Land purchasing

[goblueM]

good post ctlfdr.

i'm not a huge fan of the subsidies in the farming/food industry (ironic that a lot of the supporters of "small government" and "free market" are in the demographic that benefit from the subsidies, isn't it?)

but what you said about working with them and helping out for a day or two... man does that ring true. My uncle and I have made quite a few friends in MN and ND by doing just that. Been a pleasant experience all around!

[CJH]

Originally Posted By: CJH

I was commenting on the original topic, public hunting land purchases. No one is ever entitled to hunting on private property unless granted permission. Ever!!

At least we do agree on this.

Originally Posted By: CJH

As far as the people sitting at home getting welfare, I agree with you, they shouldn't get squat in my mind. Different issue.

And this.

Originally Posted By: CJH

However the amount of backlash against buying a small parcel of land for public usage is astounding.

This one too. It's the farmers land, they'll do as they wish with it.

Originally Posted By: CJH

Newsflash my family owns private farm land, so I think I would do just fine in a farmers yard, thanks very much.

Maybe so and you can get away with it with "your" family. But I don't know many farmers who wouldn't take offense.

So if we agree on pretty much everything, not sure what the problem is........

[dogs]

"entitled" people like yourself" You could not be farther than the truth. I hunt nothing but my own property and some friends' and the rest is public. I have never asked to hunt someones farm property in Minnesota. I will hunt farm property in Sask. where the first thing a farmer will say when you ask is " it is you hunting folks that keep the cafes, hotels, and help out lot of the other small shops so they can stay in bussiness, why would I say no" and I appreciate that. He11 I run combine on Sundays for them. "2 times in 2 days how arrogant of me". Explain please. My father raised beef for the first 15 years of my life on 240 acres while working 10-12 hours a day at his job. I put up hay for 20 years much of that on other farms for no pay, the families did not have the money for gas or twine; alone pay me, so we cut and wind rowed with draft horses, put up the hay by hand; loose.(There is nothing funner than a team of draft horses and bumble bee's nests). I can show you unmarked graves of farm children that died of malnutrition that were born the same time period as my parents. But yet with all the tough farming there always was a few rows left in the back and the corners for the critters. So when I see someone in this day and age whining about some of his grain going to the birds it T's me off to no end. In conclusion I hold nothing against ALL farmers. I just don't care for this corporate welfare that rides the coat tails of working farm, and when you say something about it here comes the farmers feed the country B.S., and yes they do, but they get paid for it. And sonny it will be a cold day in he11 before I will ask to hunt someones land in Minnesota. But then again I should not have to, remember I'm "entitled".

[graingrower]

With all deserved respect to the above post, the disconnect between modern agriculture and the musings of days gone by distorts the fact that American farmers do provide the world with everything you eat, most of the things you wear, and an ever increasing percentage of the energy used worldwide; not to mention that american consumers enjoy the safest, cheapest, most plentiful supply on Earth. What suburbanite could climb into the cab of a combine and fathom how to operate it? How much hunters' money does it take to offset game related field losses? I argue that 99.9% of non-prodecers haven't an educated guess. The economics of crop and livestock production has become integrated with societal shifts, speculative volitility, legislation, and a multitude of outside influences I can't pretend to fully understand; though one thing is certain: no child has to die of starvation if I harvest the endrows and corners.

[Musky Buck]

My only beef is this one. Cousin and I went to college. I along with my dad and loans got me through college, no financial aide. My cousin received more financial aide then he needed per quarter of college. The claim is my dad made more than my cousins dad who farmed when we applied for it. Now we are both done with college, I have debt, cousin has none. Dad lost job, he is nearly broke. Cousin's dad retired from dairy farming and sold off his land, tractors,equipment at over a 1/2 million dollars.

[JeffB]

Nearly all developed countries subsize agriculture. This is not done to help farmers buy pickups or homes. It is because the countries ability to produce enough food is vital for the countries economy and security. Like it or not I think we all know the government supports many industries and small buisinesses though subsidies and tax breaks. Very few ever turn down a tax refund, grant, tax incentive, or government payment of any kind. I am not offended when people disagree with the policy the government uses to protect its food supply, but why do so many blame the farmer? I don't like the way the goverment is throwing money around lately, but I don't get mad at the person who gets a tax credit for putting energy efficient windows in his home.

