Doug wrote an interesting piece here. It seems farmers like Trump more than Clinton... From my recent visits out West, that certainly is the case. MP: WTF: Where’s The ‘Farmer’ in DFL?
"Please remember: A vote for Clinton is likely actually a Vote against Trump... and A vote for Trump is likely a vote against Clinton...
Most of my farming family and friends see Clinton as everything that is wrong with the US government... (ie life long self serving politicians padding their wallets at the expense of us citizens) Therefore all the "Hillary for Prison" signs in rural MN.
And the ever increasing number of land use regulations sure isn't helping their opinion." G2A
"I can't argue with that first sentence, which is too bad. I can't remember even a single presidential candidate, much less a pair of them, with so many negatives, whether real or perceived.
Unfortunately, your farming family and friends, like mine, are not looking beyond the immediate. "…Everything that is wrong with the US government…" is a criticism more accurately aimed at BOTH political parties, not just the DFL. Self-serving politicians, lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of us, serve as purported representatives of the population under the aegis of both Republican and DFL parties. If Hillary deserves prison, so did/does George Bush, but not only do I not see "The Shrub for Prison" signs now in rural areas, nor did I see them in rural areas during the Bush administration. "Cheney for Prison" is also richly deserved, but I don't, and didn't, see those signs, either.
I don't think Ms. Clinton should have been paid $200,000+ to give a speech of any kind, to any audience, but doing so is perfectly legal, and more importantly, Ms. Clinton did not make those speeches while working for the United States government. She made those speeches as a private citizen, and isn't even a little bit unique in doing so, nor was her fee among the highest paid for that sort of speech. Dozens of wealthy businessmen have been paid that much and more to give similar speeches to similar audiences.
Why should farmers, being citizens of the same society as the rest of us, and being subsidized to some degree by the rest of us, be exempt from land-use regulations that the rest of us are expected to pay attention to, especially those regulations that affect the health and safety of their fellow-citizens?" Ray
"I often find it amusing when city folks talk about "farm subsidies" like the farmers are getting them for free and that they are the only folks who benefit from them. The government uses them to incent private property owners to behave in a certain way and to stabilize the US agricultural system. I think all of us citizens can appreciate that, especially those who struggle to pay their grocery bills.
Increasing the buffer strip requirement from 16 feet to 50 feet was pointless and just frustrated many farmers even more. It would have been much more effective to just enforce the 16 foot buffer. Most farmers are great stewards of their land and want to keep the good top soil / fertilizer in their fields where it can earn them a profit.
I have a friend who is on one of the watershed boards, he is always fascinated at how high the allowed run off is in the cities as compared to in the rural areas. Please remember that most of the run off from fields flows through the soil into perforated tile and them into the water stream. (ie filtered) And most of the stalks and grain are harvested or plowed under... Unlike all the fertilizer, salt, oil and grass clippings that are washed off our asphalt / concrete roads into our local water shed." G2A
5 comments:
The four most southwest Minnesota watersheds have exactly zero lakes that are deemed fishable or swimmable by the state due to their high levels of pollution -- much of which is generated by agriculture. That's a problem. Whether buffer strips are the answer to that, I don't know. But I do know that we can't continue to allow water quality in that portion of the state to get worse and worse and worse.
I think one would need to look at what is defined as a "lake" in SW MN. Many of them are man made and very shallow.
Please note that this report says that bot urban and rural lakes have problems.
MN PCA Report
Here are some examples...
Here is one that I spent a lot of time at and they are working to improve...
Lake Shaokatan. It is an old pasture that was dammed up back when. It has many cabins on it now and the deepest spot is ~13 feet deep. Needless to say the water gets very warm in the summer.
A very interesting related article.
Please note the interesting issue that is created when the phosphorus and algae are reduced in shallow lakes like Shaokatan... Remember that warm water, shallow depth and strong sunshine, well lake weeds thrive in that environment. And often the DNR is hesitant to let lake dwellers kill the weeds because they are "habitat for fish".
Just curious. What is the source of this unbelievable comment?
"The four most southwest Minnesota watersheds have exactly zero lakes that are deemed fishable or swimmable by the state due to their high levels of pollution -- much of which is generated by agriculture."
Then again... Maybe it is correct since there are almost no lakes in that region...
By the way, most of our SW MN property is a bit further North in the Yellow Medicine district.
Post a Comment