Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 7/14/2014 5:07:12 AM EDT
Just passing this on:


We will soon have a unique opportunity to change the Constitution of the State of Missouri to protect your Right to Farm.  We will only get one shot at this.  If we fail, we can expect an outbreak of legislative proposals and litigation that could severely restrict the way you farm.  So, we need to bring out every positive vote that we can find!



With that in mind, please be active and engaged in encouraging others to vote YES on Amendment 1 on August 5.  You can read the ballot language here; http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/HJRNos117.pdf And you can read the full text of the Right to Farm Amendment here ( in bold face type);  http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/billpdf/truly/HJR0011T.PDF



This voter education webpage is also a one stop point of information for the Right to Farm Amendment; http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right-to-Farm,_Amendment_1_(August_2014)
View Quote


Hotlink to last link above
Link Posted: 7/14/2014 8:12:02 AM EDT
[#1]
The first time I read the ballot language, I felt I would support it EVEN though I don't generally like messing with the constitution.

Honestly however, the fact that Monsanto is in favor of it gives me pause.  I will have to do further research.  I also have. concern regarding genetically modified crops which I have seen mentioned in regard to this amendment.  I do NOT want to unknowingly protect their use or cultivation.
Link Posted: 7/14/2014 8:38:01 AM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I also have. concern regarding genetically modified crops which I have seen mentioned in regard to this amendment.  I do NOT want to unknowingly protect their use or cultivation.
View Quote


What, exactly, are your concerns? We have been genetically modifying foods since the dawn of agriculture.
Link Posted: 7/14/2014 8:54:18 AM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 7/14/2014 2:25:19 PM EDT
[#4]

If we fail, we can expect an outbreak of legislative proposals and litigation that could severely restrict the way you farm.  So, we need to bring out every positive vote that we can find!
View Quote


If this is true, why haven't we already seen said outbreak?
Link Posted: 7/15/2014 1:22:21 AM EDT
[#5]
No.  It's simply a legal leverage point that will be exploited by those with the legal teams - corporate ag - to define and interpret it as they see fit, while those without the resources to challenge it will be forced to comply with whatever those definitions turn out to be. It's way too vague and open-ended to even consider enshrining in the state's Constitution.

You already have the right to farm in Missouri, and it has the same legal protection as any other industry in the state.  Conflict resolution needs to be flexible and based on the specific circumstances and local environment, not subject to the broad brush of a constitutional amendment.
Link Posted: 7/15/2014 3:24:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.  It's simply a legal leverage point that will be exploited by those with the legal teams - corporate ag - to define and interpret it as they see fit, while those without the resources to challenge it will be forced to comply with whatever those definitions turn out to be. It's way too vague and open-ended to even consider enshrining in the state's Constitution.

You already have the right to farm in Missouri, and it has the same legal protection as any other industry in the state.  Conflict resolution needs to be flexible and based on the specific circumstances and local environment, not subject to the broad brush of a constitutional amendment.
View Quote

This is how I feel too.
Link Posted: 7/16/2014 2:20:14 AM EDT
[#7]
FHSUS
I'm pretty much against anything the HSUS represents.  Keep in mind, we would all be vegetarians and no one could ever own a pet if the HSUS keeps having thier way like they did a few years ago with the puppy mill legislation that didn't do a single thing to protect animal welfare except create a new branch of gov oversight.
Practically every farming organization supports this and I look at this as simply a tool to prevent frivilous legislation and lawsuits against farmers; you know kinda like how MO SHOULD pass legislation to prevent outsiders from influencing our gun laws.

