also projects that 1.25 billion bushels of additional corn will be required for ethanol production during the 2007-08 crop year, with further growth expected in 2008-09.


----------



## Plainsman

> But what the hell why worry about that we have bigger things to worry about like ethics.


When we have a good conversation going you throw crap into it. Well, so long. Anyone, out there really interested in solving problems lets talk about it. The subject is farm subsidies gone wrong.

My solution:
Drop support prices. More support prices result in more grain grown which results in even lower prices and more expensive support.
Pay for good land stewardship. In other words conservation practices that save or improve land for future generations. It takes land out of production. Lower production and prices go up in the market which means we don't need support prices. Even better farmers in 2050 will still have productive land. 
Do we need to feed the world? For those who hate our guts, I would let them starve. Places like Iran can eat sand. If they have sand left over they can shove it where the sun don't shine. Support those who support us&#8230;&#8230;at home and abroad. Isn't that a novel concept.


----------



## Poop

Dljeye

WARNING!

BIGGIE FROM POOP (Bert)

DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU CANNOT READ A LOT OF WORDS IN ONE SITTING!

DO NOT RESPOND IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IF YOU READ THIS AND ARE OFFENDED. THERE ARE NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR BAD LANGUAGE HEREWITHIN. BE WARNED HOWEVER, THAT THE OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS MAY PROVE UNSETTLING FOR SOME READERS.

READER DISGRESSION IS ADVISED.

You misread what I wrote. I didn't mean "what difference has, what you have personally done... made"

I'm certain that you have a ton of time and money and man hours invested in habitat and accessibility to land and resource for all. I'm sure of that. After all, you are trying to keep the "dream" alive for kids.

How I meant it was..."how have restrictions on NRs (by ALL of you who pushed for that garbage) changed anything"?

I keep asking and nobody answers.

Can anybody show me some examples of positive impacts regarding your "cause" due to restrictions on NR's?

Cmon...I quit hunting in NoDak because of restrictions...what...six, seven...is it 8 years ago? Is it better? Are you better off?

You could say "well we kept Bert's (Poop's) butt outta here" but for every one of me that speaks up on N.O., there are "how many good NRs" who don't post here... but feel likewise?"

(I know a pile of them.) (Trust me...you would enjoy hunting with me).

Do you guys have more places to hunt? More birds to hunt? See fewer GOs and NR boats? Have you stopped a drought? Anything? ...ANYTHING? as a result of upping prices and limiting time for NRs?

Lay it on me if you have. I'm waiting.

Use the Dead Lake analogy if you want Dljeye, but here is the thing:

We did what we did and it is done and it is paid for. Over $250,000.00 in legal fees. Don't need your big $$$ contribution. Keep it. Buy yourself some Bigfoots.

My personal Dead Lake contributions are around $2.000.00 in cash, $1,000.00 in decoys carved and donated and $500.00 in donated auction items. (and probably $100.00 and 100 hours that I cannot put my finger on) Top that off with...oh...probably 500 hours of volunteer work and meeting time and ....

by the way...none of that was to keep guys like YOU out of here.

I don't believe that we got a whole lot of big contributions from NRs from any state now that I think of it. We did it through auctions and pancake feeds and a lot of man hours and money coughed up by folks who live right here. I am still waiting for you to tell me how your restrictions have made the hunting situation in Nodak any better for me or my "children".

And just because you may not frequent Dead Lake does not mean that you have not benefited from what we did as our "battle" has set statewide precedence. If you come to OT County to enjoy ANY lake that resembles a "lake" instead of a "golf course water hazard" in the next several years you can thank, in part, the folks here on Dead Lake.

Joe Schmo from Nebraska can still come here and catch fish without dodging yachts and golf balls and enjoy the water quality which would not exist in Mn lakes if large scale "rape and pillage" development were allowed to happen everywhere over here. Not just on Dead Lake but on a lot of lakes where it was on the verge of happening. Research it. I can tell you what we have done. Can you tell me what you have accomplished? If not, then don't play that card.

You don't want to get into a peeing match about who has done what? Then don't bring up Dead Lake ever again.

If you want to get specific and discuss who, has done what, for "waterfowl"... where they are in true need of help...you probably don't want to talk to me. You just go along feeling ok with yourself. You will be happier that way.

You guys wanna come here and fish like I do with a 14 foot boat and a 15 horse 4 stroke Yamaha? Hell, I'll show you the hot spots and you can do it all year for 10 bucks more than it costs me. I've got no problem with that.

I wanna come there and freelance hunt on land that I am invited to hunt on (no leasing or hiring of guides),ducks for 5 days taking less than my legal limit because the legal limit is ridiculous, hunt pheasants when I'm done with ducks and maybe again on a weekend in December...no skin off your nose...?

