News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 US farmers vow to fight back against activists 

US farmers vow to fight back against activists

11 Jan, 2010 03:17 PM
American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman has issued a call to action to members and a stern warning to critics that farmers and ranchers will no longer tolerate opponents' efforts to change the landscape of American agriculture.

Mr Stallman was speaking at the organisation’s annual meeting in Seattle, Washington, at which he called on Farm Bureau members to rally as one during these challenging times.

Stallman said there were too many external forces tugging at agriculture’s seams without farmers and ranchers being divided amongst themselves.

“Emotionally charged labels such as monoculture, factory farmer, industrial food, and big ag threaten to fray our edges,” said Stallman. “We must not allow the activists and self-appointed and self-promoting food experts to drive a wedge between us.”

Stallman said that Farm Bureau continues to represent all farmers and ranchers, no matter their size of farm, commodity raised or political philosophy.

Farmers' missions of feeding the nation and the world, caring for the environment and respecting neighbors’ rights have not changed from when AFBF was founded in 1919.

But the ways in which farmers and ranchers carry out their mission have changed, said Stallman, which is not understood or respected by critics of modern agriculture.

“A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule,” said Stallman. “The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”

Stallman said curtailing such “power grabs” has never been as critical as it is now because of the poor economy, a growing population and legislative and regulatory efforts that threaten agriculture’s ability to feed the world.

“At the very time we need to increase our food production, climate change legislation threatens to slash our ability to do so,” said Stallman. “The world will continue to depend on food from the United States. To throttle back our ability to produce food—at a time when the United Nations projects billions of more mouths to feed - is a moral failure.”

Climate legislation currently in the US Congress would shift as much as 59 million acres of food production into forestry, which is equivalent to setting aside every acre of land used for crop and food production in California, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Stallman concluded by recalling a quote by General George Patton: “Make your plans to fit the circumstances.

“Our adversaries are skillful at taking advantage of our politeness. Publicly, they call for friendly dialogue while privately their tactics are far from that.

“To those who expect to just roll over America’s farm and ranch families, my only message is this: the circumstances have changed.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Wake up all farmers out there! The Peter Spencer saga is just the tip of the iceberg to the decimation of farming as we all have known it. It is apparent the the NFF and NSW Farmers along with other states' similar organisations are not working hard enough to combat this spreading cancer of denial of the right to farm as we all have done in our own way. Get out there and stop the agitating groups from destroying the way you farm and live. Your actions will shape the future of farming.
Posted by Retired Farmer, 11/01/2010 5:05:03 PM
I would have to agree with the sentiment of this article. It is time to take these people on. Organisations can only work within their budgets, lack of membership reduces the capacity of these organisations. The message in this article to pull together to confront a common problem is extremely pertinent in this country. We cannot let the extremists drive a wedge between us.
Posted by Sam, 12/01/2010 6:38:28 AM
Instead of being reactive to individual threats (eg anti-irrigation propaganda) farm bodies need to be highly proactive and articulate - a very well developed consumer relations campaign is needed to ensure that farmers are not denigrated and stereotyped as irresponsible destroyers of the environment, as a large proportion of city folk have been convinced. It will not be inexpensive, but it needs to be well-developed, well targeted and to run probably continuously.
Posted by AJ, 12/01/2010 11:07:58 AM
In reply to "AJ, 12/01/2010 11:07:58 AM, on The Land", farm bodies need to be very proactive, which they sadly are not! I believe that because only a very small minority of farmers are members of farm bodies across the country. This has been brought about because the people who are at the top of these bodies are not always the correct people for the position. Many have reached there by natural attrition of the farm body but not by being very forceful. Unfortunately, farm bodies, such as NSW Farmers, really do not represent all farmers but only a very small number. Farmers are not members because these bodies have not achieved great results that benefit farming enterprises. There is a need for extremely forceful leaders who will engender confidence in the farm community which in turn will bring member numbers up. These leaders need to be able to stand up to governments. They must be able to present a very compelling case to other members of the wider community by speaking with authority and knowledge. Maybe I am dreaming!
Posted by Retired Farmer, 12/01/2010 2:42:15 PM
Activists (and the general public) only want to see an end to cruel factory farming - what's extreme about that? There is only one to blame for tarnishing decent farming reputation and operations, it isn’t the activists it's factory farming itself.
Posted by Shelby, 12/01/2010 3:33:02 PM
Totally agree with the retired farmer, much stronger leadership is needed. Farmers groups seem to have got in a position were all they do is negotiate with govt. They need to be much more active and militant when it comes to imports and rip offs from supermarkets, obtaining fair pricing for produce should be the no 1 goal, instead it is never spoken about by any australian farmer groups. The best thing they could do would be get a union leader from a proper union. What other workers have seen their terms of trade diminish like farmers have in the last 30 years? Our leaders are way too conservative, a lot more fire is needed to trample those who would try to undermine our business.
Posted by mick, 12/01/2010 9:20:48 PM
In the Case of NSW Farmers Retired Farmer, I think our past leader Jock Laurie managed the balance of being a hard nose up front no nonsense leader and a leader that could be engaged to come up with a feasible outcome. Our current President has to date showed he is willing to use all and every means to get the message to the right people. I feel a lack of action from grassroots is the problem. Shelby what is your interpretation of 'cruel' and 'factory farming'. There are extreme elements out there that believe we have no right to confine or use animals for any purpose at all and there are others who do not understand what is involved in caring for animals. They humanise them and in doing distort the level of care and attention required.
Posted by Sam, 13/01/2010 6:39:04 AM
Clearly Mr Stallman has the same thinking as do our agri-politic leaders, they are out of touch with who they represent. It is farmers that are leading the change away from the current model, and use what ever name you like, we can clearly see that the way we are doing things isn't working. And as far as "40 acres and mule" goes, I know of many big operations that have made the shift. I think Mr Stallman might be too closely alined with the big end of town instead of who he is suppose to represent and if he continues that line, more and more farmers will reject these organisations.
Posted by Mike, 13/01/2010 7:43:48 AM
The reason farmers feel justified in not joining their groups is because they feel they are not being heard. The groups then don't get the input from the farmers who are not members & so the gap widens. The only people with any influence on policy are the members. The groups then have diminished resources to achieve anything because of dropping membership. The unfortunate result is the formation of so-called 'splinter groups' of that further undermine the existing groups, even though they have perfectly valid concerns. It is a shame that it has developed to this point where farmers are seen as a divided rabble just when we need unity the most. Those who would oppose us are having their work done for them & governments then go & do as they dam well please. The American framers groups are largely supported financially by insurance businesses run under their banner, which gives them alot of money to use & consequently have a very strong voice politically. Bottom line is, the only way to be heard is to be a member of a strong group & be involved in the policy debate to get your points across. Sniping from the sidelines achievs nothing but weaken farmers influence overall.
Posted by Trev, 13/01/2010 10:34:56 AM
Keeping animals in filthy and cramped conditions and having them go through painful mutilations without pain relief which totally disregards their welfare and denies them such basic things like sunlight, fresh air, grass, soil, etc and makes them unable to carry out natural behaviours like building a nest, perching, or even walking and being able to turn around. That’s what factory farming is and it’s what I’m against.
Posted by Shelby, 14/01/2010 3:36:39 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
08 January, 2010
10 January, 2010
11 January, 2010
POLL
Q: Is it time for Peter Spencer to end his hunger strike against the erosion of property rights?

Yes - his point has been publicised
(53.9%)

No - not until Kevin Rudd meets him
(39%)

Undecided
(7.1%)

Total Votes: 336
Poll Date: 10 January, 2010

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...