As for the issue of the DNR purchasing land, its not all farmers that are against this. This is a small local issue that is being used to stir up poor relations on a broader term. The local farmers are probably not against more land for hunting, but just don't want it in their area where they could have an opportunity to bid on or farm the land. Much like many city people would oppose a factory or a nightclub in thier neighborhood. Although it would provide jobs it might affect their property values so they stand up against it. Most people look out for thier own interest first and get protective of where they live farmers are no different. I suppose this makes us farmers a little selfish like the rest of america, but as a whole I think there are a lot of good people and new pickups on both sides of the fence.

[lawdog]

Cousin's dad retired from dairy farming and sold off his land, tractors,equipment at over a 1/2 million dollars.

Then he didn't have much of an operation. $500,000 around here won't even buy a 1/4 of bare ground. I don't begrudge anybody, farmer or not from making money, in fact I'm all for it. Simple fact of the matter though is farmers have had one of the most profitable businesses around and have still gotten huge subsidies lately. I have many clients and friends who are farmers and they made huge money the last several years (well not as much last year but the several before). They out earned nearly all my non farm clients who weren't getting extra government money. There needs to be a change to the system, I don't begrudge helping out ag in the lean years as we do all need the crops, but to pay them govt money (my tax dollars) when they are already out earning me without it is a little beyond absurd!

There, now I'll get off my soapbox and say this one guy at a meeting doesn't seem to be representative of the majority of farmers anyway. I've never heard anybody have the audacity to say they want to get paid for what a pheasant eats out of a corn or bean field...

[harvey lee]

Maybe I would like to get paid for all those that are recieving subsidies from the goverment with my tax dollars.

Hey, that would be a great program but this country may go deeper into the hole.

[MN Greenheads]

If a grain merchant company can buy corn on the market @$2.10/bu. and the farmer get's paid an actual price with $.40 "loan" subsidy of $2.50. The merchant's ( all six of them) get a lot more corn than they would in a FREE MARKET and they get it for $.40 less than in the FREE MARKET.

The Farm Bureau and it's followers which doesn't rep farmers but farm input suppliers and a large insurance company is the main group oppossed to Public Land Purchases. Hmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder why they would oppose it?

All this is going to be meaningless in the future as farmland will rise dramatically in value. This thanks to inflation brought to you by our government past and present.

[ESmith]

Wow talk about a depressing thread. Both sides of the fence throwing mud like its an election race or something.

Sorry, but you anti-farmer's are pretty near sighted. Without farmers, you'd have next to no hunting. Without farmers, you'd also be starving compared to the food supply you have now. So like the farmers or not, you are dependent on them. So is the entire country. There is a reason that 97% of the land (or whatever statistic you want to use)is in crop/livestock production. Whoever said "if it weren't for farmers, it'd all still be prairie" must have a good idea for how this country will eat, living on prairie grass. If we had to import 100% of our food supply, you'd probably have bigger things to worry about than where your weekend pheasant/deer trip will come from.

No wonder farmers turn so many would be hunters away from their land. I own land in Iowa, and I turn people away simply because thats the only (small as it is) place I have to hunt. Reading this stuff gives me some new reasons.

You want land to hunt? Go buy it. Free market. If its worth more to a farmer than it is to a hunter, well, economics do apply. If it isn't your land, you are entitled to extremely little. I'm as much for conservation as the next guy. But I don't mind choosing who I will and will not conserve with, on my land at least. Some of us are more blessed than others when it comes to having places to go hunt. Turns out if you farm, that land doubles as hunting territory... perks of the occupation.

As for earnings and subsidies, what does any of that have to do with the right to hunt on a certain tract of land? Right or wrong, it really has no bearing on which piece of land should be used for what. Those of you making money off of farmers should be encouraging their incomes, a person would think.

well life goes on.

[ac777]

Well said Esmith

[RiverRunner]

Dennis Oeltjenbruns told the board he figured crop damage from deer and pheasants has cost him hundreds of bushels of corn and soybeans. While he isn't against hunting, Oeltjenbruns said, "Farmers don't get paid for pheasants and ducks That's something that needs to be considered."

Just wondering does anyone actually believe a flock of pheasents could aid in costing this guy hundreds of bushels in Corn and soy beans? Turkeys, Deer and a big flock of waterfowl I can buy, but that seems pretty far fetched to me. I would think Crop damage from Pheasents on a 200 acre would be minimal if not non exsistent.

