# @&$%# farmers



## dakotashooter2

Curse them for knocking down shelter belts. I sure noticed it when I drove to work this morning. They know not the damage they are doing. They are undoing what their predecessors learned the hard way.


----------



## Dick Monson

Yep, it's too bad but the emerald ash bore is coming in which will kill all the ash trees anyway and the asian long horned beetle is right behind, which will probably take the remainder. Invasive species. Minimum till replaces the trees.


----------



## Maverick

Amazing what a little bug can do! The mountains of Colorado are being decimated by the Mountain Pine Beetle! Unbelievable what they (the mountains) look like right now! With all the dead trees right now a fire is looming and needed!


----------



## blhunter3

Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. In fact I wish more shelter belts where going down because I hate having to fold up the farm equipment or having to take off the headers to fit around them. Besides, shelter belts hold hawks and other birds of prey.


----------



## bearhunter

blhunter3 said:


> Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. quote] b.s. :eyeroll:


----------



## GKBassplayer

blhunter3 said:


> Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. In fact I wish more shelter belts where going down because I hate having to fold up the farm equipment or having to take off the headers to fit around them. Besides, shelter belts hold hawks and other birds of prey.


Deal with it... they are there for a reason, holding birds of prey? may be true but I have also shot many pheasants along them as well. Its amazing how fast one can be taken down especially when it took MANY YEARS to create, all for what? a few extra rows?


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. In fact I wish more shelter belts where going down because I hate having to fold up the farm equipment or having to take off the headers to fit around them. Besides, shelter belts hold hawks and other birds of prey.


 :withstupid:


----------



## wingaddict

blhunter3 said:


> Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. In fact I wish more shelter belts where going down because I hate having to fold up the farm equipment or having to take off the headers to fit around them. Besides, shelter belts hold hawks and other birds of prey.


Must have been what "grandpa" told you huh?

Honestly I've read alot of your jibberish on this site, but that might be the single DUMBEST thing I've every seen you type. (and thats coming from a long list of idiotic comments you've made)


----------



## djleye

:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Tree belts that many of us grew up with are being taken out for a couple reasons. One is that many or most are dead or dying. A combination of reaching maturity of age as well as damage from storms and chemicals. Cost of removal is greater than the gain they will get from the land. But anyone who has worked around these dying rows understands it is the hidden costs of repairs that come with trees breaking down etc...

In regards to their need, it is a toss up if proper soil conservation measures are taken. However even a tree belt is not going to stop a bean field from blowing and losing soil it may reduce the impact, but not eliminate it.

Having grown up on a farm and farming around them I am well aware of why when they are dead they get taken out!!! I also understand why many landowners do not replace them for economic reasons as well.


----------



## Bug Guy

I'm not sure your title and content will endear you to many landowners, but hey, it takes all kinds I guess. As far as the shelterbelts go, I disagree that no till replaces the shelterbelts. When the land looks like the surface of the moon after the first 6 inches of snow and the January to March winter winds are blowing, where in the name brunhilda's buttocks are the deer and pheasants supposed to live? I can't tell you how many times I've heard this past winter (09) really reduced deer and pheasant populations. How is no till going to help that? I understand the landowners issues of repairs and additional problems and wouldn't think of telling another landowner what to do, but the value of shelterbelts is more than a wind break for soil erosion. My shelterbelts are being rejuvinated by cutting the big old cottonwoods down and letting the young ones replace them. It makes quite a mess in there, but the deer, pheasants, and other critters flock to the place all year. More so in recent years as CRP acres were/are converted. If the practice of removing cover, for whatever reason, continues, the game population will continue to drop. If game populations are not important, then by all means, proceed on course and good luck. However, do not be surprised when finding open doors to good land becomes harder and harder to obtain.


----------



## LukeDuke

Dont feal bad guys for a lost belt, I seen a whole entire 15ac woods get leveld when the original farmer passed away and his family sold out. Used to hunt this woods and its not there anymore.. Too bad!!! In my opinion that shouldnt be allowed, or having them take out a big wetland thats been there for years and then farming it. Takes away alot. The Bigger, The Better,The Badder I guess


----------



## dacaller

In the state of Illinois there used to be rows of trees between the fields as well. They were mostly hedge trees which are a real hardy tree to with stand wind and they have a long life span.
But in the mid 80's the farmers all started tearing them out to farm the extra couple of rows and the next thing you know all the pheasant's are gone and the Illinois river is so silted in the back waters are so shallow that the ducks no longer use them as rest area's. When I say shallow I'm talking 2 - 3 inches of water where there use to be 6 foot or better of water. This only took 15 years to really ruin what once was some of the best duck hunting and pheasant hunting there was east of the Mississippi.
So to hear someone say they are no longer needed is BS..... I've seen the damages first hand. :******:


----------



## Longshot

The really sad thing is that any other industry that needs to take trees out has to mitigate those trees, just like wetlands. For every tree they cut down they have to plant two. The same goes for wetlands. For every acre drained or filled in another acre has to be created. Why the farming industry doesn't have to abide by the same rules is sickening.


----------



## ND_duckman

I think Bl is right about the no-till. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the amount of water that the tree's us up and what they can do to the water table. If an ecosystem evolved with trees and then they are taken away (like the Illinois case) it can be a bad thing. It can also be a bad thing when trees are introduced to places where they were not there naturally. When settlers come to the prairie they didn't have shelter belts. One of the reasons prairie's don't have many trees is because of dryer climates compared to forest regions.


----------



## Plainsman

Longshot said:


> The really sad thing is that any other industry that needs to take trees out has to mitigate those trees, just like wetlands. For every tree they cut down they have to plant two. The same goes for wetlands. For every acre drained or filled in another acre has to be created. Why the farming industry doesn't have to abide by the same rules is sickening.


Darn I typed a long response and must have forgot to hit submit.

Anyway, I think many rules will change for farmers. Even though many of my relatives farm I often give them a hard time on this site. If you talk casually with people they often will not pay attention, but if you tick them off a little bit you have their full attention. Hence my needle once in a while.
The future doesn't favor farmers or hunters, it favors the exploiters, and unfortunately that is history. Today the outfitters give the farmers little and charge the hunters much. In the end when bad legislation comes down the pike the farmer will have one outfitter in his corner instead of 100 hunters. It's human nature to appreciate less what you pay for. If you don't believe that ask yourself this question: who do you appreciate the most a young man who stops to jump start your car, or the wrecker driver that charges you $50 to drive five miles and spend five minutes with you?

More on the subject of trees. No till is a wonderful tool for agriculture, but it does not negate the value of shelter belts. The species of trees in large part determines the value of those shelter belts. As to moisture you perhaps don't want cottonwood, because they are phreatophytes and in mesic environments can transpire 500 gallons of water per day. The trees the soil conservation service picked for use in North Dakota one row plantings are more adapted for zeric (dry) conditions. Reality is that in years of average precipitation the snow they hold far outweighs the moisture they use which makes them valuable to farmers for that reason, not just the reduction of erosion. As an indicator of erosion benefits it's widely accepted that a plant provides erosion reduction ten times it's height.. In other words a tree 25 ft tall has much affect on erosion close to it, but some erosion control as far away as 250 ft.


----------



## wingaddict

ND_duckman said:


> I think Bl is right about the no-till. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the amount of water that the tree's us up and what they can do to the water table. If an ecosystem evolved with trees and then they are taken away (like the Illinois case) it can be a bad thing. It can also be a bad thing when trees are introduced to places where they were not there naturally. *When settlers come to the prairie they didn't have shelter belts*. One of the reasons prairie's don't have many trees is because of dryer climates compared to forest regions.


The ecosystem changes when the native ground is turned with a plow. If everything was still native prairie, we wouldnt need shelterbelts.

Try to tell me we dont need shelter belts when we have no till farming.. then travel the eastern part of the sate and see how much no till farming is actually taking place.


----------



## blhunter3

wingaddict, times change, if you want North Dakota to be more native, then you will actually need to remove tree's from North Dakota as, there are more now historically then ever before.


----------



## blhunter3

oh and wingaddict, where i get the idea is from doing research. Try doing some before you knock on how I come to conclusions. For all you know, my grandpa is biologist.

Your attack on character is one of the lowest attacks someone can do. All you are really doing is avoiding the argument. That shows really poor debating methods. :eyeroll:


----------



## wingaddict

blhunter3 said:


> wingaddict, times change, if you want North Dakota to be more native, then you will actually need to remove tree's from North Dakota as, there are more now historically then ever before.


So based on the above reasoning, for every tree you are removing from the landscape, I'm assuming you are replacing it with one acre of restored native prairie never to be farmed again?

You cant have your cake and eat it too, kid.



> oh and wingaddict, where i get the idea is from doing research. Try doing some before you knock on how I come to conclusions. For all you know, my grandpa is biologist.
> 
> Your attack on character is one of the lowest attacks someone can do. All you are really doing is avoiding the argument. That shows really poor debating methods.