Opponents

Officials
Sen. Rob Schaaf (R-34)

Former officials
Joe Maxwell, former Lieutenant Governor of Missouri

Organizations
Missouri Farmers Union
Missouri's Food for America
Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation
Missourians for the Protection of Farmers against CAFOs
Humane Society of the United States
Missouri Association for Social Welfare (MASW)[15]
View Quote


Supporters

Officials[7]

Rep. Bill Reiboldt (R-160), primary sponsor
Rep. Jason Smith (R-120), cosponsor
Rep. Bill Lant (R-159), cosponsor
Rep. Warren Love (R-125), cosponsor
Rep. Kenneth Wilson (R-12), cosponsor
Rep. Chris Kelly (D-45), cosponsor
Rep. Paul Wieland (R-112), cosponsor
Rep. Bryan Spencer (R-63), cosponsor
Rep. Jim Hansen (R-40), cosponsor
Rep. Nate Walker (R-3), cosponsor
U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4)
Speaker of the House Tim Jones (R-110)
Sen. Brian Munzlinger (R-18)
Sen. Mike Parson (R-28)
Majority Floor Leader Rep. John Diehl (R-89)
Rep. Jay Houghton (R-43)
Rep. Ed Schieffer (D-41)
Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-2)
Rep. Sue Entlicher (R-128)
Rep. Linda Black (D-117)
Rep. Dave Schatz (R-61)
Rep. Tony Dugger (R-141)
Rep. Lyndall Fraker (R-137)
Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-49)
Rep. Caleb Jones (R-50)
Rep. Lyle Rowland (R-155)
Rep. Rocky Miller (R-124)
Rep. Diane Franklin (R-123)
Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R-108)
Rep. Donna Pfautsch (R-33)
Rep. Delus Johnson (R-9)
Rep. Lincoln Hough (R-135)
Rep. Tim Remole (R-6)
Rep. Don Phillips (R-138)
Rep. Craig Redmon (R-4)
Rep. Kent Hampton (R-150)
Rep. Wanda Brown (R-57)
Rep. Caleb Rowden (R-44)
Rep. Sonya Anderson (R-131)
Attorney General Chris Koster (D)[9]

Agricultural organizations[10][7][11]



Missouri Farmers Care
Monsanto
Cargill
Missouri Corn Growers Association
Missouri Soybeans
Missouri Farm Bureau
Missouri Cattlemen's Association
MFA Incorporated
Missouri Pork Association
FCS Financial
Missouri Veterinary Medical Association
Missouri Dairy Association
Hunte Corporation
Missouri Egg Council
Missouri Equine Council
MoFed, Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
Missouri Sheep Producers
SouthWestern Association
United Producers, Inc.
Missouri Vocational Agriculture Teachers Association
MO-AG, Missouri Agribusiness Association
The Poultry Federation
St. Louis Agribusiness Club
Missouri Levee & Drainage District Association
Missouri Association of Meat Processors
Protect the Harvest

Other organizations[7]
Missouri Family Network
MFA Oil
Missouri Grocers Association
Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives
United All Breed Registry
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/16/2014 5:28:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Sorry, I don't want corporate protection written I to the. State constitution.
Link Posted: 7/16/2014 9:57:46 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.  It's simply a legal leverage point that will be exploited by those with the legal teams - corporate ag - to define and interpret it as they see fit, while those without the resources to challenge it will be forced to comply with whatever those definitions turn out to be. It's way too vague and open-ended to even consider enshrining in the state's Constitution.

You already have the right to farm in Missouri, and it has the same legal protection as any other industry in the state.  Conflict resolution needs to be flexible and based on the specific circumstances and local environment, not subject to the broad brush of a constitutional amendment.
View Quote


Very well said.
Link Posted: 7/16/2014 10:25:22 AM EDT
[#10]
Link Posted: 7/17/2014 10:14:53 AM EDT
[#11]
All your animal rights groups are against this bill. They do not want anyone raising farm animals
regardless of the use, pets or food. Also anyone who has a any type of beef against a farmer.
Example, the smell of the feed lots, the tax breaks they may get to the way they utilize the roadway.
Big cities are encroaching into the rural  areas and some family who has farmed for years now has
someone build a house adjacent to the farm dislike the smell or the cows mooing, chickens clucking or what ever
files a law suit against them. This shit is happening all the time to our farmers. This bill will help
eliminate some of this crap.
Link Posted: 7/17/2014 9:05:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
All your animal rights groups are against this bill. They do not want anyone raising farm animals
regardless of the use, pets or food. Also anyone who has a any type of beef against a farmer.
Example, the smell of the feed lots, the tax breaks they may get to the way they utilize the roadway.
Big cities are encroaching into the rural  areas and some family who has farmed for years now has
someone build a house adjacent to the farm dislike the smell or the cows mooing, chickens clucking or what ever
files a law suit against them. This shit is happening all the time to our farmers. This bill will help
eliminate some of this crap.
View Quote


Right, but it sounds like it does a lot more than protect farmers from frivolous lawsuits.
Link Posted: 7/18/2014 3:36:52 AM EDT
[#13]
The vegans have already gotten thier way with outlawing sow crates and chicken cages in a few states, based completely on emotional feelgood legislation which has no scientific basis.  Guess what happened to those industries in those states?

