# Tile/Wetland drainage and downstream damage



## Plainsman

We have a bill up in North Dakota that would streamline the permit process for using tile. I don't think with the flooding we have, loss of habitat, and commodities surpluses that this is the time to streamline the very thing that is creating many of our problems. 
I have noticed in many cases these tile end in wetlands and have open ends. Open at both ends that is with no water control ability. Flooding concerns me, but also of high concern is concentrations of soil solubles and agricultural chemicals concentration in downstream wetlands. One purpose of tile is to flush the soil. Often in some states it's used in conjunction with irrigation. There are two reasons for that. Sometimes they simply want to drain the land because it is wet in spring. However, they do such a good job that later in the growing season it requires irrigation. Then there are soils that have high mineral content. They can irrigate those and put tile below. This flushes those high mineral contents into where ever they drain the effluent to.


----------



## Plainsman

I guess I would still like to know the value vs the damage related to tile. I suppose it would be nearly impossible to know how many farmers it benefited, and how many areas, then further the amount it contributed to flooding, and how many people it affected directly. 
I think perhaps the biggest problem is water quality degradation. Where ag run off pools in one California valley it's a death trap for waterfowl. The dissolved solids precipitate on feathers and a bird that stays a few hours never leaves because it can not fly. In Montana there is a National Wildlife Refuge severely impacted from ag run off.


----------



## dakotashooter2

Soils acts as a filter for water. By tiling you remove some of that filtrarion process and eventually those contaminants end up concentrating in our rivers and lakes. Sadly tiling also diverts water preventing much of it from making its way into our aquifers or at least slowing the process then those same farmers want to further deplete the aquifers by using them for irrigating. It's a vicious circle that eventually will catch up to us. I don not blame farmers for wanting to get as much production out of their land as possible but I really have to wonder if they really benefit long term when they alter the natural layout of the land. The old timers made better use of many floodprone lands by using them for grazing instead of tilling and draining them. I think they were probably more in tune with the land and much smarter despite all the technology than our current farmers.........


----------



## blhunter3

Just another reason to go to all Round Up Ready crops. Round Up is one of the safest chemicals, it breaks down fast, and only works when it comes in contact with the plant, so there isn't much to worry about runoff.


----------



## southdakbearfan

blhunter3 said:


> Just another reason to go to all Round Up Ready crops. Round Up is one of the safest chemicals, it breaks down fast, and only works when it comes in contact with the plant, so there isn't much to worry about runoff.


Only according to Monsanto. If we have proven one thing over time with pesticides/herbicides is that the more use there is, the more problems their are. No Till farming has resulted in a average increase of 318 million pounds of chemical being applied. Glyphosate is readily absobed by the GM plants and ends up in the food chain. How long before we figure out it is causing cancer or other issues.


----------



## Plainsman

Also, the chemicals are not the only problems. In our alkali soil here in North Dakota that gets leeched out. In wetland when concentrations of those dissolved solids gets much beyond a conductivity (water hardness) of 5000 they don't produce the aquatic invertebrate food resources. Vegetation is also limited so the carbon storage isn't there. Wetlands fail to be very productive. Of course we do have natural wetlands that have conductivities up in the 30 thousands. These are sumps, or hydrological discharge systems, that contribute their water to the atmosphere and not the aquifer. Which is lucky if you think about it because you don't want to drink water with those high concentrations. Most tap water here in North Dakota runs from about 1100 to 1200 conductivity.


----------



## BigDaddy

> ust another reason to go to all Round Up Ready crops. Round Up is one of the safest chemicals, it breaks down fast, and only works when it comes in contact with the plant, so there isn't much to worry about runoff.


Actually, this is not true. Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) has an extremely long soil half life. The reason that it is unavailable is because it is tightly sorbed (bound) to the soil. Glyphosate is relatively safe for the environment because it is very quickly taken out of the system and bound to the soil. Also, it acts on a biochemical pathway that only exists in bacteria and plants, resulting in fairly low toxicity to non-targets.

I would be curious if the ND Dept of Health has looked at concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in tile effluent compared to normal field run off.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would be curious if the ND Dept of Health has looked at concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in tile effluent compared to normal field run off


That would be interesting to know. 
Like many of you roundup doesn't frighten me that bad either. I use it around the trees in my yard so I don't have to trim so much. What bothers me most is I am familiar with the flushing affect of tile. In turn I worry about not only aquifer depletion, but natural soil chemicals that concentrated in the wetland destroy it's productivity. You can destroy a wetland just as effectively in this manner as you can with a drain.


----------



## blhunter3

Round Up is by far the safest chemical to use when comparing it to the conventional chemicals we had to use. Radon comes to mind, which when applied stays in the soil active for a minimum of 4 years killing every broadleaf growing there.


----------



## Bad Dog

BigDaddy - I wouldn't hold your breathe when it comes to the ND Health Dept. They have time & time again shown their incompetency in dealing with the Devils Lake issue and Confined Animal Feeding Operations. If one would like to get true results, an outside party who is capable of doing the testing should do it, not the NDHD. Around the mid 1990's Britian tested and found large concentrations (above legal thresholds) of glyphosate with Britian's rivers and streams.

A study done in Iowa and in North Carolina has suggested an association between glyphosate and myeloma. Studies is Britian in the early 2000's have demonstrated that RoundUp affects a key point in cell division, that part that controls it. This is what cancer is, uncontrolled cellular growth. This study found that RoundUp induces the early stages of cancer. I'll stop there.


----------



## BigDaddy

Bad Dog:
You are probably siting results from the Ag Health Study (http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/). This is the most comprehensive study on the long-term health impacts of pesticides. The researchers tracked pesticide exposure and resulting health impacts in over 80,000 people.  They are seeing long-term impacts of several pesticides that were thought to be relatively non-toxic to humans. I think that there will be more and more focus on these long-term effects such as cancer and reproductive effects.

blhunter3:
I agree with you that Roundup is far safer than some other alternatives. However, over-reliance on any specific pesticide can cause development of herbicide resistance, as we are now seeing with glyphosate.


----------



## Dick Monson

> I would be curious if the ND Dept of Health has looked at concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in tile effluent compared to normal field run off.


How much would a study like that cost? And who would be an impeccable tester? Depending on cost it might be possible to pass the hat here.


----------



## blhunter3

If people would not be cheap a$$es and always spray full rates, and not spray on windy days, that would slow down alot of the resistant pesticides. 24d still works.


----------



## Plainsman

Dick Monson said:


> I would be curious if the ND Dept of Health has looked at concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in tile effluent compared to normal field run off.
> 
> 
> 
> How much would a study like that cost? And who would be an impeccable tester? Depending on cost it might be possible to pass the hat here.
Click to expand...

Taking the samples would be easy. They may have to be shipped out of state for processing. A guy from the weed board sprayed native flowers around my well with Tordon. I called the state health department. They refused to tell me what was in my own well. What's that say about cover up?


----------



## blhunter3

Tordon works doesn't it. oke:

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Tordon is a relativly safe chemical when it comes to toxicity to humans. Still no excuse to spraying in around a well though.


----------



## Plainsman

blhunter3 said:


> Tordon works doesn't it. oke:
> 
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Tordon is a relativly safe chemical when it comes to toxicity to humans. Still no excuse to spraying in around a well though.


Ya, it killed all the native flowers I had drove around digging the last three week-ends before. I guess the only thing the guy knew was leafy spurge and canada thistle, but he still sprayed everything in my yard. The problem was I had my neighbor call the weed board to do the leafy spurge in his vacant lot next to me. I noticed it when I did my yard with 2-4-D. Then dingle berry shows up and dowses everything with tordon. Double whammy and everything croaked. I'll bet a dime to a dollar there was tordon in my well, but they will never admit it. Heck my well runs over in the spring, and is only 12 feet down in July. They had to lay four feet of dirt so the drill rig wouldn't sink in when they dug it.


----------



## blhunter3

Well at least they acted fast... Your close to Central Ag, go there and talk to Darwin and ask him about Tordon, or what they would have sprayed there and ask him about if there would be anything in your well. He is a good guy and will tell you facts. They possibly used Curtail too is there was alot of thistle.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, I forgot to mention. When I reported that Tordon sprayed right up against my well (to the state health dept) they sent a guy out to take water samples. They told me my well was high in nitrates, but when I called and asked about Tordon they would not tell me. I was very suspicious when the head of out county weed board was not the head of the weed board a couple of weeks later. He was the guy who did the spraying himself.


----------



## Plainsman

Spam on Penny Auction deleted. Well, it was something like that anyway.


----------



## sndhillshntr

NDSU has done a 3 year study on tile outlets and water quality from them. They are all just fine. Probably better than Fargo city water


----------



## Plainsman

sndhillshntr said:


> NDSU has done a 3 year study on tile outlets and water quality from them. They are all just fine. Probably better than Fargo city water


I think it's a case of NDSU not biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman said:


> sndhillshntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> NDSU has done a 3 year study on tile outlets and water quality from them. They are all just fine. Probably better than Fargo city water
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a case of NDSU not biting the hand that feeds them.
Click to expand...

I am real curious if that was a biologist that did the study or an economist. I know they have at least one guy that thinks he is a wetland ecologist, but I he's a wetland ecologist I'm Mother Teresa.


----------



## Bad Dog

I would like to see what exactly the ndsu was looking at since there has been study after study in MN and IA (states where tile has been present for over 100 years) and those studies have shown time and time again that both surface and ground water has been contaminated with agricultural products as a direct effect of tiling. Things that make you go hmmm.


----------



## mulefarm

What will cause more flooding? The tiling or the Sioux loosing?


----------



## TK33

Bad Dog said:


> I would like to see what exactly the ndsu was looking at since there has been study after study in MN and IA (states where tile has been present for over 100 years) and those studies have shown time and time again that both surface and ground water has been contaminated with agricultural products as a direct effect of tiling. Things that make you go hmmm.


It was more than likely the fact that NDSU probably used MODERN data instead of data that is 50 years old. Chemicals (half lifes) have changed, farming practices have changed, and a whole host of other things have changed. Drain tiling itself has changed.

How much land is actually tiled? What is worse, land that can hold water and has a control method or a road washing out and increasing the flow 10 fold?

It is just foolish to think that a farmer would waste high dollar chemical and fertilizer by just flushing it down drain tiling. They are the ones who have to make a profit on the land, every year, the rest of us just would like access to it to hunt for 3-4 months a year.

Go talk to a farmer or a chemical guy and get some facts for yourself. That is what I did. Almost all of what is posted here and on other sites is either ancient data, incorrect or skewed data, or just people pulling things out of their ***.


----------



## Bad Dog

TK33 - A U of I study from 1997 to 2006 showed the growing dead zone located in the gulf of mexico is directly caused by fertilizer inputs in agricultural fields and the greatest increase comes from those fields with drain tile. All I said is that I would to see what exactly the ndsu study was looking at. As for going and asking a chemical rep if their product is safe that is similar to asking a used car salesman what kind of shape their vehicles are in. That is why one needs to look at information from an outside source, from one that is not economically tied to the product/issue. You mentioned that it is foolish to think that farmers today would be wasting their money on chemical only to have it flushed down the drain. That is exactly what is happening. I am not necessarily blaming the individual farmer but I will put the blame on the ag corporation, Monsanto, etc.. These multi billion dollar corps use the individual farmer and get them hooked on their products. Sort of like a drug dealer. My family farms organic. No chemical use, no synthetic fertilizer, no gmo seed, no input at all from big ag. Farming can be done this way.
Always question the source before you drink the kool-aid.


----------



## blhunter3

You ogranic farmers are one the reason he have to use chemicals. Your fields are so damn weedy, and those weed seed blow on to my clean feild and grow the next year. Yes organic farming can be done, but if you want everyone to go back to that, what half of the worlds population do you want to die? The world cannot survive on ogranic crap anymore.

TK is right, talk to a good chemical rep and he will tell you facts, we will even show you the chemical list, which shows how dangerous it is, what it kills, how it kills it, the active and inactive ingredients, what to do if you get it on or in you, and hazardous in water ways.


----------



## Plainsman

> As for going and asking a chemical rep if their product is safe that is similar to asking a used car salesman what kind of shape their vehicles are in.


  I was thinking it would be like asking Joseph Stalin if communism was ok. 



> Your fields are so damn weedy, and those weed seed blow on to my clean feild and grow the next year.


Who around here is doing organic farming? I knew there were some southwest of town, but I didn't know any were out around you.



> The world cannot survive on ogranic crap anymore.


I'm still thinking about that. We survived that way for 99.9% of human history, perhaps more. It has only recently changed, and we sure have been messing things up. I think people who use it need a lot more respect for it, and a lot more training.

When one wants to irrigate, they recommend light permeable soils. Boil water in a pan and look at that alkali (that is what many complain about on their soil). If you keep irrigating you will turn everything alkali on good soil from evaporating water, just as you do boiling water in a pan. The minerals need to leech through the soil, or flush as some would say. When I talked with farmers in Iowa they said they would not think of irrigation without tile. As they add water the plants use a small percentage, but most moves through the soil carrying the minerals away, into the tile, and to the drains, and eventually to the river. There is simply no way around those results. On one hand the promoters brag about how well tile flushes the soil, but on the other hand they want to deny that the minerals that are flushed go anywhere. It either flushes the soil or it doesn't, and it either goes somewhere or something magic happens in the process. Since I don't believe in magic, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy etc I also don't buy the bull dung the promoters shovel.

Bad Dog your right about the fertilizer in the gulf. It has been a problem for the Mississippi Delta for many years and still is today. One of the fellows monitoring the delta volunteered and worked with me one spring just a few years ago. He said fertilizer in the delta tracked to ag run off is changing the plant growth, species composition, and fisheries.


----------



## BigDaddy

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/nutrient/presentations/sources_of_nitrate_yields.pdf

I think that the paper above is the study that Bad Dog is referencing. The authors look at potential sources of the increased nitrogen load in the Gulf of Mexico. The authors describe corn and soybean fields with tile as "leaky" when it comes to nitrate N. It is a good read.


----------



## Plainsman

BigDaddy, thank you very much. I read some, and will get back to it. It's excellent actually.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> by Plainsman » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:35 am
> As for going and asking a chemical rep if their product is safe that is similar to asking a used car salesman what kind of shape their vehicles are in.
> I was thinking it would be like asking Joseph Stalin if communism was ok.


by Plainsman » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:17 am

sndhillshntr wrote:
NDSU has done a 3 year study on tile outlets and water quality from them. They are all just fine. Probably better than Fargo city water
plainsman wrote:
I think it's a case of NDSU not biting the hand that feeds them." end quote

plainsman, I am NOT going to get into a 10 page debate once again, but if you are going to suggest every study done by ag is solely based off an agenda, can we then make a correlating assumption every study done by people in enviromental sciences orgs is done by those "bunny huggingradicals" you have admitted are involved in biological and enviromental research?

Note the background of the first 2 reserchers of the study posted in the link.
M.B. David and G.F. McIsaac, Univ. of Illinois,* Dep. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Sciences*, W-503 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801;
L.E. Drinkwater, Cornell Univ., Dep. of Horticulture, Ithaca, NY 14853. Assigned to
Associate Editor Sue Newman.

Do you beleive these members of acadamia do these studies for nothing? Funding for these research programs that justify their jobs comes from somewhere. Just as you suggest NDSU is not "biting the hand that feeds them" perhaps could the same be thought about the researchers from the U of Il? Please be honest enough in your debate to realize and admit EVERYONE not just ag has an agenda they are trying to advance, and most times it is tied to money or what some will label as "bunny hugging" ideologies.


----------



## blhunter3

There was a farmer who did the organic thing right when his stuff came out of CRP and it was horrid, the crop adjuster told him he was sol because there was nothing. There is another farmer just east of town who isn't organic, but he never sprays so in my book he is. He is the same guy who just finished his wheat harvest in October....

Yes we humans survived 1000's of years with organic farming, BUT, things have changed, we have too many mouths to feed that it isn't an option anymore.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I do have one advantage. I have been reading scientific literature long enough to be able to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. You gst don't have that experience or expertise. When someone states that tile water presents no problems they should write for comic books. I would like to read the NDSU study. Something is fishy, and it may not be an NDSU problem.

At least we could read the one study which met scientific standards. I have not seen the other study.



> can we then make a correlating assumption every study done by people in enviromental sciences orgs is done by those "bunny huggingradicals" you have admitted are involved in biological and enviromental research?


See, now I'm stuck trying to decide if your dishonest or very naive. Mostly when I think of bunny hugging radicals I am thinking of the global warming crowd. Please don't be so naive as to think it's prevalent within science. It's not as if I think all farmers are greedy. One can not make an honest statement without a dishonest portrayal of an honest statement. Isn't that sad? You didn't study under Bill Clinton did you? Careful, that's close to a getting a rating on the Pinocchio scale for that statement.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll bet I misunderstood. Perhaps we agree. Global warming research is much like tile is not detrimental research. OK, I agree. Two ends of the spectrum there, but much alike in their credibility. Perhaps gst, you could inform me on their methods of collection, time of data collection, chemical analysis techniques, raw data and statistically analyzed, their statistical confidence level, and final conclusion based on what? I would also like to know the publishing outlet and if they use anonymous editors. Anonymity often means honest editing.


----------



## TK33

> have been reading scientific literature long enough to be able to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience.


WRONG, you read what you want to read and interpret how you see fit for what you want. When you don't like it you call it pseudoscience. When it is what you want then you are in favor of it.


> Always question the source before you drink the kool-aid


You must have missed the part where I said that I did my own research. The only kool aid around here is in between your ears.
I didn't talk to a chemical rep, I talked to a consultant, among others. Big difference, one makes money today. The other has an obligation to the long term. I didn't talk to a monsanto rep about monsanto chemical. It would be easy to predict what he would say.

If I'm wrong, fine. I'll deal with it and I'll admit it. But posting up and pretending to know something that you know little or nothing about is wrong. Prove it with current facts and data. You guys are using information and science from a long time ago. I posted up some links earlier from Purdue to back my statements. There are plenty of other resources out there to boot.

Any study from the U of I (Illinois or Indiana) has no relevance here. Their farming practices involved tons of nitrogen per acre than anyone has ever dreamed of in the upper midwest. Once again, apples to oranges. Stretching the truth, or just plain BS. Either way, misleading a bunch of people.


----------



## gst

]


Plainsman said:


> gst, I do have one advantage. I have been reading scientific literature long enough to be able to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. You gst don't have that experience or expertise.


Thats quite the arrogant assumption considering you have never met me or know very little about me. But then this topic has been quite full of that. I wonder if I could make that same claim regarding farming practices and changes within ag that are relevant to this topic that have happened which you seem to have no knowledge of? But then again, there is no science involved in farming. And there is little value to farmers to understand how or to be developed to get the fertilizers they spend their monies to apply (one of the largest input expenses we have)to stay in the soils where they are effective and used by the plant rather than leaching out, Of course there is no science which has advanced this and is continueing to advance things like this or pesticide or herbicide research for the same end result, over the years that anyone in academia/ag studies or uses in their everyday operations. :roll: Only those naive fools would assume ag does any such legitimate scientific research. Or that those in ag would have the experience and expertise to analyse and use this scientific literature in their own operations :eyeroll:



Plainsman said:


> See, now I'm stuck trying to decide if your dishonest or very naive. Mostly when I think of bunny hugging radicals I am thinking of the global warming crowd. Please don't be so naive as to think it's prevalent within science.