Please explain your "research". (and whining from the seat of a tractor while you sit for a minute or two while the air seeder arms fold up, doesnt constititute "research")
Minimum or no till may hold top soil better than conventional farming practices, but it is no replacement for the wildlife habitat the shelter belts provide.

And for the record, I've lurked on this site long enough to see that debating with you is like challenging a gun fight to a guy carrying a butter knife.


----------



## Plainsman

> And for the record, I've lurked on this site long enough to see that debating with you is like challenging a gun fight to a guy carrying a butter knife.wingaddict


I like your comments when held to the subject matter, however your above statement is a personal attack. The subject is not blhunter. Lets move on.


----------



## startown

I have planted over 40 acres of shelterbelts and another 20 acres or riparian buffers on my properties here in MN, all paid for by the CRP program. I have seen shelterbelts get dozed under. It is sad to see. The only solution that I see is for conservation minded landowners (recreational owners and farmers) to see the value of shelterbelts. This CRP plan is still available and can be signed up for at any time in any state. The landower will receive a bonus payment, a 15 year annual CRP payment and the government will pay for 90% of the cost to plant the trees, and the grass in-between, not to mention other site prep costs.

In my county there was a strong push for this program and there were several hundreds of acres of new shelterbelts planted (3-10 years old). Some are already holding pheasants and deer. When corn prices hit highs, the amount of new CRP plantings decreased significantly and then the small groves/old shelterbelts were plowed under. On the positive side, I think we have added more shelterbelts in the past 10 years in comparison to the number that have disappeared, but I am sure that is not the case in all counties, and maybe not the case in North Dakota?


----------



## blhunter3

wingaddict, I am taking class at NDSU right now about soil science and last semester I took a forestry class and the professor and I had many good private debates about this very subject.

No, we do not replace farm land with natural grass land because farming is our livelihood. Until you can show a good paying program to either plant or replant more tree row's it isn't worth the time or effort to take care of them from a farming stand point. Yes we utilize tree's on our farm. One reason is for snow protect. Between us and the airport, grandpa has had tree rows planted. The next spot is east of us on hills. So yes, tree rows are used, but I personally don't think that they are as needed for soil conservation as they once were in our area. Other area's yes.

Do you realize that the only place's tree grew naturally in North Dakota was along the river and out in the badlands? Yes farming has changed the land scape but farming isn't going to go away, so everyone will have to get use to it, just like less CRP and standing corn during deer season.


----------



## RyHelwig

U guys that dont live on farms have to understand that if u have shelterbelts in feilds thats less land to farm and that means less money, wat would you rather have 1 deer or 1000 dollars i think most people would choose 1000 dollars


----------



## RyHelwig

y r u guys getting mad at farmers, if u hunt there land u shouldnt be complaining, people want to make money instead of having tree rows in the middle of feilds, if u have tree rows that some up by the road the snow will catch and it will make huge drifts on the road then wat r we supposed to do when we cant get out of r yard, shelter belts may help deer and phesants but it also costs money to the farmer because he cant farm that ground


----------



## Lardy

I have trouble with the "livelihood" excuse with certain farmers I know. I know plenty of farmers that I go to school with that are much better off than my family and yet they still use the "Im not letting a few ducks or pheasants get in the way of putting food on my families table" BS

I know that there are also plenty of guys that could use a few extra acres to make ends meet but the majority are doing more than OK financially. Cutting/plowing/draining to make a livelihood is one thing, doing it to make a fortune is messed up.


----------



## blhunter3

It's not the amount gained when taking out the shelter belts, because you don't really gain much, its the up keep and the replanting, its just not cost effective. It all boils down to money.


----------



## RyHelwig

So u guys want all farmers to plant a bunch trees, y dont u guys just go out and buy land and plant it all to trees if u think us farmers are stupid and think its just fun to tear down trees and have to pick up sticks for 1/2 mile rows


----------



## blhunter3

RyHelwig said:


> So u guys want all farmers to plant a bunch trees, y dont u guys just go out and buy land and plant it all to trees if u think us farmers are stupid and think its just fun to tear down trees and have to pick up sticks for 1/2 mile rows


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## RyHelwig

haha ya im 14 years old and iv been picking up 1/2 mile rows of trees and sticks and branchs since i was 8 lol


----------



## barebackjack

RyHelwig said:


> So u guys want all farmers to plant a bunch trees, y dont u guys just go out and buy land and plant it all to trees if u think us farmers are stupid and think its just fun to tear down trees and have to pick up sticks for 1/2 mile rows


actly, wat i want u 2 do is write with real words omg lol
:roll:


----------



## kingcanada

it appears that we have a real hornets nest here. i shall endeavor not to be stung! i hate to see trees knocked down too. but some of the reasons are sound, like beetle kill. we have that problem in our forests out here. healthy shelter belts are a different story, i would prefer that they stay. they may drink up some water, but come winter they gather a lot of blowing snow. how much do they consume vs. what they collect? wish i knew. out here where i am located, every field has to be irrigated. there is no such thing as plant it and wait for rain. it amazes me that your crops grow so healthy with just what nature gives for moisture. as mentioned earlier, everything boils down to money. that is a shame. the harsh reality of today's society is that everything seems to be compromised for money now. buy a newer truck, bigger tv, more beer, whatever. some things i do condemn. like "pay me" hunting that takes opportunity from good sportsmen. but cutting down a dying stand of trees is not one of them. it would be nice to see them replaced though. unfortunately, it seems that most practices are tied to government programs. just look at crp. right now the people in power are more concerned with cramming obamacare and other things down our throats. money in our economy is dwindling and outdoorsman are not a prime concern. for the record, i do make financial sacrifices based on what i feel is right. i hope that farmers can afford to do the same. farmers live on what their land produces, they are not looking to destroy their own land. as much as i hate government spending, i would like to see some crp provision made for shelterbelts. or a tax incentive. at least my tax $ would be spent on something truly beneficial to us all.


----------



## Lardy

I believe ya on the maintenance and upkeep part, it does take a lot of work to keep trees going on the prairie. I'm sure its hard to see any money gained from planting these strips now but what happens when a bad drought comes and your topsoil goes to s#@t ? I'm thinking the guys that farmed in the 30's would have agreed that it would have been worth the money to plant those strips before the dust bowl. You got car insurance crop insurance why not soil insurance?

And farmers aren't stupid! They just need to take keyboarding lessons


----------



## RyHelwig

hahahaha im takin that class already lol


----------



## GKBassplayer

blhunter3 said:


> It's not the amount gained when taking out the shelter belts, because you don't really gain much, its the up keep and the replanting, its just not cost effective. It all boils down to money.


The piles I have seen around, they look pretty expensive to remove as well. Save your money and leave the shelter belts alone. You said it your self, not much is gained!

Unless I missed something it seems to me most people missed the point. The reason for shelter belts is because when the land was first farmed it removed all the natural prairie grasses that held the soil together. With out the natural plants something else was needed to protect the soil from erosion. TREES. Yes farming practices have improved but that is only one part of the equation.

There was a pretty interesting show on History about the dust bowl, maybe some of you need to check it out.


----------



## barebackjack

I especially get a kick out of the guys that tear the belt out because their tired of farming around it. But than they leave the brush piles out there for a decade and farm around them! :lol: :lol: :lol:

At least the belt is linear.


----------



## blhunter3

I have watched that show. What you don't realize is that most of those shelter belts that are being taken out aren't doing there job or the tree's are dead. Does anyone know how a shelter belt works? Any gap in the shelter belt ruins the continuity of the wind break and there for it isn't doing its job. So why even have it?

No-till and minimum till hold the soil together to prevent erosion and water lose, hence MOST shelter belts are not need from a farming point of view.

Tearing down a dead or dying shelter belt saves you money in the long run.With the maintenance cost and the the cost of fuel rising, you might as well do it now versus five years from now.


----------



## blhunter3

That's why you burn the pile asap when you are buring slough and ditches.


----------



## GKBassplayer

A few standing dead trees block more wind than 10 extra rows of corn, beans or wheat, but I guess that also gives a nice vantage point for a hungry hawk. :roll:


----------



## blhunter3

Do some research on forestry adn shelter belts, how they work and then you will understand the need of continuity for tree rows to work properly. If you want to pay the landowners for either keeping or replanting shelter belts, PM me and I will give you the farm address along with the people we rent from. Until then, go to your congressman and tell him to put more money into cost sharing for shelter belts.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> I have watched that show. What you don't realize is that most of those shelter belts that are being taken out aren't doing there job or the tree's are dead. Does anyone know how a shelter belt works? Any gap in the shelter belt ruins the continuity of the wind break and there for it isn't doing its job. So why even have it?
> 
> No-till and minimum till hold the soil together to prevent erosion and water lose, hence MOST shelter belts are not need from a farming point of view.
> 
> Tearing down a dead or dying shelter belt saves you money in the long run.With the maintenance cost and the the cost of fuel rising, you might as well do it now versus five years from now.


