# Upcoming meetings on the Farm Bill



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dear friend:

Agriculture is the engine that drives North Dakota's economy. As a result, few bills in Congress are as important to our state as the Farm Bill. Congress is beginning to write the next Farm Bill, and I want to make sure North Dakota's voice is heard - loud and clear.

As both Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, I am in a unique position to influence the new legislation. As we begin to write the next Farm Bill, I am holding a series of hearings with farmers, ranchers and business leaders from across North Dakota to gather their input. The Farm Bill doesn't just affect North Dakota's family farmers and ranchers; it is an economic development tool that matters to Main Street businesses in every North Dakota community.

I invite you to attend one of the hearings I am hosting in Williston and Minot on Thursday, July 5, 2007 to gather input on the development of a new Farm Bill. These farm forums aren't just for farming and ranching families - they are for everyone who has a stake in North Dakota.

Williston Hearing

Where: Alumni Room (enter through southwest doors)
Williston State College
1410 University Avenue 
When: 10 a.m., Thursday, July 5, 2007

Minot Hearing

Where: Candlelight Room
International Inn
1505 North Broadway
When: 1:45 pm., Thursday, July 5, 2007

I hope to see you there.

Sincerely,

KENT CONRAD
United States Senate


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Are there other meetings planned, and if so how close to our neck of the woods?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Conrad: Farm bill rewrite becoming more difficult

By JILL SCHRAMM, Staff Writer [email protected]

Jill Schramm/MDN

Sen. Kent Conrad, left, points to a chart comparing U.S. and European commodity subsidies that his farm specialist, Scott Stofferahn, sets up at a farm forum in Minot Thursday.

To avoid losing current benefits, North Dakota farmers may have to sacrifice some of the initiatives they have been supporting for the next federal farm bill, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said at a forum in Minot Thursday.

Conrad said his strategy for writing the next five-year farm bill has changed in the last two weeks because of a new threat raised with legislation introduced by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. The proposed House bill would gut the existing farm program, he said.

"We have run the numbers on what it would mean in North Dakota, and it would be a body blow to the economy of North Dakota. It would have a devastating impact on farm income in our state. It is a radical proposal that, unfortunately in a House that's dominated by urban interests, could conceivably carry. This is an enormous threat," Conrad said.

"It's very clear that the rest of agriculture is going to have to rally, and if we don't pull together, we could wind up in a very serious situation going forward. That means we are going to have to make agreements we were not prepared to make two weeks ago. That means we are going to have to deal with our southern colleagues in a more close alignment than we had anticipated.

Things that might have been possible several weeks ago are less possible today," he added. "That doesn't mean that we still can't write a very strong farm bill."

One of the items in jeopardy is a permanent disaster program that would preclude the need for Congress to consider disaster aid every year.

Robert Carlson, Glenburn, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, said farmers have gone to Washington 10 of the last 11 years to ask for a disaster bill. This is the only year they haven't gone, at least yet, he said.

"We are tired," he said. "We need a permanent disaster (title) in this farm bill."

Carlson was among six farm and energy representatives invited to serve on a panel at the forum held by Conrad to take input on farm legislation.

Carlson suggested taking money out of direct payments to farmers to fund a disaster program. About 40 percent of the $5 billion being spent on direct payments would be needed to fund a disaster program.

North Dakota farmers have received $617 million in disaster payments since 2002, when the current five-year farm bill was written.

North Dakota Farm Bureau president Eric Aasmundstad, Devils Lake, said crop insurance is needed rather than a permanent disaster program.

Conrad and state Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, who also spoke at the forum, said improved crop insurance won't replace a disaster program. The federal government's participation in crop insurance would have to be much higher to cover disaster losses. The two programs also are designed to cover losses differently.

Esmond farmer Louis Arnold said better crop insurance protection would reduce the need for disaster assistance.

"The government would have to step up to crop insurance and put money into that program," he said. "But I feel that it would be a lot less money involved with having a good crop insurance than coming with disaster payments."

Arnold also encouraged adjustments in the level of support for barley.

Currently, southern crops are supported in the farm program to a greater extent than northern crops, and one of Conrad's goals was to rebalance payments to eliminate some of the inequity. However, to rebalance the inequity would mean a 40 percent cut in payments to southern farmers.

"There's no way the South is going to take a cut of 40 percent and be on board, and if they are not on board, we are not going to get a farm bill because of this threat from the more urban parts of the country," Conrad said. Conrad said there will be a push for some rebalancing, but it looks as if the savings might be just $1 billion.

"I was very much hopeful that we would get a much more substantial rebalancing that could have paid for a disaster title," he said.

Conrad had proposed a $20 billion reserve fund to support farm bill initiatives if the money could be found elsewhere in the budget. So far, Conrad said, he's identified less than $7 billion in savings. That savings is more than eaten up by proposals for energy programs, nutrition funding increases and wetland conservation that the president wants.

Another challenge farm-state legislators face is opposition from urban residents whose understanding of agriculture is based on media headlines about farmers getting rich from subsidies, Conrad said.

Aasmundstad said farm groups need to do a better job of educating the public.