YOU DOUBLE THE COST OF A LICENSE AND CUT MY TIME IN HALF!

If any one of you can tell me how you are better off for doing that...I'll eat my old Filson hat and shove my Vit Glodo where the sun don't shine!

I live closer to the places I hunted out there than lots of you residents on this site do... may have more landowning friends and relatives out there on the prairie than you guys do. How do you suppose that makes me feel?

I'm not particularly in love with the fact that tons of Nodakers party it up here, all summer long but I understand that there is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing I should try to do about it. There are more people these days and that is just the way it is. I cannot blame them for wanting to come here. Shoot, there is a reason I chose to "live" here.

For those of you here at NoDak Outdoors who fall into that category, and simultaneously complain about NRs hunting in your state on ground you do not own or even live near, it seems a little...no...a lot hypocritical.

Sure we could raise prices and shorten your stay (as you have done and suggest that we do) but you would still come. You'd just be p.o.d about it while you jet skied and fished here.

Perhaps, some of you would sell your cabins to dudes from Mpls. and St. Paul and then more resorts would pop up because it made more sense for you to use a resort for two weeks instead of your cabin every week all summer.

Can you "smell what I am stepping in"? (See GO's)

Resorts rent jet ski's and have maps showing people the best fishing spots on a lake. Not much difference really.

There were things that I could do to help a lot of sincere people here on Dead Lake to stop developers who didn't want to follow the rules that everybody else has to play by and thought that they could get away with it. I have done so and am damn proud of it.

We took it to the Supreme Court and won.

You guys are headed in that direction. I hope you are willing to put your money where your mouths are. It ain't cheap. Just make sure you are shooting at the wolves instead of the rabbits.

Keep the "dream" alive for the kids of today Dljeye? Which kids? Resident kids? Your kids?

The "dream" in North Dakota, as you see it is gone for me and my kids.

What is the "dream"anyway? See lots of birds? Shoot lots of birds?
Mother nature controls that more than your restrictions do. (How is the drought going by the way?)

Does the "dream" translate to being able to live in the city and hunt anywhere you want in the country without paying or even asking or having to "get there" before somebody else? That would be quite a dream, wouldn't it?

Does the "dream" equate to no GOs tying up land? As it stands, it is more cost effective for me to hire a GO out there than to freelance because of your restrictions. Good job!

You don't know me either, so don't give me the "lets keep the "dream" alive...it's for the "children" BS.

My kids aren't bothered by jet ski's on Dead Lake. I am! And I am not about to use THEM as a tool to combat what torques me off!

What is the "dream" Dljeye?

I don't wanna fight with you guys. I really dont. I just think that perhaps you all need to take into consideration the "other guy's" side of the sandwich once in a while. The farmer, the freelancing NR, the guys in the small towns of North Dakota, the GO's... and accept the fact that there are a lot of reasons why people do what they do and say what they say.

Not everybody in the world is some, poor "unenlightened" soul who simply hasn't seen the light of your omnipotence.

Your situation may not be as you feel it should be but you are... just...you. And it is not all about you.

I can understand you being upset that things have changed in North Dakota regarding access etc... but put yourselves in some other guy's shoes for a while, step outside your personal "special interests" and you might just find that you don't have a monopoly on wishing that time would stop when you want it to. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

If you cannot change an uncontrollable situation, perhaps it would be wise to change the way you think about that situation.

"God...grant me the strength to change the things I can, accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."

IF YOU READ ALL THIS, BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS REALLY HOT AND I COULDNT DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE TONIGHT. THE NEXT FEW DAYS SHOULD BE BETTER BUT EITHER WAY, YOU WERE WARNED.


----------



## Plainsman

Not on subject, and I have no comments about most of this poop. I just want to comment on the quote below.



> "God...grant me the strength to change the things I can, accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."


Our pastor was riding with me yesterday and this came up. I told him I see it in many homes, but I don't like it. It is a good sign for losers. Accept the things I cannot change? Not likely. If it isn't right I will never accept it. The wisdom to know the difference (between what I can change, and what I can not change"? You will never know the difference if you don't try to change it. With this attitude we would still be in Europe thinking the world was flat, and you poop would not have been successful at dead lake.

It's a pessimistic attitude, but there is room for pessimists too. Optimists build airplanes, pessimists build parachutes.


----------



## Poop

Plainsman...

Good luck with that.

Poop


----------



## g/o

> It is a good sign for losers. Accept the things I cannot change? Not likely. If it isn't right I will never accept it. The wisdom to know the difference (between what I can change, and what I can not change"? You will never know the difference if you don't try to change it.