Since you've "done the research", tell me. How well does no-till beans, peas, and other legumes work as it pertains to soil protection and conservation? How much soil holding plant matter do you have out there once the crop comes off with crops like these? What are the consequences of having zero snow holding ability across a tract of land (especially in drier years)?

No-till and reduced till are only effective on certain crops when it comes to soil protection. And with 30+ crops produced in this state, you cant tell me no-till and reduced till programs are doing their job every year.

Im sure you can also tell me the percentage of ND acreage that is in a true no-till or reduced tillage program?

We've also yet to have an extended dry spell in this state to truly test what we now call no-till and reduced till programs on ND soils. Should we ever get another set of conditions like was seen in the dust bowl years (or to a much lesser extent, the 80's), we may have a whole new generation of farmers that will learn the hard way what their great grandfathers learned the hard way.


----------



## Plainsman

BBJ this is a little off subject, but when you mentioned beans and water I had to tell you about this. One spring two roads washed out that I like to drive while just enjoying the country side. Anyway, the reason they washed out was liter from the bean fields plugged the culverts and went over the road. I watched the one road as the water came up and over the road. The next morning a 50 ft section of road was gone.


----------



## Longshot

RyHelwig said:


> if u have tree rows that some up by the road the snow will catch and it will make huge drifts on the road then wat r we supposed to do when we cant get out of r yard,


In your instance the belt is in a poor place or you are exaggerating. If this were true of all belts, like you are implying, you wouldn't see natural snow fences created by planted tree rows. This is getting to be a more common practice all the time. A natural snow fence vs. an actual man made fence is much easier to maintain and much more effective.


----------



## alleyyooper

I don't farm any longer. When my father died I just started leaseing the ground to other farmers. We have went thru a few of them. Most have huge 4x4 tractors and ***** they can't get from one field to another and want to take down all the fence rows filled over the years with trees. Yet if the field isn't square they don't farm part of it because they square it off. Told the last guy who wanted to doze out the fence lines not to bother paying the lease for the next year, already had a fellow stop who was happy with what we had for him and has been for the last 9 years.

South of our farm about 75 miles is what we call the Saginaw valley. Flat as a sheet of window glass for miles and miles. It is the closest as we come to ND land. they raise lots of suger beets, soybeans, corn and wheat. They do not use no till or minium till. when the crop comes off they go in with the big chisle plows and work the soil. Since they use such big equipment there, the land is open for mile after mile if only one farmer owns it till the next farm. When the wind blows in the fall the dust is god awful and you better be on your toes when driving down the road you don't know what is in that dust cloud.
In the winter when the wind blows you once again have to be on your toes when driving down the road.You can have a nice dry road then all a sudden a road slick from blowing snow and a cross wind that will take you off the road into a ditch if not carefull.
It is so bad that many townships have now passed laws that the farmer has to put up rows of snow fences across the fields to stop the blowing snow. Some of the smarter farmers have discovered it is better to plant rows of trees instead to stop the snow. 
there have been law suits over the dust and snow covered roads here. Maybe people here are sue crazy but I also see their point after about looseing my truck and 22 foot trailer to one of those slick patches.

 Al


----------



## wingaddict

blhunter3 said:


> Shelter belts are not needed anymore with no-till and minimum till. In fact I wish more shelter belts where going down because I hate having to fold up the farm equipment or having to take off the headers to fit around them. Besides, shelter belts hold hawks and other birds of prey.





> Do some research on forestry adn shelter belts, how they work and then you will understand the need of continuity for tree rows to work properly. If you want to pay the landowners for either keeping or replanting shelter belts, PM me and I will give you the farm address along with the people we rent from. Until then, go to your congressman and tell him to put more money into cost sharing for shelter belts.


Which is it? They arent needed anymore? or you dont think farmers should have to pay for planting or maintaining them?

Long story short I feel we are beginning to see farmers becoming "producers" and with that the strong sense of land stewardship long held by many generations of farmers, goes out the window.


----------



## verg

My personal opinion is that it is a shame to level the groves of trees. They are great habitat for deer, pheasants etc. That is just my selfish thoughts. As others said it is about the almighty dollar. Level the trees and there is more room to plant a crop...which leads to $$. Really too bad but I don't farm so my thoughts probably don't mean much. One thing to note of importance. Anyone remember the dirty thirties?? Well the areas of Ok, NM, Tx, KS, CO got hit hard. There was several factors which caused this "dust bowl." The two largest factors??? 1. Obviously drought and 2. The farmers got tractors for the first time in the twenties and plowed under any tree they could find. Nothing to catch wind, keep water etc.. Hence....dry, dust, lifeless world. Just thought I'd mention that because you never know what the future holds.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Verg you only need to look at one word in your post! PLOW!!!!!!!! A mole board plow puts all of the residue below ground exposing the soil. Wind dries it, then cold freezes it drying it more and then the wind blows it around as the structure of the soil degrades into smaller particles.


----------



## wburns

It was not the climate necessarily that dictated no trees on the prairie as much as the wild fires that blazed over the plains. Leave an area fallow for several years and you will see bushes, etc sprouting up. As far as tree rows, it is a cumulative effect. One tree row is not going to reduse errosion on your farm, but think of the thousands of tree rows across the area that when combined help with errosion. I witnessed this on Monday driving from Pierre. As soon as we were in a county with more tree rows there was greater visibility during the blizzard. It is not that the wind stopped, but the overall velocity was lower.


----------



## blhunter3

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ill-farmin

http://research.wsu.edu/images/NoTill.pdf

http://www.shelterbeltsolutions.com/faq ... ers_taking

I couldn't not find an exact percentage of no till in ND. I could take a guess, but I would rather not.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-case-for-no-till-farmin
> 
> http://research.wsu.edu/images/NoTill.pdf
> 
> http://www.shelterbeltsolutions.com/faq ... ers_taking
> 
> I couldn't not find an exact percentage of no till in ND. I could take a guess, but I would rather not.


Those references were quite vague on the subject (the only one of which referencing ND was the business specializing in SHELTERBELT REMOVAL) and none of them answered my questions.

Gee, I wonder what a business specializing in tree removal is going to say about shelterbelts and their local importance?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :eyeroll:

F-


----------



## sndhillshntr

Wow, and some guys wonder why it's getting harder to find landowners that will allow them to hunt... :roll:

Shelterbelts were a band-aid to a larger issue. Soils where continually plowed and worked reducing soil structure/quality and leading to soil blowing away. Shelterbelts were put up to stop the wind, when the real problem was not leaving the residue to hold the soil in the 1st place.

Trees will take moisture away from the crop next to them as well as taking productive land out of production. I'm an agronomist and farm with my dad still. As mentioned in some previous posts most guys have gone to minimum till at least. Higher fuel prices have really led to a lot of this.

I'd be careful blanketing all farmers as #&(^#^@%'s.


----------



## oldfireguy

From my perspective and experience of 33 years with the USDA (including a stint with the SCS designing shelterbelts, and another as a timber manager/silviculturist with the US Forest Service). Certainly an interesting discussion....mostly focused on the need and benefits of windbreaks/shelterbelts. What happens when the trees grow beyond maturity and the stand begins to die? Does minimum till negate the need? Who should finance? What is the social value of having wildlife to view and hunt? Where do non-native trees fit in the realm of ecosystem management for non-native game species and the growing of domestic crops?

All good discussion items.....but a critical issue is being missed.

This tale should help:
The owner of a large tract of forested lands was interviewing for a forester to manage the property. The owner asked: What kind of management plan would you implement?"
The first applicant replied that he would inventory all of the lands and design timber sales on long term sustainability rotations to maximize profits for the owner.
The second applicant said they would establish a "preserve" to save all of the trees and build walking trails and observation platforms from which to enjoy nature.
Others suggested empasizing deer hunting habitat, or stocking of streams with exotic fish.

The final candidate replied: "That depends on what YOU, the owner, want for YOUR land to produce."

Let's not try to place all farmers into the *******group. Their needs may vary, their values may vary, the condition/health of their shelterbelts may vary......but it is indeed THEIR land. And that should be respected.


----------



## Maverick

While reading this topic I am not reading it as "What they should do on their land", and I don't see people saying it. More so why things are the way they are. With the change in farming practice comes change in the land. History shows us what will happen if the past is relived. Each situation is unique....but those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

Biting my lip!


----------



## gst

"Wow, and some guys wonder why it is getting harder to find landowners that will allow them to hunt... :roll: "

The title of the thread pretty well sums it up. Lets see one thread titled "don't pick on farmers and ranchers" with zero comments, and this thread, "@&$%# farmers" that has some calling farmers idiots, greedy, ect..... with a couple of pages and still going.