"We can't get too shook up by what the Washington Post says. I think it's our job as commodity groups to make the American public realize that for less than the margin of error allowed by the General Accounting Office in the federal budget, they are getting the safest, best bountiful supply of food in the world - and the cheapest," he said. "The money we are talking about here - while it's a big deal to us, and it's a big deal to some in the press who like to kick us around- it's insignificant in the federal budget."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "It's very clear that the rest of agriculture is going to have to rally, and if we don't pull together, we could wind up in a very serious situation going forward. That means we are going to have to make agreements we were not prepared to make two weeks ago. That means we are going to have to deal with our southern colleagues in a more close alignment than we had anticipated.


Does this mean those guys who want us to pay for state owned animals want our support now. If we have to pay to hunt I say drop all agriculture support and my savings in taxes will let me pay to hunt. Hey, got to make ends meet somehow. I have not seen many landowners (I do know some) defending sportsmen. It's a two way street. So for the landowners on here what's it going to be. Do you want my taxes and support, or is it strictly business between us and money at the door?

I will be making a lot of calls, and your responses on here do influence how I think. No response I will take as dumping on the sportsmen, or not taking us serious. I have the feeling there are many landowners that still support us, but it's sort of like the Muslims. The average landowner or Muslim doesn't want to taker a stand or say anything against the radicals. I think that, but I would like to hear it from the landowners and the Muslims.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Plainsman pretty much sums up my thoughts.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are dead on Plainsman.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

That is really sad Plainsman


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Anyone besides g/o want to dump on the sportsmen of this nation, anyone? Anyone want to support the sportsmen? Do you appreciate support yourself? Anyone? Any landowners that appreciate the symbiotic relationship? I do. G/o doesn't respect that relationship. How do the rest of you landowners feel? So far it is 100% to heck with the sportsman.

I think I will forward this post to Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy. Along with my protest about hands in my pocket every time I turn around. So far no one is changing my mind about this. I am looking for just a couple of good landowners that understand what I am talking about. I need to know there are some worth helping to survive. Anyone, anyone??????


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

G/O smiles when he sees signs like this oke:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/alb ... ic_id=1100


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Go for it, I really think you should. Call them immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Before I do I have to bring my memory up to speed. I remember one of them having a plan to solve this problem, and as soon as they thought the dust was settled they dropped the ball. You can bet I will ask the question why very politely, but also pointedly. I will have other questions also, and advise. 
One thing I wish they would keep in mind is that not everyone in North Dakota is a landowner. It must be something like 20 to one. Is it really in the landowners best interest to outwardly dump on everyone who isn't a landowner. I know you think it is, but some landowner must disagree with you. 
One question I have is what are they doing in Washington for the teacher, the policeman, the truck driver, the garbage pickup man, the welder, the construction worker, the taxpayer that works day to day for a salary. All I see is farmer, farmer, farmer, business, business, tourism etc. I would like to see Washington stop talking and actually accomplish something.
I got a letter from them yesterday. They said how nice it was to hear from me. Same ol, same ol, . Then one went on to tell me that although the comprehensive immigration reform wasn't the best (like he would have done it) it was better than what we have. Ya, right.
G/o I don't think it's courteous to take from my pocket with your left hand and flip me off with your right hand. I don't know about others, but I am going to try do something about it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Come on Plainsman!!!!!!!!! Don't disappoint me!!!!!!!! Here you've always acted like a tough guy, another John Wayne in your mind. I'm starting to think maybe it's all talk.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o, g/o,. go/ I'm not going to have a little fued with you like you would like. I know you would like to throw the wrench into the gears and turn this into a little shouting match just to derail it, but I am going to take this very seriously. I will proceed politely and through proper channels. I will make my points politely and built support wherever I can. I will first ponder this for a time and decide on the proper actions.
Unless of course there are landowners that don't agree with you. I still have not heard from any. Of course the ones that work are perhaps haying right now. I will need to give it a couple days. No need to be hasty. I have plenty of time.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

plainsman, You are more than welcome to come and hunt my land, I own quit a chunk and post only about 400 acres or so the rest is open for the public. YOU are welcome to come and hunt ALL of it, because of the way you and I have disagreed with respect to each other. You do make a very good arguement . Do you write to our reps. when the government bails out the airlines ? Remember I am a landowner who raises cattle . I receive NO government payments. Most government payments go to farmers , NOT cattlemen. There are no price supports for beef cattle, but milk cows yes . If you think milk is expensive now ,take away the support payment and see how expenive milk would get. Most of the land that is posted in my area is pasture land which is not eligable for a government payment. As a landowner/cattleman I am very offended by you comparing me to a muslim . As you know I travel through your area and have relatives there , and I have noticed a rise in the pay to hunt in your area . Why is this?? I hate to break it to you but pay to hunt is going to be increasing here in ND. I have been approached several times by outfitters and have turned them down . My neighbor, he took them up on the offer and it has not been a good thing for the surrounding area.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

> I receive NO government payments
> 
> This past year in the feedlot I wish there had been some government payments but that is the chance I took and took it many times.


