Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Farm Bureau:

palex2 said:
IowaChiro,

Do you know the input costs for farmers? -- I would love for you to have to write that check. You obviously think that every farmer can just go grab his checkbook and start cutting checks. We all don't own a King Ranch every two years.

Do you know the risk each farmer takes every year to make sure there is food on your local supermarkets shelves?? And yes, I'm going to stand behind the steel curtain "We Feed America" because we do.

Your comment about obesity being a result from farmers raising corn is completely bogus and plain ass stupid.

Farming Subsidies are something you believe farmers shouldn't receive? -- You realize that if farmers weren’t subsidized, YOU and all consumers will face price increases on the food you eat? But you probably don't eat corn products cause it causes obesity, I forgot. I'm sorry you have to pay taxes to make sure you are fed. Subsidies are in place for weather conditions (like a drought) and market volatility. Do you know how volatile the grain market is? If you think we all raised 200 bushel corn this year, with the drought, you truly are ignorant. But you seem to have all the answers, just thought I'd share my opinion. Please enlighten me how incorrect my statements are.
Click to expand...
Will do. All business take a risk correct? I am A ok with federal crop insurance. Direct Subsidy payments for corn need cut, plain and simple. I know guys starting out now have it rough, but down here, most are farming ground that's paid for already. Do you want to take all the risk out of farming? That's not capitalism. BTW, how much time did you spend looking at the science behind my statements? Oh, that's right, none...since it doesn't fit your paradigm. I want farmers to make good money, but when the water we drink is shit, and the cause can be linked to tiling, and intensive farming practices, we all have skin in the game. I guess your reading comprehension is lacking too, since I didn't say anything about 200 bushel yields. Quit being reactionary, look at the claims I make, research them a bit, get outside your comfort zone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030602070.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropdrainage.html#envconcerns
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/IAN104.pdf
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/data/wqi/WqiAllYears.htm
https://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/d...ments/outreach/im/handout_ai_diet_patient.pdf
http://blogs.prevention.com/inspire...hat-corn-eating-cows-are-doing-to-our-health/
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropdrainage.html#envconcerns
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/IAN104.pdf
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/data/wqi/WqiAllYears.htm
https://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/d...ments/outreach/im/handout_ai_diet_patient.pdf
http://blogs.prevention.com/inspire...hat-corn-eating-cows-are-doing-to-our-health/[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, the "science" behind your opinions/statements contains very little science. It is almost completely someone else's opinion. One of the references (the ISU Extension piece) was reviewed but even it lists no scientific references. That doesn't automatically make these sources wrong, but they are what they are: another OPINION. They are not science any more than cow flatus is responsible for climate change...
 
HorseDoctor said:
[QUOTE
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropdrainage.html#envconcerns
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/IAN104.pdf
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/data/wqi/WqiAllYears.htm
https://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/d...ments/outreach/im/handout_ai_diet_patient.pdf
http://blogs.prevention.com/inspire...hat-corn-eating-cows-are-doing-to-our-health/
Click to expand...

With all due respect, the "science" behind your opinions/statements contains very little science. It is almost completely someone else's opinion. One of the references (the ISU Extension piece) was reviewed but even it lists no scientific references. That doesn't automatically make these sources wrong, but they are what they are: another OPINION. They are not science any more than cow flatus is responsible for climate change...[/QUOTE]

I will look up some research documents..or scan them in
 
How about you all take this to a farming forum instead of a Whitetail forum. You both sound like prepubescent school boys arguing over bubblegum.
 
thephatchef said:
How about you all take this to a farming forum instead of a Whitetail forum. You both sound like prepubescent school boys arguing over bubblegum.
Click to expand...

Agreed...sorry I went off on a tangent. My main point is that all the loss of crp and filter strips is a bad thing for all of us in the long run, and where there is $...there is corruption.
 