I've only been on this site for about a year, but I don't recall seeing a thread titled thanks to all you farmers and ranchers that put up with our "public resource" on your lands all year that provides some of the best hunting of anywhere in the nation and especially those of you that leave hundreds of thousands of acres of your own lands open so that we can enjoy the pastime we love so much. Not that anyone is even really expecting one. Yet it seems wether it is posted land, guiding and outfitting, HF, welcoming NR's ect.... now even managing their own lands, these type threads are more and more common on these sites, yet no one can figure out why each year a little more land is closed to public access, or is willing to accept their part in it. Go figure.


----------



## Plainsman

> I don't recall seeing a thread titled thanks to all you farmers and ranchers that put up with our "public resource" on your lands all year that provides some of the best hunting of anywhere in the nation and especially those of you that leave hundreds of thousands of acres of your own lands open so that we can enjoy the pastime we love so much.


 thanks to all you farmers and ranchers that put up with our "public resource" on your lands all year that provides some of the best hunting of anywhere in the nation and especially those of you that leave hundreds of thousands of acres of your own lands open so that we can enjoy the pastime we love so much.

And I do mean it. Now could you post thank you taxpayers for supporting agriculture because with free market only my family would be on food stamps. We need each other.

I hope you didn't skip over my post where I talked about species making the difference if trees were economically an advantage or not. Did you see the part where I admitted to poking at you guys simply to get your attention? I am not making these comments to anger you, or to demean landowners. My whole objective is for both of us to survive into the next 100 years standing side by side. I fully realize that I don't come off that way many times. If you have kept up with my posts for three or four years you will see a theme emerge.

Not everyone will agree with you all the time. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. I know what your going through, frustration and a feeling of insufficient appreciation. I would guess that is what perhaps also led to the unfortunate title of this thread. The purpose of this post is to disarm everyone a little bit so we can all step back and look at each others perspective. I would also suggest stepping back and look to see who laughs at this conflict. Those are the winners. Not everyone who encourages us to keep up the fight is our friend.


----------



## alleyyooper

Post like this *are not*the reason more and more land is posted.
I would venture to guess that ND and other open states are finally comeing around to the same thing as most states east of the big muddy.
One big factor is slob hunters plain and simple. Today many of those slobs never grew up on a farm nor even getting to know the land owner, if the land isn't posted. They just pull in a field cutting rutts, dumping trash (maybe as simple as a water bottle falling out of the truck and some one to lazy to pick it up.) not closeing gates, climimg over fences causeing a sag instead of 
Going around. 
Another big factor is getting the most from the land as possiable as cheap as possiable. Leaseing the hunting rights can put some ching in the pocket with out much outlay. It is away to pick up some cash to pay taxes and recover some of the losses from crop damage, or critter damage if you will. Also when you lease it you have aq name of the person responciable for leaving a gate open allowing 40 head of cows to mess up the corn field.
Leaving the land up posted I would maybe see the what was once a ford truck all jacked up covered with the mud from my wheat field and know they were the ones who left the gate open.

Nothing I hatted more than some city jackazz coming to the farm the day before the season while I am picking corn or something and jawing on an on about how well he/she and hunting buddies will treat my farm. Where were you last winter when I had a little bit of free minutes? How stupid can you be coming into my barn smoking idiot. Ya'll just impressed me to no end.

Our farm is posted because of slobs, game slobs and plain out killers. There isn't a doe season so why did you shoot her?
If you don't know what a buck looks like then stay at home and study deer books. Might also read about gates and what they are used for on a farm while your at it.

*Did I forget to tell you my neighbours and I talk to each other and we have about the same story to tell*.

 Al


----------



## Bug Guy

I'm not sure why most of these threads get morphed into landowner vs. sportsman discussions, but it seems to happen eventually. There really is no need to have an antagonistic relationship. A good person is a good person regardless of which side of this equation they are on and jerks are jerks. Plain and simple.

Back to the shelterbelt topic: I will have shelterbelts on my place for as long as I am around and will add more before I'm gone. I believe they are essential for wintering wildlife. Not to mention that I just plain like to see trees. Do they "pencil out" with producers trying to maximize profits???? Maybe not. However, I know the cattle and other critters go to the trees in times of bad weather and houses are surrounded by trees for a reason.

Shelterbelts are good
Open ground with no shelterbelts is bad.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, If your going to use the "My tax dollars subsidize ag" argument would you take the time and research what percentage of "your tax dollar" you pay even actually goes to subsidizing ag, then go to the grocery store and see what it will buy you. Then find me one modern industrialized county where people pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than you do here in the US.

You missed a part of what I wrote "Not that anyone is expecting one." in regards to a thank you. Can anyone simply tell me what is to be gained by threads titled such as this and comments calling people idiots and greedy.

Plainsman, you talk of needing each other in the years to come. How do you think one should go about this? By starting posts titled @&%# farmers? Old fire guy mentions a word and ideology that is often overlooked. RESPECT Of course not everyone agrees on issues( our family has and is planting thousands of trees) but I have enough respect for most people to not assume that how I choose to do things is exactly how they need to.


----------



## sndhillshntr

Another thing that gets missed in the landowner vs. hunter argument is that there still is landowner hunters people. I know my family is. And I think there are quite a few in ND that are. That's the reason *we *post is so that we can hunt *our *land...


----------



## Plainsman

> That's the reason we post is so that we can hunt our land...


Some of my relatives do the same. I don't blame you a bit. I also don't blame people for being sick of the people who make a mess of things. I don't like those who think they are entitled, but I see this coming from both directions. I don't know how to solve it, but I wish I could.



> Plainsman, If your going to use the "My tax dollars subsidize ag" argument would you take the time and research what percentage of "your tax dollar" you pay even actually goes to subsidizing ag,


A lot. I don't know if the school lunch program is more for the children or the farmers. Seriously. However, I would rather pay support price instead of more at the grocery store. That way I know you get it and not someone else. I want you to have it, but you know how you don't like people that don't respect your property? I don't like it when I wish people the best and they in turn whizz down my leg. I don't know how they heal that, but I don't see this thread as destructive if people really are willing to listen.

Think about this: we could buy food from other countries cheaper. Yes, that's true. However, we have laws that protect our farmers. You would not have gotten those laws past without the very people you often indicate you don't like. Who do you think we were willing to do that for. After not reading the hot topics for a while I am all for helping farmers. Then I come on and read some of these post and I think we should start importing. Support and respect is a two way street.

I'll try not take such pessimistic views. I hope you had a good crop this year and your family is enjoying life.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

I think the best thought that has been said on here was to the jist of..... "in time farmers will realize the whole commercialization aspect when they have 1..ONE person... the outfitter on there side... and 100 sportsman on the other...."

That statement is so true... why would we vote for more tax dollars towards farmers that aren't giving back?


----------



## gst

"I don't know if the school lunch program is more for the children or the farmers. " Seriously. " Seriously??????????????????????

If anyone is going to use the "my tax dollars go to ag so I should get this or that from the producer" please take the time to find out for yourself (not just assume "a lot") how much of a dollar you pay in taxes actually does go to subsidize production ag. Not the school lunch program, not the WIC program, not the food stamp program, ect... (all of which, plus other non ag programs funded thru the farm bill monies) but actual production ag subsidies. I would bet none of you realize just how little it is. As to imported food being cheaper, not always. Most imported foods are not held to the production and inspection standards that domestically produced food is. If you are comfortable in trading food safety for cheaper price, not all consumers will agree with you. What those of you that are saying my tax dollars that go to ag should buy me something should realize is, every time you go to the grocery store and pay the LOWEST PERCENTAGE OF YOUR DISPOSABLE INCOME FOR THE FOOD YOU BUY OF ANY MODERN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY you are getting it. This small group of hunters that are of the opinion the ag support will dry up because producers post land, outfit, ect.... should stop and ask themselves what percent of the consuming public are they? These govt ag programs are not being implemented to put money in ag producers pockets, but rather to provide a continueing, cheap safe source of food for the American consumer. As long as that is being accomplished unfortunately they will continue.

No one has answered the question what is to be gained by starting and titleing this thread in the manner in which it was????????????


----------



## swift

FYI $16,400,000,000 of my money comprises the farm bill. All tax dollars are yours and my money! If farms weren't so highly subsidized the cost of food would not change. Farm subsidies keep farms in business despite the glut of their product. An overproduced product doesn't make money. Therefore the cost of food would be a market cost and with the overproduction likely it would be less. The numbers of farms would be less too. I'm not advocating for any of this but GST your arguement of cheap food is ridiculous if you factor in the cost of food with the taxpayer cost to protect your ungrateful behind food costs more than the price tag at the store.