As a landowner/cattleman I am very offended by you comparing me to a muslim .

You are not the only one offended



> I hate to break it to you but pay to hunt is going to be increasing here in ND.
> 
> At a fast pace
> 
> I quess I will never understand why someone would stand in the way of another person trying to make a living when it is legall. Get a law passed that makes it illegal to to pay to hunt then raise hell about!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

First off angus thank you for the offer. I have more land than I can get to in ten years of hunting, but I may have to get in touch with you just to say hello. I'll bring donuts if you have the coffee on. 
Second I am very happy you turned the outfitter down. Now that is the kind of response I was looking for. A man worth helping, but as you say you don't get help like the grain farmer does. As a matter of fact you have to compete with the people out west who get very cheap grazing on public land. That is comparable to support prices the grain farmers get. I don't know how you fellows on your own make it when you have to compete with other ranchers that rent land as low as your taxes.
Third please read my post again. You will see I am not comparing you to a Muslim, I am comparing the situation to peaceful Muslims (if they exist) to what I think of as good farmers not condemning the pay hunting, or worse yet the canned hunts. Do you now see the comparison? Peaceful Muslims will not condemn radical Muslims, and good landowners are reluctant to say anything negative about bad landowners. I am surprised you were as polite as you were if you thought I was comparing you to a radical Muslim.



> I quess I will never understand why someone would stand in the way of another person trying to make a living when it is legall.


Well 280 there is the rub. I would like to see it outlawed. Go back in history and many things were legal that are illegal now. We don't have duels at 20 paces in the streets of Jamestown, and I would be willing to bet it doesn't happen in your home town either. Also, prostitution is now illegal in most states. I see the pay hunting as a good parallel to prostitution. You have the John (hunter) who contacts the pimp (outfitter) who will put him in touch with the hooker (anyone selling wildlife).


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I see the pay hunting as a good parallel to prostitution. You have the John (hunter) who contacts the pimp (outfitter) who will put him in touch with the hooker (anyone selling wildlife).


Plainsman, Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I don't want the land out west. I can raise more cattle on fewer acres where I'm at . That land is pretty much useless. I don't really know what those guys are paying for rent. All I do know is that I wouldn't give to much for it , a couple of buck$ per acre is plenty.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

unfortunately, guides, outfitters are enablers, for the lazy or the rich or those that are too uninformed to figure out hunting on their own or are unwilling to develop a relationship with a seasoned hunter or a landowner.
there will always be those with huge amounts of discretionary income who are willing to spend it on wildlife leases. it is just getting worse and it will continue to do so, as shrinking habitats become the norm.

as for the outfitters, well, we know what they are, we are now just establishing price.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> unfortunately, guides, outfitters are enablers, for the lazy or the rich or those that are too uninformed to figure out hunting on their own or are unwilling to develop a relationship with a seasoned hunter or a landowner.


Not true, but what would one expect from people like yourself with limited intelligence.



> as for the outfitters, well, we know what they are, we are now just establishing price.


One only has to look at your post, not even read and one know you are as ignorant as Plainsman


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> unfortunately, guides, outfitters are enablers, for the lazy or the rich or those that are too uninformed to figure out hunting on their own or are unwilling to develop a relationship with a seasoned hunter or a landowner.
> there will always be those with huge amounts of discretionary income who are willing to spend it on wildlife leases. it is just getting worse and it will continue to do so, as shrinking habitats become the norm.
> 
> as for the outfitters, well, we know what they are, we are now just establishing price.


What do you call rich? A person who has worked hard all his life and has the means to do what he can pay for? If a person that has a bigger net worth than you should not be able to hunt the way he wishes? You think a landowner should not be rewarded for what he has been able to put together because you want to hunt for nothing? Well get a grip ND has just begun to see pay to hunt.

This is about the dumb's thing I have ever heard it ranks right up there with Jim Zumbo's comments on different types of guns. These are fellow hunters with a different way of hunting and enjoy thier right to hunt

"I see the pay hunting as a good parallel to prostitution. You have the John (hunter) who contacts the pimp (outfitter) who will put him in touch with the hooker (anyone selling wildlife)."

[/quote]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You think a landowner should not be rewarded for what he has been able to put together because you want to hunt for nothing?


