Suit to be Filed over C&H Hog Farm

[Half Ton]

Hear Hear.

I can't 100% agree that ALL CAFE's are bad, or Even that all in the Springfield Salem are bad - afterall there are many different types, sizes, and management and design standards to be considered.

Simply describing with the appropriate adjective of "large", "medium", or "small" makes an incredible difference. No doubt that these large operations can sometimes divide a community, and be problematic. Still yet, using the blanket statement of "always" or "will" can divide "outsiders".

Mitch, thanks for jumping in- I highly value your perspective and hope that you can agree that forming a "balanced", "inclusive", and "wholistic" watershed assessment and "watershed management plan" is the best way to get the BNRW protected adequately for the future.

I still have my doubts about the next 50-100 years though in terms of being able to do anything positive and acceptable to all in regards to WQ protection with the current approach and sole focus on one potential and perceived source of pollution.

Finding a way to work together is of the utmost importance. Anything less spells certain t-r-o-u-b-l-e for the river and As far as I can tell NOBODY wants that.

[Canoe_Codger]

CB, you did seem to read what I wrote with your stinger out, looking for "denegration" where there was none implied or intended. I do like cafes though. CAFOs not so much. Though there are places they can be built without the environmental impact possible at the location of the C&H/Cargill operation.

I don't think I ever said that "locals" wanted the dam or lake (I alluded to the pie-in-the-sky promises made by proponents). Just that without the actions of "outsiders", the "locals" never would have fended off the efforts of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. I was young, but I gave my voice and what few dollars I could muster to the effort to defeat the dam. And like it or not, the dam would only have been postponed until folk's backs were turned if the BNR had not been formed.

Yes, I have said before that I am aware of the sacrifices that were forced upon local landowners and the nefarious deeds of the person in charge of the land taking. Unfortunately, all of that was kept from the public at large as well as the individual landholders until after the deeds were done. It was extremely poorly handled is an understatement. By the way, my 3,000 acres of farmland that my grandfather and father toiled over for many years (and the homes they built themselves) is also gone thanks to the gummit. So I know how that feels.

Most of my response is in regards to the repeated denegration of "outsiders". Only one writer here mentioned the term "hilbilly" and it certainly wasn't me. It is really very counterproductive regarding the BNR and the CAFO. Both are funded by federal dollars from Alaska, Puerto RIco, Arkansas, Tennessee and the rest of the 56 states. And regardless of how it came about 40 years ago, the BNR now belongs to Americans, not just locals. More than 300 million of us.

[ieatcrayons]

no the hillbilly term was ME. very realistic here. speaking from, be leave it or not realistic experiences. but the only finger i was pointing to the well said reply. its nice to see that opinion on the web page. i think it is sorely missed and its one reason why i do not post much or float much with the people in this forum. so again.. do not miss understand what i am saying. the last thing i want to do is start another round of misunderstanding. i'm sure everyone on here has nothing but the best of intentions. and i mean that.

[gma06001-]

John, we can definitely agree that "forming a "balanced", "inclusive", and "wholistic" watershed assessment and "watershed management plan" is the best way to get the BNRW protected adequately for the future." Saying that, I disagree completely that depending solely on that future management plan, and letting this "one time" slip through the cracks is the best route to take with this CAFO. If the future management plan is "wholistic" and "inclusive" as you're describing, then it should start with changing some of the details of this farm, whether that is reducing the number of animals at the location, changing the location of the farm, or changing the location of where the manure is spread. Personally, I wish the last one wasn't even an option, because that is just another watershed that will be affected. I am not unrealistic and I know that compromises must be made, and people MUST work together, no matter how their opinions differ, or else nothing gets done.

As for the discussion about land being taken and who determines what is best for what land, I am empathetic to a point. I am a landowner, and so is my dad. To think of anyone ever taking our land or regulating how we use it does sound frustrating, however, I would never do anything to harm a resource used by so many others, period, and I fully support the regulation of land use when it can directly affect water quality of a federally protected resource. I regularly argue with my own dad about how he manages his land, whether its about pesticide use or how he grazes cattle (although the cattle argument was won easily when my prediction was correct and all his beautiful creeks and springs started turning green with algae in the summer). I understand that people want to be able to do whatever they want with land that they own, but I work in river restoration and see first hand the mistakes people are making EVERY DAY. People fight us tooth and nail to do things their way, and then we are stuck with the cleanup once they realize, "oh sh*t, that's exactly what they said was going to happen." The rivers are in bad shape, and I'm surprised that more people aren't fighting this CAFO. It is so much easier to keep clean rivers clean then to try and fix them after they are screwed up.

CB, this may be a small problem in the grand scheme of things, but the best and only way to change the grand scheme is to work on the small problems one at a time. Letting all the small problems slip through because they don't seem important is essentially doing nothing to help. We can't afford to be stagnant, we have to start somewhere.

I know for sure that it is not too late to change things. Big Business can, and has, made large scale changes to their operations in the right direction. There is a reason that Tyson chicken pulled basically all of their sponsored farms off of the Springfield and Salem plateaus (* hint Wal-Mart). All of this brought about by negative publicity. On a side note guess who is the largest buyer of Cargill products? Yes, Wal-Mart. Who knows what will happen in the end, but I surely hope it is in the best interest of the river.

Mitch Allen

[Half Ton]

I work in 3 different 8 - digit huc's each day with landowners to encourage their use of BMPs to help protect water quality, so I've for some pretty keen insight on how to get folks to do good things the first time around.

I've certainly learned from having a few poor approaches, where I had to wait a year or two, with people to get them o do good things. In this case I see the poor approach having longer impacts interns of time delay before "buy-in" will be able to happen. Without buy-in it is hard to get folks to the table, and their is a large lack of balance and inclusion and wholistic in this current effort.

That's why we'll have to agree to disagree on one key point here Mitch. Mad respect to you, regardless, and I am glad that we can agree that an all inclusive, balanced, wholistic, science and watershed modeling based 9 element watershed management plan is the best way to go about protecting the BNR for a long time to come.

Rural sociology and anthropology of the culture is a major factor that is not being appreciated here, and with the current approach that is where the long term time lag is going to take place. If I could here the opposition at least admit to being polluters themselves, and own up their part of negative impacts to the river then I could stomach their position a little more easy. Also I'd many weren't Still eating lots o cafo food, I could stomach the approach better. I personally like to know where my food comes from, but you either have to pay more for it or raise it your self to do that. Not everyone can, or is willing to do that though.

Also, if more people would start farming again then we would not need as many animals to be raised in fewer places by fewer farmers. So their are many ways to address the source of the issue as well as the symptoms.

It's a tough one to solve, and well see what happens. Thanks for all you do Mitch, and keep up the good work.

John