Ok, now it is the farmers turn to get mad at me. There is no doubt in my mind that commercial fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are damaging to our environment. Nevertheless, I do believe that to end their use categorically and suddenly would be detrimental to society. But, from my own experience in gardening, I also believe that much of this stuff is unnecessary.  Life is just a little more trouble without it. What is needed is some financial incentive for those willing to put up with a little more trouble and give the environment a break. I don't know exactly what all the practices considered to be damaging to the environment are, but we must sit down and decide exactly what they are, and offer a ten percent tax break to farmers who can farm without them.

Farm Law #1. Those able to farm without practices considered detrimental to the environment and public health will receive a ten percent reduction in federal income tax on their profits.

Farm Law #2. Whatever restrictions are imposed upon US grown agricultural goods for the sake of the environment will also be imposed upon all agricultural goods imported into the US. Verification of adherence to these restrictions will be made by US inspection teams at the expense of the grower.

According to Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, a biologist at Environmental Defense Fund, the federal government spends more on its research for herbicide resistant crops that on its entire sustainable agriculture program. I believe we ought to leave that research to those who have something to gain from such research, namely, the herbicide companies. Hence:

Farm Law #3. Henceforth, the federal government will cease to fund research for herbicide resistant crops.

GRAZING PRACTICES ON BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

Now I know that lots of folks get caught out of sorts now and then and overgraze some of their land for short periods of time, but some people do it habitually. Habitually overgrazing is one thing I believe we should fine people for instead of offer tax incentives to avoid, because there is ample, indisputable evidence to prove that it is detrimental to everyone, even the farmers stupid enough to do it. Considering the fact that lots of them do it, and the fact that properly grazed pastures grow up to five times as much grass as severely overgrazed pastures, I think the following law would actually force lots of farmers to be more successful than they now are. Overgrazing on public lands should not only result in fines, but permanent expulsion from grazing at all on public lands.

FARM LAW #4. Anyone found habitually (habitual will have to be specifically defined and I'm too ignorant to do it at the moment) overgrazing pastures, owned, rented, leased or gifted, shall be fined $50.00 per acre per offense, and be required to remove their livestock from the offended land until the vegetation on that land has sufficiently recovered in the opinion of the grazing agent in charge of that area. In addition, if the land in question is public lands, the persons lease shall be terminated immediately, and he or she shall be barred from leasing public lands permanently.

Farm Law #5. The destruction of predators on federal lands leased to the public for grazing purposes, if it is allowed at all, will be done at the expense of the person leasing the land by authorized government agents. Unauthorized destruction of wildlife on federal lands by a lessee will result in permanent expulsion from the land as well as the public lands leasing program.

No matter how you look at it, offering leases on government lands at below market value gives those who receive it an unfair advantage over those farmers who have to pay competitive prices for their land. It is also imposes an unfair competition upon local landowners who have land for lease. It should not be lottery situation to see who draws the lucky number and wins the cowboy welfare. If there genuinely is a need for more land than is held in private hands to supply the needs of the people, and public land is available, then it should be leased to the public, under strict management guidelines, at average market price for the area in question. If the land cannot attract a competitive price, then the demand apparently does not exceed supply and should not be leased for grazing at all.

Farm Law #6. Henceforth, federal land for grazing shall be leased for the highest price the market will bear, as long as it exceeds a minimum value set for that particular piece of property set by the BLM based upon the going rate for the leasing of private land in that area.