No, I'm just sick of hands in my pockets (taxes) every time I turn around and then being asked to hunt land that is sucking in thousands of dollars from me already. Drop all agriculture support and I will not complain. I'll have plenty of money to pay for hunting then. I am very sick of paying through the nose and then encountering the audacity of a hand sticking out the door when they see I am dressed in camo. They can go bankrupt today and I couldn't care less. If most of the nation knew what a fleecing of America this is ag support would disappear over night. Police, teachers, the greeter at WalMart all work hard too, and I respect them. The greeter at WalMart doesn't sell access (charge me $100 a day to shop). 
280 and g/o all you are convincing me of is to try hard to find ways to kill ag support and convince others. Your arguments are counter productive. Whine to someone who cares. 
I can't see for the life of me why the average landowner would have any sympathy either. All you fellows are doing is killing the support they get. Soon the landowners better get in and help shut this atrocity down. If they don't help clean up their own soon the whole barrel of apples will be thrown out.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Well you got me thinking. Lets say we get rid of ag support. Would you then support a posted ND? Written permission to hunt, that way Mr. Game Warden knows you paid the landowner to hunt? That dont sound like to bad of a deal , for me anyway. I also think the BIG farmer would be a hurting unit. His wife would probably have to go to town and get a job just as the small farmers wife does. The small guy is used to barely making it . I wonder if the BIG guy could pull it off, no vacations , have to drive the same pickup for more than 2 years. Price supports give the big farmers an advantage over the small farmers. Is this the governments way of helping to get rid of the family farmer and helping out the corporate world? ?? You really got me thinking. No family farmers, hummmm , only corporate. Wouldn't it be easier for the government to control a corporate farming industry than a family farm ? The government would then have a tighter control of what should and shouldn't be planted and I don't know if that would be a good thing. My grandfather fought in WWII and had a relative in WWI , he said that as the Germans took over a country they shot most of the farmers and ranchers for they knew if they controlled the food they controlled the people. hummmm. To support ag or not that is the question.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Here is your homework assignment. Being you hate guys like me (farmers & ranchers), find out how much of that tax dollar you goes back to guys like myself??????? Come on big guy you like to complain how much do you really spend.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The question seems to be is do we really need a farm bill? From my perspective the answer is yes we do need a farm bill. It is somewhat confusing to look at the info provided by EWG and try to make sense out of numbers that greatly benefit ADM, Cargill and other diversified corporate farms while the small family farmer is just able to keep his nose above water in the event of adverse natural processes, drought, flood, insects or fire.

Don't get me wrong, the corporate world is in business to make money for themselves and their shareholders, that is life in the corporate world but should the playing field be level when it comes to a program like the farm bill that (IMO) should be a safety net.

I do not mind paying taxes as long as I can see some visible evidence that the money is being used in a fiscally responsible manner. I think Gohon mentioned in one of his posts something to the effect, that if the money is there and available to anyone that wants to seek it out, not many of us would pass it up, I tend to agree. I guess I see it as the wrong way to provide security in the farming industry.

The thing that puts it into perspective for me is that if the corporate farms have a bad crop in a region their shareholders get a little smaller dividend check, the small farmers have an auction sale and try to find work in town.

There have been far to many auctions in ND in the last few years to not think about whether the system is in need of a tune up.

Just my .02

Bob

ps

g/o you know the answer to that question it is the same as you were harping about how much money goes into PLOTS per person, Very Little! You are a drop in the bucket in the farm industry just like I am a drop in the bucket when it comes to taxes paid into subsidy payments. It is not about individuals it is about a system and individual principals. The drops will fill the bucket eventually.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> Plainsman, Here is your homework assignment. Being you hate guys like me (farmers & ranchers), find out how much of that tax dollar you goes back to guys like myself??????? Come on big guy you like to complain how much do you really spend.


You think to simple g/o. It's you and the million others that add up. It's kind of like those guys around Devils Lake that keep saying the little wetlands they drain don't add anything to the flooding. I have told a couple of these guys that if they give me a few hours I can run a five gallon bucket over with a spoon. Your the spoon g/o, and given enough spoons it's a lake of money being wasted.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Your the spoon g/o, and given enough spoons it's a lake of money being wasted.


Like always Plainsman you failed to answer the question, but that is not surprising. I'm glad you figure the farm bill is a waste of money, I hope you tell all the farmers and ranchers land you hunt on this fall how you feel. Now make sure you contact the boys in DC like you said you would.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I think the real key is that the farm bill needs to be fine tuned. I have no problem with the small farmer trying to survive getting a helping hand when a disaster hits.

However, I do not see why we need to keep paying farmers who continually claim disaster aid on marginal land that never should have been turned over to begin with. Also I see no need for someone making more than $250,000 a year to get a government handout.

There needs to be an income cap on those who can utilize these programs. There also needs to be some drastic changes in the dispersal of disaster payments and or crop insurance. I would much rather see the disaster funds going to those who really need it or buying out those lands that are annually in a state of drought or flood prone.

Why keep throwing money at the problem when we can solve it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Your the spoon g/o, and given enough spoons it's a lake of money being wasted.
> 
> Like always Plainsman you failed to answer the question, but that is not surprising.


 :rollin: Oh, I'm sure you understand what I was saying and so did everyone else. 
Huntnfishnd, I agree with you. However, if they are paid to hunt CRP cut the payments. I am not willing to pay out of both pockets.

An old joke rearranged: Do you know what you call a basement full of g/o's? A whine cellar. 
:fiddle:


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

The whole ag program needs to be overhauled. As Bob said a safety net of some kind needs to be in place, or there will be nothing but huge corparate farms.

You are right about marginal lands, but who is to say what is marginal?