Nothing against farmers actually all my relatives farm in SE MN. I'm greatful for farmers and all the food they produce. And we would be in a world of hurt without them. This idea that farmers are these great conservations is somewhat false. I get that they are trying to make a living on their land and can do what they want. Some farmers do a great job at leaving some cover for the wildlife. But some farmers can definetly do more. Theres parts of southern MN you can litteraly drive 5-10 miles and not find 200 acres of CRP. Once the crops are down theres zero cover for wildlife in some areas. Again its there land, but without WMAs and WPAs there would be even less wildlife in the southern part of the state.

It seems a little stupid to me that farmers even worry about the DNR purchasing 80 to 160 acres of land here and there. Most of the WMAs and WPAs I've hunted in the Southern part of the state have either had some kind of swamp, drainage ditch or pond on them. The DNR generally purchases land that is cheaper and less suitable for farming.

[graingrower]

You might think of a pheasants daily intake requirement as insignificant, but just figure if one bird consumes one pound of grain per day, it would take 56 days to eat one bushel of corn or 60 days to eat a bushel of beans. Multiply that by the number of birds, maybe one per acre; that translates into a loss of approx $4.00 for corn and $10.00 for beans. Now multiply that times the number of acres farmed, my example will used 1200 acres. 1200a x $4.00=$4,800, 1200a x $10.00=$12,000. I'll bet a loss of that scale from your pocket would make you a believer. Remember the deer and turkeys and squirels are taking their share too. Animals are no different that people, they like to eat!

[MN Greenheads]

Wow,

A pheasant costing a farmer $$. I don't think so. They eat what's knocked off when harvesting it. I do think I will tabulate what a farmer costs me.

1.) Billions in Subsidies (LDP) Paymets each year.

2.)Billions in CRP Subsidies where I pay a farmer to not farm yet I can't hunt or recreate on that land.

3) Billions to keep large rivers with a wide channel to ensure barges can get through with out a problem.

4) Billions in ethanol subsidies that support a fairly inefficent energy source.

5) Bilions in tariffs on foriegn sugar cane ethanol that is far cheaper than what our corn grown etanol is.

6) Billions in damage to the enviroment- such as flooding through fast standpipe ditch drainage or excess Nitrogen levels in the gulf or Phosporus Levels in Lakes.

7) All in a scociety that needs less food as our biggest health problem is obesitey

These facts are brought to you by some one who's family and friend's farm and by someone who has fed cattle for a living and helped friends during harvest.

[LightningBG]

You might think of a pheasants daily intake requirement as insignificant, but just figure if one bird consumes one pound of grain per day, it would take 56 days to eat one bushel of corn or 60 days to eat a bushel of beans. Multiply that by the number of birds, maybe one per acre; that translates into a loss of approx $4.00 for corn and $10.00 for beans. Now multiply that times the number of acres farmed, my example will used 1200 acres. 1200a x $4.00=$4,800, 1200a x $10.00=$12,000. I'll bet a loss of that scale from your pocket would make you a believer. Remember the deer and turkeys and squirels are taking their share too. Animals are no different that people, they like to eat!

I like farmers. In fact a good portion of my family are farmers.

BUT

A 2-4 lb bird does not eat 1 lb of corn a day.

And in my opinion 90% of the corn eaten is already on the ground.

[JeffB]

Is there a lagitimate cost to a farmer having a large wetland next to his field, my opinion is yes. Some crops are not affected as much as others, but I know a crop like sunflowers will get destroyed by black birds that will go crazy over a field of sun flowers next to a slough. Sometimes as you drive you will see those huge clouds of black birds it often happens with cases like this. Many insect pests will winter in areas like wma's, if every thing is tilled the eggs are destroyed by tillage. Grass hoppers and soybean aphids tend to be more of a problem near areas like this. If you have to spray an insecticide one extra time on a quarter of land that is $2500 you no longer have. The deer definatly are more prevalent near wma's and crp its not uncommon to see 20 deer out grazing in a field near an area like this, but if you go to a field surrounded by other fields there will be none. If your a hunter think about it in terms of your dog, its not bad buying dog food for him. Then you get a new neighbor and he brings over 20 extra dogs for you to feed. I'm not against more hunting ground or habitat, but I want people to be able to see both sides. Every one is for the wildlife till it affects them. I'm a farmer and have never really thought about these issues much, its just part of doing buisiness. I can actually say I've heard more non-farmers complain about damage do to animals than farmers in the past(deer destroying my garden, coons in my sweet corn, skunk under the porch, gopher in the yard, oh no some one saw a mountain lion, neighbors dog [PoorWordUsage], and etc). The other thing I think is kind of funny is that you can add another 400 acre wma and many hunters will drive right past it to walk your tree line because they assume all the birds are on private land(grass is always greener). If a wma is put next to my land I wont complain I'll just manage it the best I can. Hope you all have a good place to hunt.

[DuckDog]

Wow,

A pheasant costing a farmer $$. I don't think so. They eat what's knocked off when harvesting it. I do think I will tabulate what a farmer costs me.

1.) Billions in Subsidies (LDP) Paymets each year.

2.)Billions in CRP Subsidies where I pay a farmer to not farm yet I can't hunt or recreate on that land.

3) Billions to keep large rivers with a wide channel to ensure barges can get through with out a problem.

4) Billions in ethanol subsidies that support a fairly inefficent energy source.

5) Bilions in tariffs on foriegn sugar cane ethanol that is far cheaper than what our corn grown etanol is.

6) Billions in damage to the enviroment- such as flooding through fast standpipe ditch drainage or excess Nitrogen levels in the gulf or Phosporus Levels in Lakes.

7) All in a scociety that needs less food as our biggest health problem is obesitey

These facts are brought to you by some one who's family and friend's farm and by someone who has fed cattle for a living and helped friends during harvest.

Sounds like your problem is with the government policies not the farmers. If someone gave you money and subsidies would you not take them? I sure would. I suppose if I want them I should lobby my representative(s). One should look at WHY we initially started to subsidize farmers. Introduced in the 1930’s by President Roosevelt, the original farm subsidies were initially designed to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. American farmers, up until that time, had ruled the global market under the free-enterprise system. Although intended as a temporary fix, the distribution of farm subsidies continued long after the Depression, evolving into the multi-million dollar political platform it is today.

The question of why the United States government continues to pass millions in subsidy farm bills is one that tops the political scale in controversy. The government argues that now, more than ever, farm subsidies secure the domestic farm sector as a measure of homeland security. The intent – if a world-changing event should occur – is to protect the American people from having to rely on food imports to feed the population. Strong opponents, however, argue that political gain alone now determines subsidy distribution. With the largest percentage of subsidies awarded to big farms and agribusinesses, many argue that only a small percentage of the allotted millions ever find its way to the family farmers who need it the most.

Farm bill proponents argue that subsidizing farm income and supporting commodity pricing helps to offset unexpected fluctuations in agriculture. Historically, certain events that occur internationally such as war, government seizures, and natural catastrophe have a direct impact on the food supply available for purchase in the global market. On domestic soil, crop yields fluctuate year to year due to such things as floods and unpredictable temperatures. Subsequently, ensuring the solidity of the domestic sector with subsidized farm assistance would seem a logical alternative. Other subsidy advocates feel that, without this type of government aid, domestic farmers would simply be driven out of business by foreign competition, thus placing the United States at the mercy of other countries to supply even the simplest commodity.

While, in theory, this type of government assistance seems justified, opponents speak loud from every platform. One out-spoken criticism comes from those who feel that handing out agricultural subsidies goes against the principles of free trade. The argument states that subsidizing farmers eliminates any incentive to produce according to the demands of the market. Instead, subsidies encourage farmers to produce for profit alone without monitoring profit and loss signals that might suggest otherwise. According to free market economics, production based on profit and loss - and demand and supply - is the key to maintaining fairness in the competitive market. In addition, free trade proponents argue that subsidies based upon unpredictable weather conditions are disingenuous considering that industries nationwide suffer the same risks but must rely on insurance to assist only after the fact.

The largest subsidies are to the oil companies - and yet they are to help with foreign oil production.

[SEwalleye]

As I am standing on the fence shooting a pheasant & eating some good farmer food, I wonder - How many of us write-off the mortgage interest we pay on our tax returns? Well then, I guess we accept government subsidies too.