Plainsman it was you yourself that took issue in a couple different posts with these very people within the scientific community. And if you comprehend what I wrote, I was simply asking if every ag study is as biased as you claim based on the "greed" you beleive drives them could every enviromental impact study be the same based on the enviromental ideologies that drive them??? One assumption deserves another in regards to studies eh? Wait perhaps making biased assumptions while providing no proof to back them up about something is a part of that scientific expertise and experience that you have that I am lacking. :wink:

Hopefully you are simply too naive and didn;t catch that rather than dishonest and twisting things to further your point. :wink:

Perhaps you could go to the end of the U of Il study and analyse each source where they took their data from and come bak and tell us if any of them have a bias of any sort regarding their research. Wait, according to you is is simply only agriculture that does this. :roll:

Pull your skirt back down plainsman, your bias is showing


----------



## Plainsman

I simply know enough about hydrology to know that there is something wrong if it says there are no problems with tile. Perhaps they were only looking for a specific pesticide etc. Many people don't know that the minerals within soil, natural minerals that is, when concentrated are very destructive downstream. It's my bet that's what was not looked for. Of course we all know that many fertilizers are a problem also.

The bunny hugger I would compare to one end of the spectrum. The other end is those who think tile is ok. Two extremes, and thankfully not prevalent in science either environmental or agriculture.

My only judgement comes from the things you often throw out as science. It's not your ability to read and understand it, but I think you often think things are scientific research that are not. I would like to know if the NDSU article was in peer reviewed scientific publication, or popular literature. Perhaps a Farmers Union publication or something on that order.

Many who promote tile talk about how good it works with irrigation because it flushes the soil. So ladies and gents if that's true where does it flush those problem minerals to? If they leave the field where do they go? This isn't a tough question unless you try hide something.



> I did my own research


TK33 were you taking your water samples from wetlands, or point source?


----------



## Plainsman

Here is scientific study on tile.



> Agriculture is a major nonpoint source of phosphorus (P) in the
> Midwest, but how surface runoff and tile drainage interact to affect
> temporal concentrations and fluxes of both dissolved and particulate P
> remains unclear. Our objective was to determine the dominant form
> of P in streams (dissolved or particulate) and identify the mode of
> transport of this P from fields to streams in tile-drained agricultural
> watersheds. We measured dissolved reactive P (DRP) and total P
> (TP) concentrations and loads in stream and tile water in the upper
> reaches of three watersheds in east-central Illinois (Embarras River,
> Lake Fork of the Kaskaskia River, and Big Ditch of the Sangamon
> River). For all 16 water year by watershed combinations examined,
> annual flow-weighted mean TP concentrations were.0.1 mg L21, and
> seven water year by watershed combinations exceeded 0.2 mg L21.
> Concentrations of DRP and particulate P (PP) increased with stream
> discharge; however, particulate P was the dominant form during overland
> runoff events, which greatly affected annual TP loads. Concentrations
> of DRP and PP in tiles increased with discharge, indicating
> tiles were a source of P to streams. Across watersheds, the greatest
> DRP concentrations (as high as 1.25 mg L21) were associated with a
> precipitation event that followed widespread application of P fertilizer
> on frozen soils. Although eliminating this practice would reduce the
> potential for overland runoff of P, soil erosion and tile drainage would
> continue to be important transport pathways of P to streams in eastcentral
> Illinois.


In this next study wetlands were created to intercept tile discharge. The problem I see here is they are sort of open sewage systems which may be detrimental to wildlife trying to use them as real wetlands.



> Abstract
> Constructed wetlands positioned in the landscape between row crop agriculture and surface waters can be used to
> intercept tile drainage and serve as agricultural waste water detention basins. A potential exit pathway in constructed
> wetlands for detained water and possibly NO3
> -N is via seepage through and under an earthen berm. The objective
> of this study was to determine if seepage was an important pathway for NO3
> -N transport from two constructed
> wetlands receiving tile drainage from adjacent agricultural land (wetland A, surface area of 0.6 ha; wetland D, 0.78
> ha). A mean apparent hydraulic conductivity (K) was calculated (10.8 cm h1, range 8.2-14.3 cm h1) using
> empirical water budgets. Using Darcy's law, which included the apparent hydraulic conductivity, effective seepage
> area and daily hydraulic gradient measurements, daily seepage volumes for both wetlands were calculated for the 1997
> water year. Total seepage volumes for wetlands A and D were 26 and 22 million liters, respectively, for the 1997 water
> year, which represented 47 and 27% of the total inlet flow. The amount of NO3
> -N exiting wetlands A and D in
> seepage water was estimated to be 61 and 25 kg N, respectively, and represented 10 and 4% of the total inlet NO3
> -N
> load. Seepage connected the wetland with the riparian buffer strip and transported NO3
> -N to populations of
> denitrifiers deeper in the sediment profile and outside the wetland perimeter, thereby enhancing overall NO3
> -N
> removal efficiencies. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
> Keywords: Hydraulic conductivity; Nitrate; Tile drains; Water quality


----------



## Plainsman

The scientific literature is full of studies related to the negative invironmental impact of agricultural tile.

Here is one as recent as 2009.



> •Nitrate-based pollution discharged from tile into receiving waters:
> Peer-reviewed literature based on thousands of statistically structured water samples illustrates
> that nitrate levels in tile discharge often exceeds the federal safe drinking water standard of 10
> parts per million (ppm). Note-The ppm standard is often represented as "milligrams per liter" and
> the two terms are used synonymously in water quality literature. In their exhaustive review of
> dozens of drainage studies, Gilliam et al. 1999 noted in Agronomy publication #38 that- "Nitrate
> concentrations in water draining from many subsurface drainage systems are sufficiently high to
> cause concern for drinking water supplies." Likewise, Kaspar et al. with the USDA Agricultural
> Research Service noted in their 2003 publication that-"In areas of the United States with
> drained cropland, nitrate-contaminated water from drainage tiles in agricultural fields is a
> primary source of nitrogen contamination of surface waters."
> More recent data further affirms the concern with high levels of nitrate in tile discharge. In their
> literature review published in Environment Science and Technology, Blann et al. (2009)
> reviewed numerous reports of high nitrates and noted that-"Artificial subsurface drainage is the
> major pathway for nitrate loss from subsurface drained agricultural lands." For example,
> Patni et al. (1996 Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers) analyzed
> water samples over a 40 month period from drain tile and documented nitrate levels exceeding 10
> ppm "in more than 90% of the 1,010 tile effluent samples analyzed." Additional studies such as
> David et al.(1997) in the Journal of Environmental Quality have documented nitrate levels in tile
> water that exceed the federal safe drinking water standard by 200%-400%. In the most general
> terms, the Environmental Protection Agency notes that -"Concentrations of nitrate in tile drains
> are usually quite high (10-40 mg/l)." Likewise, William Crumpton with Iowa State University
> noted in a published interview in 2008 that nitrate concentrations in tile drainage "are commonly more than double the drinking water standard."


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, gst


> Thats quite the arrogant assumption considering you have never met me


You told me you read scientific literature. You told me what you think of drain tile. Since most of the literature tells us drain tile is a problem I can only come to a few conclusions. One, you don't understand what your reading, two you think Farm B. and Farmers U. are scientific outlets, or three you pick only publications you know will agree with you.

Perhaps there is a failure to communicate. As an example TK33 told me he did his own research. I doubt that. If he did what he said, then he took water samples, analyzed water samples, went through the statistically analysis, and published in a peer reviewed outlet. Maybe he did and I am wrong.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> My only judgement comes from the things you often throw out as science. It's not your ability to read and understand it, but I think you often think things are scientific research that are not. I would like to know if the NDSU article was in peer reviewed scientific publication, or popular literature. Perhaps a Farmers Union publication or something on that order


Plainsman if I "throw something out there" I include the link from where it came from so people do not have to wonder. You should try that somewtime. It enables people to see just WHERE and WHO is behind the "science" and if indeed it is as unbiased or biased as you claim.

Plainsman one question, do you beleive you are thouroughly informed on the latest agriculture science and the innovations that have came and continue to develope as a result of it?


----------



## Plainsman

If you remember I gave you some static about not including references. Since you didn't for a while I thought I would see what you say if I did not. So what I did was try to find as many as I could that were either done by the Dept of ag or paid for by dept of Agriculture. For a while, then I went to other publications. But, then I also left it out to see if you would ask and not realize they were from scientific peer review.

As far as all the new farm practices I am not familiar. The last article I put up was very recent, from Minnesota and South Dakota. Can we assume that tile came from the latest practices? Even in the most modern practices where does the affluent go? Maybe you can enlighten me on that. Thanks.


----------



## gst

Plainsman here come another of those "please show me" that are a direct result of you pulling something out of your ***.



Plainsman said:


> Oh, gst
> 
> 
> 
> Thats quite the arrogant assumption considering you have never met me
> 
> 
> 
> You told me you read scientific literature. You told me what you think of drain tile. Since most of the literature tells us drain tile is a problem I can only come to a few conclusions. One, you don't understand what your reading, two you think Farm B. and Farmers U. are scientific outlets, or three you pick only publications you know will agree with you.
Click to expand...

Please show me were I have "told you what I think of drain tile". Perhaps your claims would carry more weight if you stop pulling crap out of your *** and include quotes to back up your statements. If this is the methods you used in coming to your scientific "conclusions" during your taxpayer funded career, perhaps the tax payers didn't get their monies worth of unbiased scientific data!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If you remember I gave you some static about not including references. Since you didn't for a while I thought I would see what you say if I did not.


Once again, please show me where outside of one instance where I have made claims that have not included links to back them up where you have gave me static about. As a "professional" whose "expertise" and "experience" and reputation for having such things is on the line, I would think you would include links to sources of the information you post. If not one is left to conclude you are more worried about getting your agenda across than "informing the uninformed" as you claimed earlier.


----------



## Plainsman

I could not find my original, but I found your comment confirming it:



> plainsman, I'm not suggesting your information is not correct, but if you wish as you claimed in an earlier post, (quote"My best advice of course is to look for peer reviewed scientific literature and skip the grey literature (popular articles by advocacy groups)."end quote,)


There are two reasons I have left out some references. One, if the are not ag you will attack them based on nothing, and that you will use to sidetrack the real debate. For example the first tile debate that you turned into perpetual easements. Also, some are from Dept of ag and if you attack those I thought it would be humorous to post the reference, but only after you complain. :wink: So how about you attack first then I will post reference. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Please show me were I have "told you what I think of drain tile".


Well maybe I made the wrong assumption simply because your here debating. So what is it your debating? I guess I am confused then about your purpose on this thread.

Oh, here is your first post: 


> plainsman, I am NOT going to get into a 10 page debate once again, but if you are going to suggest every study done by ag is solely based off an agenda, can we then make a correlating assumption every study done by people in enviromental sciences orgs is done by those "bunny huggingradicals" you have admitted are involved in biological and enviromental research?


 Ah, I see. Your not here to talk about tile. Your here simply because you wanted to argue with me. Oh, and look your attacking sources. :rollin: I would take it as if your protecting the use of tile. Is that an inaccurate assumption? It looks very accurate to me. Actually it looks like another one of those protect anything ag does, good or bad, and attack the messenger. It would appear that not only are you ag bias (which you admit), but that you are also biased against anything environmental. Perhaps that is because agriculture is often environmentally destructive and you know it. Ag has made some great forward strides recently, but it still has major problems. Water is one of their problems. They drain wetlands and flood neighbors. They use drain tile and pollute the environment including drinking water, they irrigate at the same time they drain wetlands so at the same time they deplete the aquifer they destroy what replenishes the aquifer. Yup, they have some problems. Even though you don't see that hopefully the ag Universities do and continue to develop new and improved ag practices.

Contrary to what you say I'm betting your here for another ten pages. Are you in the hopes that if you and I debate that others will stay away and not present information that you don't want people to see? Lets stick to the subject this time. That's why I started this thread. So we could stick to the subject. That's also why I started one in the members only form.


----------



## Plainsman

Keep your eyes on the site: http://www.ndsu.edu/wrri/fellowship/MohammedRahman.html

I think they may solve the whole debate shortly. The problem with many studies is they look for chemical pollution. Many that do these studies don't understand wetland ecology and that natural soil chemicals when concentrated are as deadly to an aquatic ecosystem as some man made chemicals. I googled for ag tile discharge, and many of the papers that came up listed soluable soil components with the comment behind "not tested for".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, here is your first post:
> 
> plainsman, I am NOT going to get into a 10 page debate once again, but if you are going to suggest every study done by ag is solely based off an agenda, can we then make a correlating assumption every study done by people in enviromental sciences orgs is done by those "bunny huggingradicals" you have admitted are involved in biological and enviromental research?
> 
> Ah, I see. Your not here to talk about tile. Your here simply because you wanted to argue with me. Oh, and look your attacking sources.


plainsman, for what ever reason you may beleive this comment was "attacking sources" but in reality it was "attacking" assumptions made by people with an agenda attacking sources. Kinda funny if you stop and think aboout your comments. It was made directly as a result of your "attacking" any research (NDSU) that does not fit your beleifs. So if one NDSU research study is wrong as you suggest, how are we to beleive the one in the link you post is right? :wink:

Apparently the saying is true, you can not teach an old dog new tricks.


----------



## barebackjack

Bad Dog said:


> TK33 - A U of I study from 1997 to 2006 showed the growing dead zone located in the gulf of mexico is directly caused by fertilizer inputs in agricultural fields and the greatest increase comes from those fields with drain tile. All I said is that I would to see what exactly the ndsu study was looking at. As for going and asking a chemical rep if their product is safe that is similar to asking a used car salesman what kind of shape their vehicles are in. That is why one needs to look at information from an outside source, from one that is not economically tied to the product/issue. You mentioned that it is foolish to think that farmers today would be wasting their money on chemical only to have it flushed down the drain. That is exactly what is happening. I am not necessarily blaming the individual farmer but I will put the blame on the ag corporation, Monsanto, etc.. These multi billion dollar corps use the individual farmer and get them hooked on their products. Sort of like a drug dealer. My family farms organic. No chemical use, no synthetic fertilizer, no gmo seed, no input at all from big ag. Farming can be done this way.
> Always question the source before you drink the kool-aid.


Yup, farming can be done on a "oganic" level. But most of us dont want to, nor can we afford $9 a loaf bread. Kudo's to the organic crowd for finding some sky is falling yuppies and tree huggers to buy their product, but in the grand scheme of things, we cant feed America on organics.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> The world cannot survive on ogranic crap anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still thinking about that. We survived that way for 99.9% of human history, perhaps more.
Click to expand...

Still thinking about it?

You really think we can feed our country on organic (let alone have enough left over to export, ya, ag products, the only thing besides "ideas" the US exports anymore)?!?!?!

Lets see, US population circa 1900.....just over 76 million. Average ND wheat yield.....*4.9 bushels/acre*!!!

US population circa 2010......308 million. Average ND wheat yield.....44.6 bushels/acre.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, I'm not an organic freek. Back when I went to college in the 1960's I didn't think there was anything dumber than the women that were the hippy sort and liked to say "it's Ooooooranic". Cyanide is organic too if I remember right.

Nope, I'm not still thinking. There may be more productive ways to do organic, but I'm not aware of them. I had not thought about it for years, and I don't make snap decisions, so I thought about it.

gst, I questioned the NDSU study because they said they found nothing wrong. I know they have to find those solubles, so evidently they didn't look for them. They perhaps did a good job on what they were looking for, but they didn't get the whole picture. Also, I don't know who did the first study. Through others I do know who will do the next studies and compile the published literature on the subject. I like to know who does studies in the event I may know them personally. It influences my judgement.


----------



## gst

Perhaps if we went to the "efficient" means of hand raising with oxen a couple of acres of rice done organically the worlds food production needs would be covered. :wink:

So in regards to these studies, is it just the ones that don't come out with results that agree with your agenda you "attack" and dismiss? 



Plainsman said:


> gst, I questioned the NDSU study because they said they found nothing wrong. I know they have to find those solubles, so evidently they didn't look for them. *They perhaps did a good job on what they were looking for*, but they didn't get the whole picture. Also, I don't know who did the first study. Through others I do know who will do the next studies and compile the published literature on the subject. *I like to know who does studies* in the event I may know them personally. It influences my judgement.


plainsman, In regards to the first bolded part of your statement, could it possibly be that as an ag college, they are aware of the most current advances made in ag and they may be using data based on the current advances in properties of newly developed technologies that will have different results than data based on results of farming methods and technologies from 30 years ago that you seem to base your information on???

As to the second bolded statement. That is why I have suggested you share links to your information because others share this like as well. You never know when these people not only doing these studies but those paying for them as well may indeed have their own agendas as you suggest. Perhaps some may even see what advances that are being made in agriculture to keep up with the rising demand for more food production globally simply as "witnessing greed at it's darkest" :wink: And that we can grow enough food for the worlds population thru "effecient" organic hand planting of crops on a couple of acres of land.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, I'm not an organic freek. Back when I went to college in the 1960's I didn't think there was anything dumber than the women that were the hippy sort and liked to say "it's Ooooooranic". Cyanide is organic too if I remember right.


Man plainsman, first you piss off conventional farmers with your comments about "greed at it's darkest, ag being a welfare state, hands in the taxpayers pocket, lazy farmers sitting in the legislature", ect..... Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???


----------



## indsport

Since I post so rarely these days, let me summarize the argument so far.

Can we agree that water runs downhill?
If you drain water from someplace, it will go to the next location. it could be the neighboring property. 
If it runs downhill to the next location and that person drains their field (tile, ditches, whatever) it will downhill to the next location. 
Eventually, if everyone drains, it ends up somewhere, and that somewhere is probably a river, watercourse, whatever.

Simplistic? yes. But you can't get around the fact that water runs downhill.

As to the comments about ag subsidies, if you read the Path to Prosperity put out by Congressman Ryan this past week, and the blueprint the conservatives in Congress have agreed to for the 2012 budget and the Farm Bill, ag subsidies as we know it will be history. That assumes, of course, that the Republicans keep their word and keep up the pressure to balance the budget.

Signing off and back to dealing with the overland flooding.


----------



## Plainsman

> Now you piss off the organic farmers


I did? You mean to tell me all organic farmers are women from the 1960's that like to say Ooooooganic? Really.

Actually I would rather eat organic if given the choice, and the truth is I know and like organic farmers. Everyone of them I have ever met. All those pesticides are not as safe as we would like to think. You guys need way more training before you start to spew them around everywhere, like teenage boys with a new cologne that guarantees they will be mobed by girls.

I have a friend I went to see one day (really, no kidding  ). As we drove into his yard there was a white cloud out behind the barn. It was a warm, still, June evening. His cows were standing out behind the barn and he had Malathion in a burlap bag. As he walked past each cow he would flop it on their back. He was doing this for flies, and in doing so formed a white cloud engulfing him and the cows. When he came to talk with us his hair was white, his beard was white, even the hairs in his nose were covered white. He is only a couple years older than me, but I have had other relatives already dead from cancer and I wonder how long he has.

It is of little use arguing because as indsport pointed out the gravy train is at the end of it's track. The earth is not flat, water does run downhill, and Corn ethanol will soon be gone, along with your dream of us paying forever. Society will decide how it values what you do. Maybe a terrible groups like the Wildlife Society will advocate subsidizing pheasants. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Society will decide how it values what you do. Maybe a terrible groups like the Wildlife Society will advocate subsidizing pheasants.