----------



## KurtR

The way i see it is if you want more trees buy land and plant some. i am saving to do that it will take a while but in the end i will be able to do with my land what i want to. there are alot of things i would like to see cut from govt spending before the ag programs.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

If farmers have it sooo hard... and are hurting so bad... why not put all of there land into Plots programs? Heck they can collect money on every acre they own. Even a turned black field.


----------



## gst

Swift, please post where you get your information. Remember, I suggested you find out how much of your tax dollar is spent on PRODUCTION AG payments. Also remember the Farm bill is a 10 year program, so often times totals of costs are for the entire 10 years. Then break down what percentage of a tax dollar goes to these programs. Once you provided information, heres a thought for you to ponder. The intent of the farm program is to continue to have "family farms" in operation. You yourself commented that the programs are designed to keep farms in business. If these operations where to be priced out of business the result would be the take over of the production of food by a very few GLOBAL food corps. Once this occurs, what do you think would happen with the cost of food? Slowly but surely the content of the farm bill is being dictated more and more by these conglomerates, wait and see what happens down the road if this contimues. We recently had a discussion on another site where I shared information showing the average cost of one lb. of beef in Korea was about $30, why do you think this is. The company that we were discussing in that conversation has been able to capture about 70% of the retail food market in Korea. So if you or Plainsman would(I've asked several times) please give us any information that shows any modern industrialized country that spends a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than the US. And then tell us why that is.


----------



## blhunter3

hunt4P&Y said:


> If farmers have it sooo hard... and are hurting so bad... why not put all of there land into Plots programs? Heck they can collect money on every acre they own. Even a turned black field.


Because some people don't want pricks to tear up the land and leave ruts when they are "mudding" or don't want trash in their field, and the list could go on and on.


----------



## wurgs

gst said:


> "
> 
> I've only been on this site for about a year, but I don't recall seeing a thread titled thanks to all you farmers and ranchers that put up with our "public resource" on your lands all year that provides some of the best hunting of anywhere in the nation and especially those of you that leave hundreds of thousands of acres of your own lands open so that we can enjoy the pastime we love so much. ]
> 
> Look at my post from Oct 17. My whole western Pronghorn and pheasant hunting depends on the generosity of farmers and ranchers and I posted that.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

blhunter3 said:


> hunt4P&Y said:
> 
> 
> 
> If farmers have it sooo hard... and are hurting so bad... why not put all of there land into Plots programs? Heck they can collect money on every acre they own. Even a turned black field.
> 
> 
> 
> Because some people don't want pricks to tear up the land and leave ruts when they are "mudding" or don't want trash in their field, and the list could go on and on.
Click to expand...

It's as easy as a phone call when it is plots... no traffic in the field at all. so you actually have more protection then un-posted. If you are really struggling to put food on the table a check is going to be a-lot better then some garbage. Lets face it though... how many "hunters" are the ones throwing garbage out? There is always going the be a minority that don't give a f... but they are the same ones that are hunting grandpas posted land!


----------



## Plainsman

> Because some people don't want pricks to tear up the land and leave ruts when they are "mudding" or don't want trash in their field, and the list could go on and on.


I agree with you, and in the same position I wouldn't like it either. However, hunters and landowners need to pick up that phone and take care of these guys. Also, farmers need to do something about the landowners that are farming the system and not the land. We both have things we need to clean up. The slob hunters hurt the reputation of good people, and the greedy farmers hurt the reputation of really nice farmers.

GST, I was serious when I quoted your post then simply copied it as my reply. I am very appreciative of every step I am allowed to make on private land. I have thousands of acres, no tens of thousands of acres of relatives land to hunt, but word are not enough to explain the appreciation I have for the small farmer that will take a moment to visit with me and let me hunt. I don't develop false relationships to get to hunt, I hunt a few areas where I have developed real relationships. God bless the small farmer working the land, but I don't have the same feeling for those gaming the system to take my tax dollars, and flip me off.


----------



## gst

wurgs, I will be the first to admit I don't take the time to read every post on here. Actually it's not that many, so I appreciate your pointing out your positive comments that where made on this site. I know the number of hunters that truly do appreciate the ability to pursue this great activity of hunting far outweigh those that seem to find it necessary to whine and complain about it. I really wasn't even going to get involved in this thread, but decided to simply ask one question. What is there to be gained by commenting and titleing a thread such as this? I still haven't seen anyone post an answer to that question.

Plainsman, most landowners, myself included don't want a thank you, just the type of respect for the fact this is their land that old fire guy was talking about. You made the statement that you come on this hot topics and read some comments and your not as inclined to lend your support to farmers because of what's said. That's exactly what I'm saying sometimes happens when a farmer or rancher comes on this site and checks out the hot topics and sees a thread like this. So tell me please what is to be gained by it???


----------



## wurgs

gst- I agree with you that the title of this thread should have been worded alot better than it was. Just reading the title is going to put anyone that farms on the defensive and your right when you say this won't help landowner/hunter relations at all. My uncles are going through this right now with shelterbelts planted when grandpa homesteaded there dying but aren't sure if they can afford to replant the thousands of trees that they are slowly loosing. While I agree that trees shouldn't be destroyed unless they are dying or diseased, ultimately its still the landowners right to do as he pleases with their land.


----------



## swift

GST are you disputing the farm bill amount? What am I suppose to look up? Fact is the commodities that are raised in the Dakotas are overproduced. When products are overproduced their dollar value goes down. You make the arguement of the cheapest food in the world is because of subsidies. I say your wrong. How many subsidies do cattle ranchers get? Other than the very few that get cheap grazing on federal lands not much. But beef is cheap isn't it? Subsidies are there to ensure; 1.family farms stay afloat, 2.the country has ample food past this year in the event of a nationwide catastrophic event that wipes out most of the years crops, and 3. to keep people working.

There are 250 million people in the US give or take. The farm bill budget is 26,400,000,000 dollars for 10 years. If every man, women and child was paying taxes they are paying $1030 per year for food they don't have in their cupboards. Thats 2 months worth of groceries they never see. Add that to your cheap grocery bill and the food isn't that much cheaper is it?

You cry for respect but it goes both ways. You shouldn't bite the hand of the ones that feed you.


----------



## TK33

wurgs said:


> gst- I agree with you that the title of this thread should have been worded alot better than it was. Just reading the title is going to put anyone that farms on the defensive and your right when you say this won't help landowner/hunter relations at all. My uncles are going through this right now with shelterbelts planted when grandpa homesteaded there dying but aren't sure if they can afford to replant the thousands of trees that they are slowly loosing. While I agree that trees shouldn't be destroyed unless they are dying or diseased, ultimately its still the landowners right to do as he pleases with their land.


Exactly.

It is not like farmers are intentionally screwing hunters. They have to do what is best for that particular field. If the belt is dying or diseased the best thing to do is get rid of it. If the belt is posing logistical problems for the gps or whatever precision farming practice is used it needs to be dealt with. This seems like it goes in cycles, if we get some dry winters or windy years the belts will be back. ASCS used to give out trees I know, I don't know if they still do. Hunters get too excited about this. I know of at least a few sloughs out there that hold really nothing but skunks and muskrats. Everyone would be better served if those sloughs were gone and maybe some other healthy wet lands were added to. But since everyone gets excited about sloughs there is no common sense or good management of the habitat.

I would imagine this is only the beginning, given the flood forecast. I am sure there will be a lot more topics on drainage and drain tiling.


----------



## feathersandpoo

36


----------



## Plainsman

> the unfortunate title of this thread


That's a quote from one of my posts GST. If you give it some thought it shows the frustration of the person posting. It shows more frustration with a single farmer than actual attitude about all farmers.



> You made the statement that you come on this hot topics and read some comments and your not as inclined to lend your support to farmers because of what's said. That's exactly what I'm saying sometimes happens when a farmer or rancher comes on this site and checks out the hot topics and sees a thread like this. So tell me please what is to be gained by it???


I get your point. Some can be gained if we actually take it to heart. Shelter belts that are not performing anymore could go. If shelter belts are in good shape and the government paid 80% for installing and you want to doze it, then pay the 80% back. If planting trees is land improvement then they should not get paid for dozing them and calling it land improvement. I don't know if that happens anymore. I doubt it. Years ago many things the landowner did could be called improvement and be share cost.

I can admit there are slob hunters out there. Can you admit there are the same bad apples in the farming barrel? That would get us somewhere.


----------



## DG

Swift said,



> The farm bill budget is 26,400,000,000 dollars for 10 years.


Where is Sen. Kent Conrad with his pie charts and graphs when you need him? I saw one of these pie charts awhile back. Over 53% goes to food stamps, school lunch programs etc. I don't remember other figures in between but conservation came in at 17% and just 15% went to farmers. Of that 15% some 6% went to insurance programs leaving just 9% going directly to farmers.