Look what happened to horse welfare after the vegans had their way about horse slaughter.  (Fortunately the tide is changing on this matter.)

For those worried about corporate influences, America couldn't start to feed our own population without some of the advances they've come up with, let alone exporting food.  If it's mega farms you're worried about, trust me, I've seen how some small hobby farms handle stuff like diseases and animal sickness, always trying thier old fashioned remedies, (some of which are actually outlawed), and it's not a pretty sight in many instances.

Like I already said, we're fighting people that want to give all animals the same rights as humans, so be prepared to stop eating bacon, chicken, eggs, etc.

Link Posted: 7/18/2014 3:52:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.  It's simply a legal leverage point that will be exploited by those with the legal teams - corporate ag vegans and other animal rights groups - to define and interpret it as they see fit, while those without the resources to challenge it will be forced to comply with whatever those definitions turn out to be. It's way too vague and open-ended to even consider enshrining in the state's Constitution.

You already have the right to farm in Missouri, and it has the same legal protection as any other industry in the state.  Conflict resolution needs to be flexible and based on the specific circumstances and local environment, not subject to the broad brush of a constitutional amendment.
View Quote


See how that works if you substitute corporate ag with HSUS and PETA?

Your flexible conflict resolution plan currently leaves the book wide open for bunny-hugging liberals to harrass us any time they get a whim to do so.


Link Posted: 7/18/2014 7:39:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The vegans have already gotten thier way with outlawing sow crates and chicken cages in a few states, based completely on emotional feelgood legislation which has no scientific basis.  Guess what happened to those industries in those states?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The vegans have already gotten thier way with outlawing sow crates and chicken cages in a few states, based completely on emotional feelgood legislation which has no scientific basis.  Guess what happened to those industries in those states?


What happened? Genuinely curious, because this kind of thing shouldn't happen.


For those worried about corporate influences, America couldn't start to feed our own population without some of the advances they've come up with, let alone exporting food.


That's pretty much bullshit. Between government subsidies and ethanol, the market is so distorted in favor of corn and soy, and grain-fed meat it's ridiculous. If you would remove market distortions, I think the price of corn and soy would rise to a "real" level, enabling farmers to still make a profit with lower yields. The commodity price of corn and grain-fed beef would rise, allowing natural farming methods to be more competitive. Oh, and getting rid of market distortions might just help balance the cost of food categories a little, and encourage a better diet among the poor. This obesity problem isn't exactly getting any better, ya know.
Link Posted: 7/18/2014 11:41:44 AM EDT
[#16]
I tend to lean away from anything the "Big AG" corporations support.
Link Posted: 7/18/2014 12:26:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Bottom line.
Big ag and capitalistic farming or government feelgood legislation influenced by liberal bunny huggers. Take your pick.  





Link Posted: 7/18/2014 12:47:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


See how that works if you substitute corporate ag with HSUS and PETA?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
No.  It's simply a legal leverage point that will be exploited by those with the legal teams - corporate ag vegans and other animal rights groups - to define and interpret it as they see fit, while those without the resources to challenge it will be forced to comply with whatever those definitions turn out to be. It's way too vague and open-ended to even consider enshrining in the state's Constitution.


See how that works if you substitute corporate ag with HSUS and PETA?


I'm not seeing your point, I guess.  Are you saying the PETAphiles already have an unfair advantage in the legal system?  Or, that should this amendment pass, they'll be the ones to benefit from it?  Or...??