Right now the wildilfe society is much too busy trying to save it's own taxpayer government subsidy.

http://www.teaming.com/


----------



## Plainsman

I talk to people who can never keep is straight between U S Fish and Wildlife and North Dakota Game and Fish. Now you have mistaken the professional Wildlife Society with The Wildlife Federation or some other group.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It is of little use arguing because as indsport pointed out the gravy train is at the end of it's track. The earth is not flat, water does run downhill, and Corn ethanol will soon be gone, along with your dream of us paying forever. Society will decide how it values what you do. Maybe a terrible groups like the Wildlife Society will advocate subsidizing pheasants


http://www.fishingbuddy.com/a_crossroad ... nd_anglers

Perhaps it is not just ag subsidies that are under pressure from "society". What you do not seem to accept is that when "society" has to choose between their dollars going to conservation or food production, which choice do you beleive they will make. And then where is conservation?

Plainsman and others continueally refer to "greed" in agriculture. How will society veiw an episode of DU television where retired dcotors are shooting ducks with thier $20,000 custom made gold inlaid over and unders suggesting that more tax dollars go to providing habitat so they have more ducks to shoot. .


----------



## Plainsman

Yes gst we will all face hardship in the future because of poor leadership in Washington. Does that mean when everyone cuts back you find a way to get paid forever and that's ok? I would think you would see the wisdom in getting the most bang for the buck. Sure we both face hardship in the future, but that should lend itself to not burdening ourselves with unforeseen expenses like paying forever on anything.

However, this thread is turning into another perpetual easement debate. What about tile, and is it good or bad? How is it good, and how is it bad. I would say it's good for the individual who has so much land he can't wait to get into the field so he uses it to dry up areas within fields. I would say it's bad, because the soluble soil minerals, fertilizer, and pesticides get moved downstream. Wherever they go they will kill aquatic macroinvertebrate food resources reducing wetland and stream value to related fish and wildlife, not to mention drinking water becoming useless or extremely expensive to process from those streams. Also, one must consider flooding contributions. What is good for a single individual may impact thousands of people downstream. In the balance of things it can not be justified. Streamlining the permit process is like clearing the way to the hangman's noose.

It all comes down to if we are a civilized society or it's everyone for themselves.


----------



## ShineRunner

Man thinks that he knows best about almost everything in nature. :eyeroll: I think that tileing will be a thing of the past once the ethanol subsidies are stopped, if ever! Although all those tiles already placed will still be draing the wetlands. If I was a few hundred thousand in debt for equipment and land I would be on the band wagon, all in for the corn ethanol and would want to drain all the wetland I could to make my payments or pay off that equipment while the cow is still milking. On the other hand a smart man would diversify and have some wetlands for dry periods that he know's will come.


----------



## Plainsman

Hey ShineRunner, I hope your not worried about me. I'm not crazy, just curious. I wonder how long this thing will go.   

Oh, by the way gst:


> Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???


I know your not stupid, so that leaves one explanation for that remark. Your trying to drive as many wedges as possible. That is intellectually dishonest also. When you resort to things like this it can mean only one thing ----- you don't have a leg to stand on that would support tile being good for North Dakota. Good for a single individual and bad for a couple of thousand people along it's path of habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and flood damage.  But hey, your feeding the world so it's ok to dump on fellow North Dakotans. We are finally getting it through our heads that if were not landowners were not %$#@.


----------



## ShineRunner

No not worried, but it does get real deep at times on this and the other postings on this subject! I go a lot of times by a theory that my 84 year old Mom tells me that my Grandad said years ago. *The more you stir $hit the worse it stinks! *If a piece of land is sold it is sold no matter the reason! You don't go back and ask for more money later on. I guess gst needs to be a politician so he would get paid in perpetuity. And that doesn't have a lot to do with tileing which this thread is about. enough stirring for me for now oke:

I think some times it is fun to argue with a sign post but most of the time I just move on. Looks like your having fun! :beer:


----------



## blhunter3

barebackjack said:


> Average ND wheat yield.....44.6 bushels/acre.


Haven't seen that low of an average in wheat in years


----------



## Plainsman

blhunter3 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average ND wheat yield.....44.6 bushels/acre.
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't seen that low of an average in wheat in years
Click to expand...

I was wondering where the 4.9 bushel/acre came from. I think the folks out by Medina get 44.6 bushel/acre. Maybe we can live off organic. :rollin: Just kidding, just kidding, don't anyone wet their pants.


----------



## blhunter3

:rollin: :rollin:


----------



## ShineRunner

You guy's haven't seen my wheat field!!! :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???
> 
> I know your not stupid, so that leaves one explanation for that remark. Your trying to drive as many wedges as possible. That is intellectually dishonest also.


Plainsman for one that likes to poke fun I would have thought you would have realized the  at the end of the comment regarding pissing off the organic farmers was a dead give away. :wink:


----------



## gst

ShineRunner said:


> The more you stir $hit the worse it stinks! If a piece of land is sold it is sold no matter the reason! You don't go back and ask for more money later on. I guess gst needs to be a politician so he would get paid in perpetuity. And that doesn't have a lot to do with tileing which this thread is about. enough stirring for me for now


Shine, you are falling into the same pulling crap out of your *** syndrome plainsman has. Please show where I have ever said anyone should be able to go back and get a payment after land has been sold? Perhaps a little less **** stirring and a little more fact checking would cut down the stink a little. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Man plainsman, first you piss off conventional farmers with your comments about "greed at it's darkest, ag being a welfare state, hands in the taxpayers pocket, lazy farmers sitting in the legislature", ect..... Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???


I might have got the part about the organic if you had not prefaced it with whining bout me calling farmers greedy again. Oh, ya and welfare, hand in pockets yadayadayada. You may remember the little twerp in the political form with the potty mouth would end his garbage with a smile. Now, before you wet your pants I'm not saying that's you I'm just explaining why I sometimes miss the humor. 
Lets talk about tile, not you and me. I'll make a deal with you don't trickle on my leg and tell me your funny and I will not complain. You use the same tactics as the high fence crowd. Attack the messenger. Tile, tile tile, save the perpetual easements etc for the other thread. Screwing up one should be enough. Lucky for me you can't get to the members only form. Now I am tempted to put a smiley there, because I meant that last sentence as humor, well mostly.


----------



## Mookie

Farmers are not greedy, retired federal employees are. Find one private sector corporation that pays an annuity, lso for a career of no accomplishments. USFWS = less ducks!


----------



## Bad Dog

WOW! Mookie why the hate? I'm sure your life has not been nearly as traumatic as Christ's, Mohammed's or Buddha's. If you just stop and look around, life is good. Don't waste it on the hate.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. - Ghandi


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'll make a deal with you don't trickle on my leg and tell me your funny and I will not complain. You use the same tactics as the high fence crowd. Attack the messenger.


plainsman, When the "messenger" starts out his comments attacking my profession and carries on pulling crap out of their *** that is simply not true regarding my profession, the "messenger" will get set straight. Especially if once the bull$hit is pointed out they continue to pull the same crap out of their ***.

Your deal sounds abit like the one I made with you earlier. Don't pull crap out of your *** regarding agriculture that is not factual and I won't have any reason to come on this site and call bull$hit and provide the links to prove it. Not really that much to ask!!!

I thought this thread was about tile, that's about the third or fourth time you have referenced HF in a tile thread. You guys really have to let go of the HF deal!  (Note smiley face icon denoting a bit of sarcasm.)


----------



## Plainsman

Yup, got that. That's how I took all those smiley faces.

Now to the tile, I don't pull anything out of anywhere, I simply know wetland ecology, some hydrology, and know water runs down hill. Tile contributes to flooding, nutrient transport, dissolved mineral water degradation, etc.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> WOW! Mookie why the hate? I'm sure your life has not been nearly as traumatic as Christ's, Mohammed's or Buddha's. If you just stop and look around, life is good. Don't waste it on the hate.
> 
> Be the change you wish to see in the world. - Ghandi


Plainsmans quote:"Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest". end quote

Bad dog, where were the "Ghandisms" regarding hate earlier?  (Note smiley face icon denoting wry humor)


----------



## Plainsman

I thought you were the guy that didn't like things getting personal. Stick to the subject gst. I'm not going to play hate games with you. The subject is tile. I'm sure you know about tile, but if you don't know squat about wetlands just leave it alone. I asked you to tell us what you think it's good points are. Some said it's good for North Dakota. How is it good if it increases income for an individual, but causes ten times the damage for others? I would like to hear an explanation. If all you have is some more character assassination plans I don't care to hear that. If you want to be Mr. funny man try for a spot with Jay Leno.

I would like to hear some serious answers.


----------



## Longshot

"Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. ".



> A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion.


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

Tell me gst, how much of each dollar earned is subsidies money? Remember this is talking about direct payments to farmers and isn't including other programs. If I have a bad year, there's nobody there to bail me out and that's many people's view and the source of people's despise.

How does water magically disappear after it's drained off of the property? To believe it has no impact at all is nothing more than that blind bias we talked about.


----------



## gst

longshot,If you wish to delve into a debate on this countires food security program, please begin by doing some research. A good place to start wouldbe to see how much of a tax dollar goes to support the production of food and fiber in this country then compare what percentage of the average American disposable income per dollar (how many cents out of each dollar) is spent on food as compared to other modern industrialized countires. Then compare our food safety standards with those of other countires as well as avalibility. Once you have researched those few things and have posted your findings as well as the links to the information you are posting, we can begin a serious debate on this countries food security policies.

Perhaps a bit of advise would be to not rely on other countries data (particularily one who is on occasion at odds with American ag policy) as your source. If you truly beleive 62% of farm income on average is from govt payments you should do a little more research. If it is, I'm sure doing something wrong!  Stop into your local ag lender and see if they are of the same opinion.

As to ag practices having an impact on water amounts, please show where I have ever stated some do not? In fact the opposite is true. But if one is to claim ag practices CAUSE flooding, there is where I draw the line. Tonite on the news they updated the flood levels on the Souris river to new higher levels. It is strange as there is very little tiling or drainage done in the watershed of the Souris, so what indeed could be causing these high water levels and flooding? On our lands that have exisiting permanent wetlands my 80 year old dad can hardly recall water levels where they are this spring. What could be causing this phenomenon? There are reports of excessive flooding of some watersheds in western ND where a vast percentage of lands are in grass and not tilled at all. What indeed could be causing this? Do some ag practices add to higher water levels, of couorse, but please do not make the claim they CAUSE flooding. If you are going to do so then please explain why there was flooding prior to ag being a part of the landscape.

They also showed ariel veiws of the Red River Valley. If you truly beleive that amount of water and flooding is CAUSED as stated several times in this topic by agricultural practices, perhaps the blind bias resides closer to home.


----------



## gst

plainsman,as I have said previously if you wish to debate the effects of tiling, you are most certainly able to do so. But when you make incorrect statements about agriculture and continue to do so even after they have clearly been pointed out to you as incorrect, you will be taken to task for it. If you wish this topic to stay on focas simply do not make incorrect statements or insinuations about agriculture and you will be fine.


----------



## gst

lonshot 2007, 2008, 2009 Federal Ag Dept Budgets. 07 is actual 08 and 09 are estimates but are relatively close to actual. 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/ ... ulture.pdf

on page 38 you will see an itemized breakdown of the Ag Dept budget. For 09 it has a total expenditure of 94.76 billion dollars. Of that, crop insurance revenues which are the govt's underwritten portion of private ins companies pay outs to which ag producers pay premiums totaled 5.2 billion. And the CCC payments of 9.9 billion. These are the majority of the sums paid for production ag out of the entire ag budget. For a total of roughly 15 billion out of a 94 billion dollar total going to production ag.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 208AAdVwe2

This link shows there were 1.366 trillion in individual income tax revenues collected in 2009. So divide 15 billion by 1.366 trillion for the percentage of your tax dollar that goes to production ag.

If you notice 55 billion of the 94 billion is allocated for Food and Nutrition, WIC alone encompasses 6.1 billion dollars and has 8.6 million beneficiaries. Funds to run the Forrest Service, Conservation, NRCS conservation programs with a total of 7.4 billion are also included in the Ag Dept. budget. The following is just some of the "bang for your buck" that has been provided out of these tax dollars. Note the dollars of revenue brought into this countries coffers hru ag exports. 
Since 2001, the Department of Agriculture has:
*• Opened new markets for American farmers and ranchers, helping lead to a record level for U.S.
agricultural exports of $81.9 billion in 2007, up nearly 55 percent since 2001.*
• Reduced hazardous fuels on 13.5 million acres of forest and doubled the yearly acreage coverage
under the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
*• Enrolled over one million acres into the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect these
ecologically valuable lands.
• Provided assistance to farmers and ranchers resulting in conservation on more than 130 million
acres of land*.
• Provided food and nutrition benefits to an additional 9.1 million people participating in the Food
Stamp Program and approximately one million women, infants, and children participating in
WIC.
• Strengthened domestic surveillance and testing of avian influenza to ensure rapid detection
and response. Provided assistance to 142 countries where highly pathogenic avian influenza
has been detected to slow the spread of the disease abroad.
• Encouraged the development of a domestic renewable fuels industry with incentives that
resulted in the production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol and 250 million gallons of biodiesel.
• Helped reduce the prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat meat by over 50 percent
through effective inspection systems and response mechanisms.

81.9 billion in gross domestic reciepts for a payment to producers of roughly 15 billion. What return on investment is that for this countries food security policy. Not to mention the 9 million people receiving nutritional benefits.

Here is a link showing what percentage of disposable income Americans spend on food. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/Sept ... Income.htm
Less than 10% in 2007, down from 14% in 1970 when ag programs begin.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=429074
This is a link comparing what % of disposable income US citizens pay as compared to other countires for food.


----------



## gst

longshot, farm subsidy payments stole from taxpayers pockets and paid to greedy welfare farmers, or a nations food security policy?


----------



## indsport

Headlines today. GOP budget proposes $30B in cuts to farm subsidies


----------



## jpallen14

That's the right move. Get them off welfare.


----------



## Plainsman

> But when you make incorrect statements about agriculture and continue to do so even after they have clearly been pointed out to you as incorrect, you will be taken to task for it. If you wish this topic to stay on focas simply do not make incorrect statements or insinuations about agriculture and you will be fine.


Sorry, but tile and many ag practices are often simply greed, and not always need. Talking about ag as a whole is not personal, and I expect you to forget the personal bs you use on here. Sorry, that's the worst word I have used so far. You have one other thread to exploit, so please leave this one alone to discuss tile. If you don't I can only assume you are here to disrupt. If that's the way you want to represent your fellow farmers they have my sympathy. With friends like you they and I don't need enemies. Get back to subject.

I think your avoiding anything related to wetlands because you want to talk about anything related to agriculture, but you know nothing about wetlands. If your not totally wetland ignorant prove me wrong.


----------



## Longshot

> But if one is to claim ag practices CAUSE flooding, there is where I draw the line.


In fact tile does cause flooding in some cases, to believe otherwise is as poor as believing water magically disappears after it leaves the property. You admit is can contribute and that contribution can also be the factor that puts a system to flood stage. Tile is not the only factor and I don't think anyone believes that, but in some area of this country it is the problem.

As to ag subsidies, I will leave it at BS. I believe many in ag do receive more than 50% of their income in direct payments and additional programs. I know a few personally and I highly doubt they are the only ones. You can discredit a claim from outside the US all you want, but sometimes you get more truth there than the pro ag cover-up BS. Maybe you don't play the government handout game as well as others.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think your avoiding anything related to wetlands because you want to talk about anything related to agriculture, but you know nothing about wetlands. If your not totally wetland ignorant *prove me wrong*.


plainsman, I spelled it out pretty clearly why I entered this debate in the first place and hae mader it clear if you continue to misrepresent facts regarding my profession you will be taken to tak for doing so. As to discussing wetlands, you have yet to pull any factually incorrect bull$hit out of your *** of substance so no one has had to "prove you wrong". Nor am I so arrogant as to beleive I know more about someone elses profession I am not involved in than do they.



Plainsman said:


> You have one other thread to exploit, so please leave this one alone to discuss tile. If you don't I can only assume you are here to disrupt


plainsman if you are going to be the moderator on this site please do so fairly!  If you are going to chastise me for disrupting your thread by not talking about tile please chastise the others that do not debate tile as well or my feelings are likely to be hurt,  :roll:

I truly do wish you would take up the offer I gave of not intentionally posting factually incorrect information regarding agriculture. I really do have better things to do than pointing out your misstatements regarding agriculture. I promise if you and others can refrain from making incorrect or snide comments regarding agriculture I will leave this thread as well as all others to you and your friends. Deal?


----------



## Plainsman

Well, I think you consider factual comments snide. You complain about things becoming personal, but you make it that way with comments like:


> you have yet to pull any factually incorrect bull$hit out of your a$$


 Besides the display of poor vocabulary you also call me a liar. I have never done that to you. As a matter of fact I try keep my comments about ag as a whole unless describing those who I think are the "greedy". I would be very happy if you would be as respectful, and not play the part of thread bully.

I do have a question for everyone. Have any of you ever seen a water control devise at the end of a tile in North Dakota. In Iowa I never seen any, and most ended in a wetland with an open end above ground to drain the wetland. Tile has been used in Iowa and southern Minnesota in very destructive ways.

I wonder if those farmers in the Red River Valley like the tile in the Sheyenne basin?


----------



## Plainsman

> [PDF] Assessing U.S. Farm Drainage: File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
> Extensive agricultural subsurface tile drainage in the midwestern U.S. has important implications for nutrient pollution in surface water, notably the " dead ...
> pdf.wri.org/assessing_farm_drainage.pdf - Similar


Here is some information for people to read about ag tile and nutrient transport. Eutrophication has killed many lakes in North Dakota. Some have recovered, some have not. It nearly wiped out Spiritwood Lake here in Stutsman County.

When your done with that go here and read about Eutrophication.



> http://www.eoearth.org/article/Eutrophication


I get a kick out of how they mention suburban lawns. They do contribute, but the vast majority comes from farm fields. Then there is the animal waste which contributes just as much as human waste. Which do you think causes more nitrogen pollution a suburban family with a 100 X 200 sq ft lawn, with half taken up by their house, or a farmer fertilizing 5000 acres? Now they want to waste the fertilizer, and cause more nutrient pollution, to dry up their land earlier, so they can irrigate, so they don't need to employ a hired hand, so they can farm more, so they can raise more, so they can drive the price down with more production, so they can ???????



> Eutrophication is a syndrome of ecosystem responses to human activities that fertilize water bodies with nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), often leading to changes in animal and plant populations and degradation of water and habitat quality. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential components of structural proteins, enzymes, cell membranes, nucleic acids, and molecules that capture and utilize light and chemical energy to support life. The biologically available forms of N and P are present at low concentrations in pristine lakes, rivers, estuaries, and in vast regions of the upper ocean.
> 
> Pristine aquatic ecosystems function in approximate steady state in which primary production of new plant biomass is sustained by N and P released as byproducts of microbial and animal metabolism. This balanced state is disrupted by human activities that artificially enrich water bodies with N and P, resulting in unnaturally high rates of plant production and accumulation of organic matter that can degrade water and habitat quality. These inputs may come from untreated sewage discharges, sewage treatment plants or runoff of fertilizer from farm fields or suburban lawns. In some cases the climax stage of algal blooms can release toxic chemicals such as domoic acid to the aquatic environment, creating elevated metabolic risks to a variety of fish and marine mammals.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> As to ag subsidies, I will leave it at BS. I believe many in ag do receive more than 50% of their income in direct payments and additional programs. I know a few personally and I highly doubt they are the only ones. You can discredit a claim from outside the US all you want, but sometimes you get more truth there than the pro ag cover-up BS. Maybe you don't play the government handout game as well as others.


longshot do you beleive this as strongly as you beleived the Federal govt can not enter into perpetual land easements here in ND????