The subsidy food programs, conservation, experiment stations, seed testing etc. shouldn't be included in the "The Farm Bill". That would end some of the confusion about that inflated number.



> If every man, women and child was paying taxes they are paying $1030 per year for food they don't have in their cupboards.


Swift, If you have no food in your cupboard than the system has failed you.


----------



## swift

Nice twist DG, I have plenty of food and don't take part in any of the farm bill payouts. I have NO problem with the farmers side of the farm bill just a problem with those of you that demand we bend over backwards to respect you all the while your Pi$$ing on our shoes. Thankfully there aren't many like you and Gabe. We need you and you need us. But the diatribe from GST is always the same threats and boycotts. 
What was an opportunity to educate the originator of this thread was turned into another us against them. Maverick and Oldfireguy tried to be constructive and educate everyone on the subject then on comes GST and starts blasting with both barrels. You should change your username to "and people wonder why they can't get on land to hunt". You use that line in all your posts. I don't so much disagree with what GST says but the way he says it makes me want to argue. Sorry!


----------



## Lardy

The thing that frustrates me the most is that small farmers cant admit that this country truly does not NEED you. Sure we may not get the good ol' made in USA food or we may have to pay more, but the U.S. will not starve if the family farmer is given the boot.

If you cold just admit that, FARMERS ARE NOT GODS GIFT TO AMERICA and we do not NEED you

Then I could go back to supporting you like I always have and will. I think family farms are a good thing and I love the people that are a part of them, they are an extremely important part in having a strong rural community. However, the idea that we cant live without you is a JOKE, no one in this society has that f*#%g status. The ego just needs to go is all.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

A farm is a business... not every business survives... and how many small businesses get tax dollars year in and year out?

Again just food for thought. I have tons of family that farm... so it's not like I dislike farmers.


----------



## KurtR

any buisness run by a minority or a woman gets breaks.


----------



## gst

Swift, you'll have to forgive me for not accepting your "facts" as facts without a link to prove they are so. In the past, your "facts" have proven less than factual. Within your last to posts your "facts" as to the farm bill cost has changed from 16 billion to 26 billion. Here is a link to a USDA estimate of the cost of the 2007 farm bill for it's duration of 10 years. http://www.usda.gov/documents/07sumbudgetscore.pdf

If you don't want to go thru it I''ll break it down for you.

Commodities(production ag ) 74 billion or 7.4 billion/year
Conservation 48 billion or 4.8 billion/year
Trade 2 billion or 200 million/year
Nutrition(School lunch,WIC, food stamps ect...) 438 billion or 43 billion/year
Crop ins. 54 billion or 5.4 billion/year

As you can see the vast majority of the Farm Bill doesn't even go to production ag. For you to figure what percent of your total tax dollar goes to these "farm subsidies" you need to take all the revenues that are collected as taxes nationally then caculate what percentage of them are allocated to the production ag portion of the farmbill in a given year. Do this and let me know what the amount is.

Your statement that beef isn't cheap is simply relative to other meats here in the US. When compared to it's cost in other nations (ie. $30/lb in Korea)it is indeed "cheap"here in the good old US. As I said, and others have agreed to, the farm programs are in theory designed to keep "family farms" in business for a reason. This reason being what the alternative would be of gobal food conglomerates taking over not only the processing and sales of food, but the production as well, and the negative consequences of what would happen to food costs as a result. Many in AG are not in favor of the government being involved to the degree in which they are. But this is the way, wether you choose to believe it or not, the Govt. maintains a cheap food policy for this country. The simple fact is even if you are not supportive of the govt programs as an ag producer, if you do not participate in them you are operating with such a disadvantage to those that do, you won't be in business very long.

Swift, if you and others would answer the question that has been asked a couple of times now as to what these type comments and threads accomplish it would be interesting to hear your response.


----------



## blhunter3

hunt4P&Y said:


> A farm is a business... not every business survives... and how many small businesses get tax dollars year in and year out?
> 
> Again just food for thought. I have tons of family that farm... so it's not like I dislike farmers.


And big companies either get bail outs or have enough lawyers to figure out how to screw people out of their money. It's a vicious system that won't be fixed anytime soon.


----------



## blhunter3

This thread has gone way off topic but I am learning stuff which is a good thing.

Being that I grew up on a farm and still farm and I grew up hunting and I still, some of the issue's that come up are hard to decide what I feel is right. Some of the rules designed to help hunters piss of farmers and some of rules for farmers piss off hunters. What I feel needs to happen is both farmers and hunters need to unite against the green people. Those people have done more damage to both groups then I can think of. Example is ethanol from corn. The green people pushed for that and then farmers took out CRP which ****** off hunters. If those two groups would have worked together I believe that the CRP payments would have gone up to stay competitive with rent and insurance payments.


----------



## Plainsman

> Swift, if you and others would answer the question that has been asked a couple of times now as to what these type comments and threads accomplish it would be interesting to hear your response.


GST, I have answered you twice and you ignore it.



> This thread has gone way off topic but I am learning stuff which is a good thing.


blhunter3, that's a good thing isn't it? I'm happy you have an open mind. Tearing down a shelter belt can turn out to be ok or bad depending on each situation. It's not as black and white as some would make it out to be.

As to the ethanol, I am all for raising the price per acre and paying more for conservation. I think with the economy the way it is we can not continue to high price of support for ethanol. It will fall on it's face.

The school lunch program has to be looked at from two perspectives. Certainly it helps students who take advantage of it, but it's also an advantage to the farmer. It is a way of disposing of surplus production. In all fairness I would say half of the cost of the school lunch program should be considered a benefit to the farmers and half a benefit to those who participate in it.

I have some farm friends I will always support, but if all farmers had your attitude gst I would call my senator and ask they yank all ag support tomorrow. Your lucky there are wonderful farmers standing between you and Joe Public.


----------



## swift

Typo GST. So lets use your link to see what goes to farmers directly.


> _dollars in millions_


*Direct Payment Program 52,491* That is 52.491Billion dollars over 10 years.
*Revenue-based Counter-cyclical Payment Program 11,245* another 11.245 billion dollars
*Sugar 1,410* another 1.41 Billion dollars
*Conservation Reserve Program 25,656* 25.656 Billion dollars

Not to mention the crop insurance and federal land grazing for almost nothing.

Lets see Just from your link without looking hard it comes to $90,802,000,000 in direct payments to agriculture producers. Easements that put dollars in your pockets and whatever the rest of the payment breakdown is that you supplied.

Maybe 90+billion dollars doesn't seem like much to you.

Again to clear something up I said that beef is cheap here and cattle ranchers don't get the subsidies that farmers do. The arguement is that if there is too much of a product the price will be low. There are too many cows so beef is cheap. There is an overabundance of hogs so pork is cheap. There is an overabundance of grain so grain is cheap but the govt helps out to keep you afloat. If there were no subsidies to sustain what is obviously too many farms the prices would tank until the farms closed up. None of us want to see this. But as much as GST wants to be respected so do those of us footing the bill to keep the subsidies coming.

To answer your question of what good these posts do. I hope you will learn that as frustrated as you are so are we. You demand respect without respecting those of us that are supporting you with our votes and our money. And you know what, you buy that cheap food too.


----------



## gst

Plainsman Your acknowledgement was not ignored, you were simply the only one to answer. What you don't seem to realize is there are many in ag that would welcome farm subsidises dissappearing if it was done in a fair manner. Which in the case of govt involvement it is rarely so. But the reality remains they are being used to keep this countries food costs to the consumer the lowest of any other modern industrialized country. (a question which you haven't answered). As to your thought the school lunch program is a payment to the producor, this program offsets the cost of the school lunch programs to ALL consumers for their children that they pay to the school. These childfren would have to be fed using ag products wether this program was in place or not so any additional benefit to the demand of ag products because of this program is simply not there, and is of no extra monetary benefit to the producer. And your reply can be considered two ways. You and others maybe very lucky there are a fair number of hunters with better attitudes than many on this site(posting comments and threads such as are in this one thread) standing between you and Joe landowner :wink:

Swift, once again I don't know where to start. The 90 billion that you come up with includes the federal insurance program and is for a ten year total cost so it needs to be divided by ten! The Federal grazing fees are monies paid into the federal govt by the leasees not a subsidy generated from your tax dollars. The conservation dollars are there because of you sportsmen,(CRP)and now you want to use them as a liability in this discussion??? As to the numbers of cows, our cow herd is at the lowest it has been for several decades nationally. So by your simplistic thinking we should have record high prices? Your analogy that there are too many farms gives a little insight into your ideology. I'm sure many of those folks running these "too many farms" will be happy to hear that you do not think they are necessary. You clearly do not know enough about how your food is produced and what the consequences would be if mutinational corporations were to control the food industry from production to plate. The percentage of your tax dollars that are paid to govt ag programs would pale in comparison to what you would pay in increased food costs.