Before I give the wrong impression, I'm no supporter of the HS, PETA, and their ilk. I've been involved with agriculture my entire adult life, and they piss me off too.  They could be the poster child(ren) for the liberal foolishness that is bringing this country to its knees.  I just believe there's more to this amendment than making life uncomfortable for them.

bafordman:
midmo:
You already have the right to farm in Missouri, and it has the same legal protection as any other industry in the state.  Conflict resolution needs to be flexible and based on the specific circumstances and local environment, not subject to the broad brush of a constitutional amendment.


Your flexible conflict resolution plan currently leaves the book wide open for bunny-hugging liberals to harrass us any time they get a whim to do so.


Farmers in Missouri are already on firm legal ground, which is all it should take.  A constitutional amendment really isn't going to add much weight to that.  The attacks by the bunnyhuggers won't stop, they'll just start coming in from another angle.  Meanwhile, we've given corporate ag (of which I am not a fan, obviously) more power to do whatever they want, wherever they want.  Wanna set up a swine facility in the middle of Columbia?  "It's my constitutional right, dammit!"  Feedlot draining into Lake of the Ozarks?  Go for it, it's your constitutional right!

Of course those are exaggerated and unlikely examples, and there are existing laws to prevent that from happening.  But that's kind of my point; there are laws, not constitutional amendments, which let us fine-tune what goes where and who does what without subjecting people in different situations, different environments, to a standardized law that makes no sense for a specific, unique situation.

I don't know what the solution to the animal rights bozos is, but I don't think it's a vague, undefined one-liner added to the state Constitution.  My real thoughts on how they should be handled are not COC-compliant here.


Link Posted: 7/19/2014 8:01:35 AM EDT
[#19]
http://wolfcreekfamilyfarm.com/vote-no-on-missouri-amendment-1-right-to-harm-not-right-to-farm/

http://truthfarmer.com/2013/02/17/deception-danger-right-to-farm-missouri-alert/

http://votenoon1.com/

http://votenoon1.com/the-facts/

I'm voting No on this one. This has nothing to do with family owned farms in MO and everything to do with Monsanto manipulating the Missouri Constitution in their favor.

Link Posted: 7/20/2014 8:26:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Practically every state farming association in Missouri supports the bill.  Apparently there are a lot of city folks have the misconception that Monsanto and Cargill are the sole contributors to those associations.

For those that hate Monsanto, I'd love to see some examples of what they've done to hurt Missouri agriculture.  

Link Posted: 7/20/2014 1:46:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Practically every state farming association in Missouri supports the bill.  Apparently there are a lot of city folks have the misconception that Monsanto and Cargill are the sole contributors to those associations.

For those that hate Monsanto, I'd love to see some examples of what they've done to hurt Missouri agriculture.

View Quote


Roundup.

"But wait!  Glyphosate has revolutionized modern agriculture! It's the best thing that ever happened to farming!"

What Roundup has done has made the entire industry dependent on a single (questionable) farming practice, like addicts slurping up the latest chemical de jour. And as with the overuse of antibiotics in medicine, we're about to find out that just maybe we weren't being so clever after all.  Now that we've basically contaminated the commercial food supply with genetically modified products created to be resistant to Roundup, the weeds have caught on... and farmers are, or will soon be, scrambling to learn and apply new production methods and different chemicals because - oops! - Roundup doesn't work any more.

Fair warning:  I personally am totally against GMO's (surprise!) and what I consider unnatural farming methods that attempt to squeeze more production out of an acre of farmland than it will naturally support.  I've been in this argument more than once here on Arfcom, and it's pretty much like politics or religion... I'm not gonna sway your opinions, and you're not gonna sway mine, and it usually doesn't end well.  I really don't want to go there in Hometown (or anywhere else, for that matter), so forgive me if I'm reluctant to dive further into a point-for-point debate.  I don't have all the answers anyway, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I do think we have serious problems with the ag production model in this country right now, and it is quite possibly the single most important threat we face as a society.  And no, I'm not a hippie, Luddite, treehugger, or even (~gasp!~) a liberal.  I'm just a regular guy who grows his own veggies because I think it's stupid to buy a tomato grown and shipped halfway around the world when I can step out the back door and pick one that's infinitely better.

