Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

That guy's a pretty good shot!

Cool! Looks pricey! Hogs are the perfect animal to hunt. Not at all lovable and tasty! I have never tried hog.

Helihunting and canned hunting=fail.

Kreutz wrote:Helihunting and canned hunting=fail.

When you're out in a helicopter shooting 20 or 30 (or more) feral hogs that are destroying your property and your livelihood, it's not really hunting, it's "pest control".

allingeneral wrote:

Kreutz wrote:Helihunting and canned hunting=fail.

When you're out in a helicopter shooting 20 or 30 (or more) feral hogs that are destroying your property and your livelihood, it's not really hunting, it's "pest control".

Ditto!! I would pay to do that. Looks like a friken blast!

Now go back and get the hogs and donate the meat to the local homeless shelter or food bank.

allingeneral wrote:

Kreutz wrote:Helihunting and canned hunting=fail.

When you're out in a helicopter shooting 20 or 30 (or more) feral hogs that are destroying your property and your livelihood, it's not really hunting, it's "pest control".

Look like killing things for fun to me.

Plus isnt this why we subsidize farmers so much anyway?

Taggure wrote:Now go back and get the hogs and donate the meat to the local homeless shelter or food bank.

Nah, better to let it rot in the sun. I don;t know why so many of these people (farmers/ranchers) fancy themselves frontiersmen living in the gold rush times.

All I can say is, "DAMN". That shotgun had to be choked down tight. Looked like 000buck to me.

And one more thing, a subsidised farmer still has the right to protect his crop from this kind of damage. Obviously the ferral hogs weren't there to take pictures and sing a round row your boat. I say good on the farmers who took the iniative to do something about the problem instead of reporting to the nearest welfare department! Hell, I'd send them some ammo if they need it.

Kreutz wrote:Plus isnt this why we subsidize farmers so much anyway?

Different types of farmers get different types of subsidies. Without them, you would likely go hungry and you could add hundreds of millions of dollars more "outsourcing" to our already dismal economy. Keeping farmers in business within our borders is a smart move all the way around.

Different types of farmers get different types of subsidies. Without them, you would likely go hungry and you could add hundreds of millions of dollars more "outsourcing" to our already dismal economy.

Wait, you advocate government intervention into the economy and I don't? Did we suffer simultaneous head trauma?

Even the Heritage Foundation decries them:

http://www.heritage.org/research/commen ... llionaires

Washington spends more on corporate welfare than on homeland security -- and farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program. This year, as lawmakers rewrite the farm programs and push up their spending, they will invoke Norman Rockwell imagery to portray farm subsidies as a vital lifeboat for small, struggling family farmers. Don't believe a word of it.

Keeping farmers in business within our borders is a smart move all the way around.

So, taking away the fact "family farms" are almost non-existent...

Where are they going to go if we stop propping them up with tax dollars?

Mexico? I hear you can grow some cash crops there if you don't mind the high risk of being beheaded by narco assassins.

Worse they have to tolerate here is the occasional cow-tipping punk or financially ruinous lawsuit by Monsanto.

Taggure wrote:Now go back and get the hogs and donate the meat to the local homeless shelter or food bank.

I have to agree. That's basically free-range, organic pork there. Those farmers could sell the meat as such and make a profit. That means less dependence on subsidies, too. What's not to like?

If I lived in an area where there were feral hogs running all over the place, I'd learn how to clean and prepare them for the freezer. The leather is useful, too, same uses as cow leather. Waste not, want not.

Kreutz wrote:

Different types of farmers get different types of subsidies. Without them, you would likely go hungry and you could add hundreds of millions of dollars more "outsourcing" to our already dismal economy.

Wait, you advocate government intervention into the economy and I don't? Did we suffer simultaneous head trauma?

Even the Heritage Foundation decries them:

http://www.heritage.org/research/commen ... llionaires

Washington spends more on corporate welfare than on homeland security -- and farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program. This year, as lawmakers rewrite the farm programs and push up their spending, they will invoke Norman Rockwell imagery to portray farm subsidies as a vital lifeboat for small, struggling family farmers. Don't believe a word of it.