. As to respect, I respect what you wish to do on your property, plant trees or tear them down, ect.... as was alluded to earlier by another person if you would return that favor most issues would not be issues.


----------



## DG

Swift said,



> Again to clear something up I said that beef is cheap here and cattle ranchers don't get the subsidies that farmers do. The arguement is that if there is too much of a product the price will be low. There are too many cows so beef is cheap. There is an overabundance of hogs so pork is cheap.


Over 75% of Canadas exported beef and pork already comes to the U.S. So what you saying is, you want less cows in the U.S. generating income from a blade of grass that would otherwise go unused and instead import more from Canada.


----------



## gst

SWift you still haven't shown how many pennies of each dollar you pay in taxes goes to production ag programs. It's simple math, take the total federal tax revenues collected in a years time then divide that into the amount that goes towards one years cost of these production programs(not nutrition ie. WIC, school lunch, food stamps ect...) . That will give you a percentage, which is how many of your pennies of each dollar you pay in taxes goes to production ag. You might be surprised at what you come up with.

Heres a thought I had while feeding cows. What is hunting? I'll answer it for you. A RECREATIONAL activity. So you want the public to be able to control what is done in a business , farming or ranching( ie removing tree rows) because it affects your recreational activity????? I would venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of society that are not hunters would careless what is done as long as their food costs stay low.


----------



## blhunter3

I never said if it was a good or bad thing Plainsman.

:beer:


----------



## Plainsman

blhunter3 said:


> I never said if it was a good or bad thing Plainsman.
> 
> :beer:


That wasn't my point. You said you learned some things, and I said well then that's a good thing from this post. You also said learning was a good thing. I was agreeing with you.


----------



## swift

Blah Blah Blah your opinion is just that an opinion. It is just as useful as my opinion. So we have the lowest # of cows in history but we still need to build a big plant so the Koreans can buy our cattle. Why isn't beef $30/lb here if the supply is that short? The answer is it's NOT. Plus as DG pointed out we can import cattle to keep the costs down just like we can with other commodities.

In all of my posts I pointed out I have no problem with subsidizing farms but you put words in my mouth that aren't true. Plainsman is right your lucky there are more decent ag folks out there to cover for the elitist lords of the land like you. Or there wouldn't be near the support. The difference in you and me is, I know there are more good folks out there and don't lump all farmers into your category. You lump all us lazy freeloader hunters into the same group. Good luck with your agenda's to take take take from us taxpayers. They say 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes well I'm in that 10% so I guarantee whatever amount of my taxes goes to you it's more than your paying in.


----------



## gst

Now there is a fine example of an adult conversation. If you would, in between your blah blah blahs, indicate an example of something I have said that would qualify me as an "elitist lord of the land".

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html

This link shows that in 2008 roughly 1.45 TRILLION was collected in federal income taxes. Out of this roughly 13 billion was paid out in production ag payments in a years time. That equates to roughly 1% or 1 penny out of every dollar you pay in federal income tax goes to subsidize govt production ag programs to ensure you pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income for food of ANY modern industrialied country on the face of the earth. Not to mention the safest, most avalible, widest variety as well. Not too bad of a deal I'd say.

If you don't like the govt structure and the way things are run here in the good old US you could always move to Canada and see what percentage of their disposable income is spent on food, as well as go to work in their socialized medical industry. :wink:

Back to the topic of this thread. Very little if any good will come to hunter/ landowner relationships thru the posting of threads like this and some of the comments it has created. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say


----------



## Maverick

I just love how some can abase the worth of one to prove a point!

I thought the topic was intially about tree lines being erradicated in our state!

not....


> Back to the topic of this thread. Very little if any good will come to hunter/ landowner relationships thru the posting of threads like this and some of the comments it has created. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say


So you really should have said....now back to my agenda!!!!
I agree that the name of the topic is not good for relations but your constant intervention with these topics is what takes them down the wrong alley! Sorry you can't see that!

How about we talk about tree rows being removed instead of how much each person individually pays into farm subsidies! uke:


----------



## gst

Maverick, the information is not what one person pays or doesn't, it is about what percentage of these tax dollars SOME claim give them the right to access land, have a say in how it is managed ect... is actually paid, and information as to what this portion of your taxes actually provides you. I wasn't the one that started down the path of what govt payments entitle someone to.

I understand the vast majority of hunters are great people that don't whine and ***** about things on these sites and don't have personal agendas thinking individuals should manage their lands they use to make a living off, (send their kids to college, provide opportunities for the kids to come back and farm or ranch ect...) just to better benefit their recreational activity of hunting. They simply go out enjoy life and hunting and opportunities and make some great friends in the process. These hunters are why there are hundreds of thousands of acres of private lands left open to the public, or that if posted are allowed access onto here in ND. All that I am simply suggesting is that these posts and comments by a few tend to cause this apparently rare phenomenon in the rest of the country of this open private land to possibly shrink a little each year here in ND as people that use these lands to provide for their families tire of the seemingly continual activities and comments of a few. So Maverick if you want to consider someone holding up a mirror so that a few of these whining *****ing folks can possibly see for themselves they may be part of the problem is an agenda rather than what it is, perhaps you one of those not willing to look in the mirror. So carry on "cursing" those landowners as the author of this thread suggests and see where it gets you. Better yet, print out a copy of this thread and next time your asking permission to hunt, share this thread with the person whose land you want to hunt on.


----------



## Maverick

PM'd you as this is still taking away from the original TOPIC!

I can't believe you don't notice this as you do seem like a smart guy. Do you realize you just lumped me into all the Cursers category!

Your still doing it! Trying to push your agenda!!! I can see that!


----------



## Plainsman

> I thought the topic was intially about tree lines being erradicated in our state!





> Maverick, the information is not what one person pays or doesn't, it is about what percentage of these tax dollars


 :lost:


----------



## blhunter3

Plainsman said:


> I thought the topic was intially about tree lines being erradicated in our state!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maverick, the information is not what one person pays or doesn't, it is about what percentage of these tax dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :lost:
Click to expand...

So we have agreed to not pay taxes because they are optional? :rollin:


----------



## gst

After reading Mavericks reply thru his PM and Swifts comment on here, it appears this thread originated because SOME hunters are apparently becoming frustrated. I don't know about anyone else, but I kinda think the last 15 years has been some of the best hunting this state has probably ever seen, yet for some reason some hunters are frustrated. So apparently because how a farmer is managing his own property in his business FRUSTRATES someones RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY, is is justification to come on these websites and curse them, call them idiots and greedy and suggest without their tax dollars their families would be on food stamps. Yet it has been suggested someone other than those that think this way has an egotistical ideology????????? After being on this site for a little over a year and seeing the attitudes of some on here, I would venture to guess as time goes on the trend of more and more land being closed to some public access will continue, and the same people will be on these sites cursing the farmer for managing his own lands in a way they don't aprove of because they are frustrated.


----------



## swift

GST your wrong again. My comments on here have nothing to do with hunting frustration. I'm frustrated that you can sit and demand and dictate without any regard for the folks that support you. You continually berate those that have a difference in opinion with your agenda. It is obvious to me and others on here that you lobby for absolute landowners rights. You want to benefit from the payments such as CRP but don't want to follow the rules set forth by those agencies. Then blindly blame hunters for all your woes. Respect, that you love to demand from everyone else is earned. Respect doesn't come with a title or a deed to land. I have realized that you are likely an agent of the Farm bureau or outfitters association or stockmans assoc. with the goal of damaging hunter and landowner relations for secondary gain.

I am using the ignore option with posts placed by GST. He is right that discussions like this do no good. But he isn't capable of seeing that he is as guilty or even more guilty in propagating the garbage. I recommend we all quit falling into GST's trap.


----------



## Maverick

> I am using the ignore option with posts placed by GST. He is right that discussions like this do no good. But he isn't capable of seeing that he is as guilty or even more guilty in propagating the garbage. I recommend we all quit falling into GST's trap.


PM's are ment to stay there! Childish manuvers will get you know where with me!

.....and so am I. In my PM I was trying to get you to talk about trees! Not Hunter Frustration, and again you didn't listen to what I was saying to you! You took one little sentence from a long PM and choose to use it and changed the topic we were talking about!! You do that often! You have the characteristcs of a lobbyist stearing your conversations down the road you want them to go down. Reminds me of the movie "Thank You for Smoking".



> Personally, I think you hurt the cause more than you help it.


 a quote from another website that is fitting!


----------



## blhunter3

swift said:


> It is obvious to me and others on here that you lobby for absolute landowners rights. You want to benefit from the payments such as CRP but don't want to follow the rules set forth by those agencies.


So you want someone else telling you what to do with your land?