We are meddling with things that are best left un-meddled with.
Link Posted: 7/20/2014 3:33:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What Roundup has done has made the entire industry dependent on a single (questionable) farming practice, like addicts slurping up the latest chemical de jour. And as with the overuse of antibiotics in medicine, we're about to find out that just maybe we weren't being so clever after all.  Now that we've basically contaminated the commercial food supply with genetically modified products created to be resistant to Roundup, the weeds have caught on... and farmers are, or will soon be, scrambling to learn and apply new production methods and different chemicals because - oops! - Roundup doesn't work any more.
View Quote


About 5 years ago, I heard Roundup-resistant weeds were starting to show up in cotton fields in the boot heel. I've been wondering how that's panning out by now...
Link Posted: 7/21/2014 2:42:22 AM EDT
[#23]
That makes me wonder who is genetically messing with the weeds.  

As far as that goes, who was genetically messing with the weeds that were resistant to certain herbicides pre-Roundup when farmers would spray with assorted other herbicides multiple times per year?  Of course there was a lot more cultivating and plowing fields back in the old days to take care of weeds.  The downside of that was massive amounts of farmground lost to erosion.

The truth of the matter is that mother nature naturally modifies genes on an ongoing basis and has done so since the beginning of time.  For example, from what I was taught the world didn't always have polled cattle. It was a simple gene mutation and then concentrated breeding that brought us non-horned cattle.  I see genetic modifications in deer everyday that nowadays allows twins to be commonplace whereas it was very rare years ago.

AFAIK, nowadays when a Roundup ready field pops up with glyphosate resistant weeds, farmers simply go back to the old way and reapply with whatever other herbicide specifically targets the problem weed.  This also goes so far as treating broadleaf/soybean fields with general grass herbicides when they're overpopulated with last years Roundup resistant corn and visa versa for corn fields.  

My boss has stated that it's costing about another 17 dollars per acre to treat one specific roundup resistant weed in their corn fields on top of what they were doing in years past.  However the overall herbicide applications are still less than what it would be without using Roundup ready seeds.  Remember, back in the pre Roundup ready days, there was both preemergant and postemergant herbicides used sometimes multiple times a year so, if anything, Monsanto has helped Missouri farmers vastly increase yields and improved food safety in general, IMO.

As for the risks to food safety associated with GMO foods, the general consensus in the scientific world is that there is no proof that it is detrimental in any way.  Further evidence of this is the fact that livestock which eat virtually only GMO grains live longer, healthier, more productive lives than ever before.

See, one of the biggest reasons we need to pass this amendment is to prevent legislation and litigation based solely on emotional uneducated influences. Farmers are the true food production professionals and we strive to do literally everything we do based on scientifically proven principles.

Animal rights groups have completely annihilated pig production industries in FL and CA through the passage of feelgood legislation that outlawed individual housing of sows.  They also completely annihilated the horse industry nationwide with feelgood legislation that outlawed horse slaughter with the end result only being less humane treatment of horses due to no places left to take them for slaughter plus the entire horse slaughter industry was handed over to our competition in neighboring countries.  (Miraculously, enough lawmakers finally got educated enough to see the big picture and overturn that ban and our horse industry is possibly going to get turned around in the right direction.)

One way this personally hits close to home for me is that we are undergoing a trend in the pig business to move sows from individual stalls to group housing.  I've raised pigs all my life on everything from dirt lots to fully crated facilities.  For those that have never seen sows grouped there will always be about at least 20% of sows picked on, starved, and injured by competition to the point that the losses way exceed what happens when sows are individually fed a perfectly balanced diet in their own safe environmentally optimized space.  The loss conditions are the exact same regardless of whether there are 5 sows in a pen or 50, although the percent losses is usually higher the smaller the number in the group is.  I've recently toured farms with group housing and even though I was brought up though the period that it was commonplace, I am now disgusted by the condition of sows raised in that manner but this is what the ignorant fools say is best without one single bit of actual experience.  Although all scientific data proves that individual housing is the safest and least stressful for sows, that system is being demonized by folks that haven't got a clue what is the most humane way to raise them.  You can bet that if the door is left open, these people will make things less humane for our livestock and hand another huge share of our food production over to competing countries.