In 2009 Agricultural exports were valued at roughly $96 billion, add to this the value of the raw ag commodities sold domestically and then divide that into the Federal dollars paid to production ag from the link and if you truly beleive you will come up with 62% I will buy you a steak dinner.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Besides the display of poor vocabulary you also call me a liar. I have never done that to you. As a matter of fact I try keep my comments about ag as a whole unless describing those who I think are the "greedy". I would be very happy if you would be as respectful, and not play the part of thread bully.


Please explain then your claim that Federal monies allocated to agriculture were second only to defense in the scope of the Federal budget.

Please explain your claim that Federal dollars going to ag producers compromised 17% of the Federal budget.

Oh that is right, you "explained" that already, I wonder if that "explaination" would have happened or if these disingenous claims would have been left as they originally were to "inform the uninformed" in the incorrect manner in which they were given if you had not been taken to task for making these incorrect claims.

If you wish ensure you are being honest in your claims, please go back and address every time I politely asked you to "please show me where" I made the statement you claimed I had made. (ie claiming that I was advocating for HB1407 for just one example when I never once posted anyting regarding this bill). I forget, did you "explain" that false claim as well or not? Once you have addressed/"explained" each of these incorrect/dishonest claims/lies you can then come on here and make the claim you do above.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to ag subsidies, I will leave it at BS. I believe many in ag do receive more than 50% of their income in direct payments and additional programs. I know a few personally and I highly doubt they are the only ones. You can discredit a claim from outside the US all you want, but sometimes you get more truth there than the pro ag cover-up BS. Maybe you don't play the government handout game as well as others.
> 
> 
> 
> longshot do you beleive this as strongly as you beleived the Federal govt can not enter into perpetual land easements here in ND????
> 
> In 2009 Agricultural exports were valued at roughly $96 billion, add to this the value of the raw ag commodities sold domestically and then divide that into the Federal dollars paid to production ag from the link and if you truly beleive you will come up with 62% I will buy you a steak dinner.
Click to expand...

You are here to justify a poor practice because "we need to feed the world and the growing population". This is not factual as you claim you always are. This is nothing more than a guess when it comes to population growth predictions. Even those who make the predictions (and there are multiple claiming both an increase and sustained numbers) that there is no factual basis or clear concise prediction. Our farm subsidies suppress ag markets of other countries along with the surpluses we have ourselves, yet you base your argument for unregulated drainage based off nothing more than a guess.

I began agreeing with you that perpetual easements should be given another option. After reading your posts I see no reason why. We already have mutually benefiting agreements that are voluntary with a waiting list of land owners wanting in. Yet for some reason you would like to limit landowner rights to enter into those agreements by changing it. Together with that you think the taxpayer should enter into a less beneficial generational agreement when there are plenty who are willing to enter into a perpetual agreement (a better deal for taxpayer monies). I still do believe that the Feds should have to abide by state law and require a 99 year maximum, just on the fact that terrain changes over time and the benefit of a poor wetland may be the case and the need no longer there.

You do more to re-enforce poor views towards ag than help it.

By the way gst I see that your bias still won't allow you to accept or acknowledge that tile can not only contribute, but also at times CAUSE flooding. I sure would like to see how you perform that magic trick.


----------



## Plainsman

> explained" each of these incorrect/dishonest claims/lies you can then come on here and make the claim you do above.gst
> guest


He who controls the subject controls the debate. I'm not interested in your subjects on this thread. Address them in the other thread that you are quoting from. They don't belong in this one. Evidently you are confused. Please address the tile questions I asked. I want to see economical/social benefits as related to tile. Please address the questions, and don't sidetrack it. Very simple.
If you want an adult debate present something that refutes what I have said rather than more personal attacks.


----------



## gst

longshot, I have been far to busy trying to point out incorrect statements and insinuations about agriculture to have time to comment much on tiling.  The point that was being made that you do not seem to be willing to realize is that if and or when the world population grows to the point many are suggesting it will and demands on avalibility and subsequently food costs begin to be an issue here in this country, what emphasis will society place upon conservation at this time. If the percent of this countries disposable income that is spent on food doubles or triples, (what do you think is happening right now?????) do you beleive society/taxpayers will elect people that want to regulate land out of food production so that retired doctors can come on DU TV and shoot more ducks and pay for this with their tax dollars??? Do you beleive they will continue to have these oil monies go towards perpetual easements for conservation or to other deficiet reduction plans to lower the taxes they pay so they have more dollars avalible to purchase food??? What then will happen to conservation? I have been exceedingly polite, but for Christ sake man you and a couple of others are too blindly biased against an individual to even realize I am advocating FOR conservation and developing working solutions with agriculture and am merely trying to point out the rhetoric regarding ag seen all too often as has been shown in this thread does little good.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> If you wish ensure you are being honest in your claims, please go back and address every time I politely asked you to "please show me where" I made the statement you claimed I had made. (ie claiming that I was advocating for HB1407 for just one example when I never once posted anyting regarding this bill). I forget, did you "explain" that false claim as well or not? Once you have addressed/"explained" each of these incorrect/dishonest claims/lies you can then come on here and make the claim you do above.





Plainsman said:


> Very simple.
> If you want an adult debate *present something that refutes what I have said* rather than more personal attacks


Plainsman I thought that was kinda what I did in providing the links that refute your claims regarding the Federal Ag budget as well as a few other whoppers ! 

So if you wish to have an "adult debate" as I see it you have two options. One go back thru and back up all the claims you have made where I have asked you to please show where I have made the statement you claimed I made that you have not done up to this point by showing exactly where I stated what you have claimed I did. Or you can simply move forward as I suggested not making any further unfactual statements or insinuations about agriculture from this point on.


----------



## Plainsman

I can't keep taking your serious gst. I am sticking with tile. If you want to be the child that comes in and breaks everything in the sand box that's your decision, but it doesn't mean I have to play with your truck. If you want to talk about all those other things go to that thread. I don't want this thread all messed up with your pet interests. I want a serious discussion without your tantrums. Now you understand why I also have a thread on the members only form. At least there we can stay on track.

Please try to keep it together gst. Non of us want to see you crash and burn because you can't have your way.


----------



## gst

plainsman tell you what, I will forget about ALL the previous claims you have made that have been pointed out as not factual/dishonest, whatever you wish to veiw them as if you will only move forward from here and stop making these same type claims and insinuations. Simply telling the factual truth in a debate and providing accessable links to these facts should not be too much to expect of someone.

If you choose not to do this and wish to continue to make these less than accurate statements, please at least save them to "inform the uninformed" in your "members only" forum. That way if those of us who are not members merely wish to read a liitle bit of factual data about tiling, we are not sidetracked by all the talk of subsidies, "welfare states" and "greed" of those in agriculture with their "hands in your pockets" . :wink:


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot, I have been far to busy trying to point out incorrect statements and insinuations about agriculture to have time to comment much on tiling.  *The point that was being made that you do not seem to be willing to realize is that if and or when the world population grows to the point many are suggesting it will and demands on avalibility and subsequently food costs begin to be an issue here in this country, what emphasis will society place upon conservation at this time.* If the percent of this countries disposable income that is spent on food doubles or triples, (what do you think is happening right now?????) do you beleive society/taxpayers will elect people that want to regulate land out of food production so that retired doctors can come on DU TV and shoot more ducks and pay for this with their tax dollars??? Do you beleive they will continue to have these oil monies go towards perpetual easements for conservation or to other deficiet reduction plans to lower the taxes they pay so they have more dollars avalible to purchase food??? What then will happen to conservation? I have been exceedingly polite, but for Christ sake man you and a couple of others are too blindly biased against an individual to even realize I am advocating FOR conservation and developing working solutions with agriculture and am merely trying to point out the rhetoric regarding ag seen all too often as has been shown in this thread does little good.


Thanks for pointing that out gst. From what you have stated it looks as though we should be getting as many perpetual easements as possible before the time that you claim the need for food production will kill conservation. That right there eliminates my desire to have generational easements since your belief that food production will trump conservation easements in the future that would mean that the resigning of those generational wetland easements would be near impossible. From what you stated if you are truly for conservation I guess you should be in favor of perpetual easements to protect conservation for when that time may come.

Also maybe we should look further into the long term effects of tile to make sure that we don't hinder the quality and quantity of production on the acres we have instead of jumping on the bandwagon of a tile salesman. The snake oil salesman is here to see you and really doesn't care about your future, only his immediate sale and future sale of a fix for the same problem he creates.


----------



## sndhillshntr

Full report is here

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/waterquality/tile-drainage-1

Of course 38 seconds on google could have got you there too...


----------



## gst

Okay, one last time, longshot you do realize that these perpetual easements can be altered by an Act of Congress even after they have been signed and put in place do you not? So if the percentage of their disposable income the voter pays for food should triple ( what has it done in just the last year) and someone running for Congress says elect me and I will initiate an Act of Congress to overturn these easements regulating the production of food on farmable acres to lower your food costs and take the monies that have been directed towards them to lower your taxes, do you beleive society will be attracted to this kind of fiscal conservatism? And if the dollars as well as the govt program/easement themselves dissapear, who will be left to implement conservation practices? And if ag producers have been maligned as greedy, welfare receipients stealing from the public by the very private sportsmen groups that will be left to carry the brunt of enticing people to enroll acres into conservation, how likely will producers be to sign up, particularily when they can possibly make much more by farming these acres?

Okay, everyone is talking about the need to make cuts in Federal spending and how ag will be affected so we had better look out, and it is about time. So cuts are made and there are no longer any govt prgram pyments being made, (remember there is an ag group some love to malign advocating for this very thing). So if there are no govt payments to risk losing by draining wetlands as there are now thru the contract you sign to participate in these programs, what do you think will happen? So then how will these wetlands and grassland acres be protected?

Actually stop and think for a moment.


----------



## gst

sandhillshunter, I wonder if any of these people that are dismissing these studies done by an "ag" college will notice the link to this site on the site link you provided.

http://region8water.colostate.edu/index.shtml

Clearly NDSU is blindly biased towards ag and these studies have little peer reveiwed fact based scientific value nor are these land grant universities interested in developing ag production practices that have a sustainable basis. :roll: (Note the eyeroll icon indicating sarcasm)


----------



## Plainsman

Let me ask this question about tile. I know years ago government covered what 80% cost for one row belts and other things. Actually I believe at one time they promoted drainage and may have subsidized that. I would guess there was government money in channel A at Devils Lake. My question is does the government pay part of the costs for laying drain tile?


----------



## gst

[


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Okay, one last time, longshot you do realize that these perpetual easements can be altered by an Act of Congress even after they have been signed and put in place do you not? So if the percentage of their disposable income the voter pays for food should triple ( what has it done in just the last year) and someone running for Congress says elect me and I will initiate an Act of Congress to overturn these easements regulating the production of food on farmable acres to lower your food costs and take the monies that have been directed towards them to lower your taxes, do you beleive society will be attracted to this kind of fiscal conservatism? And if the dollars as well as the govt program/easement themselves dissapear, who will be left to implement conservation practices? And if ag producers have been maligned as greedy, welfare receipients stealing from the public by the very private sportsmen groups that will be left to carry the brunt of enticing people to enroll acres into conservation, how likely will producers be to sign up, particularily when they can possibly make much more by farming these acres?
> 
> Okay, everyone is talking about the need to make cuts in Federal spending and how ag will be affected so we had better look out, and it is about time. So cuts are made and there are no longer any govt prgram pyments being made, (remember there is an ag group some love to malign advocating for this very thing). So if there are no govt payments to risk losing by draining wetlands as there are now thru the contract you sign to participate in these programs, what do you think will happen? So then how will these wetlands and grassland acres be protected?
> 
> Actually stop and think for a moment.


Now this is funny gst, your bias is going overboard. You now have to come up with a hypothetical situation to show that perpetual easements may not be safe if certain things were to happen. Yet your proposal of generational easements is even less safe for the taxpayer's investment. Keep talking gst your selling perpetual easements very well.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> I have been exceedingly polite, but for Christ sake man you and a couple of others are too blindly biased against an individual to even realize I am advocating FOR conservation and developing working solutions with agriculture and am merely trying to point out the rhetoric regarding ag seen all too often as has been shown in this thread does little good.





Longshot said:


> Thanks for pointing that out gst


You are welcome. 

A bit more seriously, longshot, you really do not get it. Answer this one question, do you beleive the worlds population will continue to grow? You do not seem to realize it is not I who is developing "hypothetical scenarios". It is the estimate of other people much smarter than I. (Perhaps you did not read the links provided several pages ago in this debate regarding this very thing). 
http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/furrow/ Go to the archives on the bottom right side and click on "Serving 9 billion" . It is an interesting read if you wish to take the time.

Oh yeah, the cover story about building better soils is a good read as well.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> Now this is funny gst, your bias is going overboard. You now have to come up with a hypothetical situation to show that perpetual easements may not be safe if certain things were to happen. Yet your proposal of generational easements is even less safe for the taxpayer's investment. Keep talking gst your selling perpetual easements very well.


Is "hypothetical" something that "could" happen or something that "is" happening? 
Here's what a few other people have to say about this "hypothetical situation".

Cuts in conservation programs and spending.
http://www.fishingbuddy.com/a_crossroad ... nd_anglers
shaug also had an article quoted about the current feelings in DC regarding these fundings and programs.

Rising food costs because of short supplies and increased demand
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-3 ... cerns.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/ ... 1913.shtml
Herew's one for plainsman showing imported food cost rose 19% over the year previous. The largest jump since 1994. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-1 ... costs.html
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoo ... eindex.htm
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/ar ... 03286.html

World populations growing faster than ever before> 
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... n_pop.html
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/03/ ... y-2030.htm

Now what priorities do you beleive a politician dealing with voters that are dealing with these issues will have?


----------



## Longshot

No different or better than other predictions. He is another view. According to this our country's problems are with securing our boarders.



> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The world's population will rise from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations survey released Thursday.
> 
> Much of the growth will take place in the least-developed countries, where a high rate of mortality is outweighed by an even higher rate of fertility. Their current collective population of 800 million is projected to swell to 1.7 billion in 2050.
> 
> "It is going to be a strain on the world, but it seems feasible," said Hania Zlotnik, director of the U.N. Population Division. "It doesn't seem that there is a crisis coming, [but] that doesn't mean that some countries are not facing a crisis."
> 
> Populations will at least triple in some of the poorest nations -- Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Uganda.
> 
> The U.N. report predicts that nine countries will account for half of the 2.6 billion increase: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, the DRC, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and the United States.
> 
> India is expected to surpass China as the world's most populous country by about 2025, Zlotnik said.
> 
> The average life expectancy of a child born in 2050 will be 75, according to the report. A child born today is expected to live, on average, until 65.
> 
> Zlotnik warned that the United Nations' predictions depended on controlling the spread of AIDS.
> 
> "We cannot emphasize enough the huge impact of this disease," Zlotnik said. "We also have to emphasize that these projections in the long term are assuming that humanity is going to have success in combating the spread of this disease, by mostly behavioral change and prevention."
> 
> The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050, the report says.
> 
> Fifty-one countries -- including Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia -- should have smaller populations in 45 years.
> 
> "Since 1990-1995, fertility decline has been the rule among most developed countries," the report says.
> 
> But the populations of many developed countries with falling fertility rates, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, will increase due to the arrival of migrants. Zlotnik said developed countries will absorb about 2.2 million migrants every year until 2050.
> 
> The findings are based on the most recent national censuses.


----------



## gst

Ah the UN, the answer to all this worlds problems. :roll:



Longshot said:


> "It is going to be a strain on the world, but it seems feasible," said Hania Zlotnik, director of the U.N. Population Division. "It doesn't seem that there is a crisis coming, [but] that doesn't mean that some countries are not facing a crisis."


This is a very clear, consise, and comforting statement, I am now sure there are no problems. Wait, I never noticed any mention of how the UN plans to feed roughly 3 billion more people or roughly 1/3 more than what is being fed now.

Thank you for providing that fact filled statement of reassurance.

I beleive the difference may lie in the fact the links I provided are not "predictions", they are reports on what is actually happening.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> No different or better than other predictions. He is another view. According to this our country's problems are with securing our boarders.


It might be that we need to secure our "borders" from these migrant "boarders" but hey isn't that getting off the topic of tile! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Herew's one for plainsman showing imported food cost rose 19% over the year previous. The largest jump since 1994.


Not interested on this thread. I remember a few years ago there were people writing about the mother ship on the backside of an approaching comet. The dingbats offed themselves thinking that was the way to get on board. My point is the world is full of opinions and these two look related. You guys just have to stop thinking your wearing red tights, a cape, and a blue shirt with a bight red F for farmer saves the world. To save the world you guys are going to have to get a lot more efficient. Right now your the most wasteful farmers in the world. 
You sure are afraid to talk about tile. You know it's just plain poor management and your staying away from it with any subject you can think of. You just have to stop these tile threads at all cost. Are you getting 80% government assistance or something? I know farmers got help paying for shelter-belts because it was land improvement, but on the other hand if I heard right they also got assistance to bulldoze shelter belts because it was land improvement. So what's the story on tile?

You have to know something is wrong when often they tile and then later they irrigate. That is not a picture of efficiency. It sounds more like Ole and Sven with Ole digging the hole and Sven shoveling it back in. Maybe to be more efficient you could lay the tile and irrigation pipe at the same time.

I think we need to look at all of our costs for agriculture. I mean what's it cost the taxpayer to have a Fun Flood in Fargo every year, and how much to prevent it?

gst, you just have to stop thinking like your bud Obama.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> To save the world you guys are going to have to get a lot more efficient. *Right now your the most wasteful farmers in the world. *


plainsman, please do not tell me you are going back to your beleif that 2 acres per person and and ox planting rice by hand (efficient) will feed the world? Do the math, if 3 billion MORE people are added to the world, how many more acres will that take in the "efficient" manner you proposed long ago in this thread.

You relly can not help yourself can you plainsman. What do you know of other countries ag practices? Where is your links to information that can back up this claim? Hell you have proven time and again with comments such as no one is notilling corn that you know nothing about this countires ag practices, yet here you are once again making accusations against ag.

If this is the kind of claims you are making here in the "public" forum on this site, I would hate to see the whoppers being told in the "good ole boys only" supporting members forum where you know I'm not there to take you to task for making them.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Are you getting 80% government assistance or something? I know farmers got help paying for shelter-belts because it was land improvement, *but on the other hand if I heard right they also got assistance to bulldoze shelter belts because it was land improvement.*


 Proof???


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Herew's one for plainsman showing imported food cost rose 19% over the year previous. The largest jump since 1994.
> Not interested on this thread. I remember a few years ago there were people writing about the mother ship on the backside of an approaching comet. The dingbats offed themselves thinking that was the way to get on board. My point is the world is full of opinions and these two look related.


