'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

[deanrd]

View attachment 168957

Then people wonder why the small farmer is becoming a dying breed.

*****SMILE*****

The guy in the middle stands like a teapot.

 

[Disir]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

This is my favorite part from your link:

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

------------------------------

Now get this. This is Soooooo FUKING hilarious!

Sweeney thinks all the talk about polluted water is overblown. Decades ago, when she was growing up, the snow banks sometimes turned gray because of pollution. It's far better now, she said.

-----------------------------

You see what I mean? Republicans from the land of tard? It's better now because of the rules and regulations she is complaining about. Get it? It was bad then, but it's better now, so the solution is to go back to then.




Oh

My

God!

Did you miss this part:
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

Get it? What part of stop everything and $5,000 did you not get?

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 168957

Then people wonder why the small farmer is becoming a dying breed.

*****SMILE*****

Because the CAFO's are putting them out of business...

 

[Disir]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

 

[Disir]

I sure like my breakfast potatoes smothered and pushed aside so that I can eat the eggs on the plate first.

Wait.......like scattered, smothered, and covered?

 

[AZGAL]

MMMMM...so down home...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 168957

Then people wonder why the small farmer is becoming a dying breed.

*****SMILE*****

Because the CAFO's are putting them out of business...

That and the price they can get for their product.

160 acres X $8,000 = $1,280,000

Then add in the price of farm equipment of at least $250,000

That's a $1.5 million investment. At 5% interest the that farmer should be making $75,000 a year after everything is paid for.

$3 corn is only $90,000 for 150 acres producing 200 bushels an acre prior to buying gas, seed, fertilizer, repair bills, new equipment, property taxes, state and federal taxes, etc,... These things alone eat up a major chunk of that $90,000 leaving the small farmer little to nothing. Then to top that off most of the subsidies go to the big farmer because they have CPA's and the like who tell the large farmer about them so they can apply so they have excess money to drive corn prices down and buy out the little guy.

This is why a lot of the little farmers are specializing in other products and are now known as hobby farmers.

*****SMILE*****

 

[AZGAL]

Some small farmers have a highly valued product and do other things besides just farm on their land in order to make a profit. Organics are very popular too. Some have a fishery and that may have worked with the wetland.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

 

[Disir]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.

At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Your source indicates it's all under control.

 

[deanrd]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

This is my favorite part from your link:

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

------------------------------

Now get this. This is Soooooo FUKING hilarious!

Sweeney thinks all the talk about polluted water is overblown. Decades ago, when she was growing up, the snow banks sometimes turned gray because of pollution. It's far better now, she said.

-----------------------------

You see what I mean? Republicans from the land of tard? It's better now because of the rules and regulations she is complaining about. Get it? It was bad then, but it's better now, so the solution is to go back to then.




Oh

My

God!

Did you miss this part:
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

Get it? What part of stop everything and $5,000 did you not get?

When people are put upon, they can make the most outrageous claims. An entire lake can look like a "tiny little puddle".

But still, what she said:

Decades ago, when she was growing up, the snow banks sometimes turned gray because of pollution. It's far better now, she said.

And still, that was because of those regulations she hates now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.

At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Your source indicates it's all under control.

When was she shut down?

 

[Disir]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

This is my favorite part from your link:

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

------------------------------

Now get this. This is Soooooo FUKING hilarious!

Sweeney thinks all the talk about polluted water is overblown. Decades ago, when she was growing up, the snow banks sometimes turned gray because of pollution. It's far better now, she said.

-----------------------------

You see what I mean? Republicans from the land of tard? It's better now because of the rules and regulations she is complaining about. Get it? It was bad then, but it's better now, so the solution is to go back to then.




Oh

My

God!

Did you miss this part:
Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

Get it? What part of stop everything and $5,000 did you not get?

When people are put upon, they can make the most outrageous claims. An entire lake can look like a "tiny little puddle".

But still, what she said:

Decades ago, when she was growing up, the snow banks sometimes turned gray because of pollution. It's far better now, she said.

And still, that was because of those regulations she hates now.

The regulations now weren't the ones she had as a child. Could it possibly be that not every fucking regulation is a winner? Or does the fact it exists at all make it miraculous?

 

[Disir]

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

It isn't cheap if you are shut down. Simply because you stop working does not mean the bills don't stop rolling in. Don't dismiss the shit.

At issue in 2015 was how it was defined.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Your source indicates it's all under control.

When was she shut down?

I will put it between 2013 and 2014. That was when the EPA came under fire heavily.

 

[9thIDdoc]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

Some cancers also grow and evolve rapidly. Not all change is good.

Improving land management is a cancer?

What has land management got to do with the OP?
And what makes you think urbanites know more about land management than country folK?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Urban folks need to remember that they would starve were it not for rural areas and the people that live there.

Iowa contributes very little compared to California.

If Iowa disappeared tomorrow, we'd be fine. One less welfare state.

They got a welfare check for decades -- ethanol tax credit.

It may surprise you to learn that California also has rural areas just like other states and the cities there are no less dependent on them for necessities. Doesn't even seem to have enough water in state.