The farmer or rancher may have to make some changes he doesn't what to make in order to stay in bussiness. No matter what bussiness you are in, max. income is needed to stay in bussiness. Plainsman don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about I have been there and did it from the bottum up. I did not recieve welfare payments,I am not a John,pimp,or hooker!!! I sures hell didn't work for a tax payers pay check,so I guess I am not in a postion to judge!!!!!!!!! BTW I paid taxes this in 06 in the 5 diget area. I pay may share.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You are right about marginal lands, but who is to say what is marginal?


I could do that for you. 



> I am not a John,pimp,or hooker!!!


Perhaps not. I just see hunters going to the pimps and paying them, the pimp takes them to a landowners field to hunt. The game belongs to the public and the field is CRP which the hunter has already paid for. I would say the hunter just got screwed.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > You are right about marginal lands, but who is to say what is marginal?
> 
> 
> I could do that for you.


That's the problem to find someone who wasn't already bias towards the landowner. If the land owner charged to hunt his land he would be looked at differently. Some Federal inspectors in the pass have been know to do things for a favor in return, just my uneducated opinion and past experiaces. If the marginal land was to fall under a federal ag program a federal inspector would have to be used more of my tax money.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In all seriousness I would rather pay a qualified inspector than pay support prices on land that can not produce a profit. That's the game around here. People are not farming much of the land, they are farming the federal program. 
One of the big gripes that I often hear is that the darn federal government keeps lowering the county average. If the area is considered disaster the farmers are paid based on county average. The average is going down because many are breaking up very poor land. They know they can't make it, but so what the government will pay them. The problem is poorer and poorer land is being broken up. That leads to the county average going down. It isn't the darn fed that is causing it, it is the farmers themselves.
It wouldn't cost much to say which land is marginal. Every county has a county soils map. Also, every ag office should have an average production for each soil type within each county. The answer should already be available with a minimum of effort by anyone involved. 
There is one of the ag programs problems. Pastures around here that have more rocks than soil get broken up, not because the farmer can make a living of it directly, but because he can make a living off the federal program by breaking it up. On one hand the government is trying to implement conservation practices (CRP) and on the other hand many of their programs are very land destructive. Remember PIK (Payment in Kind), Reagan's brainy idea? His thoughts were reduce the surplus and the market will raise grain prices and reduce federal dependence. It didn't work around here. Everyone enrolled their crop land, then broke up pastures and hayland. These were not cropped before because they were marginal lands. What happened? So much land was broken up that it offset the enrolled land and we had record production. Then prices went down. Farmers produced more than consumers wanted. Smooth move boys. They all thought they had a great idea, but so did every other farmer and in the end they shafted each other. No problem, Uncle Sam came through with even more payments, but the country average took a dive.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

> If you think milk is expensive now ,take away the support payment and see how expenive milk would get.


This kind of logic amazes me. Either way I'm paying for it. This way I am paying in two places (the store and tax time) and the second time isn't exactly being up front with the cost. Plus you add on all the additional expense of government programs and employees to manage such programs.

I would much rather just pay for it in the store at what the market dictates its worth.

Same for all the other price supports.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I would like to know how the farm program is any diferent than WIC or food stamps for the poor. Most people in ND that are on these programs have a job (One of those BS, minimum wage, doesnt pay for squat jobs) yet somehow they are looked down upon. But farmer dude is entitled to government money so he can have a new pickup every year and have that winter place down south. These yahoos on farm welfare are the first ones in the morning crying about all the people on welfare and dont consider themselves to be a drain on government money.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. A guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "130." So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, and so on.

The man listened intently and thought, "This is really cool." Another guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man responded, "120." So the robot started talking about the Superbowl, dirt bikes, and so on.

The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool." A third guy came in to the bar. As with the others, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "80." The robot then said, " So how have you been Plainsman"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)




----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

g/o said:


> A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. A guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "130." So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, and so on.
> 
> The man listened intently and thought, "This is really cool." Another guy came in for a drink and the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man responded, "120." So the robot started talking about the Superbowl, dirt bikes, and so on.
> 
> The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool." A third guy came in to the bar. As with the others, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "80." The robot then said, " So how have you been Plainsman"


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But you got it wrong, the last line should read, "So how have you been g/o".

huntin1


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Since I work for the city, no comment.  :roll:

huntin1


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Lets face it , there will be a new farm bill. It probably won't level the playing field for the small guy since he really has no one sticking up for him. Why do ADM and Cargill get support ? They have the $$ to get the $$ and its wrong. I know a lot of Billy Big Farmer's who really don't need the cash either but they are entitled to it . Even though they take the cash and go on vacation, there's nothing I can do about it but feel sorry for his neighbor Mr. Hard work'n Family Farmer who works the oil rigs in the winter to help put food on the table. The airlines have been bailed out and I still have to pay for a plane ticket, if someone gets food stamps I can not drop in any time and sit at their supper table. Mr. Farmer charges to hunt I guess it's his right to charge access . I know many farmers who will say if the animals belong to the state, then either pay me for feeding them or get them out of here. What are your opinions on PLOTS?? Is that not pay to hunt?? Some of this land is already receiving a support payment? As far as charging to hunt CRP , well I don't think we will have to worry about that for to many more years CRP is in big trouble and we will be seeing less and less of it. I sure wish we all could come up with a fair ag program . Support is certainly needed by some and just fun money for others but how do we seperate with out discriminate? I'd also like to ask why all the harsh words towards eachother? Hashing things out can be fun and challenging . Some of you get a little to worked up .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Angus your enjoyable to talk with.