Keeping farmers in business within our borders is a smart move all the way around.

So, taking away the fact "family farms" are almost non-existent...

Where are they going to go if we stop propping them up with tax dollars?

Mexico? I hear you can grow some cash crops there if you don't mind the high risk of being beheaded by narco assassins.

Worse they have to tolerate here is the occasional cow-tipping punk or financially ruinous lawsuit by Monsanto.

I grew up on a 1500 acre farm. My dad made a good living at it, but he's nowhere near being a millionaire. I would guess he probably cleared about $80k per year. Keep in mind that the equipment that he leases from the local John Deere dealer can run as high a $300,000 for a good combine and more than $150k for a 4-wheel drive tractor capable of covering hundreds of acres within a few days.

Figure in seeds, fertilizer and weed control that is essentially a requirement in today's farm, and you're looking at over $100,000 just to put a crop in the ground. Then hope that it survives the long, dry summer so that you can spent thousands on diesel fuel to harvest it and hope to turn a profit.

Farm subsidies aren't quite as "welfare-ish" as some might think. Some of the subsidies are specifically to allow a farmer to leave some of his dirt "fallow" - no crop planted on it for a year, so we don't end up in another dust-bowl situation.

Those who complain about farm subsidies are very much in the dark about how much good they actually do for our country and our economy.

allingeneral wrote:I grew up on a 1500 acre farm. My dad made a good living at it, but he's nowhere near being a millionaire. I would guess he probably cleared about $80k per year. Keep in mind that the equipment that he leases from the local John Deere dealer can run as high a $300,000 for a good combine and more than $150k for a 4-wheel drive tractor capable of covering hundreds of acres within a few days.

I'm sorry to say your dads situation is yesteryear. Most farmland/operations is under the control of Cargill and Archer-Daniels-Midland.

On the meat production/processing side you have just four companies running the show. The family farm (barring a few organic and heritage outfits) is simply a dead business model.

Figure in seeds, fertilizer and weed control that is essentially a requirement in today's farm, and you're looking at over $100,000 just to put a crop in the ground. Then hope that it survives the long, dry summer so that you can spent thousands on diesel fuel to harvest it and hope to turn a profit.

I never said it wasn't cheap.

Farm subsidies aren't quite as "welfare-ish" as some might think. Some of the subsidies are specifically to allow a farmer to leave some of his dirt "fallow" - no crop planted on it for a year, so we don't end up in another dust-bowl situation.

Those who complain about farm subsidies are very much in the dark about how much good they actually do for our country and our economy.

Ah, but the rub is the conglomerates (ADM closed at $30.51 a share today) get the subsidies, and most of it too. The good they do is further enriching the few at the expense of the many....like everything Washington does.

Ladies, ladies, you're both right! Farming belongs to big agribusiness now because small family farms can't afford it without subsidies (and crippling debt). I, for one, am very glad my father opted not to continue the family business - farming is hard, and a lot more expensive than most realize.

As for the piggies, hot damn would I love to hunt them. Perfect application for a beltfed! It's kind of a shame we don't have many in Virginia, but I know the farmers are happy about that.

Kreutz wrote:

allingeneral wrote:I grew up on a 1500 acre farm. My dad made a good living at it, but he's nowhere near being a millionaire. I would guess he probably cleared about $80k per year. Keep in mind that the equipment that he leases from the local John Deere dealer can run as high a $300,000 for a good combine and more than $150k for a 4-wheel drive tractor capable of covering hundreds of acres within a few days.

I'm sorry to say your dads situation is yesteryear. Most farmland/operations is under the control of Cargill and Archer-Daniels-Midland.

On the meat production/processing side you have just four companies running the show. The family farm (barring a few organic and heritage outfits) is simply a dead business model.

Everyone I know where I grew up is still farming. Family farm business model's still working fine at the end of every hedge row. No feral pigs that I'm aware of though.

allingeneral wrote:Everyone I know where I grew up is still farming. Family farm business model's still working fine at the end of every hedge row.

Because of subsidies or because theyre genuinely viable and stand on their own?

I'm aware corn and soy prices are high so farmers are flush with cash right now, but I'm happy for the success of the individual farmers, but it is dead.

