Another problem with the Iowa Farm Bureau is the
perception that it represents the views of all farmers. Given the long and
virulent anti-environment efforts of the IFB, I might give up hope
if all Iowa farmers agreed with all those efforts. But they
don't. As pointed out in the really excellent Craig Cox piece in the
REGISTER a couple of weeks ago, the Iowa farm and rural
life survey shows that a strong majority of Iowa farmers
agree that taxpayers have the right to expect some moderate conservation in
return for their money.
"81 percent of Iowa farmers agree that farmers should be
required to control soil erosion on highly erodible land to stay eligible for
federal farm program benefits. Two-thirds think farmers should control soil
erosion whether or not they get benefits."
Craig Hill, President of the Iowa Farm Bureau, wrote a
response to Cox's piece. The Hill piece was badly-written, made irrelevant
points, used arguments that Cox had already shot down very effectively, and
would have embarrassed me if I were an IFB member. If Cox and Hill
had faced each other in any high-school debate competition, the results
wouldn't have even been close. The fact that the IFB has so much
influence at the State Capitol has to do with money, money, money,
money, and money.
Cindy
Cindy Hildebrand
[log in to unmask]
Ames, IA 50010
"Go
to the winter woods: listen there, look, watch, and 'the dead months' will
give you a subtler secret than any you have yet found in the forest."
(Fiona Macleod)