Anyone Following the Bundy Ranch Decades War With the BLM?

[breakingcontact]

Monsanto.

Corporate agriculture, the wave if the future.

True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.

 

[Younggun]

True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.

I looked up the list of Monsanto owned companies. I was disappointed in how often I support them. Looking in to some changes.

 

[breakingcontact]

I looked up the list of Monsanto owned companies. I was disappointed in how often I support them. Looking in to some changes.

You watched King Corn?

 

[Younggun]

Nope, just used google and pulled up the list.

 

[breakingcontact]

Nope, just used google and pulled up the list.

Watch the doc King Corn. Its on YT.

 

[Younggun]

Soon has I get done free time I'll search it.

 

[Saltyag2010]

True that. The family farm is nearly dead unless you run a niche or truck farm. Even then its hard to not be controlled by Monsanto Cargill ADM.

There's nothing wrong with corporate agriculture. You can't hardly eat without them these days.
Family farms and ranches still exist and are doing fine especially now with all the oil and gas drilling and hunting leases. No ranchers I know are struggling and more that I know have become richer than they've ever been. We don't have gas wells on my parents land but we don't rely on the cattle for much more than a supplemental income for real jobs and our farm land is used for hay- except for this year where it's used for grazing. Hay prices have been ridiculous so we made a bunch and kept it for ourselves and the neighbors. Klein and tifton 85 it's not that hard.

 

[breakingcontact]

There's nothing wrong with corporate agriculture. You can't hardly eat without them these days.
Family farms and ranches still exist and are doing fine especially now with all the oil and gas drilling and hunting leases. No ranchers I know are struggling and more that I know have become richer than they've ever been. We don't have gas wells on my parents land but we don't rely on the cattle for much more than a supplemental income for real jobs and our farm land is used for hay- except for this year where it's used for grazing. Hay prices have been ridiculous so we made a bunch and kept it for ourselves and the neighbors. Klein and tifton 85 it's not that hard.

Im talking about farms. Not ranches and not hobby farms/ranches.

 

[Saltyag2010]

Im talking about farms. Not ranches and not hobby farms/ranches.

True. The dude in nv called himself a rancher. Real ranchers have sense and only end up on the news for cool shit like meteorites and big deer.
Pay your lease or you're a shithead. If you lease from the Feds that's your ass.

 

[bones_708]

Not without Government. Land was actually public land, and ranchers free grazed everywhere until the Government came in.

So they should be able to use the land forever without any restrictions? Just people with families that have been using that area or anyone with cattle? Regardless of overgrazing or any other issues? We aren't in the 1800's anymore and the laws and regulations must reflect that. There are more people, more concerns, and more issues than if hobby ranchers get free use of public land.

Yeah, the ones that were big enough to get Government subsidies, while pushing the small guys out. Because, you know, people owning cows and cattle didnt exist before the Government.

He is more than large enough to get govt subsidies. Heck you could call grazing on the public land a subsidy because it sure as heck doesn't represent the real value of him using that land. private grazing is about $18 a head a month. The BLM charged $1.35

The Government should stay the $#@! out of private business, statist.

So they should kick Bundy off, sell the land and let him make a deal for about 15 times what they want to charge him? Thinking a fee for using public land isn't unreasonable doesn't make someone a statist. Throwing insults because you can't make a decent point does make you look like an idiot though.

 

[bones_708]

Im talking about farms. Not ranches and not hobby farms/ranches.

Here is the deal. Successful family farms have become big businesses. They had to to support the cost of production, equipment, etc. They incorporated, got bigger, and are now multi million dollar operations. Small farms don't produce enough to continue to support the same numbers of people and , with modern practices, don't take the time that you used to have to put in. Operations that stayed the same size had owners that ended up doing other things at the same time because they had the time available. That or poorly run operations went out of business, Things change.

 

[Koinonia]

So they should be able to use the land forever without any restrictions? Just people with families that have been using that area or anyone with cattle? Regardless of overgrazing or any other issues?

Yes, they should.

We aren't in the 1800's anymore and the laws and regulations must reflect that. There are more people, more concerns, and more issues than if hobby ranchers get free use of public land......He is more than large enough to get govt subsidies. Heck you could call grazing on the public land a subsidy because it sure as heck doesn't represent the real value of him using that land. private grazing is about $18 a head a month. The BLM charged $1.35.

Yes, this makes you a statist.

The Federal Government never owned the land, they assumed control of the land under the guise of "helping" ranchers in the area manage their land under an unconstitutional federal agency.

This argument goes back to the intent of the founders for the Federal versus State Government.

So they should kick Bundy off, sell the land and let him make a deal for about 15 times what they want to charge him?

They have no right to kick him off from anywhere, Constitutionally. They never owned the land they claim they do.

Thinking a fee for using public land isn't unreasonable doesn't make someone a statist. Throwing insults because you can't make a decent point does make you look like an idiot though.

See above. Hardly makes me look bad at all.
(Edit: Most people in the USA are Statists. I just happened to point it out to you. It was all your 'feels' that made you take offense to it. )

 

[breakingcontact]

True. The dude in nv called himself a rancher. Real ranchers have sense and only end up on the news for cool shit like meteorites and big deer.
Pay your lease or you're a shithead. If you lease from the Feds that's your ass.