Iowa farmers support efforts to control deer herd

1/28/2013 8:32:53 AM
Dirck Steimel



  • <LI class=sshListItem>



Nearly half of the Iowa farmers surveyed in a recent poll believe there are still too many deer in the state, and nearly 65 percent said that the number of antlerless deer hunting tags issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) should stay the same or be increased.
The survey results contrast with recent IDNR statements that Iowa’s deer population was near objectives in most of the state and the agency’s plan to reduce the number of tags sold for antlerless deer, said Rick Robinson, environmental policy advisor for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF).
"We believe it is important for IDNR to consider the views of farmers when determining the optimum size of the deer herd in the state," he said.
Last year, the IDNR proposed reducing the number of antlerless deer tags by 26,000 for the 2012-2013 hunting season. The department later trimmed the reduction to 13,000 tags on the recommendation of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.
The IDNR has indicated that it would push for another reduction in the number of antlerless tags, which are typically used to hunt does and male deer without antlers.
A survey of 600 farmers
The telephone survey of 600 farmers, conducted in December for IFBF by Davenport-based Victory Enterprises, showed that 47.5 percent responded that the deer herd is too large in the state and another 36 percent said it was about right. Only 10.5 percent of the respondents said the Iowa deer herd is too low.
More than 66 percent of the Iowa farmers surveyed said that deer had damaged crops over the past five years. Farmers reported that most of that deer damage was on corn and soybean fields, but there was also damage reported on hay and nursery crops.
More than one-half of the respondents said the loss amount of the deer was under $2,500, 14.7 percent said it was between $2,501 and $5,000 and 5.7 percent said the damage from deer exceeded $5,001.
In addition, nearly 33 percent of the respondents said they had experienced vehicle damage from a deer collision in the past five years. Nearly 5 percent of the survey respondents said they had suffered personal injury in an accident involving deer.
About 9 percent of the survey respondents said they had initiated deer control measures recommended by the IDNR, and most said those measures were either very or somewhat effective.
Overall, the farmers said that allowing increased hunting was the most effective tool on controlling the deer herd in Iowa.
More than 80 percent of the farmers surveyed said they had allowed hunting on their land in the past five years. A small percentage had leased land to hunters, but most said they had allowed hunters on the land without leases.​
 
IowaChiro said:
Agreed...sorry I went off on a tangent. My main point is that all the loss of crp and filter strips is a bad thing for all of us in the long run, and where there is $...there is corruption.
Click to expand...

I do mostly agree with this. One problem is, CRP is a federally run subsidy. We, the taxpayers, pay for it. We, the taxpayers, already have enough debt (how many trillion is it now?) and you will find very few that are willing to fork out more. Along with you (just guessing here), I would for this program, but it is more likely to get cut further before expanding. If you can sell a way to expand it, I will join your bandwagon.

Wetlands? A great thing for our environment and wildlife. I do know what a wetland is (flat dry looking land can be a wetland) and I also know what it takes to tile any ground, wetland or not, and that is a visit from your NRCS. They do that before you put in tile and you would be ill advised to not have that done. If it is determnined to be a wetland, it cannot be tiled unless it was already tiled, then only the portion previously tiled can be maintained (not added to). Simply put, wetlands shouldn't be getting tiled or drained so we shouldn't be losing more wetlands. Since the 90s, they were already tiled and converted, or they were most likely already being farmed as is, or they are intact. I have seen more converted back to full blown wetlands and taken out of production (thanks to subsidies) than drained and put into production.

Subsidies? Again, it depends on which specific one we are talking about. Some are good, some should go. We probably agree on which ones need to go. The farmer is not the problem though. Some of them might be hypocrites, and there might be a fine line between business savy and greed, but the programs are the problem, not the person taking advantage of them.

Farm Bureau? I won't go there since I don't have anything good to say about them.
 
