Letters I Clark will be strong voice where it counts
To the Editor:
I farm west of Vermillion. I know Judy Clark and her family. She listens to the people who farm.
She's dedicated to preserving family farms and small communities.
Like me, she wants to protect our environment for our children and promote efficient farming.
She knows that good roads and ag processing industries are essential for good farm prices.
With her background in local government and public service, Judy Clark will be an effective representative for us in Pierre.
She'll be a strong voice where it counts.
A different story from Spencer
To the Editor:
I agree with part of Midge Carlson's recent letter to the editor. She said it was good to find out about Bill Janklow from someone who was at Spencer. If you ask some of the electrical crew from around the region who showed up to help they'll tell you Janklow was a pain. They'll tell you that they would have completed their work sooner had he not continually interrupted them with special requests like running new lines to his $150,000 motorhome every time he moved it.
On the other hand, it provided them entertainment when camera crews showed up because he would jump out of a vehicle and start hugging and comforting.
If you think about where we are in wages, road repair needs, crumbling schools (maybe all that high tech wiring will hold them together), struggling rural populations and the lack of broad based value-added agricultural production, and add to that the lies about tax returns, blind trusts and the evil threat from Canada, I think Mr. Janklow's campaign slogan should be "Poor Performance, Promises Not Kept." Let's give the new guy a chance.
Congress should listen to Johnson
To the Editor:
Thank goodness somebody in DC understands what needs to be done to help the livestock industry.
Had those congressmen listened to Tim Johnson and passed his meat labeling bill, our state's farmers and ranchers would have seen some benefit.
As Tim said, we know where our T-shirts and cars are made, but we don't know where our meat is grown.
Those House congressmen who voted no should be ashamed.
Amendment E is right choice
To the Editor:
The debate over who should produce our food is heating up in South Dakota. Some of the groups, using their members' resources to work against the November ballot issue, are confusing the amendment with position papers written by organizations who have always supported the corporate takeover of American Agriculture. Amendment E is about hog farming, cattle feeding, and production agriculture.
The simple trust is that the people of South Dakota have at least twice before voted to prevent corporations from controlling agriculture within the borders of our state. We decided over 20 years ago to restrict corporate ownership of our land. In 1988 the corporate raiders thought South Dakota could be tricked into allowing a large hog production facility into the state ? they were wrong. The people of South Dakota voted overwhelmingly to ban ownership of hog facilities and livestock.
Now, in 1998 we are faced with a new effort to violate the will of South Dakotans. Slick lawyers working for the largest hog producers in the nation, have found a way around the 1988 law. They convinced one attorney in Pierre that the people of South Dakota really didn't mean to keep them out. These slick lawyers found a loophole in what many people thought was the best choice for our state.
Amendment E will close the biggest attraction to these corporate anticulturalists ? limited liability corporations. The limited liability corporation is the most popular tool of vertical integration in the livestock industry. This legal structure allows the giant mega-factory farmers to move about the country building concentrated growing facilities without regard to local community standards of quality of life. The history of the irresponsible way in which these operations are managed is reason enough for all persons to vote for Amendment E.
Another is the fact that the real owners and managers of these operations are not held liable for their actions even though the profit is mostly theirs.
But the reason I support Amendment E is that people are being forced out of their industry by corporations who are intent on controlling food from the soil to the grocery store.
Amendment E preserves all the business structures that true producers need to compete in their industry. Farmers and ranchers will be able to form the necessary legal entities that will insure them economy of scale, and diversity of operations.
When Amendment E is passed, corporate raiders and their slick lawyers will be forced to find other ways to sneak into South Dakota, or maybe they will go somewhere else ? but who wants them?
Phillip K. Cyre
SD Corn Growers Association member
vice president SD Farmers Union