Meteorites and big deer! Yes!!!!

 

[breakingcontact]

Here is the deal. Successful family farms have become big businesses. They had to to support the cost of production, equipment, etc. They incorporated, got bigger, and are now multi million dollar operations. Small farms don't produce enough to continue to support the same numbers of people and , with modern practices, don't take the time that you used to have to put in. Operations that stayed the same size had owners that ended up doing other things at the same time because they had the time available. That or poorly run operations went out of business, Things change.

"Here is the deal", ha!

Im very familiar with Midwest grain farms and the immoral joke our food policy has become, combine that with ethanol and it goes from a joke to downright scary and dumb.

Of course farms have to modernize and farmers need to change. But...here is the deal. Farmers dont grow food. They grow crap. The government subsidizes them to grow crap and big ag benefits.

Family farms are being wiped out. If you'd say its "due to market efficiencies" we could talk but the gov has such a big hand in promoting farm and food policies that we cant even have a regular economics argument.

I know the classical view of what a farm looks like has changed and is mostly gone forever. I get that. If you want to call an operation of tens of thousands of acres leveraged by banks, subsidized by the federal government and controlled by big agriculture the "modern family farm", go ahead. I guess Walmart is just a little business ran out of Arkansas then.

 

[bones_708]

Yes, they should.



Yes, this makes you a statist.

The Federal Government never owned the land, they assumed control of the land under the guise of "helping" ranchers in the area manage their land under an unconstitutional federal agency.

This argument goes back to the intent of the founders for the Federal versus State Government.



They have no right to kick him off from anywhere, Constitutionally. They never owned the land they claim they do.



See above. Hardly makes me look bad at all.
(Edit: Most people in the USA are Statists. I just happened to point it out to you. It was all your 'feels' that made you take offense to it. )

You are wrong on the facts. The feds owned the land before Bundy moved there. They actually managed the land and were the ones who granted the land to the Bundy family thu the federal land office, which later was transformed into the BLM. If the feds never owned the land then the Bundy's don't have title to any land never mind rights to use land other than what they occupy.

 

[bones_708]

Family farms are being wiped out. If you'd say its "due to market efficiencies" we could talk but the gov has such a big hand in promoting farm and food policies that we cant even have a regular economics argument.

I know the classical view of what a farm looks like has changed and is mostly gone forever. I get that. If you want to call an operation of tens of thousands of acres leveraged by banks, subsidized by the federal government and controlled by big agriculture the "modern family farm", go ahead. I guess Walmart is just a little business ran out of Arkansas then.

The only "family" farms that seemingly would meet your criteria are going to be niche suppliers. Just like any furniture maker that isn't a factory would have to make custom furniture. There are family owned businesses that make products or grow crops but to compete they had to either find a niche or get big. That isn't evil it's life. While you may have a point about govt involvement in agriculture I don't think it's directly applicable here in any important way.

 

[breakingcontact]

The only "family" farms that seemingly would meet your criteria are going to be niche suppliers. Just like any furniture maker that isn't a factory would have to make custom furniture. There are family owned businesses that make products or grow crops but to compete they had to either find a niche or get big. That isn't evil it's life. While you may have a point about govt involvement in agriculture I don't think it's directly applicable here in any important way.

Right. I said that. Truck farms and niche product farms are about the only real family farms left that are producing actual food. There are some big family grain farms who get huge subsidies for the garbage they grow.

 

[bones_708]

Right. I said that. Truck farms and niche product farms are about the only real family farms left that are producing actual food. There are some big family grain farms who get huge subsidies for the garbage they grow.

I have a friend with a farm here locally. He has a corp and does very well now. He has been successful for a long time and bought or leased a very large amount of land. His main product is grass. Smaller growers can and do compete but without access to a large amount of land or bags of cash they just are not busy enough for it to be more than a side line. He employees 4 to 8 people and I consider it a family business. You have the same thing with hay, crops, or even livestock. These farms are not being wiped out by anything but themselves. People end up doing other things and the farms just take a back seat and suffer or they were poorly run and suffered because of it. Barely 4% of US farms are non-family businesses. True many are large and they account for about 23% of sales but they are not what drives smaller farmers out of business. The biggest factor is time. Farmers are getting old and dying off and their kids are just not farming like their parents did. Blaming "big agriculture" just ignores the realities of the situation. Heck every time there is a new development on what used to be farm land it isn't because the business failed but the farmer retired or died and the kids sold the land off.

 

[breakingcontact]

OK...I also know "family farmers" who have done very well. They have done very well producing raw ingredients that have to be processed and results in unhealthy food, taking hundreds if not millions of dollars in subsidies and being beholden to the big agriculture companies.

 

[bones_708]

OK...I also know "family farmers" who have done very well. They have done very well producing raw ingredients that have to be processed and results in unhealthy food, taking hundreds if not millions of dollars in subsidies and being beholden to the big agriculture companies.

So your pissed that people grow and sell what people want to buy? Yep that makes sense.