Theres a store a few miles form me that makes and sells horse saddles....yeah, there's a small market, but that industry effectively suffered a deathblow a century ago.

Kreutz wrote:

allingeneral wrote:Everyone I know where I grew up is still farming. Family farm business model's still working fine at the end of every hedge row.

Because of subsidies or because theyre genuinely viable and stand on their own?

Subsidies are a necessary part of the farm life - I won't disagree there. But to lump it all together and say that "ADM has taken over and gains too much from subsidies, so let's castrate the family farm so that ADM doesn't prosper as much from the subsidies that are provided" is ridiculous.

The point I'm trying to make is that farm subsidies are completely different than welfare "subsidies". People who run a farm for a living are hard-working people who take on a great deal of risk in order to help ensure that our country can "produce" - not just for our own use and consumption, but for export and trade. ADM, in this role, provides a great deal of wealth not only for themselves, but for our country as a whole.

People who are living on welfare take on very little risk and allow the government to support them for their entire lives while they make 14 more babies who will all be reliant upon the government system because that's what they grew up with. It's an endless cycle that will keep growing and growing until a stop is put to it. Refusing to get a job because you can make more money by doing nothing isn't a good precedent, but unfortunately, it's already been set.

I wonder how sore the guy's shoulder was at the end of it.

Subsidies are a necessary part of the farm life - I won't disagree there.

Why are they-your words-"necessary"? I would think, with my admittedly limited experience in backyard gardening the only thing a large scale farmer needs is what I need on a smaller scale, sun, soil (which he is likely killing with ppesticides and petroleum based fertilizers, but I digress), water, means to control pests, sow, harvest, and bring to market. This obviously requires capital, but so does every other single business activity on Earth.

But to lump it all together and say that "ADM has taken over and gains too much from subsidies, so let's castrate the family farm so that ADM doesn't prosper as much from the subsidies that are provided" is ridiculous.

Ah, interesting straw man there. Removing the subsidies doesn't "castrate" the family farmer; the trend towards conglomeration resulting in ADM and Cargill did that decades ago. Removing the subsidies also forces ADM and Cargill to operate without taxpayer support, mainly, it will force efficiencies on them they have not had to bother with, which can actually give the little guys (who see fractions of pennies for every dollar those two get in subsidies anyway) a shot at beating them on efficiency, which traditionally smaller scale enterprises have done better at compared to larger, slower companies.

Remember, Farmer Joe doesn't have to answer to four managers, a VP, a CEO, and a board of directors to do what he wants, the people at ADM do, so he can react to market fluctuations alot faster than they.

See for example Honeywell literally thrashing GE in the air conditioner market-they were more agile and responsive compared to GE's almost lumbering business model.

The point I'm trying to make is that farm subsidies are completely different than welfare "subsidies".

They are literally the same thing.

People who run a farm for a living are hard-working people who take on a great deal of risk

But...theyre subsidized, what risk really exists with that safety net?

in order to help ensure that our country can "produce" - not just for our own use and consumption, but for export and trade.

Huh, thats weird. I remember learning how subsidies are also used for artificial price controls. Remember the AAA?

You say they're paid to "produce", but we both know they also paid to not grow or destroy crops to keep supply lower and prices higher.

ADM, in this role, provides a great deal of wealth not only for themselves, but for our country as a whole.

I am not disputing the efficiency of large scale factory farming, just whether it should be propped up with taxpayer dollars.

People who are living on welfare take on very little risk and allow the government to support them for their entire lives while they make 14 more babies
who will all be reliant upon the government system because that's what they grew up with.

So welfare queens are just like farmers in that they too grow up in a culture of government dependency?

It's an endless cycle that will keep growing and growing until a stop is put to it. Refusing to get a job because you can make more money by doing nothing isn't a good precedent, but unfortunately, it's already been set.

Its funny, Clintons welfare reforms almost completely eliminated what you describe, yet the billions in "free" farmer money keeps flowing, why is that?

Couldnt be because Iowa figures so early in Presidential elections, or because of well paid lobbyists who'd never stoop so low as to touch manure with their manicured hands could it? Nah.