Was the corn used to make ethanol not grown in Iowa?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

BUCKEYE, Iowa - "Come on! Come on! Go girls!" Annette Sweeney was on horseback, hollering at her chocolate-colored cows on a perfect Iowa morning, happy that her life is better since Donald Trump became president.



Sweeney, 60, raises Angus cows and corn on the flat, green farmland of central Iowa. Just 1 in 7 Americans live in places like this: Rural counties have 72 percent of the nation's land but a shrinking population as urban areas have ballooned in size and wealth.

In recent years, Sweeney has felt a growing "disconnect" between how people think in cities and in places like Buckeye, a town of 108. In her view, farmers were too often "shoved aside" during the presidency of Barack Obama, while environmentalists and conservationists, many of whom live nowhere near a farm, took over the national conversation.

Obama set aside millions of acres of undeveloped land as national monuments - more than any other president - preventing huge areas from being mined, logged or farmed. Obama also implemented more regulations with a significant economic impact than any president in three decades, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Those actions were cheered by many Americans but widely viewed in rural areas as killing jobs.

Incredibly, Sweeney said, Obama's Agriculture Department even started pushing "Meatless Mondays," an insult to Iowa's pork, beef and chicken producers. "I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday," Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R, tweeted in response. Meatless Mondays felt like a "slap in the face" to Sweeney, who has this bumper sticker on her Buick: "EAT BEEF: The West Wasn't Won on Salad."

But nothing galled Sweeney more than a regulation Obama issued in 2015 called "Waters of the United States" or WOTUS. The Environmental Protection Agency said it was aimed at keeping pollutants - including fertilizer, manure and other farm runoff - out of streams and creeks that feed the nation's waterways. Farm runoff is a leading cause of water pollution, contaminating drinking water, spawning toxic algal blooms and killing fish.

To Sweeney, WOTUS felt like the government's hands on her throat.

Was some bureaucrat now going to show up and police her puddles and tiniest ditches of water? She said that is what happened several years ago: A federal conservation official told Sweeney she had a half-acre of wetland in the middle of a 160-acre field. Wetlands are protected habitats for migrating birds and other wildlife and are important for healthy soil and water.

"Suddenly, this piece of land that we had been farming for 70 years was federally protected, and we had to stop everything," said Sweeney, who was born on the farm and raised two boys there.

In the end, Sweeney had to pay $5,000 to preserve a small parcel of wetland elsewhere so she could continue farming her own property. The experience contributed to a feeling that "we were smothered" by the federal government, Sweeney said.

'Smothered' and 'shoved aside' in rural America

This is a lengthy article and there is a Democrat farmer's views in there as well.

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it may very well be the expense that breaks the bank.

*****SMILE*****

 

[IM2]

This entire thread is ridiculous. I live in a rural sate and Obama didn't forget any farmers. It's the same whining by the same types who think they are left out because they don't get everything.

 

[asaratis]

It's more of a story about how the world is passing by those who have chosen the more traditional life. As the speed with which our society evolves and grows is ever increasing, so to does the disconnect from traditional values and ways of seeing the world. It's time rural folks get up to speed or accept that they'll be left behind.

I disagree. It is arrogant to assume that people who live in rural areas are not up to "speed" or less educated and that your view is somehow far more important and correct based on where you live. I promise you there are jackasses in the city, the desert, the mountains, ocean side, island and in the country.

Different communities have different needs. There is no one size fits all. This divisive shit has to stop.

No doubt.

I was speaking to the woman in your post who is bitching about the gubmint. Since they had worked the land for 70 years they somehow don't need to conform to current laws? Farm runoff is a huge problem that has grown tremendously in the last several decades. Poor or out of date farming practices need to be updated to address these issues.

I said nothing disparaging at all. I simply said they need to get up to speed.

oic

I think it is a matter of concessions on either side. Even if her farm is taken care of it doesn't mean that the farm one county over has taken measures. And the voluntary part is not working out on the pig farms.

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

And this is where those changes should occur: With Trump in the White House, she sees farmers getting more attention: "It's the difference between feeling like you are being talked to and being listened to."

You can't just shut down a farm that people rely on for a half-acre of wetland and then charge x amount of money for wetland someplace else.

This isn't about the poor old family farmer. This is a big deal nowadays. She said they farmed 160 acres. At 300lbs of fertilizer per acre, that's 24 tons of fertilizer applied annually. That's a lot and certainly should be regulated. That's not even counting the manure.

I'm sure she was free to conserve or create a new wetland on her land if she wanted. She opted to pay instead. Given all of the new land management and conservation programs, I would say that $5k to bring 160 acres into compliance is cheap.

Here's a good source for what we're talking about.

Iowa conservation progress and future challenges

$5,000 may not seem like much to a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land but to a farmer who subsists on 160 acres it very well be the expense that breaks the bank.

*****SMILE*****

NO FARMERS---NO FOOD! NO TRUCKERS--NO DELIVERIES!

Just try to get along without either of them!

 

[Seawytch]

This entire thread is ridiculous. I live in a rural sate and Obama didn't forget any farmers. It's the same whining by the same types who think they are left out because they don't get everything.

Their vote is worth 4 times mine...what's that worth I wonder?