Plainsman, the difference here lies in the FACT the Mother ship did not arrive, but the increase in cost of imported foods you "threaten" ag with has. Take away or limit significantly ag production here in the US and see what it does to the costs of your imported foods.


----------



## Duckslayer100

Looks like today's Forum editorial also bemoans the use of tiling and other drainage means as one of the causes for a rise in the frequency and severity of recent floods...

*Forum editorial: F-M floods originate elsewhere*

When Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker said at a recent flood briefing that the flood flowing through the city was "not Fargo's water," he was stating the obvious. He was saying what everyone who is honest knows but seldom voice for fear of offending the good folks who have mismanaged water for generations in rural North Dakota and Minnesota. In years past, rural water managers probably didn't know any better. They do today, yet surface drainage via laser-surveyed ditches and sophisticated field-tiling projects continue at an accelerating rate.

Well, enough. The sources of perennial (and sometimes severe) urban flooding are not runoff from a shopping center parking lot or major arterial streets like 25th Street South or Main Avenue. The overwhelming volume of water that bloats the Red River and its tributaries comes off a rural landscape that has been drained by modern farming practices, rural road networks and the strategic placement of culverts and bridges on those roads.

"Water resource district" has historically been a euphemism for drain board, and no matter how knowledge of water movement has evolved, old habits are hard to break. The primary motivation has been - and is - moving spring's snowmelt off the land as quickly as possible. Over the years, the process has been amazingly successful, to the detriment of downstream interests, whether they are cities like Fargo, Argusville and Harwood in North Dakota, or Hendrum, Georgetown and Ada in Minnesota, or rural farm neighbors in both states who just happen to farm on lower ground. While the current wet cycle certainly has delivered more water onto the land, the impacts of the cycle have been intensified by extensive drainage.

Critics of Fargo's flood plans claim the city has not sacrificed as rural areas would if a diversion and holding ponds were built. Where have they been for the past decade?

Fargo and Moorhead have sacrificed hundreds of homes - entire neighborhoods - to flood buyouts. Acres of prime land have been taken out of potential development to accommodate huge in-city water-holding basins and deeper and wider flood-control channels. The Fargo channels, by the way, carry floodwaters that flow north from rural lands outside the city.

Fargo has taxed itself in order to pony up tens of millions of dollars for flood-control projects, which demonstrated their efficacy by again protecting the city from a catastrophic flood this spring.

It might be a tad unfair to criticize farmers who seek to protect their interests by clinging to land- and water-management protocols that are as old as settlement itself. However, when they blithely proclaim that Fargo's water problems are not theirs, they are being, at best, disingenuous.


----------



## Longshot

> It might be a tad unfair to criticize farmers who seek to protect their interests by clinging to land- and water-management protocols that are as old as settlement itself. However, when they blithely proclaim that Fargo's water problems are not theirs, they are being, at best, *disingenuous*.


gst, did you write this? You're the only one I know that has used that word to death to the point it has lost its true meaning. I guess the water magic trick isn't working. Next I'm sure we will hear how water doesn't really flow downhill.

Is this your mentality also gst; I need to drain my land as fast as possible in order to get in earlier each year to plant.....screw those downstream, that's not my problem and I didn't do it. (envision 2 year old tantrum)


----------



## Plainsman

Longshot, I tried to find a quote on here that said something sort of like "heck with those communities dumb enough to build on a flood plain". That maybe isn't close, but the idea was they had no sympathy for communities like Fargo. I either don't search well, or it has been edited.

Excellent duckslayer100, and I quoted the main points below. The old water districts I remember well. As a matter of fact I know very well one fellow who helped write the Starweather watershed plan. Today we can see where that got us. North of Devils Lake, they are still in a state of denial. Or like the last quote less than disingenous. Now I would not be unkind, but one of us would say they are liars.



> "Water resource district" has historically been a euphemism for drain board


What percent of North Dakota is rural landscape. One would have to be devoid of grey matter not to agree with 90% of the water is coming of rural landscape. Perhaps more.



> comes off a rural landscape that has been drained by modern farming practices,


The quote below is a point I have been trying to get across. Then we get the same dumb question what made Devils Lake run over before agriculture. I guess some never heared of glaciers. That and over thousand of years there had to be cycles with more precipitation than now. I would guess we are not setting any 5000 year record. Although I did hear about a farmer up by Minot building an ARK.



> While the current wet cycle certainly has delivered more water onto the land, the impacts of the cycle have been intensified by extensive drainage.


Pennies earned upstream are costing thousands of dollars downstream. If they can't stop it then Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks and all the small communities need a multi billion dollar class action law suite. Some think sacrafice is not going to Vegas until six months after the grain is in the bin.



> Fargo and Moorhead have sacrificed hundreds of homes - entire neighborhoods


I remember the big fight over Garrison Diversion. We were going to be the new Nile Valley. We started building that with technology and mindset of the 1800's. If your as old as I am you remember them telling us they would have barges coming up the canals to carry back wheat to the world they were going to feed. Sound familiar?



> water-management protocols that are as old as settlement itself


It's just the wet cycle. Come on now people, you can't stop progress. Progress: from your wallet to mine. It's only your house, I can grow another bushel of wheat.



> when they blithely proclaim that Fargo's water problems are not theirs, they are being, at best, disingenuous


----------



## gst

Can anyone please show where I have made the claim some agricultural practices do not contribute to water problems? Anyone? To insinuate I have is "disingenuous" at best. And of course as mentioned, with the percentage of land in ND that is rural, most water will come from "rural" ND.

Now if someone would suggest that either the ground is simply saturated from previous amounts of moisture or still frozen and the water simply has no where to go but "downhill" and as a result flooding occurs, well anyway that was just a thought.



Plainsman said:


> Pennies earned upstream are costing thousands of dollars downstream. If they can't stop it then Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks and all the small communities need a multi billion dollar class action law suite. *Some think sacrafice is not going to Vegas until six months after the grain is in the bin*.


You just can not help but take a shot at agriculture every time you post something can you. :roll:


----------



## Longshot

Wow gst, your blind bias really has skewed your reality. Ag's current practice in many areas is to get rid of their problem (water) as quick as possible in the spring and to #&!! will those downstream.



> Can anyone please show where I have made the claim some agricultural practices do not contribute to water problems? Anyone? To insinuate I have is "disingenuous" at best.


No, you claim that ag isn't causing flooding, when in reality in some cases it does. In some cases ag practices are causing flooding while most are contributing. Contribution of and causing flooding is costing others and ag refuses to acknowledge that, just as you do. You come on hear claiming you are taking people to task, then claim you didn't say something that isn't in the same text of the discussion, and finally you move into the victim phase and try to claim someone is misquoting you. When you read something you don't like your first reaction is to misdirect. So maybe you should read more to us from the tile salesman brochure. :laugh:


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> You come on hear claiming you are taking people to task, then claim you didn't say something that isn't in the same text of the discussion, and finally you move into the victim phase and try to claim someone is misquoting you


longshot quite awhile ago I clearly stated the reason I came on here was to provide an insight from ags perspective that is often lacking on this site. In this thread, I made it clear I was not debating the issue of tiling, but merely pointing out statements made concerning agriculture that were indeed not factual. In the process of doing so some people have chosen to claim I have made statements I have not. If indeed where I have politely asked someone to "please show where" I have made a particular statement they claim I have, you beleive I have NOT been misquoted by the person making the claim, all you have to do is show where I have stated what was claimed. So far not one time has the person that made the claim done so when asked to.

What you do not seem to understand is in these instances I am not "playing the victim" but rather simply holding those making statements that are factually not true(you can call that what you wish) to a higher standard than what they apparently choose to have on their own when posting these type claims on here.

My profession is agriculture. I beleive agriculture is an important part of this states as well as this countries economies and future. I beleive as the global p[opulation growagriculture will indeed play a valueble role in feeding it as it has done for generations. I am biased towards production agriculture. Not blindly so. I have stated before in more than just this one thread on this site that just as in ANY other profession there are positive and negative aspects as well as people involved, agriculture is no different, it is simply human nature. But that does not give someone the right to come on a site like this and make claims that are simply not factually correct about agriculture. To do so to further ones agenda is "disingenuous at best".

I have also offered a deal that if people would stop posting statements regarding agriculture that are simply not true, I would gladly refrain from coming on here and pointing them out as there would be no need to. If you really do not wish to hear from me regarding these topics, there is a simple way to do so.


----------



## gst

Okay lets go back for a moment to where this all started. 
Plainsmans first post on this topic. 
Report this postReply with quoteRe: Bill would streamline tiling permits for ND farms
by Plainsman » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:41 am

I have worked on wetlands throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. I would estimate that 95% of the Prairie Pothole Region in Iowa is drained. Their waterfowl hunting is nearly destroyed. Only the very rich hunt. One farm I worked on had restored a 100 acre wetland. He leased it to three people for waterfowl hunting at $6000 each. Southern Minnesota is just as bad. As we move into the this region which is moisture deficit things will change. *They will still drain the wetlands, and destroy waterfowl hunting, but they will cut their own throat also. Draining soil moisture in a moisture deficit climate will result in many more years of man made drought. Then they will cry for more support*. 
*Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest.*
When I speak of moisture deficit I mean we are in a climate that has a higher evaporation rate than rainfall. At first you may ask how that is possible. Well, the only reason we can raise crops is soil moisture. Moisture held below the surface doesn't evaporate, but put in drain tile and we have a disaster in the waiting. *They can only survive by even more taxpayer support. *Also, hydrology comes into play. Our wetlands function more often as wetland systems than individual wetlands. Some are hydrological recharge, some flow through, and others are hydrological discharge systems. People out draining without knowing what they are doing is like letting a three year old play with dynamite. More water from the hydrological recharge system goes into the aquifer than is discharged to the atmosphere, hence the term hydrological recharge wetland. *Tiles will cause surface flooding while at the same time cause aquifer depletion.*Legislators who vote for this will find they voted in conflict with national regulations. To think only in terms of North Dakota is to think on a tribal level rather than as a member of a civilized nation. Unfortunately we have many in the legislature that think the world revolves around them. They look at themselves as rulers rather than servants, and that puts them in conflict with our constitution. But then that has never stopped the North Dakota legislature. We need to simply look at the 1970's when they denied a farmer the right to sell his wetlands to the U. S. Government. No individual had the money to take them to court for violating their constitutional rights.


----------



## gst

:eyeroll: messed up and got multiple posts and can;t delete without something being in the comment box.


----------



## gst

Enjoy the day everyone. Went for a drive, lots of water standing and running everywhere. Even all the cattail sloughs and natural wetlands are full to over flowing!! It appears as if all this water is running downhill!!! If only it was like back before agriculture came to the landscape and there was no flooding at all.


----------



## Longshot

So what you claim is that as long as you can silence opinions that you don't agree with then you would have no need to be here. Wow you continue to amaze me. Tile does not impact me directly as I do not live in a flooded area. But I know what I see during work and recreation and seeing is believing. I see for myself tile draining while the ground still has snow on it. You do realize that frost thaws from both the surface higher temperatures and below higher ground temperatures in spring right? It irritates me that so many deny their cause and contribution of a problem that threatens their neighbors, yet don't care nor try to change it. They spend all their time defending a poor practice instead of trying to fix the problem. They would rather grasp at straws to any claim they can to justify that same cause or contribution. I think that many times people in ag are given false information, or in your terms "disingenuous" information, in order to sell them a product regardless if it's a good idea or not. You claim we need to grasp this poor practice now in order to feed those possible additional 3 billion people in 40 years yet some of these same practices may hinder or reduce production in the future. It doesn't make much sense to me and others. It looks more like greed right now and we'll worry about the problems it causes later, I don't care what it does to others as long as I get mine now.

Also gst, you don't have to claim something in your own words, when you continue to tell people they are wrong when they talk about ag causing flooding by use of tile you are making that claim. This is why I believe you try to be as vague as possible and can only ask questions, yet only select a few questions to answer yourself. Reading some of your posts I get the feeling that you skirt around making a direct statement or answering a questions because doing so would only show your true intent.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> My profession is agriculture. I beleive agriculture is an important part of this states as well as this countries economies and future.


I agree with that and not unlike many other professions! But I also believe that it does not condone poor practices or practices that hurt others in the process.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> So what you claim is that as long as you can silence opinions that you don't agree with then you would have no need to be here. Wow you continue to amaze me


Once again you do not seem to understand. What I am saying is as long as those opinions are factual in nature and not a misrepresentation of the truth regarding the profession I make my families living from and is a vital part of this states economy, I do not have to be on here to point out that they are not!


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> My profession is agriculture. I beleive agriculture is an important part of this states as well as this countries economies and future.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that and not unlike many other professions! But I also believe that it does not condone poor practices or practices that hurt others in the process.
Click to expand...




gst said:


> My profession is agriculture. I beleive agriculture is an important part of this states as well as this countries economies and future. I beleive as the global population grows agriculture will indeed play a valueble role in feeding it as it has done for generations. I am biased towards production agriculture. Not blindly so. I have stated before in more than just this one thread on this site that just as in ANY other profession there are positive and negative aspects as well as people involved, agriculture is no different, it is simply human nature. But that does not give someone the right to come on a site like this and make claims that are simply not factually correct about agriculture.


longshot, do you agree with the last statement in this post?


----------



## gst

longshot the following is from my firt post on this topic from this thread. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=89313&start=80

*Now before a couple fellas go off acusing me of being a selfish greedy landowner/farmer reminiscient of the old eliteist land baron of Europe ( it seems to be a typical response from some) realize food production for a growing population is part of the puzzle right along side maintaining recreational activities and the enviromental sources that contribute to them. Now for the thousand dollar question, what takes prescedence, food production or recreational activities. (Weigh your answer carefully before suggesting someone else is selfish) I am not saying it has to be either or, or done at negative cost to the enviroment*, but EVERYONE has to realize the changing demands placed on our lands and what they produce in both food and recreational activities. So for all those "experts" against this bill, what are your solutions to producing more food to meet the growing populations demand?

The following is from my second post on this topic.

Instead of habitually being opposed to every single bill or regulation change that agriculture brings forth as some of these sportsmen and the groups representing them are, *perhaps coming to the table and finding solutions that benefit all if it can be done would be in the best long term interests of conservation. History has shown that when faced with food shortages or high costs of food, populations tend to care less about enviromental issues or natural resources such as wildlife*

Now if you wish to continue to claim I am advocating for agricultural practices regardless of the costs, please explain why I would make such comments at the very start of my involvement in these topics?


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> You claim we need to grasp this poor practice now in order to feed those possible additional 3 billion people in 40 years yet some of these same practices may hinder or reduce production in the future. It doesn't make much sense to me and others. It looks more like greed right now and we'll worry about the problems it causes later, I don't care what it does to others as long as I get mine now.


Please show me where I have claimed "we need to grasp this poor practice" regarding tiling? Fom the beginning, I simply alluded to the fact the world population IS growing at a rather fast pace and growing commodities to continue to feed this population is PART of the puzzle. I asked if you are opposed to certain ag practices, what solutions do you then have to continue to be able to increase the production of the commodities that will be required to meet the increased demand for them?

These questions were asked because as was pointed out and agreed to, conservation takes a back seat when society does not have adequate food avalibility or the costs are high. Repeatedly I have suggested that it is in conservations best interests to realize that and develope programs that producers themsemves beleive in so the proucer himself will implement them beause they want to and beleive in them. And yet somehow this is painted as being against conservation, greedy and "blindly bias".


----------



## Plainsman

> I simply alluded to the fact the world population IS growing at a rather fast pace and growing commodities to continue to feed this population is PART of the puzzle.


That's simply back door logic to a debate. It's a play upon the mind where the subject of your opposition is supposed to sit down and think "oh my we can't hinder these farmers in any way shape or form because they have to feed the world". It was a clear indication of your support for tile, even if you don't realize it yet. The old poem tells us that the night before Christmas sugar plums dance in the heads of children. For some visions of thrones dance in their head year around, even if they know not yet the language of their subconscious.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> That's simply back door logic to a debate. It's a play upon the mind where the subject of your opposition is supposed to sit down and think "oh my we can't hinder these farmers in any way shape or form because they have to feed the world".


"I simply alluded to the fact the world population IS growing at a rather fast pace and growing commodities to continue to feed this population is PART of the puzzle".

The statement above I made was a pretty simple straight forward one that would indeed be pretty hard to suggest is not factual. Perhaps the minds that are not so biased against agriculture are not "played upon" quite so easily and see it as such. :wink:

Taken in context with the very first post I made on this topic: (Note the boldened, underlined statements)
("Now before a couple fellas go off acusing me of being a selfish greedy landowner/farmer reminiscient of the old eliteist land baron of Europe ( it seems to be a typical response from some) *realize food production for a growing population is part of the puzzle right along side maintaining recreational activities and the enviromental sources that contribute to them.* Now for the thousand dollar question, what takes prescedence, food production or recreational activities. (Weigh your answer carefully before suggesting someone else is selfish)* I am not saying it has to be either or, or done at negative cost to the enviroment, but EVERYONE has to realize the changing demands placed on our lands and what they produce in both food and recreational activities.* So for all those "experts" against this bill, what are your solutions to producing more food to meet the growing populations demand?")

some of those minds less easily played upon might see it as simply suggesting things are changing both globally and here in this very country and if conservation wants to continue to a viable part of this puzzle these changes have to be realized as actually happening and move forward accordingly as these changes occur rather than simply reliving what happened in the 70's or 80's. Nothing more, nothing less.

plainsman, do you belive the global population is gowing such as has been suggested in a number of links I have provided?


----------



## Plainsman

> Taken in contest


???? You mean one contests the other?



> plainsman, do you belive the global population is gowing such as has been suggested in a number of links I have provided?


Here we go with the 100 questions again.

There is nothing right now that justifies water quality degradation, flooding problems, and general ecological destruction. It is especially poor for a person to pass their problems multiplied on to a neighbor who will have even greater problems. Beyond belief that we have all become so callous to our neighbor.

If the situation changes where we need increased production it still does not justify tile. Tile is counter productive in the long run. Unless your selfish enough to think only of yourself, and it's questionable then in the long run.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here we go with the 100 questions again.


 Actually it is just one simple one that only requires a one word answer.



Plainsman said:


> There is nothing right now that justifies water quality degradation, flooding problems, and general ecological destruction. It is especially poor for a person to pass their problems multiplied on to a neighbor who will have even greater problems. Beyond belief that we have all become so callous to our neighbor.
> 
> If the situation changes where we need increased production it still does not justify tile. Tile is counter productive in the long run. Unless your selfish enough to think only of yourself, and it's questionable then in the long run.





gst said:


> (Note the boldened, underlined statements)
> ("Now before a couple fellas go off acusing me of being a selfish greedy landowner/farmer reminiscient of the old eliteist land baron of Europe ( it seems to be a typical response from some) realize food production for a growing population is[b] part of the puzzle right along side maintaining recreational activities and the enviromental sources that contribute to them[/b]. Now for the thousand dollar question, what takes prescedence, food production or recreational activities. (*Weigh your answer carefully before suggesting someone else is selfish) I am not saying it has to be either or, or done at negative cost to the enviroment*, but EVERYONE has to realize the changing demands placed on our lands and what they produce in both food and recreational activities. So for all those "experts" against this bill, what are your solutions to producing more food to meet the growing populations demand?")


plainsman perhaps if you had only taken the time to actually READ what was written in the VERY FIRST POST I made on this topic, you would have realized that I spelled out pretty clearly what I beleive needs to be considered in moving ahead with the changes we will see happening as the global population grows and requires the production of more food. And perhaps the insinuations of selfish,greed, hands in the taxpayers pocket, welfare state ect....... could have been avoided. But then again considering that was how you started off your comments on this topic and continued to carry on thru out it, possibly not.