We already have plenty of animal welfare, nuisance, and antipollution laws and CAFO's are all heavily regulated and monitored.  

To me it's the exact same as gun laws. I don't want outside special interest liberals telling responsible, legal farmers and/or gun owners what we should do just because something looks or sounds icky.

[/rant]
Link Posted: 7/23/2014 9:14:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Fair warning:  I personally am totally against GMO's (surprise!) and what I consider unnatural farming methods that attempt to squeeze more production out of an acre of farmland than it will naturally support.  I've been in this argument more than once here on Arfcom, and it's pretty much like politics or religion... I'm not gonna sway your opinions, and you're not gonna sway mine, and it usually doesn't end well.  I really don't want to go there in Hometown (or anywhere else, for that matter), so forgive me if I'm reluctant to dive further into a point-for-point debate.  I don't have all the answers anyway, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I do think we have serious problems with the ag production model in this country right now, and it is quite possibly the single most important threat we face as a society.  And no, I'm not a hippie, Luddite, treehugger, or even (~gasp!~) a liberal.  I'm just a regular guy who grows his own veggies because I think it's stupid to buy a tomato grown and shipped halfway around the world when I can step out the back door and pick one that's infinitely better.

We are meddling with things that are best left un-meddled with.
View Quote


I'm sorry - but that is very naive way to look at things. You do realize that the original rise and growth of man and civilization began with agriculture and the meddling of man? You realized everything you are growing in your natural garden has been tampered with by man? You realize that we couldn't feed America and the rest of the world with out the high yield crops that came out of the first Green Revolution?

Enjoy corn? Thank genetic modification. God didn't make corn, he made a grass called teosinte. Man made maize and corn.

You have a  point about weeds evolving to tolerate Roundup, but herbicides are needed in large scale production. If it wasn't roundup, it would be something else. Perhaps having a variety of herbicides and rotating their use would help reduce tolerant weeds.

But in general GMOs are a big bad boogey man that most people can't articulate what dangers they are even actually afraid of.

Link Posted: 7/23/2014 11:40:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'm sorry - but that is very naive way to look at things. You do realize that the original rise and growth of man and civilization began with agriculture and the meddling of man?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fair warning:  I personally am totally against GMO's (surprise!)


I'm sorry - but that is very naive way to look at things. You do realize that the original rise and growth of man and civilization began with agriculture and the meddling of man?


Sure, I know all that. I've got a degree in agriculture (not that I put all that much stock in academic credentials), and I've been on both sides of the fence at some point in my life.  Where I settled was that science simply doesn't hold all the answers, and sometimes you've got to go with your gut.

There's a vast difference between natural (or "encouraged") selection/mutation/hybridization and what's going on in Monsanto's labs.  Of course genetics change over time naturally - I also believe in evolution and natural selection, if that makes anybody feel any better .  But we are, perhaps irreversibly, changing the face of agriculture to a point where it *cannot* go back to natural methods and still feed the world.  You make this same point yourself, but see it as an advantage, rather than a downside.  To me, that's extremely dangerous, because when suddenly the new methods fail - and they will fail, as we may be beginning to see - we may well not be able to recover in time.  Not before a whole buncha' people starve, anyway.

I'm not anti-science, or even above doing a little ag experimentation myself.  Hell, I lopped the heads off a bunch of tomato plants and Frankenstein'ed them onto other plants for my garden this year... something that most decidedly isn't going to happen in nature.  But I am strongly against burning bridges; backing ourselves into an ecological corner with no fallback plan.

I do hold some other unorthodox opinions that don't do my credibility any good in some circles.  For one, I don't think we should be feeding as many people as we are.  There are simply too many of us here, and I believe we're architecting our own demise.  I think mega-cities are bad; humans are not hive societies, particularly when the main population body is basically parasitizing the rest of the population. I think we should all have to pay the full, legitimate price for food, without federal subsidies or other artificial price controls.  And I believe in "local agriculture" - with exceptions for things like bananas, citrus fruits, etc. that simply won't grow everywhere, there's little reason to consume something that wasn't produced within a hundred miles of your home.