I think if you put a limit of say $100,000 on ag support you would not be discriminating. The rich farmer would be entitled to $100,000 just like everyone else. That doesn't discriminate against the already rich. I don't think corporations should be entitled to any. I don't think the airlines should have been bailed out, and I think food stamps were more of a way to eat up the surplus than to help the poor.
I don't think there should be any support prices on grain. If Detroit builds more cars than they can sell tough. If farmers grow more grain than the market wants the price goes down , end of story.
I have always been in favor of conservation programs. It preserves the soil for future generations, reduces ag surplus, and provides income to the landowner. It cost the taxpayer on April 15 and at the grocery store because reduced surplus results in higher prices. Still it helps the small farmer. It's just a bur under my saddle that after all this sportsmen are looked at as not compassionate neighbors, but just another sucker. There are good landowners out there, but there is a smaller number that the only thing of value is a buck. How do I sort them out and tell them they have no value to me or society? Food can be imported cheaper. I want to help the average farmer and dump on the pay to hunt leach who does nothing for society unless there is a buck in it for him. Why am I expected to support the landowner and nothing is expected of them?
I think conservation programs are an adult like aspect of society while the milk the land for all it's worth attitude is child like thinking, with no thought towards the future and no respect for the land.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I'm all for a cap on support . I think that $100,000 is probably the limit in which I'd agree with perhaps even less. Corporations shouldn't get a dime. Air lines shouldn't have been bailed out they should have raise the price of the ticket. I know alot of people on food stamps some deserve it , they have had just plain bad luck in life , they have tried but just had bad luck. Others need to work full time and get off the system . With the high prices of grain this year I doubt there will be any grain support price , perhaps peas but not for the rest. I really don't like the thought of imported food . Country of Origin Labeling needs to be enforced, this will certainly help out the cattle industry. I will pay more and buy American, its just the right thing to do . Conservation programs will be a HUGE part of the next farm bill. BUT it is catching a lot of slack because people immediately put conservation and tree huggers in the same boat. This is not the case and needs to be explained to some to these old farmers a little clearer. Yes to get into a no-till is a little expensive, but the government already has a program to help a person get into it. Cheap interest loans for the equipment and about $11 to $14 / acre ( 600 acre limit) for 4 years just to no-till. I agree with the comparison with the auto makers. I remember when I was a kid and I had to work summer fallow with of all things a 14 foot cultivator. When was the last time you saw summer fallow.? Or even as they call it now chemical fallow.? A person just can't afford to let the land sit for a year anymore. It would be good all around, less chemicals, fertilizers, less land in production which would raise the prices and get rid of price support. But it doesn't matter what we talk about , ag, corporations , mom and pop stores , trucking industry , medical , hunting ............ whatever GREED is our biggest problem .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Angus were going to have to argue about which lure is best for walleye or something because your thought process on agriculture isn't flawed in my book. 
I grew up on a farm and miss the attitudes of the past. Farmers were independent sorts 50 years ago, much like the old fur trappers. It saddens me to see how far North Dakota has digressed. With all the new technological advances we are still a poorer state than we were in the 1950's. The real value in this state is it's people. I don't get along well with people who's main value in life is money. It's odd how I remember the rich kids in high school and college. They were the first ones to bum off everyone else. As they grew older they didn't change.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

It's odd how I remember the rich kids in high school and college. They were the first ones to bum off everyone else. As they grew older they didn't change.

I was lucky,Iwas so dam poor in high school there was nothing to bum!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I was lucky,Iwas so dam poor in high school there was nothing to bum!!


Ya, they bummed, but not from me either. I didn't think I could ever eat oatmeal or potatoes again. Some kids complained about the school lunch, but I looked forward to it every day.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I loved the older days of farming. 2 wheel drive tractors that had a cab but no windows because you took then out to get rid of the heat in the summer and when you went to put them back in in the fall you found out that one of the kids used them in a fort they had made out of old wood pallets. Yes the farmers were independant and proud of it. Most farms had both cattle and crops. Remember riding in the back of the pickup on the way to town. I even rode home from town in the stock trailer one time , don't know why but I did. It used to snow back then and we dug holes in snow drifts and played after chores for hours. I remember going with out electricity for a week because of an ice storm . It didn't kill us. I don't even remember anyone really complaining, brought us closer I think. AHHH the good old days. I don't think we can even argue about walleye fishing . I'll be the first to admit I don't know a thing about fishing , but me and my youngest daughter have certainly been trying to learn this summer . Sure is fun. Wish I could swim that would sure ease my mind a little.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Angus go dump that after dinner drink out!! A lot of those old days were not that good!!!