----------



## gst

For those who claim food costs are not rising, here's one for you!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42603382/ns ... york_times :-?


----------



## Plainsman

No one has claimed that food cost will not rise. No one is claiming that in the future we will not need more food. What I am saying is that I think through tile we will destroy much and gain nothing.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> No one has claimed that food cost will not rise. No one is claiming that in the future we will not need more food. What I am saying is that I think through tile we will destroy much and gain nothing.


plainsman if you go back to the very beginning of this debate you will see that I brought up these very two issues and asked waht will societies priority be? The reason I asked this question because as you alluded to when faced with these two issues societies priorities are not conservation or wildlife. And as I asked who then will be responsible for continueing conservation or "sustainable" practices? And the point I tried to make is by constantly sniping about "greedy ag" on these sportsmens site is what good will it ultimately do conservation in the long run. You never have answered that one simple question.


----------



## Plainsman

> You never have answered that one simple question.


Because I'm not playing your game. I just want you to keep talking so people can see how ag thinks. By now they should know ag doesn't care how much it cost them to process their water, how much they flood, or the damage they do to habitat. That's what this thread is about. If you change the subject it only means you really do know the problem, but want to hide it. If ag cared, we would not be debating.

I use the term ag as a representation of those who the shoe fits in the above description. That may be very few, but they are the ones causing the problems. This is our country and out state too, and we just are not going to roll over and give you everything.


----------



## lindyrigem

gst, correct me if im wrong but arent speculators in the grain markets part of what has driven prices the last few years. if i am right here the way the law used to work you had to be physically able to store however many bushels of commodity that you purchased on futures. now the way the law states you can buy as many futures contracts of whatever commodity but you do not have to have the capability to store the commoditys, i.e. anyone now can buy commodity futures and possibly influence prices outside of supply and demand. this speculation and keeping supply off the market can have a large influence on price, the price of oil is a prime example, we have more oil than weve ever had but speculators have most of it tied up on paper and are driving the price up. supply and demand aren't neccessarily what drives the commodity prices anymore. im not against ag. it may have seemed that way on a couple earlier posts. what i am against are farmers who farm the goverment. farming has changed drastically the last even 10 years and the days of the family farm are almost gone. farming is being controlled more and more by huge farm corporations and what i fear is the human factor has gone out of ag. the only way i see farmers being more concious to the enviroment is if it makes them money . it seems that with all the ditching and now tiling regulations even looser we are going to see alot more tiling going on in the eastern part of the state and i dont think thats a very good thing for us. it seems that when there is a choice between enviroment or making money the enviroment loses just about every time.


----------



## gst

plainsman so apparently you simply choose to disregard the very statements I have copied a number of times and underlined and bolded from my very first post on this topic because it does not fit your agenda of what you choose to beleive agriculture is.And as a result you care less about wether your comments ultimately hurt conservation in ag than you do about furthering your agenda.

lindyrig, You are indeed right that speculation drives much of the movement we see in markets. But it is ultimately supply and demand that will dictate the levels this movement occurs at. Stocks of some grains are at several decade lows, todays global usage impacts this much more than it did in the past. So the basis levels that these speculatory manipulations move the markets from is reflective yet of supply and demand. It is PART of what is raising food costs. Look to average ending stocks as well as the stocks to usage ratios of some commodities the last several years compared to what they were a couple of decades ago and you will see they are more readily depleted quicker now than ever before. And if you throw a weather phenomenom into the mix somewhere around the globe, stocks can drop dramatically and usage still increases at a pace beyond what it ever has been as a result of a larger population demanding more food (as well as this countries energy policies having a small impact in the global picture).

And as you elude to ag is getting bigger as is most every industry. The economies of scale drive much of profitable enterprise any more. That is why it is as important now as ever to develope technologies of sustainable ag so that there are attractions to implement conservations techniques into production ag that work to keep the peices of the puzzle together. Sniping about greed and basing your understanding of ag on outdated obsolete veiws and "facts" does no good in todays rapidly changing arena. Nor does posting claims that simply are not true. I have stated in the past, there are aspects of some farming practices that I would not disagree with what some are saying. But these very same people do not seem to want to inform themselves of the rapid changes that technology is bringing to ag that has and is addressing some of these issues, Fertilizers that do not leach out of the soils and into water supplies, herbicides that bond to and stay in the organic matters of the plants instead of moving thru the water system, chemicals that help contol drift and adhesion of pesticides and herbicides, soil and residue management that builds organic mater, water absorbtion as well as lowers the levels of fertilizers needed. These are but a few practices happening in ag that are developed by and with conservation minded people within ag and other agencies as well as academia that beleive not only do we need to "feed the world" as the demand for food grows, but we need to do so in a sustainable way. Snide little comments that are often factually not accurate does not help further conservations cause in agriculture. That is not that hard to understand. Debate the pros or cons of tiling or other ag practices, but do so in a manner agriculture as well as conservation can respect and give credibility to. And remember the bulk of society cares less about the enviroment, ag, or sportsmen issues than they do cheap readily avalible food.


----------



## Plainsman

gst why are you so afraid to discuss tile? Is it that you know it's out of balance. That it causes more problems for a large number of people than it solves for the individual? That's the reality.



> plainsman so apparently you simply choose to disregard the very statements I have copied a number of times and underlined and bolded from my very first post


I don't know I didn't find much except you whining about my posts on your first post. Also in that first post you stated the below quote. Other than whine you asked more questions. Surprise! You never did talk about tile. Why is that?



> plainsman, I am NOT going to get into a 10 page debate once again, but if you are going to suggest every study done by ag is solely based off an agenda, can we then make a correlating assumption every study done by people in enviromental sciences orgs is done by those "bunny huggingradicals" you have admitted are involved in biological and enviromental research?


----------



## lindyrigem

i understand what you are saying that there are new technologies out there in farm chemicals but i am leary about how true these claims are. im not a farmer but ive helped spray in the past. 2-4-d was the most common chemical we sprayed and we used some kind of surfactent to heat it up and harmony. i dont know they still use alot of 2 4 d but i know this is really nasty stuff, the pesticides we sprayed were furadan and a few others. by the time the sprayer finished the round the potato bugs were falling off the leaves dead. these chemicals probably arent great for the enviroment but i understand there is a need for them and as long as the label is followed theyre ok. being from the northern red river valley we really dont have alot of tiling around my area. a quarter was tiled near here last fall that will probably have irrigated russets or corn on it this year. we really dont have alot of pivots around here but ditching is another story. to borrow from the oil industries drill baby drill, around here its ditch baby ditch. it seems that over the last 10-15 years are floods just keep having higher and higher average crests. weall hold our breath every spring even if there is a moderate amount of snow because the rate that the runoff reaches the river is scary. and the same can be said up and down the valley. do you agree that if the runoff reaches the river more rapidly that it increases flooding? the ditches are dug and theres not much that can be done about that but i fear its just a matter of time before we are washed off the map. it seems on years with just average snowfall we still get a second or third highest crest on record.


----------



## gst

lindy, I have said in previous posts in this topic acouple of times there are ag practices that add to water issues. There are also ag practices that control water issues as well. Please do not take my word for it of the advances technology is providing ag. There are any number of resources avalible to provide information on the lastest advances in production ag if one WANTS to learn of them. Google sustainable ag and see what pops up. The entire reason I involved myself in this topic was not to debate tiling, but simply point out the inacurate and often outdated claims that were being made about a profession I make my living in and to try to get people to understand bashing agriculture will do little to benefit conservation in the long run.


----------



## lindyrigem

im not bashing agriculture, i understand thats how you make your living. our whole state economy revolves around ag. what i dont agree with is the whats in it for me. i know theres things that can be done for water control. but why does it always seem that most farmers thinking is i know things i can do but im not going to do anything about it unless the goverment pays me to do it. it just seems like our middle class tax dollars go to help everyone but the middle class. tax cuts for big bussiness, farm subsidies etc. we need our farmers and we need what they produce and as farmers you guys do a fantastic job of producing food. subsidies are needed in certain situations like say 3 dollar wheat but when wheat sells for 10 dollars are subsidies really needed for farmersto make it.


----------



## kc81c

I don't want to get into the details of this much but I see a lot of misunderstanding about Ag in this thread. I think the farther away the generations get from living on a farm the worse this misunderstanding will be. I thought I would attempt to correct a few.

1. I see the word pesticide(chemical designed to kill pests such as bugs) used a lot but in typical ND Ag there is very little pesticide used it is mostly herbicides (chemical designed to kill weeds). The main use for pesticides in ND is soybean aphids which on our farm we use about once every 3yrs as a last resort as it causes a whole other set of issues by upsetting the balance of bugs in the field and killing natural predators.

2. Wetlands truthfully I question if there is hardly any wetlands in ND. My family has farmed from the same homestead since 1889. We have fields that have never seen this type of water. Yes we have area currently holding water for the last 3yrs farming about 70% of the acres we farm with the wet areas having ducks and geese on them but 4yrs ago we farmed roughly 95% of our acres. Are these areas wetlands or are they just wet during a wet cycle.

3. I personally believe our natural drainage system is broken. Roads have been built and some places culverts weren't put in other places they were but have been damaged. Fence lines over the years have created damns. Cattails(not a native plant) clog water ways, farming practices have filled in natural drains in the fields as we farm through them when its dry but now aren't allowed to clean them. We are preventing Devils Lake from doing what it wants to and naturally drain and you can't tell me all that water pressure isn't forcing water underground. So are we protecting wetlands or creating wetlands.

4. Someone said that farmers get over 50% of there income from the government. Any farmer that is isn't a good businessman on our farm our government income is easily less then 10% of our income. Sometimes I think its a payoff for all the agendas that are forced on us through the USDA coming from lots of other organizations.

5. Today's farmers are doing a very efficient job of putting down as accurate as possible of rates for both chemical and fertilizer. We are controlling our fertilizer rates going up and down the field based on need accurate down to the pound per acre. We are also dealing with new fertilizers that control the release throughout the year and help with the Nitrogen leaching or evaporating out of the soil. Our chemicals are mixed in a batches of 100acres and chemical is mixed in accurate down to the tenth of a gallon. Meaning we are off less then a pint of chemical concentrate per 100 acre batch and applying with a computerized system that meters flow as speed changes going up and down the field. Look at the fertilizer and chemical that is applied in yards along our rivers and lakes and how haphazardly and inaccurately it is applied. I've seen the neighbor at the lake apply fertilizer in the morning to there lawn then turn the sprinkler on in the afternoon so hard its just washing it right in the lake.

As you can tell I'm biased but I feel like farmers are sometimes thought of as uncaring businesses that just use the land but don't care about it. As I said before my family has farmed in the same area for over 120years we have added to the original farm over time but all the land we farm we take care of it is how we make a living. We are constantly trying to make the land we farm better and trying to better understand it. We don't use it and discard it. I'm sure some if not a lot will disagree with what I'm saying but maybe someone will take something away from this.

I won't get into the tiling much I think it has its place in certain areas if used correctly just like anything else. I will say one thing about all the disagreement on which studies are biased and which are right and wrong. The only thing I learned of value in college in my Statistics class was all statistics are flawed no matter how hard we try to make a study unbiased it will always be biased.


----------



## lindyrigem

im not trying to argue but when crop prices are as high as they are the last few years are subsidies really needed. i think there should be a cut off price and when a crop hits that price subsidies should not be given for that crop. i think our biggest problem is tax cuts for big bussiness. farmers are definitely needed and really do a good job at what they do for the most part. maybe sportsman and ag can find some common ground and take it from there.


----------



## kc81c

A portion of them are dependent on price the LDP Loan Deficiency Payment sets a bottom dollar guarantee basically I don't remember what they are as we haven't been near them for the last several years. We do receive some other payments along with the governments biggest involvement which is their backing of the Crop Insurance program which IMO is probably the only involvement the government should have in AG is making sure we have a way of buying insurance. On the other hand the government should probably cut all subsidies including the petroleum industry, banking, automotive, even the stimulus package a few years ago had subsidies as ridiculous as for "Wooden Bow and Arrow Makers".

I'm not beginning to say farming isn't profitable right now but high prices aren't always an indication of profit for farming. As crop prices go up so do our inputs over the last few years we have seen dramatic increases in land prices, equipment prices, and seed prices along with some crazy spikes and drops in fertilizer chemical and fuel.


----------



## shaug

kc81c,

What agriculture needs is people like you to step up and tell your story. What is obvious here is that you cannot afford to let others tell it for you.

kc81c wrote,



> 2. Wetlands truthfully I question if there is hardly any wetlands in ND. My family has farmed from the same homestead since 1889. We have fields that have never seen this type of water. Yes we have area currently holding water for the last 3yrs farming about 70% of the acres we farm with the wet areas having ducks and geese on them but 4yrs ago we farmed roughly 95% of our acres. Are these areas wetlands or are they just wet during a wet cycle.


The government has juristiction over "navigatable waters" but someone is trying to change that to "waters of the United States." It is in the second paragraph in the link below.

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=a/GetD ... on/i/12910



> 4. Someone said that farmers get over 50% of there income from the government. Any farmer that is isn't a good businessman on our farm our government income is easily less then 10% of our income. Sometimes I think its a payoff for all the agendas that are forced on us through the USDA coming from lots of other organizations.


Yes, there are many organizations that lobby Congress for largesses from the general treasurey. It is a cash cow. Play the video watch the names and organizations. In the name of hunting and doing it for sportsman the taxpayers are getting ripped off.

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/196/pid/196

It all sounds so good and wholesome. Until one factors in that this country has no money in the general treasurey and the money to fund this give away will have to be borrowed from China.

How many of us could operate our farm or household such as this? There is more money going out than there is money coming in. Cuts will have to be made.

I have two side hill seeps on my land. Have been considering drain tile. I'll have to weigh the costs and benefits to see if it pays for itself. If I don't have the money I will defund it.


----------



## gst

lindy, I appreciate your manner of questioning things. This country decided a few decades ago they were going to implement a "food security policy" and as such the govt involved itself in developeing programs intended to keep family farms in business rather than large multimational corporations. As in any govt involvement often times it has not been as efficient or abuse free as it should have been. But what it has accomplished is keeping this countries food the lowest cost of any industrialized nation (I have provided links showing the US pays the lowest percentage of their disposable income for food of any major advanced country). It has also provided the safest source of food of any country. (funding for food inspection systems is included in the Federal ag budget). We also have the most readily availble source of the widest variety of food of any nation.

I provided links to show that less than 1 cent out of every tax dollar goes to agriculural subsidies. If you weigh that against the food cost savings the consumer of this country has over every other country in each dollar they spend for food you can begin to see the basis for this countries "food security" programs.

And as was mentioned, a requirement for receiving these payments is the signing of a contract which prevents the draining of wetlands and regulates the farming of any HE type soils as well as other stipulations. Without these payment incentives and contracts holding them to stewardship standards, what do you beleive would happen to some of these areas in some cases? As kc81 alluded to these subsidies are not necessarily "free" monies for the producer, but incentives for doing certain things. And as also mentioned some in AG beleive we would be better off without these govt controls. But if you wish to see them end, truly realize what they have accomplished for this countries consumer as well as the farmer and understand the possible consequences as well.

If the percentage of your disposable income doubled or tripled to levels other countries pay, how long before you beleive we would hear snipes of "greedy" farmers from the very same people making them now over the less than one cent of their tax dollar?


----------



## Plainsman

> Crop Insurance program which IMO is probably the only involvement the government should have in AG is making sure we have a way of buying insurance. On the other hand the government should probably cut all subsidies including the petroleum industry, banking, automotive, even the stimulus package a few years ago had subsidies as ridiculous as for "Wooden Bow and Arrow Makers".


 :thumb:

Most of my relatives on the farm try to shy away from government programs as much as possible. All accept the guy with a farm about ten times as large as average. He milks the system for all it's worth. I don't suppose it's a farm thing, it's a human thing. He complains more than all the rest put together, but then I remember in college the guy with the Corvette was always the biggest sponger. If you have $10,000 moose hunts in Alaska, go to Vegas three times in the winter, hit Italy, Spain, and France another year you should not complain to people making $35,000. Like I said that's the exception, but unfortunately that's the ones we remember.

kc81c thank you very much for that post. I was very pleased with the responsible way you are using chemicals. To often I have heard "if one quart per acre will do it, then two should kill those bas&^%$ for sure".

When you talked of letting some of these wetlands drain naturally I agree with that. I said I was for removing the silt so Devils Lake could have begin draining years ago. Someone on here took me on and said there was no silt. EPA was the main player standing in the way for that. Also, the Fish and Wildlife stood in the way of removing silt so Devils Lake could drain to Stump Lakek. Yes, I know it's draining now.

Don't worry a lot about anti farmer attitude kc81c. It's just that some on here bring out that feeling in us. I can't think of much to argue with you about, but I'm not for paying a guy to do the right thing for himself, and I'm not paying them every genration. Especially when others are waiting in line to get into the program already available. It's guys like you that we are willing to support. If you want more ag support the good guys need to tell the system miners to shut up.

Oh, that ag subsidy neet site, I checked it and I have a XXXXX (don't want to give everything away) pulling in an average of $56 thousand a year. I figured that had to be about 50% because he said his net was about $110. I guess he is making a lot more than I thought, or at least a lot more than he told me. I suppose that varies from one farm to another though. I see when I typed in his name I only came up with $23 thousand, but then he had his wife listed for nearly as much and his son for some also. Some are honest about what they make and some throw the figure at you that they use on their income tax. It leaves us only guessing, because they all have a different story. Even when you read an article on farm income you still really don't know because they base it on different things. I ahve no problem with whatever it is. I hope it's mostly from the free market and I hope it's a good income. One farmer who I trust completely said he cleared $60 an acre. Cancer got him two years ago. Good guy.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Don't worry a lot about anti farmer attitude kc81c. It's just that some on here bring out that feeling in us. I can't think of much to argue with you about, but I'm not for paying a guy to do the right thing for himself, and I'm not paying them every genration. Especially when others are waiting in line to get into the program already available. It's guys like you that we are willing to support. If you want more ag support the good guys need to tell the system miners to shut up.


It's guys like you that "WE" support. Who is "WE"? Plainsman, Did you look at the video?

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/196/pid/196

Todays new government system miners are all there. Did you catch the Teaming with Wildlife banner in the video? Follow the Money.

On the one hand you say greedy farmers are abusing and mining the system, on the other, you just said they are waiting in line to get into programs already available.

So which is it?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> When you talked of letting some of these wetlands drain naturally I agree with that. I said I was for removing the silt so Devils Lake could have begin draining years ago. Someone on here took me on and said there was no silt.
> .


plainsman, please show where anyone claimed there was no silt as you claim. I don't really know how you can expect people not to call you out on the claims you make when they simply are not true! If you wish the debate to stay on the topic you choose, simply refrain from making these untrue claims.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Don't worry a lot about anti farmer attitude kc81c. It's just that some on here bring out that feeling in us


So apparently it is a personal issue with you plainsman. Perhaps if you left the personal bias at home you would take the time to read information provided, read what is actually written in the context it is given, and not make such outlandish claims regarding individuals. Perhaps then the debates could stay on topic. I made it clear long ago in this discussion that I would in fact not disagree with issues some have regarding some agricultural practices. But when people go beyond making factual claims to what has happened in this debate with outlandish untrue claims that have to be "explained" and yet still do not meet a basic standard of fact or truth, you will be taken to task for doing so.