I'm very hesitant to get too deeply into these discussions, because they usually turn sour pretty quickly.  I hear what you and bafordman are saying, and I respect your opinions and recognize that you are in the majority.  But being in the minority has never stopped me from coming to my own conclusions for better or worse.  I also appreciate that you've both argued this civilly (not a singe eye-rolly smiley yet!) and taken the time to present well thought-out and, I admit, generally accepted viewpoints.  I just don't happen to agree... one of the few freedoms that hasn't been stripped from us.  Yet.

This debate has been going on at a national, if not global scale for many years now.  We're not going to settle it in a one-page thread on a gun forum, and folks will probably still be sparring over it long after I'm dead and gone.  The original topic - the Right to Farm Amendment - may be innocent enough or possibly even a great thing for Missouri farmers.  But it holds tremendous potential for abuse, and I just think if we're out to target those who would unfairly (and emotionally) go to battle with modern ag practices, there are more focused ways to go about it.  I don't believe the lawsuits or attacks will go away, they'll just change their tone and strategy.  Many of their tactics are probably already illegal, and as we've seen with virtually every issue that gains this much traction (including the drug war and gun rights), stronger laws or more legislation seldom help.  They only serve to increase government involvement, which typically hurts more than it helps.

Now, let the flames commence...  

Link Posted: 7/24/2014 2:34:08 PM EDT
[#26]
I'd like to comment more later tonight.

But I will mention my grandpa was a master tree grafter. He would have like 5+ varieties of pecans on one tree.
Link Posted: 7/24/2014 4:56:33 PM EDT
[#27]
I did herbicide application for 26 years, both before , during and after RR crops.

I PERSONALLY used/applied 6-8000 gallons per year, and before and NOW after, there are over 5X MORE chem applied than when Rup worked 100%
Before Rup, I regularly used 5-7 chemicals in a tank mix to kill weeds, during the heyday of Rup, I used 2, Rup and one other mode of action chem, to help prevent resistance. It came ANYWAY.

JUST like BEFORE Rup, there were chem resistant weeds, use Rup, weeds ADAPT, many farmers are moving away from Rup, weeds WILL adapt to any new chemistry as well.
They are WEEDS, that is what they do, and always will

There is only ONE 100% SURE way to kill a weed - IRON.  But that is not feasible, never will be, energy is too  costly.

The Monsanto is the DEBIL threads/comments are as idiotic, as they are sadly funny .
Link Posted: 8/4/2014 3:08:38 PM EDT
[#28]
no one is really pointing out that "farmer" and "rancher" is not defined...the following court case on it (there will be due to how vague this thing is) could easily rule that either must have X amount of acreage to qualify.  have a half acre in town and grow tomatoes to sell at the local farmers market as a little side thing...too bad you have no protection because you may not be classified as a farmer therefore you cant produce food for others.  got a couple of chickens for fresh eggs for your self and to sell to co workers when there is extra? you may have to have 20 acres to qualify for constitutional protection.  i don't see any ware ware it states "Missouri citizens"  but on the misleading ballot.  hell the amendment makes NO distinction between a Missouri farmer tending to cattle on his land or over seas pink slime manufacturer that wants to open (how ever they make it) shop next to conservation hunting lands...the only fix after this thing is the courts for all the definitions and he who spends the most usually gets their way in court.  and on another note " duly authorized powers" sounds real swell...   don't cite the "if any" because when have any government when given the option to control something, and set up a department for its control, do they pass on it? as with all things, if it is no protected, then it will be prohibited.


this whole thing stinks of : who dose it protect? why the farmers and ranchers.  how?  "we will tell you later".  who is a farmer or rancher?  "we will tell you later"  what abuses and hardships will it resolve?  "we will tell you later".




Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri's economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri's economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.[5]


now if it read Missouri agriculture which provides......the right of Missouri farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching...forever protected for the people of Missouri.....pending local ordnance.... yada yada...  


well then we would have something i would love to vote for...but what this is?  no way.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top