How do people not comply with CRP rules? If you don't comply you have to pay back all the money that was given to you. Just because a farmer takes down his tree rows doesn't mean he is breaking CRP rules.


----------



## gst

dakotashooter2 said:


> Curse them for knocking down shelter belts. I sure noticed it when I drove to work this morning. They know not the damage they are doing. They are undoing what their predecessors learned the hard way.


Where in the title of this thread or initial post is it discussing perhaps why these trees are being knocked down, the fact that this is being done on privately owned property, ect... In both the title and the very first sentence this thread is dedicated to cursing farmers. You guys are right, I really don't get it.

As to respect, I'm comfortable it has been earned from the people that actually know me and matter to me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, people within my industry,people whose land I hunt on, even the folks that hunt on our land. As to worrying about respect from constant whiners on internet sites, it bothers me very little if it is not given.


----------



## Maverick

> So you want someone else telling you what to do with your land?


It's not really someone telling you what to do on your land. It's more like following the rules set forth. Re-read what he said&#8230;&#8230;


> but don't want to follow the rules set forth by those agencies.





> Just because a farmer takes down his tree rows doesn't mean he is breaking CRP rules.


You are correct. In some cases they will want you to remove the dead trees to ensure that the land will qualify for the program! Depends on the contract.


----------



## swift

blhunter, regardless of what you or anyone says no landowner has absolute rights on that land. If you think I'm wrong seed a quarter to marijuana and see if the landowners rights arguement keeps you out of jail. Gst's beef with hunters started in 2007 with the NWF filing a lawsuit to stop haying of CRP in the Dakotas. The lawsuit was upheld because it was a legitimate lawsuit. Often with sour grapes he continues to complain about hunters, city dwellers with concerns about feed lots and packing plants and anything else that lines his pockets at the detriment of others. That is where I was coming from. This thread is so far from the original topic for some reason.

I do own land and I expect anyone that treads on it to respect the land. I don't expect them to bow to me everytime they walk by.


----------



## gst

If anyone believes there are no attitudes or comments on this site by hunters that may negatively affect access being granted, I would suggest you print out swifts last post and hand it to a rancher whose land you wish to hunt on, state that they are your veiws as well and see where it gets you. Print this entire thread and share it with the next farmer you ask permission from and see what the response is. You might want to make sure your gas tank is full before you start looking for somewhere to hunt if you do. :wink:


----------



## bearhunter

Chris Hustad, can you add a "beating a dead horse" symblom in the funnies icon list????


----------



## AdamFisk

Ask and you shall receive.......


----------



## bearhunter

:thumb: :thumb:


----------



## blhunter3

swift said:


> blhunter, regardless of what you or anyone says no landowner has absolute rights on that land. If you think I'm wrong seed a quarter to marijuana and see if the landowners rights arguement keeps you out of jail. Gst's beef with hunters started in 2007 with the NWF filing a lawsuit to stop haying of CRP in the Dakotas. The lawsuit was upheld because it was a legitimate lawsuit. Often with sour grapes he continues to complain about hunters, city dwellers with concerns about feed lots and packing plants and anything else that lines his pockets at the detriment of others. That is where I was coming from. This thread is so far from the original topic for some reason.
> 
> I do own land and I expect anyone that treads on it to respect the land. I don't expect them to bow to me everytime they walk by.


Thank you for clearing up were your coming from.


----------



## blhunter3

bearhunter said:


> Chris Hustad, can you add a "beating a dead horse" symblom in the funnies icon list????


What's wrong with a good debate, as long as there are no personal attacks again this debating is a good one.

Where you looking for this icon? :bop: :bop: :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## gst

Perhaps some should stay in the LUKEWARM TOPICS section. :wink:


----------



## AdamFisk

gst said:


> Perhaps some should stay in the LUKEWARM TOPICS section. :wink:


gst, is that a hint of humor I detect in your post?

Rare things do happen once in a while I suppose. oke:


----------



## gst

Actually Adam, I'm pretty good humored, if I weren't it would be awfully tough to carry on some of these discussions and remain polite! I try to remain courteous and factual and don't try to get personal in these discussions. I believe that if you are going to make informational type statements you should at least provide a means for others to see where you are getting information from rather than just expecting to have off the cuff comments taken as fact. Some, for what ever reason, may take my comments on what others on here have alluded to in regards to more and more land being posted as threats, but they are merely observations as to why it could be possibly happening, nothing more. I'd guess the fact that some aren't willing to acknowledge that threads like this maybe contributing to this fact even though others besides myself have suggested as much might very well be part of the problem. I do like to engage in debates and as blhunters says as long as they are civil and don't fall into personal attacks(especially given the fact most know nothing about an individual person on these sites) there usually is some value to them particularily when not everyone agrees with you. The problem is all to often they don't remain that way. Perhaps if swift is not just funnin me on the ignore button option, more can!  I don't know about beating a dead horse, but every once in a while I do like to kick a sleeping bear in the a$$. :wink:

I thought about starting a thread titled @&$%# doctors and open it by saying: Curse them for making you sit in a waiting room for an hour past your scheduled appointment as if their time is more valuable then yours, but then I thought it might get off topic! :wink:


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> hunt4P&Y said:
> 
> 
> 
> A farm is a business... not every business survives... and how many small businesses get tax dollars year in and year out?
> 
> Again just food for thought. I have tons of family that farm... so it's not like I dislike farmers.
> 
> 
> 
> And big companies either get bail outs or have enough lawyers to figure out how to screw people out of their money. It's a vicious system that won't be fixed anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Bail outs they were FORCED to take.

You've been watching CNN to much......or something.


----------



## blhunter3

Not all were forced to take I think, msot yes, but not all.

gst good post.


----------



## Sportin' Woodies

> I have trouble with the "livelihood" excuse with certain farmers I know. I know plenty of farmers that I go to school with that are much better off than my family and yet they still use the "Im not letting a few ducks or pheasants get in the way of putting food on my families table" BS
> 
> I know that there are also plenty of guys that could use a few extra acres to make ends meet but the majority are doing more than OK financially. Cutting/plowing/draining to make a livelihood is one thing, doing it to make a fortune is messed up.


wow @ the whining on this topic. who are you to decide what enough money is for someone else to make on their land? if you don't like how someone manages THEIR property, buy it from them and do as you see fit. otherwise, it is literally none of your business.


----------



## blhunter3

Sportin' Woodies said:


> I have trouble with the "livelihood" excuse with certain farmers I know. I know plenty of farmers that I go to school with that are much better off than my family and yet they still use the "Im not letting a few ducks or pheasants get in the way of putting food on my families table" BS
> 
> I know that there are also plenty of guys that could use a few extra acres to make ends meet but the majority are doing more than OK financially. Cutting/plowing/draining to make a livelihood is one thing, doing it to make a fortune is messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> wow @ the whining on this topic. who are you to decide what enough money is for someone else to make on their land? if you don't like how someone manages THEIR property, buy it from them and do as you see fit. otherwise, it is literally none of your business.
Click to expand...

Its easy for people to complain about what others do instead of trying to increase CRP payments and cost-sharing for new tree rows. :rollin:


----------



## dakotashooter2

Back on subject. I have nothing against farmers. While I currently don't have any family that farms 15 years ago I did. I realize they do what they can to make a buck. I can understand removing belt because of disease but yet no one seems to be replacing them once they are gone. But removing them to for the acreage just isn't cost effective. Considering hiring an excavator may run $100-$150/hr just some rough figures tell me it's gonna take years just to break even for a couple acres (a 1/2 mile by 30' wide belt) I have seen excavators work on such a belt for 2 weeks (80hrs x $125 = $10,000 = $5000 acre) . Figure 60 bushels x $4.00 = $240 acre thats 20 year payback if you don't figure production costs and bad years. There are no economics in doing it. I guess when I really think, its not the small time guys doing it anyway, they can't afford it. It's the big guys farming 10s of quarters and I suspect it's more of a tax write off than anything else. Thats what hurts the most.


----------



## blhunter3

dakotashooter2, the reason the tree rows aren't being replaced is the cost factor. On our farm right now, we are having to decide whether or not to replace tree rows. We are leaning towards not, just because of the cost to buy the tree's and the time it takes to plant them and all of the up keep. There are many other more important things that we could be using our time with.

Your 100% right that its not cost effective to get rid of the tree row's, but the longer you wait, the more its gonna cost you, so you might as well do it now. The farmers aren't removing tree to gain acreage, they are doing it because the tree's are dying, and depending on who you talk to, the shelter belts aren't need due to minimum or no-till farming.

There are small farmers that are doing it too. We only farm 5580 acres of land and every spring and fall I have to go take out tree's in the tree rows and its getting to the point where the tree rows aren't even doing there job, so its pointless to have them. If there are any gaps in the tree rows or shelter belts, then its not doing it job 100% so why ever have it?


----------