If you wish the debate to stay on topic, simply stop making such claims and accusations.


----------



## Plainsman

> So apparently it is a personal issue with you plainsman.


Not at all, it's what you say. Shaug complains about government spending while at the same time you want payment every generation. I agree with Shaug about much of the spending, but he complains about all spending except ag.



> Perhaps if you left the personal bias at home you would take the time to read information provided, read what is actually written in the context it is given, and not make such outlandish claims regarding individuals.


Now that was humor again right?



> If you wish the debate to stay on topic, simply stop making such claims and accusations.


Fair enough. Tile and wetland drainage and downstream damage: Tile drainage and ditch drainage have some different aspects. Both drain water, so both contribute and sometimes cause flooding. Tile sometimes dries land to the point that irrigation is required. This accelerates the leeching or farm chemicals and naturally occurring minerals from the soil. That's good and bad for the farmer. Bad that some of his chemicals and fertilizers go to waste, and good that he gets rid of excess minerals. However, draining dozens of wetlands upstream into a larger wetland downstream causes many problems. Not only do we loose the wetlands upsteam, but it destroys the wetland drained into. 
A wetland at a low elevation drained into begins to function as a hydrological discharge system. However, since it may lack the aquifer connection the build up of minerals will be much faster. Many plants and aquatic macroinvertebrates have mineral tolerance levels. For example _Polygonum coccineum_ requires fresh water, while _Distichlis stricta_ will tolerate very alkaline moist soils. Of course one is a shallow marsh emergent and the other a wet meadow zone species, but they do represent the range. 
When dissolved mineral content gets to high all vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates cease to exist in this type of wetland. Many wetland drained into become to alkaline not to even mention the ag chemicals. Wetlands like this cease to be of any wildlife value. Water does not guarantee spontaneous generation. Also, ag practices like this may be detrimental to the very farmer trying to increase production. Or his neighbor.

As you notice this is not anti farmer. It's simply an alert t poor ag practices. As a matter of fact I hope it's useful to the guy who may have been considering draining a wetland with a conductivity that will leave him with an expanded area of alkaline soil.


----------



## gst

plainsman, See how easy that was to do without sniping about "greed at it;s darkest", "welfare states" "hands in the taxpayers pockets" ect.... Perhaps if you had only done this in your very first post instead of what you did, people would have beleived you actually wished to debate the effects of tile rather than snipe at farmers.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> plainsman, See how easy that was to do without sniping about "greed at it;s darkest", "welfare states" "hands in the taxpayers pockets" ect.... Perhaps if you had only done this in your very first post instead of what you did, people would have beleived you actually wished to debate the effects of tile rather than snipe at farmers.


Are you going to make any comments about tile?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Are you going to make any comments about tile?


I was at the Capitol back in Feb. and talked to Sen. Luick and Sen. Miller, the two promoting the tiling bill. They are two very nice gentlemen and they are much educated on this topic. When this thread started up I email them each the link to nodak. The response was, thanks for the heads up.

And I told them who was who on here because people use screen names. Everyones concerns are being considered.


----------



## Plainsman

> Everyones concerns are being considered.


That hasn't been the record of our legislature, but I will try be optimistic.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, See how easy that was to do without sniping about "greed at it;s darkest", "welfare states" "hands in the taxpayers pockets" ect.... Perhaps if you had only done this in your very first post instead of what you did, people would have beleived you actually wished to debate the effects of tile rather than snipe at farmers.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to make any comments about tile?
Click to expand...

plainsman, I have told you from the beginning I am not interested in debating tile. This bill, the practice, as well as it's effects have little impact on me and therefore I will leave the debate to those with more of a stake in the issue.

From the beginning I simply involved myself to point out inacuracies in claims and to ask a couple of simple questions. Those being, how do we maintain the balance of all the peices of the puzzle that are demanded of our privately owned lands (increased production to meet growing food supply demands, recreation as well as enviromental), and what value is there to be gained for conservation by sniping at ag producers, neither of which have been answered. I will GLADLY have no further involvement in this debate at all if you will simply quit making inaccurate claims and sniping insinuations about my profession which is production agriculture.


----------



## lindyrigem

let me throw out a scenario, youre at the grocery store and the person in front of you at the checkout pays for a cartful of groceries with food stamps(edt card) and if youre like me i figure they need the assistance. well after youre done at the checkout you walk out of the store to the parking lot and see the person who was ahead of you at the checkout putting their groceries in a 35,000 cadillac. my response is disguist. but tell me what the difference is when there is a parking lot full of high priced pickups in front of the asc office. when times are tough theres reason for goverment assistance but when times get better for people on welfare and they make above the cutoff they lose their assistance no ifsands or buts. so why does ag continue to recieve subsidies even when times are real good. on tiling issue, ammonia is probably the most deadly toxin to an eco system and one of the hardest to get rid of. cattails are about the only thing that will filter it out.


----------



## gst

lindyrigem said:


> let me throw out a scenario, youre at the grocery store and the person in front of you at the checkout pays for a cartful of groceries with food stamps(edt card) and if youre like me i figure they need the assistance. well after youre done at the checkout you walk out of the store to the parking lot and see the person who was ahead of you at the checkout putting their groceries in a 35,000 cadilla


Lindy, the answer lies in how much did you pay at the groocery store for the food you bought. If you are like the avergage US citizen you are paying roughly 10% of your disposable income for the food you purchase in one year. That is the lowest of any industrialized county in the world. Why do you think that is? Please do not fall under the thought process of some that beleive these programs were implemented to make the farmer rich. They are this nations food security policies. Have there been abuses such as there are in any govt program? of course. But please realize what these programs were originally intended to do, keeping a plentiful,low cost source of food for this country, which they have to this point been very successful in doing.

Let me ask you this one scenario, what would the person walking out of that grocery store be saying if they had just spent half of their take home pay on food?

I am not an advocate of govt programs, but the reality is they are a part of the puzzle we as producers have to factor in. If you choose not to participate in the govt programs, you are at an economic disadvatage to the other producers that are competing for the same lands you are to farm. In agriculture, just as in every other business in todays world, you either compete on the same playing field, or you are left behind.


----------



## lindyrigem

my answer to your 1st question is i paid the labeled price for each food item plus the amount or percentage of my tax dollars that the farmers who grew the crops to make that particular product recieved on top of the market price they recieved for that crop. the reason why so many people bash ag. is because they get to abide a different set of rules than poor people who get assistance through the farm bill. people who are on food stamps have to abide by strict income guidelines and are audited to make sure theyre not abusing the system. from the way i read the last farm bill using wheat for an example. if wheat is at 3.60 a bushel the farmer recieves a 52 cent subsidy. if wheat drops to say 3.00 the subsidy the farmer recieves is 1.12 but on the other hand if wheat goes up from 3.60 to 8.00 a bushel the farmer still recieves 52 cents a bushel. its a double standard right in the farm bill. this is because farmers have enough money to have lobbyists like farmers union and farm bureau to sway senators to put things like this in the farm bill and poor people dont have any clout on capitol hill. things like these are why people bash ag. its not the farmers themselves (theyre not doing anything against the law) its the system that is broke. when subsidies are needed im 100% for them. we need our farmers and we need what farmers produce and most farmers dont abuse the system but the ones that do give all farmers a bad name. it is like the adage if youre in businness and you treat a customer well and fairly they may tell 1 person about it. but on the other hand if you screw a customer that person will tell 10 people. the farmers abusing the system are the ones we hear about and farmers in general get a bad name.


----------



## lindyrigem

i forgot part of my answer to your question, plus i paid whatever percentage of my tax dollars went towards the food stamps that the person in front of me was using to pay for their food.


----------



## gst

lindyrigem said:


> the reason why so many people bash ag. is because they get to abide a different set of rules than poor people who get assistance through the farm bill. people who are on food stamps have to abide by strict income guidelines and are audited to make sure theyre not abusing the system


lindy from your very own example, perhaps the people on the govt program of food assistance (cadillac driver)which is funded out of the Ag Dept budget are not abiding by the rules any more than anyone else involved in govt programs as you suggest they are. The reality as I have said ANY time there is a govt program, some will abuse it regardless of what program it is. The question is when you paid the tagged price for those food items you purchased, what percent of your disposable income did it take to do so? How does that compare to other countries?

Please do not think the govt involvement in ag was simply developed by ag to make farmers rich. It was developed by leaders of this country as a food security program. To see the basis behind it and how it has worked is simple math. The percentage of a dollar that you pay in taxes that goes toward production ag is roughly 1% or 1 cent or less of every dollar. So take 1% of the taxes the average consumer pays and see what that figure comes out to. Then as this same person pays roughly 10% of their disposable income for food in this country take that figure and increase it two fold and see which is less, the dollars in taxes paid of 1% or the 10% increase in food costs. The percentage of their income the average person spends on food has held at this lowest level of any industrialized country for decades indicating the success of this food security program. Now perhaps even triple the percentage of dollars that goes towards purchasing food being required from the consumers disposable income and you begin to see the basis for this countries food security policies and why govt has been involved in agriculture.

In a link I provided it shows less than 2% of the population of this country is involved in production ag. 17% is involved in ag related industries. Do you beleive such a low percentage of society (2%) that elects politicians actually has the clout to hold politicians hostage to their demands of govt subsidies? The politician has realized the value of a society that simply takes the minimal amount they pay for food for granted. They have also realized the value of being an ag product exporter globally. Let the percentage of societies disposable income they spend on food double or triple and tell me the result economically for this country and politically for it's leaders? You can draw from examples all around the globe and thruout history

As I said, I am no fan of govt involvement in agriculture, but if you are involved in ag, they are a part of the pzzle you have to deal with. There are those of us in ag who advocate for their involvement to end, just as some have suggested on this site as well. But as the saying goes, be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it. With the current deficiets this country is facing cuts are indeed likely, as is some claim inflation. When inflation hits typically commodity prices rise as the dollar loses value. Your food costs will go up as the value of the dollar they are purchased with drops. It will take more dollars to buy less. So how will this affect what you pay for food and the average persons economic wellbeing? Where would the average consumer be economically if suddenly 25% of their income instead of 10% was needed to simply put food on the table? Take this 15% difference out of the rest of the other segments of the economy in which it is spent and what would the results be? What do you suppose would be the economic consequences to this country as well as the political consequences for the politicians in office at this time? Please realize who this countries food security program is meant to keep happy. The 2% of soceiey involved in production ag, or the 98% who are not that vote for the politicians that develope these programs.


----------



## gst

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Heres a link to figure out the numbers. It shows that if you make $100,000 as a single individual you end up paying roughly $23,000 in taxes before deductions.

So using these numbers this individual is paying roughly $230 in taxes to production ag as subsidies or 1% of his total tax liability. He is also paying roughly $7700 ($100,000 minus taxes or "disposable income") dollars a year in food costs if you figure 10% of disposable income ( in many cases it is less). So now if this individuals food costs double, they are still paying this $230 in taxes, but what happens to his disposable income? These additional $7700 dollars are now taken out of what they spend on other segments of this countries economy.

Drop the figures paid for food in half and you still see the basis for this countries food security policies. How much do food costs have to rise to offset the dollars paid in taxes to subsidise the industry that producers this countries food at the cost to the consumer it is? Not very much. I realize this is a very basic example and there are other aspects involved, but it begins to show why we are were we have been in regards to this countries ag policies.


----------



## lindyrigem

let me repeat im not bashing on ag im just trying to explain why some people have the view of agriculture that they do. you state the figures that nationwide 2% of the pop. is directly involved in ag(farmers) and that 17% of the pop. is involved in ag related industries. in north dakota those numbers for people involved in ag related industries must be signifigantly higher. the point im trying to get accross is that at what point pricewise for each crop are subsidies no longer neccessary. i realize production costs for ag are through the roof. talking to friends that farm i cant believe the cost of diesel, fertilizer, land rent etc. i think ag. is at the mercy of speculators in the oil market more than any other industry with the exception of trucking. our system of economics is broken and alot of times in this part of the country farmers recieve the brunt of the critisizm. we live in a time where big businness in general has so much power within our govt that the general pop. feels powerless and inevitely lashes out and in our area it usually winds up being at ag. i guess what my point is is when is enough money for big businness (ag included) enough. the public is tired of seeing those who have the most get all the breaks.


----------



## gst

lindy, I was not making an assumption you were lashing out at ag, and I actually get what you are talking about from a perception standpoint. There are also those involved in ag that drive thru residental areas in cities and see new houses, boats, campers, SUV's ect...as well as the spare time to use them and have the same sentiments regarding others as they wonder how many of these new home buyers have had their mortgages subsidised by their tax dollars so they can keep these other toys. How many people have bought new golf carts paid for by the govt thru their electric vehicle rebates??? ect..... It is unfortuately human nature to look at others appearences and make judgements without considering what benefits we each have.

Times have changed dramatically in ag in just the last few years. Part of this is tied directly to what has been discussed regarding the growing demand for ag commodities as not only food sources, but alternative enregy sources as well. Production technologies are combining with nature and these demands to sometimes increase revenues created within ag. Some times this does indeed transfer to larger profits. Often times inputs simply follow and rise to a new level from which they do not drop as you mention.

I do beleive we will see changes in ag program policies in the near future. As I said some in ag are advocating for them. Wether these changes are beneficial for both ag producers, conservation and the consumer whom they have benefited over the years remains to be seen. My point has been simply, in trying to mainatin a balance in the puzzle I mentioned in my very first post in this discussion of food production, recreation and enviroment, it does little good to snipe at ag in the manner which SOME seem to want to do no more than if ag branded every conservationist as wacked out tree hugging hippies looking to keep govt research dollars flowing into their pet agendas to hamstring ag. Combine this with making unfactual, inaccurate, outdated claims and what does it really accomplish? How is conservation or relationships impoved?


----------



## lindyrigem

being that you are willing to participate in threads such as this it tells me that you care about these issues. dont get me wrong im not envious or jealous of seeing farmers who have lake homes or whatever possessions it may be. i try to make as much money as possible also so my family can have things that arent neccessarily needed items also. what irritates me is when people are abusing the system be it rich people or poor people and are capable of pulling up their bootstraps and making it on their own. i have never said that i am for ending ag subsidies but at what point are they no longer neccessary. the farm bill works in scale so the larger growers are going to recieve more in scale. my feeling on the farm bill is that it is in place to benefit corporate farming the most i.e. those who have the most get all the breaks.


----------



## lindyrigem

heres a simple black and white question. at what price per bushel for wheat can you comfortably make it without recieving a govt subsidy for wheat. i realize input costs can vary year to year but just a ballpark number.


----------



## gst

I really do not know if I can answer that question in the manner you are looking for. Each operation is different and has their own breakeven points. Producers that have a land base that is paid for have a lower breakeven than those currently paying for land ect. Some areas have higher land costs, fertilizer requirements, fluctuating costs of inputs ect..... every year is different. This years breakeven price needed for wheat is significantly higher than what is was last year simply because of fuel and fert. costs. If you locked in these inputs last fall fert was almost half of what it currently is. Figure $450/ tn versus $800 / tn on what price you need for your wheat.

Some of us in ag beleive direct subsidy payments should end and there be a revenue insurance type program you pay into. The programs seem to be moving to this direction, but as always the "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help" aspect often takes over. Beleive me, I do not have the answers, but I can tell you that as someone that beleives in conservation, implements it on our operation when I can , and am in a position to talk with many other agriculture producers, I can tell you little is gained by rhetoric and unfactual claims like was seen on here.


----------



## lindyrigem

ya the more i thought about that price per bushel of wheat needed the more i saw there are too many variables and every area would have different input costs and such. i just feel that if we stay on thecourse were on with our economy were going to be on a collision course with another great depression. theres too many things that are being artificially inflated like the price of oil. one day this artificially inflated house of cards is going to come crashing down.


----------



## gst

You will get NO disagreements from me there! Sadly it is true.


----------



## Plainsman

I also have to add my ditto to that comment. It's a lot bigger problem that we bicker about. Wetlands and farmland will endure, but freedom can be lost in the blink of an eye.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I also have to add my ditto to that comment. It's a lot bigger problem that we bicker about. Wetlands and farmland will endure, but freedom can be lost in the blink of an eye.


Things are going good here now and it is not my intention to upset the applecart. We can have wetlands and we can have farmland but status quo federal spending should not and cannot endure. Freedom can be lost in the blink of an eye if we the people are not paying attention. Remember that weblink to the Izaak Walton League and their video I posted on page 4

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/196/pid/196

It takes some fooling around to get the video to load. The main charactors on there advocating against HR 1 to cut government spending are:

Jeremy Simons-National Wildlife Federation
Chris Wood-Trout Unlimited
Doug Siglin-Clean water
Scott Sutherland-Ducks Unlimited
David Hoskins-Izaak Walton League
Ron Regan-International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Jim Moran-Congressman

Here is the problem. Congressmen Jim Moran is one of the biggest anti-gun anti-Second Amendment Congressmen out there. Something is so wrong here. Look at the link below, page after page of anti-second amendment activity by Congressmen Moran.

http://www.nra.org/results.aspx?request ... &sort=hits

Cut the funding, stop feeding the monster.


----------



## Plainsman

I see I screwed up on my typing again. I should say "it's a lot bigger problem than we bicker about". Totally changes the meaning. I just spotted that. I hope you guys read the right word into my goof.

I'm catching some sleep shortly, but promise I will read those links tomorrow.


----------



## gst

This is from the link shaug provided. http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/11806/pid/11806
From this link. 
[2011 Conservation Policy Priority: 
Improving Agricultural Conservation
Agriculture is the dominant use of private land in America. *As a result, farming practices and agriculture policy are important to every American because these practices and policies directly affect water quality, habitat for fish and wildlife, soil conservation, and other natural resources. * For generations, federal legislation known as the Farm Bill has determined the types of payments and subsidies taxpayers will provide to support domestic production and encourage resource conservation in agriculture. Once more up for renewal in 2012, the Farm Bill is the single most influential piece of legislation for our nation's private lands.]

If you notice all the reasons listed that agriculture is important to EVERY American, one rather important piece of the puzzle is left out? It all to often is the problem with some of these groups in the fact they do not accept the importance on this peice of the puzzle in the big picture. As long as they are able to go to a store and purchase what they need with a relatively low percentage of their incomes, this puzzle peice has been taken for granted. And ideologies such as the one listed above are examples of this.


----------



## Longshot

No one is saying farmers aren't important gst, please show where anyone said such. From you posts and attitude I guess in your eyes farmers are the most important "piece of the puzzle". Are they really more important than the person building the ag equipment, the ones building the roads so you can get it to market, the person cross country hauling, the RR worker, or the taxpayer that fund these subsidies? Unfortunately there are too many that think this way. Hats off to all those that bust their rear to get a job done!


----------



## gst

longshot, quit trying to make it personal. It is not being suggested the FARMER is the most important peice of the puzzle, it is what they produce, FOOD, on these same lands that is in most of societies eyes.