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

OH yeah , there were some tough times . We didn't have much but looking back I didn't know , I was having fun.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

angus 
You must have been rich a 14 foot chisel plow!!! I am just kidding. we only had a 12 footer and an old W-9 to pull it with. Wish I had the arms I had then that tractor didn't have power steering I had to use the brakes to help turn that thing when I was driving it in my pre teen years. Believe it or not I look back at throwing rocks into a "stone boat" as fun. Maybe it was damage from to much time in the sun.

Just so you know I am part of a family land partnership and I have worked in the corporate world all of my adult life. I can see and understand both sides of the issues.

Farming is no longer what it used to be and neither is much of anything else, nothing is going to go back to what I have fond memories of and perhaps it shouldn't.

I do not know the author of the quote "success breeds success" I remember reading it years ago and it struck me as very controversial even back then, I always thought about the quote in the terms of "at what cost".

PLOTS is IMO one of those anomalies that is socialistic in nature in an ever increasing capitalistic society. It is pay to hunt but it is affordable to every economic class, it s free on the surface and as long as the method of payment through license fees doesn't increase beyond the capabilities of the lower income users it should remain as is.

CRP has evolved from the original intent to be more than just erosion control and a way to stabilize crop prices by limiting production. CRP is also paid for by every taxed citizen but it should not be available to everyone because they have paid a few bucks into the system because it is private property. I personally feel that with the benefit to the wildlife we (sportsmen) should be thankful that some landowners maintain it for that reason alone.

The pay to hunt issue has been beaten to death on this site and many others. I would venture to guess that it is one of the leading causes for threads getting locked or deleted on this site. There are simply no laws on the books other than for guides and outfitters that govern pay to hunt and I think the reason is that enforcement would be impossible. Just as it is seemingly impossible to differentiate between private property rights and public ownership of wildlife.

In the end game it all revolves around the Farm Bill because everything from school lunches to crop insurance to food stamps to CRP is in one way or another based upon or dependent on the legislation. There is simply no way to look at the monster the farm program has become and even think that it can be managed in a fiscally responsible manner. IMO There should be stringent limits for anyone in the program but it will not happen, there is to much money and politics involved. I wonder if Darwin ever imagined that his survival of the fittest model would ever be so ingrained into society.

Take Care

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Everyone has the right to feel as they do about the farm bill. Myself personally am against limits on payments. They tried doing that before and it didn't work . All you do is end up with a bunch more guys getting what ever the limit will be. I don't why it should matter if Ted Turner gets a payment or Dick Monson. Payments are based on eligible acres and it should not matter who owns them and whether he is rich or poor. It really ticks me off when people go after someone because they are successful.

HUNTNFISHND, Touched on a sore spot with me and that is crop insurance that is a bigger problem than payments as far as I'm concerned. Ever since the government got involved in subsidizing the abuse has gotten out of control. The disaster program is just that a disaster. First of all to qualify for disaster payments you have to have crop insurance. "Hello" didn't you collect once on already from crop insurance. So this is my favorite, burn the sloughs in the fall and disc them up. Come spring guess what they are under water. No problem we will collect preventive planting. No big deal? Many guys collect 3 to 4 hundred dollars an acre from these sloughs. Some get 50 grand or better a year. Still no big deal? This is the classic now they will qualify for disaster on these acres. So you collect 50 grand on sloughs now you will get another 25 grand for disaster talk about pennies from heaven. Wonder why land is at all time high prices? Do I blame the farmer for doing this? Hell No, it's available so take it.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

How many Federal jobs does the Farm Bill provide and what is the amount of it's payroll?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> HUNTNFISHND, Touched on a sore spot with me and that is crop insurance that is a bigger problem than payments as far as I'm concerned. Ever since the government got involved in subsidizing the abuse has gotten out of control. The disaster program is just that a disaster. First of all to qualify for disaster payments you have to have crop insurance. "Hello" didn't you collect once on already from crop insurance. So this is my favorite, burn the sloughs in the fall and disc them up. Come spring guess what they are under water. No problem we will collect preventive planting. No big deal? Many guys collect 3 to 4 hundred dollars an acre from these sloughs. Some get 50 grand or better a year. Still no big deal? This is the classic now they will qualify for disaster on these acres. So you collect 50 grand on sloughs now you will get another 25 grand for disaster talk about pennies from heaven. Wonder why land is at all time high prices? Do I blame the farmer for doing this? Hell No, it's available so take it.


How do things get this looney? Is it the politicians way of buying votes? I don't understand such foolishness.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

g/o I'm guessing you don't know much about crop insurance and how little it covers.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

angus, I know quite a bit about crop insurance. Yes if you have sufffered many years of crop failure your payment isn't squat. That being said the ones I'm referring to are the ones that have been getting bumper crops and collecting.


----------



## woodguru (Jul 10, 2007)

My thoughts are that most people do not understand the economics behind farm subsidies. The cases of abuse such as paying farmers not to grow something while buying "surplus" grains that will be stored at huge expense are what the politically uneducated hear about. Unfortunately the voting public who is for the most part incredibly unknowledgeable about issues they vote for find themselves unknowingly voting for things that will harm them greatly.

I myself do not know nearly enough about the issues and what impacts they can have to begin to form anything but the gut reaction which is to consider farm subsidies ludicrous.

