This is not addressing my point, but keep blaming city people.
And rural folks aren't bright enough to know about the market and by having so many of a particular animal you could cause the priec to collapse. And trees? How about consider the environment?
Revolts lmao...
My proposal: Eliminate farming subsidies and tariffs on food imports and other primary products. Lets see who is laughing now.
[Text: Removed by Moderator]
Yes, rural folks understand the market. Moron bureaucrats assume they don't.
And the rural folks know one hell of a lot more about the environment than anyone from outside. You know what the federal environmental rules have accomplished for this county? They destroy wetlands, ruin fishing, clog waterways, make forests at high risk for tree disease, encourage invasive species, turn natural native forest into dense tangles of imported vegetation, contribute to landslides....
The people here know what the land is like. All my life I've watched 'bright' government types with degrees and environmental education come in and decide how to do things, ignoring the advice of the locals, and down the line a dozen years watch it cost taxpayers millions (upwards of $30 mn in one case) before government critters realized it should have been done the way the locals already knew. Highways, bridges, dredging... it doesn't matter, the government screws it up and the locals pay -- like the recent two-year battle with FEMA and their expensive scientists doing a new flood-plain determination, which had places in a twenty-year flood zone that haven't had a flood in the memory even of the local tribes, and then millions of dollars in legal expenses to get it challenged and finally double--checked, only to find that those scientists never put a foot on the ground checking actual flood data! and that after assuring everyone that their figures were without error, learning half of it rested on a calibration error that had one side of a river flowing a meter higher than the other! That process cost millions, and in the end it came down to doing what the locals said in the first place: send engineers around with the landowners to look at past flood evidence, and go from there. After nearly ten million dollars wasted, they wised up and got it right.
Oh -- trees: farmers here would like to put in more trees. Thanks to regulations, they're not allowed to. That kind of idiocy is why one farmer decided he was just going to blow the dikes on his pasture and move (neighbors pointed out he'd better dike their fields first, because they weren't moving... which changed his mind).
And as for number of animals, the locals are a generation ahead of the government on that -- when the Dept. of Agr. came out with their latest critters per acre figures, everyone laughed, and the farmers co-ops got together to write letters telling the government to wise up and not allow so many animals per unit area, that they were doing it wrong by trying to calculate defecation and runoff, ground compression from hooves, and such, when they should have been asking the question of what population density provides for optimal health for the herd. The second answer is substantially lower than the guesstimates the government had.