The example I gave of this one conservation groups ideologies completely ommitted that rather important peice of the puzzle. It was merely a reference that just as some claim farmers are soley only about production, some conservation groups are soley only about the other extreme. Nothing more nothing less.

They listed a variety of reasons why agriculture is important, but seem to have left out the one that most directly affects all Americans. All the while demanding their agendas continue to be funded by the American taxpayer. And the ironic part of it if you stop and consider, is that this funding they are lobbying for comes thru the Ag Dept budget which some are up in arms over the funding of. :wink:

If you read further down in the link, it becomes clear the only reason they want a subsidy program to continue is the fact they are used as a stick to force compliance with the rest of these groups agendas. Kinda like what I said WAY back in this discussion about draining wetlands and farming HE lands and the contracts and compliance. So like I said, for those advocating for the end of govt involvement in agriculture, be careful, you may just get what you wish for.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, we are close to agreeing, but I also agree with longshot. The thing is I see the farmer as an extremely important link in the chain, but I see the land itself as what grows the food. The truckers, farmers etc all do work together to put that food where people can get it.

I could even agree with 30 year leases, but here is what stops me: I'm afraid that groups would then try to stop people from having the choice to sign perpetual easements. I also fear we can't trust them not to find excuses to violate shorter contracts just like the excuse to hay CRP. Contracts need to work both ways, and I have lost a lot of trust. Can you think of a way we could be ensured that when the taxpayer puts money into a conservation practice that it remains a conservation practice? Also, I think you will agree that the payment would have to be less than the perpetual easement. Some farmers need more money, and now, and some want to leave payments for their children. As long as those who want 30 year leases leave others free choice I would not worry as much.

Here is the problem. As Shaug pointed out there is no money. We have been living to high on the hog. Now it's time to pay the piper (sorry for all the old cliche's, but they fit). I see on the Drudge Report today that only half of the people in the United States pay any taxes. The future isn't bright for any of us.


----------



## kc81c

You figured it out and hit the nail on the head. The payments are used as a way to force farmers to do what others want. I'd be happier without the involvement. I have always felt the only real government involvement needed is to make sure we have an insurance program we can buy.

I keep seeing a lot of negative about large farms and corporate farms mentioned. The corporate farms are actually quite misleading they can be anything from a 500acre single operator farm, to a larger acre multi family member operation. If I remember my facts right less the 2% of farms are actually corporate farms held by non family members. It is more a tool for farms with several family members to manage how the income, expenses, and assets are handled. We aren't a cooperate farm but have a lot of neighbors of many different sizes that are. Also from my personal experience I see more small acreage farms that are abusing the government programs in more ways then I want to explain then the larger acreage farms. The larger acreage farms usually got that way because they know how to farm efficiently, don't cut corners, and are willing to try new ideas.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I'm making the assumption that you have seen a few years go by. So heres one of those questions for you you like so much. In your life, have you ever made a choice that at the time, given the factors involved right then and there, you beleived it was the best choice to make, but then as time went on and circumstances changed, you realized that if you had it to do over again, perhaps you would have done things differently?

I have. I think many can relate to that.

Perpetual easements take that ability away. Perpetual is forever. If the program is indeed beneficial to BOTH parties, why won;t the individuals involved in them continue to re sign and participate?

As I said before, if an idividual wishes to leave a perpetual leagacy of conservation, there are ways thru trusts, wills ect.... to do this. There are simply many that do not beleive greater govt control over private lands is necessarily always a good thing. Particularily when there is NO end date to re evaluate the value and consequences of this and the fact that in these particular eaements we are talking about, even once signed the govt can indeed change them if they wish.


----------



## Plainsman

> As I said before, if an idividual wishes to leave a perpetual leagacy of conservation, there are ways thru trusts, wills ect.... to do this.


gst, it's that mindset that bothers me. It's an indication to me that you want to take the choice of perpetual easement away from those who want it. If it is as bad as you say no one will sign up right? As I understand there are more people waiting to sign up than money to pay them. Do you want to take that right away from those landowners? Don't they have a right to take a bigger payment now and make use of it in their lifetime. If your making a comfortable living you can afford to leave more for the next generation, but if your trying to save the farm a perpetual easement may do that. It's your desire to do away with them entirely that destroys my trust. It is what makes me resist the 30 year idea. I feel like your trying to make an end play on your neighbor and the taxpayer. As a taxpayer and a conservation minded person what insurance can you give me that you will leave perpetual easements alone if you get your way on 30 year contracts? Where is that meeting in the center on common ground that you talked about?


----------



## gst

plainsman, I asked a simple question and you did not answer it.

Here is one more, what is your opinion on wether landowners should be able to sell hunting rights seperate from the land itself?

I really do not know where you are coming from on the 30 year deal, there are already some programs that are of such a nature that no one has a problem with.

Do you beleive one party in a perpetual easement should be able to change the terms later if they wish?



gst said:


> As I said before, if an idividual wishes to leave a perpetual leagacy of conservation, there are ways thru trusts, wills ect.... to do this.


Plainsman, this statement should show I am not for "taking away" an individuals right to place their lands in a perpetual conservation legacy. I as well as a number of others simply do not beleive it should be done thru the govt. Leases with an end time frame, sure, perpetual no. Even the state itself beleives an end time frame should exist. It is too bad the Federal govt is exempt in some cases.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, I asked a simple question and you did not answer it.


Yes, I know I didn't. You simply wanted to compare apples and oranges.



> Here is one more, what is your opinion on wether landowners should be able to sell hunting rights seperate from the land itself?


I had answered that, but decided to edit because it has nothing to do with tile, drainage, or downstream damage. Neither does easements. Your ducking the topic of this thead, but I'll address perpetual since I did mention it in my last post. If you don't stick to the subject I'm going to know you know it's damaging so don't want to talk about it. If you want to ask me questions other than tile ask it on a different thread. I will not answer questions off topic in this thead anymore.



> Plainsman, this statement should show I am not for "taking away" an individuals right to place their lands in a perpetual conservation legacy.





> I as well as a number of others simply do not beleive it should be done thru the govt. Leases with an end time frame, sure, perpetual no. Even the state itself beleives an end time frame should exist. It is too bad the Federal govt is exempt in some cases.


So with legacy they get paid nothing right? Your talking about in their will. Not many people will do that, but many will sign a government perpetual easement for payment. You don't want people to have the freedom to do that though. You pass that off as not wanting the government to be able to do it, but it's the same thing as not wanting that option for your fellow farmers.


----------



## shaug

Just realized the link I provided for anti-gun anti-second amendment Congressmen Jim Moran doesn't work. Maybe this one will.

http://www.nraila.org/Search/?q=Jim%20Moran

The point is why would these supposed conservation orgs

Jeremy Simons-National Wildlife Federation
Chris Wood-Trout Unlimited
Doug Siglin-Clean water
Scott Sutherland-Ducks Unlimited
David Hoskins-Izaak Walton League
Ron Regan-International Association of Fish and Wildlife

team up with anti-gun anti-second amendment Congressmen Jim Moran at the nations capitol. It wouldn't be any different if the fair chase committee had done a photo op with Wayne Pacelle (HSUS) at our state capitol in Bismarck. In the video Jim Moran doesn't use the words hunting or conservation, he said preservation. Big difference. Pay attention words mean things.

Plainsman wrote,



> Here is the problem. As Shaug pointed out there is no money. We have been living to high on the hog. Now it's time to pay the piper (sorry for all the old cliche's, but they fit). I see on the Drudge Report today that only half of the people in the United States pay any taxes. The future isn't bright for any of us.


and



> gst, it's that mindset that bothers me. It's an indication to me that you want to take the choice of perpetual easement away from those who want it. If it is as bad as you say no one will sign up right? As I understand there are more people waiting to sign up than money to pay them.


Plainsman, telling people as you understand it there are more people waiting to sign up than money to pay them is an old trick trying to get people to believe there is concensus. I don't buy it. Throw all this out in front of the people and ask them to vote. Do you want to borrow the money at interest from China to fund this?

Of coarse it is not being handled that way. First Senator Harry Reid tricked Congress into the $900 million funding for LWCF in the lame duck session. The freshman republicans in 2011 are trying to defund it with HR 1. Many conservation orgs are writing letters and bombarding our congressmen to please fund it. Dingy Harrys anti-gun buddies like Jim Moran are in the thick of it. They lull the people saying this is "not tax revenue" it is from oil and gas lease money from the Outer Atlantic Continental Shelf. What is the difference? Both go to the General Treasurey which is $14 Trillion in debt.

My point, there is no money to be purchasing more federal ground. People need to know the ugly truth. If these programs were defunded tomorrow we wouldn't even be discussing perpetual easements and such.

Stop feeding the monster.


----------



## gst

plainsman, you claim you will no longer answer questions that do not pertain to the issue of tile because it will take things off topic, but then you comment on perpetual easements.

There is how many seperate tile threads, I'm sure if we talk about the separation and sale of hunting rights from the land in this one there will be others left dedicated to tile. You complain I want to take something (a right) way from my fellow landowners and say that is not right, the question regarding hunting rights was asked merely to see what you beleive about taking rights away from landowners. But then perhaps we already know your veiws on that as you have already mentioned something not related to tile in this discussion a number of times that you were once a SPONSOR of that intended to limit the rights of a land owner, and I beleive you were fairly adamant at that time that land owner rights most certainly could and should be limited.

If you are going to critisize someone for wanting to take a right away from landowners as being wrong, perhaps you should stop and consider what you yourself have advocated for in the past. So plainsman do you beleive these same landowners that wish to place their lands in nonbinding govt sponsored perpetual easements regardless of consequences should have the right to fence these lands and sell the opportunity to shoot an elk on these very same lands or any other lands for that matter?



Plainsman said:


> As I understand there are more people waiting to sign up than money to pay them. Do you want to take that right away from those landowners? Don't they have a right to take a bigger payment now and make use of it in their lifetime. If your making a comfortable living you can afford to leave more for the next generation, but if your trying to save the farm a perpetual easement may do that. It's your desire to do away with them entirely that destroys my trust


So if we were to switch out "perpetual easement" with "HFH operation" in this above statement where would your beleifs lie. :wink:

Apparently you wish to limit the ability of someone to use their lands in a manner they can make a living from thru free enterprise and capitalism but advocate them taking money from the govt for giving up control over their privately owned lands instead. I didn't realize you were such a Socialist plainsman 

I'm beginning to see a bit of the picture, as long as limiting individual rights fits YOUR ideologies it is all fine and good, but others not so much. Now I'm not so sure if you are simply a Socialist or one of those old arrogant elitist Aristocrats who beleived they knew what was best for everyone, (even after a vote was taken.) :wink: (Note the winking icon indicating sarcasm for being labeled by said individual as being this very thing in the past.)  (Note the smiley icon as an indication of finding humor in above situation)


----------



## Plainsman

Like I mentioned about our legislature "can't we get something between socialists and those who worship the dollar".

Since you refuse to stay on topic perhaps I will start another thread. Please don't be the childish destroyer and get on that one with a different topic. Ya, I mentioned perpetual easements, but I sort of got suckered that way.

I know your simply trying to derail the thread. You want to do that because farmers are still draining, and want it easier to tile while in the news right now Valley City struggles in flood. Turn you back on them if you wish, but they are just as important as you gst, no more so, no less so.


----------



## gst

plainsman, no need to start another thread, just refrain from gong down the same path you have in this one as well as others making claims and snipes at ag that you can not and do not factually back up because they are simply inaccurate and you will be fine.

If you can't do this one simple thing, perhaps I'll start posting the following quote in regards to your "claims".

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan


----------



## Plainsman

> just refrain from gong down the same path you have in this one


I didn't know you were a moderator. 

The last comment I will make is: if you take steps to hinder your fellow landowners from signing perpetual easements so that you can have your way I hope you loose some sleep over that.

I will carry on with tile if anyone is still interested. I think we have covered it well, but if there are questions I will start another thread that I hope people will have enough manners to not try and deflect it.



> plainsman, I am NOT going to get into a 10 page debate once ag


You got into it because I said that asking a chemical rep about chemical leeching is like asking Karl Marx about communism. Nothing was said about greed, or any of your other pet gripes. Your here simply to deflect because you don't have a leg to stand on or know next to nothing about wetland ecology. In other words your not qualified to talk about wetland ecology so this thread scares you. Your solution is to deflect or destroy it. I think on another thread someone called you a bully. I am reserving judgement, but if you continue down this path I will know. Now I know that's getting personal, but it's the only way to get you to understand. There is no excuse when you have been asked to keep your comments that are not tile on the thread you have already deflected.


----------



## gst

plainsman, your claim, "You got into it because I said that asking a chemical rep about chemical leeching is like asking Karl Marx about communism."

I beleive you are confusing yourself once again in your claims. I don't beleive I ever commented on your comparison to Marx.

I apologize for breaking your "rules" regarding discussing topics on this site. I merely thought asking questions and getting answers was how a debate was suppose to work.

I surely do not wish to get the reputation of a "website bully" so perhaps I should refrain from pointing out when someone on a site like this makes unfactual, inaccurate, sniping claims about the profession I am in.

Perhaps the "moderators" on this site could step up and keep these people from making these unfactual claims and hold them accountable when they do if they want this site to retain any credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

I rarely moderate, and often tell people I don't mind them getting off topic when I start one. However, when something is important and the person who starts it asks for it to stay on track the courteous thing to do is let it stay on track. As I said before, feel free to start a thread of your interest or continue on the other tile thread. I don't want to keep anyone from free speech, but I do want to stay on topic.



> Perhaps the "moderators" on this site could step up and keep these people from making these unfactual claims and hold them accountable when they do if they want this site to retain any credibility.


I think people have the freedom to decide what the truth is. We search for it, and each of us claim what we see to be the truth. We present our argument and people will decide who is right. I certainly would not try curtail you, or those who disagree with you. Do not expect me to edit things you do not agree with. You may be able to stop your neighbor from exercising his rights as a landowner, but thankfully you can not stifle free speech on this site.

My desire would be perspective on tile from farmers, chemical reps, tile installers, downstream people like those in valley city etc. Where is the balance? I noticed when I went to Fargo during the flood that the tile with control structures along I94 were running at about 1/3 flow. the control structures were open, but the fields were nearly dry and that is why I think they were running at approximately 1/3 flow. I have heard on here about control structures. Perhaps if they are allowed tile they should have those control structures closed while cities are flooding. I have never seen them closed, and I have watched every time I go to Fargo. I pay attention to all those things as I drive down roads. Like the perched semi-permanent wetland by the power station on the south side of I94 about five or six miles east of Valley City. Out of curiosity I sure would like to run a conductivity on that wetland.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I rarely moderate, and often tell people I don't mind them getting off topic when I start one. However, when something is important and the person who starts it asks for it to stay on track the courteous thing to do is let it stay on track. As I said before, feel free to start a thread of your interest or continue on the other tile thread. I don't want to keep anyone from free speech, but I do want to stay on topic


Even if that "free speach" is unfactual, inaccurate claims as shown as such in attached factual links? Perhaps you should indeed do a little more "moderating". :wink: I once again apologize for at the very start of this discussion side tracking your very first post on this topic that started the thread down the path of claiming you were "witnessing greed at it's darkest", "agriculture is a welfare state" and "they have their hands in the taxpayers pockets" in regards to discussing the efects of tile. I'm sure you would have much rather it stayed on the track of "science" and wetland hydrology you started with these comments. :roll:

plainsman, your statement " I think people have the freedom to decide what the truth is. We search for it, and each of us claim what we see to be the truth. We present our argument and people will decide who is right" is indeed true. And when that "truth" is presented linked to sites that back it up as such it does not have to be "explained".


----------



## swift

> I surely do not wish to get the reputation of a "website bully"


TOO LATE


----------



## shaug

GST wrote,



> I'm sure you would have much rather it stayed on the track of "science" and wetland hydrology you started with these comments.


There is science and then there is "Political Science."

The process to mislead, discredit and misinform via science is very effective. Despite the actual science being unsettled and the research results contradictory, activists choose to preach that the science is settled and then set out to quash any dissent. They do this by politicizing the scientific process in the framework of political correctness to the point that any opposing view or science is deemed irrelevant. A great example of this is that USDA research dollars today typically only go toward projects that invoke the magic words of sustainability, the environment and global warming.

Sad to say, that is the shape and use of science today. Science is now just a tool in a larger public relations campaign.

Science from a public policy standpoint isn't what we were taught in school, and agriculture has been slow as an industry to adapt to the politicizing and downgrading of science.

Plainsman wrote,



> You may be able to stop your neighbor from exercising his rights as a landowner, but thankfully you can not stifle free speech on this site.


Plainsman, Did I read it here, on this site somewhere, you referred to yourself as a scientist?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Science......

You can find anything out there to prove any side of any argument. I am sure some where out there you can find someone saying the sun rises in the west and they have the proof. :lol:

But one thing about tiling......you are sending water off your property somewhere and it is not into the natural aquifer or through natural means. That is plan and simple. So does tiling cause an unnatural rise in watershed... YES. You can't argue this because of what tiling is supposed to do....drain land faster than nature. That is its purpose.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I surely do not wish to get the reputation of a "website bully"
> 
> 
> 
> TOO LATE
Click to expand...

 :burns: Me???????  I couldn't find one of those Boo Hoo cryin icons! :wink: I know a few guys like to come on these sites and pull crap out of their *** and not get called on it, and I guess I owe everyone that has done that and thinks I'm a bully for calling them on it an apology.
:justanangel:


----------



## swift

> I know a few guys like to come on these sites and pull crap out of their a$$ and not get called on it,


So which are you the pot or the kettle?


----------



## gst

swift if you would provide specific examples perhaps what you are suggesting would be a bit more credible. And you had better be careful, if you don;t follow the rules of posting something regarding tile, you run the risk of being chastised for your comments.

:wink:


----------



## lindyrigem

when farmland is tiled is lighter land more sesceptible to farm chemicals and nutrients leeching than heavier soils. i live in the northern part of the valley and we are starting to see some farmers starting to use some tiling. from my understanding sulfites occur naturally in the soil but are easily leeched through the soil by tiling. i found some info that might be of interest, this is the toxicity test run by the state to deem if industrial water can be released back into state waters. 2 one gallon samples are gathered of the water to be released in one of the samples 24 fathead minnows are placed in the sample, 1/2 of the minnows must live for 4 days. in the other sample they place 25 daphnia water bugs, 1/2 must live for 2 days. this ensures that the water discharged will not harm fish or frogs etc. it would be interesting to run one of these tests using water coming out of a tile pipe.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Like I mentioned about our legislature "can't we get something between socialists and those who worship the dollar".


Would you like something that more resembled what the Scandinavian countries have now?


----------



## zzyzx

Do some checking on Kesterson Wildlife Refuge and Central Valley farming in California. Thousands of acres no longer usable because of this practice. Many reasons but the areas effected were using this method.


----------



## Plainsman

zzyzx said:


> Do some checking on Kesterson Wildlife Refuge and Central Valley farming in California. Thousands of acres no longer usable because of this practice. Many reasons but the areas effected were using this method.


I know a man who worked there. He collected some waterfowl that had such large amounts of mineral deposits on their feathers that they could no longer fly. The refuge has become a death trap. 
You don't have to go all the way to California to see the same thing. A Montana wildlife refuge has the same problem. Tile is very environmentally destructive.


----------