This is a different issue but how about big oil companies being given billions of dollars of public money to develop land the public owns that they have been repeatedly blocked from getting to so that they can profit by trillions of dollars at the public's expense.

Meanwhile battery automobile technology that would benefit us tremendously and wean us from detrimental and increasingly expensive oil dependency is squashed at our own public expense.

I would like to understand farm subsidy issues and why they work from any sources that do a good job of explaining it if that exists, perhaps the person who got this thread started can point me in the right direction.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*woodguru*

Here are a few links to get you started.

http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farm/?key=215 ... nformation

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/bg2043.cfm

Bob


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

g/o The only way to collect crop insurance on a bumper crop is to not report the correct bushels harvested, and then hiding the bushels since you cant sell them . This then lowers your history and then in a few years lowers your coverage and so on, your basicly screwing yourself by doing so. IF you happen to know someone who is cheating the system like this a simple call to the crop insurance agent or the FSA office will take care of it.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Agriculture secretary expresses concerns about House farm bill 
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Thursday, July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Thursday that the proposed farm bill pending in the House relies on phony savings that simply shift expenses from one year to another.

"From what I can determine they do not appear to be real savings," Johanns told reporters.

The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson, defended the proposal, saying it was in line with budget rules.

Specifically, Johanns said the farm bill proposal shifts part of direct and countercyclical payments from one year to another, hiding the cost.

"It's not a savings at all," he said. "Taxpayers are still going to pay the same amount of money."

Johanns said the proposed farm bill also hides the true cost of crop insurance to improve the 10-year cost estimate, by collecting premiums earlier and paying expenses later after the 10-year plan.

"So on one hand, you've moved receipts in, and on the other hand you've moved expenses out," Johanns said. "The net effect is the same - you're still going to have to deal with these issues."

Peterson, who met with Johanns Thursday, said in a telephone interview that the Agriculture Committee will be making some "real reductions" in the crop insurance program next week.

As to the shifting of expenses from one year to another, Peterson said with a laugh, "We don't deny that."

He said the plan was in line with budget rules.

"This is a normal thing," Peterson said.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Peterson, Congress work on farm bill
By Scott Wente, Forum Communications Co.
Published Monday, July 16, 2007

ST. PAUL - There is no guarantee the next farm bill will fund renewable-energy programs and permanent disaster aid.

U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, who as House Agriculture Committee

chairman is the farm bill's lead author, told reporters Friday those two

initiatives are part of a larger version of his legislation that can only be funded with money he does not have available.

But the western Minnesota Democrat is optimistic the renewable-energy programs - popular with farmers in his home state and elsewhere - will get the necessary funding to be included in the five-year agriculture legislation.

"I think the energy thing, that's going to work out," he said.

Peterson's comments came between farm bill meetings with key lawmakers and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill. The speaker wants the

legislation to include more reforms than Peterson proposed, he said.

Limiting subsidies to farmers, which some policymakers say is warranted because crop prices are high, is a possibility.

"There has to be some significant changes that will not be easy to do, and it will cause some members heartburn," Peterson said, adding such changes could be made when his committee reviews the bill in coming days.

Peterson's remarks capped an eventful week for his farm bill proposal. The legislation was applauded by some industry groups for generally maintaining the safety net of payments and loans to farmers.

The politically conservative American Farm Bureau Federation supports Peterson's bill.

Minnesota Farm Bureau President Kevin Paap, who was in Washington recently to hear from Peterson and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, said the House proposal does a fair job of balancing interests of farmers across the country, though his group wanted more funding for renewable energy and conservation.

"We fully recognize we have to be fiscally responsible," Paap said.

There was criticism for the bill, too, from some commodity groups and from Johanns, who took aim at some of its accounting. President Bush must eventually approve Congress' farm bill for it to become law.

The House has moved quicker on drafting the new farm legislation than the Senate, where Agriculture Committee members could start on their bill within a week. The 2002 farm bill expires this fall.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat on the committee, said she supports maintaining a so-called safety net for farmers when crop prices drop, and doing more for disaster assistance.

Klobuchar said the farm bill should include more energy initiatives, including rewarding farmers for getting involved in cellulosic ethanol production.

"We want to have incentives in the farm bill to reward projects, not just big ones, but small projects as well," she told reporters.

Permanent disaster relief, which could cost $5 billion, is only included in Peterson's "reserve" proposal. He said he is getting "pushback" from Democrats and Republicans who favor continuing to provide disaster relief on an emergency as-needed basis instead of than setting up a permanent disaster fund.

Peterson said he is continuing to work with North Dakota's Sen. Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy on the issue. Farmers in Minnesota and North Dakota have suffered from flooding and droughts in recent years, and emergency assistance often has been difficult for congressional delegates to obtain.

"We haven't given up on this," Peterson said of establishing a permanent fund for disaster aid.

Minnesota Capitol Bureau reporter Don Davis contributed to this story

Wente works for Forum Communications Co., which owns The Forum. He can be reached at (651) 290-0707 or [email protected]


----------