ElkHunter said:
Iowa farmers support efforts to control deer herd

1/28/2013 8:32:53 AM
Dirck Steimel



  • <LI class=sshListItem>



Nearly half of the Iowa farmers surveyed in a recent poll believe there are still too many deer in the state, and nearly 65 percent said that the number of antlerless deer hunting tags issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) should stay the same or be increased.
The survey results contrast with recent IDNR statements that Iowa’s deer population was near objectives in most of the state and the agency’s plan to reduce the number of tags sold for antlerless deer, said Rick Robinson, environmental policy advisor for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF).
"We believe it is important for IDNR to consider the views of farmers when determining the optimum size of the deer herd in the state," he said.
Last year, the IDNR proposed reducing the number of antlerless deer tags by 26,000 for the 2012-2013 hunting season. The department later trimmed the reduction to 13,000 tags on the recommendation of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.
The IDNR has indicated that it would push for another reduction in the number of antlerless tags, which are typically used to hunt does and male deer without antlers.
A survey of 600 farmers
The telephone survey of 600 farmers, conducted in December for IFBF by Davenport-based Victory Enterprises, showed that 47.5 percent responded that the deer herd is too large in the state and another 36 percent said it was about right. Only 10.5 percent of the respondents said the Iowa deer herd is too low.
More than 66 percent of the Iowa farmers surveyed said that deer had damaged crops over the past five years. Farmers reported that most of that deer damage was on corn and soybean fields, but there was also damage reported on hay and nursery crops.
More than one-half of the respondents said the loss amount of the deer was under $2,500, 14.7 percent said it was between $2,501 and $5,000 and 5.7 percent said the damage from deer exceeded $5,001.
In addition, nearly 33 percent of the respondents said they had experienced vehicle damage from a deer collision in the past five years. Nearly 5 percent of the survey respondents said they had suffered personal injury in an accident involving deer.
About 9 percent of the survey respondents said they had initiated deer control measures recommended by the IDNR, and most said those measures were either very or somewhat effective.
Overall, the farmers said that allowing increased hunting was the most effective tool on controlling the deer herd in Iowa.
More than 80 percent of the farmers surveyed said they had allowed hunting on their land in the past five years. A small percentage had leased land to hunters, but most said they had allowed hunters on the land without leases.​
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that this survey took place but find it interesting how these people say there are too many deer, and when asked if a person can bowhunt their land.....they all say NO. Maybe I have knocked on the wrong doors and need to continue to do so but the farmers say "kill em all" but don't want you to hunt their property. Doesn't seem to go hand in hand.
 
turkeyriver said:
"farming practices have improved so much in the last century, they have become the true stewards and conservationists of the land." Are you friggin kidding me? Sounds like a line straight from a FB propaganda newsbite. I'm an old guy, lifelong farmer, and am considered an "odd duck" by all the neighbors because I have tree plantings, riparian buffers, alternating strips, waterways,and am 100% no-till. Farmers have the equipment and technology available to them to be great stewards of the land but the vast majority ignore it. Every farmer has a conservation plan in place that they must follow to be eligible for gov't payments but the poor guys at NRCS and FSA have been instructed to ignore them for the most part. I quote," we had to make allowances for guys so they could use 12-row planters." Translated means, "big farmers can cut corners." The rules are on the books. It's just like guns or drugs on the streets, it's illegal,but economics rule. Moldboard plows are gone, but today's chisel plows are so aggressive and bury so much stubble that after spring planting , fields could just as well have been moldboarded. You wouldn't believe some of the land that is being farmed up here in our hills, so steep you would get scared driving a pickup on the contour. Ethanol isn't as much the culprit as world demand. DDGs from ethanol plants is very good livestock feed and replaces a lot of corn. But we are exporting our soil and future productivity to the rest of the world. I'm afraid our kids and grandkids will judge us harshly for what we have done. Answers? I don't have any. Rain and low prices will definitely help tho.
Click to expand...


Wish we had odd ducks around my neck of the woods!
 
Guys let me make this really easy for you. You don't have enough money to outspend the insurance industry on this issue. We are facing the same problem in Indiana. They have the deep pockets and influence to matter.

The problem really becomes the hunters not taking care of their herd. Who cares how many tags are eligible, it's up to us not to fill those tags.

Just some food for thought.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom