Should Thes Folks Open Their Lands To The Public??

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Conscious decision or not, I found it interesting that you chose as examples three prominent and recognizable Democrats.

PS, the blog comment was calculated to get a rise out of you and you didn't disappoint either.

Now that's funny on multiple fronts.

1. You found that interesting?
2. You seem to question if it was a conscious decision or not?
3. Your P.S. sounds a lot like a Peewee Herman comeback.

OK, we are even. :lol:

P.S. I did not alter your words in any way.

 

[Wulff-Man]

tomgamber wrote:
Don't forget all those republican loving cattle ranchers who set their animals out to graze on PUBLIC land for pennies a head. You wanna see a republican senators face turn red? Tell them they should raise grazing fees on BLM, Wilderness or other federally owned lands. If I had the money I could run 800 head of cattle or 2000 head of sheep on land owned by you and I and the public trust, but you can't ride a bike or dive any other mechanized vehicle within those boundries....HMMMM

And God forbid if any grizzlies, wolves, or buffalo from an adjacent national park should wander onto "their" land. Time to get them off the endangered species list, reintroduce hunting, run them down with snow mobiles, or whatever. Can't have too much of a good thing.... at the public's expense.

Jack, you beat me to the reverse Robin Hood thing. The more I see of the waste of our money the more it makes me sick. And it just seems to be getting worse and worse. So many good things could be done with all that money. And if good things aren't done with it, I would rather just keep it for myself, but that's not a choice we have.

P.S. This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Both parties are equally to blame.

 

[ryanh]

I agree, that this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Once you start talking about the big money they seem to agree with each other.

The www I regret can do very little to stop it. I wish it were so. Seriously, how many people in this country don't already know that we are getting hosed. How many don't know that at the end of the day that the laws are made by the rich and for the rich.

Little J,
Say you are right about Jubileer and Vick. That still pales in comparison to the big guns. We are of a diferent Cast.

 

[littlejuniata]

Maybe they should have spent some of this money fixing bridges? http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1477

 

[littlejuniata]

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&page=conc

 

[JackM]

Maybe you know some of the top Pennsylvania recipients for 2005:

✴ ownership information available✴ Location✴ Total USDA Subsidies
2005
1 Aaa Farming ✴ Lebanon, PA 17042✴ $480,857
2 Star Rock Farms LLC ✴ Conestoga, PA 17516✴ $382,134
3 Altemus Farms ✴ Penn Run, PA 15765✴ $357,430
4 Thompson Farms ✴ New Freedom, PA 17349✴ $331,263
5 Stanley Auen ✴ Saltsburg, PA 15681✴ $295,326
6 Wehry Bros Hog & Grain Farms Llp ✴ Dornsife, PA 17823✴ $274,608
7 Helen E Masser ✴ Sacramento, PA 17968✴ $261,691
8 Roy Adams Farms ✴ Sunbury, PA 17801✴ $237,855
9 Noah W Kreider & Sons ✴ Manheim, PA 17545✴ $232,454
10 J W Rook & Sons ✴ Warminster, PA 18974✴ $223,874
11 Hetrickdale Farms ✴ Bernville, PA 19506✴ $194,703
12 Maple Spring Farm ✴ Airville, PA 17302✴ $193,793
13 Glenville Farms ✴ Cochranville, PA 19330 $192,560
14 Mark M Kieffer & Son Inc ✴ Dornsife, PA 17823✴ $188,226
15 L Marshall Metzler ✴ Martinsburg, PA 16662✴ $179,604
16 Evergreen Farms Inc ✴ Spruce Creek, PA 16683✴ $168,711
17 Stoners Hijos Hill ✴ Mercersburg, PA 17236✴ $162,052
18 Hernley David ✴ New Paris, PA 15554✴ $157,922
19 William L Beam ✴ Elverson, PA 19520✴ $153,704
20 Michael W Ohler ✴ Polk, PA 16342✴ $150,226

 

[FarmerDave]

littlejuniata wrote:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&page=conc

LJ, I haven't looked at all your links, but I did look at this one. They are playing with the numbers. You can look at them many ways. But one thing that I see is that if 10 percent of the recipients get 73 percent of the money, then that means there are a whole lot of small recipients. isn't that a good thing? it's true that some big corporate farms are taking advantage of this, but the numbers also show that there are many small recipients. I also noticed a few farming groups and co-ops on the list. Co-ops consist of many small farmers, so if a co-op gets a large chunk, it also distorts the numbers.

Ducks unlimitied is also a recipient of big bucks, and they describe where their money went.

I'm not saying i am for the subsidies, I am just saying they aren't all bad.

Lets talk DU for a second. Much of the money they get goes to restoring wetlands on private land that they don't own. for example, I was told that I probably can have a lake built on my farm by them, and probably for free. One of the catches is, I have to keep it open to the public. I'm thinking you like that. I may look into it further, but my plan right now is to do it at my expense, eventually. I like to keep a handle on who is on my property and when.

 

[littlejuniata]

I say take out the fat cats, let the program do as it was originally intended, help the little guy during drought years, floods price decimation or whatever, there should be NO political guys on the receiving end. Jack I have a friend who gets a very small subsidy, but he does not post his land. Aren't there a lot of political guys making money on landfills too??


Evergreen Farms is the guy who has Spruce Creek posted and charges $600.00 a day to rent his fishing cabin on the stream.

 

[FarmerDave]

Oh man, I need to save this link. I found several of my neighbors on it, but you won't find me on it. The guy who farms my land is on it. I may have to raise the rent!!! :lol:

Seriously, most of the small farmers around me have gotten a little money over the past 10 years.

I also noticed a couple of my Amish neighbors on it. I say if they can get farm subsidies, then they should pay all the same taxes that i pay. :-x

 

[FarmerDave]

****, that would be hard to enforce, and you can't just go by farm size.

In times of drought or other disasters, wouldn't a farmer who farms 1000 acres stand to lose more money than a guy who farms 200? Shouldn't the guy who loses more also get more subsidies?

 

[littlejuniata]

Dave, I din't mean Fat Cats to be just big farms, I meant the wealthy folks who really don't need them. Seems funny that subsudies are given regularly, it was intended to help farms during unusual circumstances! This is interesting. Don't say it can't be fixed! http://www.newfarm.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

 

[MattBoyer]

I actually know a few of the people on the list Jack posted, and ummm......they ain't livin' in mansions and drivin hummers. They are simple folk who live on farms that have been in their families for 3 or 4 generations. I'm not really inside the loop on this subject, so I won't comment on the methods used to determine who gets what, but once farmland is lost it's lost forever. If it were not for agriculture this nation would not exist. Something to think about when there are many, many billions spent on things that aren't even half as imperitive to our sovereignty as being able to feed our people. That's all I know on this subject. Sorry it's not much.

Boyer

 

[littlejuniata]

We need to get on this, where will it be in the next 10 years?? http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&page=conc


Too many times this bills are started for good intentons, then the politicians buy up farms and change the rules to benifit themselves. Sometimes it looks like just another way to buy votes??




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

 

[MattBoyer]

PS All the people on this list that I know allow hunting and fishing on their property. Would kinda be a kick in the nuts for a coniderate landowner to be told by the federal government that they are now required by law to do so, regardless of the potential impact on their business. In addition to this, the area where I grew up is quite economically depressed and these farms provide jobs in an area where jobs are lacking, while at the same time being the most reasonably priced produce for an area where every penny counts. I'd rather the money go to someone whose business is feeding the poor who work than throwing it to the poor who don't work. Not saying the system doen't need fixed, just saying that not all who recieve federal subsidies should be run by the federal government. As someone else stated, if these farms go under there will be McMansions there and more acres now dedicated to the production of food (even if it is not farmed for a period of years) will be lost forever. You think it's rough buying oil from people who hate us? How'd you like to negotiate for your food?

Boyer

 

[FarmerDave]

I'd didn't say it can't be fixed. It would just be hard to fix. How would you determine who gets what, and in such a way that it totally eliminates abuse?

 

[Wulff-Man]

Matt, nobody's saying that the whole idea of subsidies is wrong. It's just the abuses that are disturbing, like Senators who are already feeding at the public trough also gorging themselves on subsidies for their "Gentlemens' Farms" - and taking money that could be going to the farmers who need it or deserve it.

I also don't agree this should be tied to opening your land to the public in any way.

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
I'd didn't say it can't be fixed. It would just be hard to fix. How would you determine who gets what, and in such a way that it totally eliminates abuse?

Easy to fix and eliminates abuse.

Make all public employees exempt from applying for government subsidies. In other words, you cannot benefit from something you legislate at the expense of the taxpayer.

That goes for pay raises too.


Maurice

 

[JackM]

Maurice wrote:

In other words, you cannot benefit from something you legislate at the expense of the taxpayer.

That goes for pay raises too.


Maurice

So how far do we take this? If our legislature decides to reenact the motorcycle helmet law, do all legislators who ride a motorcycle have to do so without a helmet, because if they wore a helmet, thus increasing their crash safety factor, they would be benefitting from legislation they passed. Or, if you don't like that one, should Federal legislators be prohibitted from collecting social security? Maybe they and their families shouldn't get to take any tax deductions either.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:

Maurice wrote:

In other words, you cannot benefit from something you legislate at the expense of the taxpayer.

That goes for pay raises too.


Maurice

So how far do we take this? If our legislature decides to reenact the motorcycle helmet law, do all legislators who ride a motorcycle have to do so without a helmet, because if they wore a helmet, thus increasing their crash safety factor, they would be benefitting from legislation they passed. Or, if you don't like that one, should Federal legislators be prohibitted from collecting social security? Maybe they and their families shouldn't get to take any tax deductions either.

Ony to the point of it being fair and just... not ridiculous exagerations as you suggest..which I guess we should allow them to determine. and around and around it goes.

but I won't argue about it...let it go on.......

or how about we just start with the two I suggested and not put words in my mouth.

 

[littlejuniata]

Public access and farm subsidies. If we pay we should be allowed access, the landowner has a choice either take public subsidies and allow access or don't takt the money? Isn't is sort of like if you would go the theater, pay your money then be denied access to the movie??