You've again gone over the edge Plainsman, A good sign for losers? Come on Plainsman because someone had a substance abuse problem and cleaned themselves up they are losers? Shame on you


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> It is a good sign for losers. Accept the things I cannot change? Not likely. If it isn't right I will never accept it. The wisdom to know the difference (between what I can change, and what I can not change"? You will never know the difference if you don't try to change it.
> 
> 
> 
> You've again gone over the edge Plainsman, A good sign for losers? Come on Plainsman because someone had a substance abuse problem and cleaned themselves up they are losers? Shame on you
Click to expand...

Substance abuse?? What?? Explain the connection please, I don't get it.


----------



## Plainsman

Poop said:


> Plainsman...
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Poop


Thanks :beer:


----------



## djleye

Bert,

I am very happy with what has been done on Dead Lake and I am well aware of what was done, maybe more than you realize! :wink: Don't tell me what I can and cannot bring up. You see, I don't like jet skis either.

What is/has happened to ND is not by choice. The restrictions that have been put into place are not what I would have chosen so don't tell me what I am doing isn't working. HPC would have been better. HPC would have been my choice. Allowing enough hunters to enjoy the prairie bonanza according to what the water capacity is that year seemed to make a lot of sense to me, but it was shot down. Maybe we just didn't have enough pancake feeds, I don't know. And, yes, I am trying to keep the dream alive for youth of residents and, Yikes, even non-residents!!! You would be shocked if you only knew how many NR hunters I share a field with each year!!

I also don't need any help catching walleyes in MN, thank you very much.


----------



## dakotashooter2

> What's going to happen when all of those acres go back into production? Can you say grain surpluses? Can you say falling prices? Around and around we go!


 EXACTLY Just what happened in the early to mid 80's. I don't like subsidies because it causes complacity. All subsidies have done for farmers is to let them get sloppy. In most businesses if your supply is more than your demand you can cut production, cut price or go out of business. The farming industry as a whole has no desire to self-regulate. They are going to plant every acre they can, basically cutting their own throats then scream for help when there is no market for what they have produced. Don't get me wrong, I respect farmers. It is a very hard way to make a living but also understand that it was THEIR choice to farm. Like anything else if you don't want to take the risks then you shouldn't do it. And if you are willing to take the risk don't ask for others to bail you out. I could have gotten into a successful farming operation out of high school and knowing I would spend my time fighting weather, long hours, low pay and difficult times I chose another profession dispite that I liked to farm. I would venture that at least 1/2 of the farmers today would not have made it 2 years if they were starting farming 60 years ago. I'm not so sure subsities are helping anyone. It MAY keep food price down a bit but given the farm industry's propencity to go all out every time the price goes up I think supply and demand would pretty much take care of the prices on both ends.

A note on CRP: I am aware of more than one farmer that is using his CRP payments to help acquire underutilized land (usually pasture) which which is then put into production, somewhat defeating the purpose of CRP.


----------



## gst

I simply thought some of the comments in this thread are relevant to other threads now being discussed.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> I simply thought some of the comments in this thread are relevant to other threads now being discussed.


Yes, and it was related to the big pheasant boom and everyone out around Mott wanted $100 per gun. If they want that then by all means don't pay grain subsidies.

I have gone from this to agreeing with subsidies, and back to thinking we should not pay price support on surplus grain, but pay for conservation practices. It's our tax dollars so I don't think farmers should get to dictate where we want our tax dollars to go. Offer them money for conservation and if they don't want it oh well.

gst your the old post champion. You say you have no dog in some of these fights. If anyone believes that they are not to bright. Even your buddies and fishingbuddy got your number now don't they?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst your the old post champion. You say you have no dog in some of these fights


Always the "explanation" eh Bruce! 

And yet once again.

Please show where I have ever stated I "have no dog in the fight" when it comes to these ag realted issues.

I have stated the very opposite reason is why I even am on this site.


----------



## Plainsman

It's hard to keep track of all your circling. Your running back four, five years to find things to cry about. I'm not a politician that has to think the same thing today that I did five years ago. When things change I change.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> by Plainsman » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:51 am
> My solution:
> Drop support prices. More support prices result in more grain grown which results in even lower prices and more expensive support.
> Pay for good land stewardship. In other words conservation practices that save or improve land for future generations


by Plainsman » Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am 
_We keep hearing about feeding a starving world, but the problem there is corrupt governments and greedy people. I watch people break up prairie every year to plant more grain to make more money, but they drive the price down and no one makes more money. So their answer is the government has to pay them a support price._

Plainsman » Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:54 am 
_ I am more willing to pay for conservation practices like CRP than I am support prices on surplus grains etc._

Change indeed plainsamn! :roll:

So you are telling us you and the way you moderate have "changed" from what this old thread is?????? 

I guarantee if we put shaugs and my name in for gohon and poops no one would tell the difference.

You all it crying, I call it pointing out the obvious. :wink:


----------

