Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

Great reading gentlemen ... Roger: A bull's eye!

And I smell a consensus brewing ... for it seems

We all recognize that food, transportation and energy translate into environmental impact.

We all recognize that some places are bit more "special", i.e. Buffalo River National Park.

We all recognize that much of what we are doing -- in fact, the very essence of the way we live -- is wrong. Unjust.

And we all recognize the need to act. Passionately and with urgency.

From there it is a mix of ideologies, politics, perspectives, and just plain old stubbornness that separates us. BUT it also strengthens us -- helping us individually and collectively become stronger by harnessing the power of diversity. So let's never lose track of the big picture in which we all continue to work together to make the world a better place.

Sustainability, conservation, and preservation all carry a similar theme: we have but one home and we need to take MUCH better care of it.

TANGENT: While my heart goes out to those in Oklahoma I stand in awe of nature's power tonight...the rain is like an outpouring of love and nourishment.

Nice deflection, CC. You ought to consider politics as your retirement career.

By the way, you were the one that brought up road salt, silly goose.

While we're at it, there is just no doubt in my mind that Cargill is responsible for road salt use by ALL city, county, and state guvments.

And to the culture we need to be on the side of outsiders like you, is the culture of local agrarian landowner types that make rules, land management decisions, and future land use planning. Of course, if you pin one of their own agrarian landowner types under a 4 million dollar debt, and that is where this is headed, if anything, then you have just lost the watershed protection effort for at least 50 to 100 yrs.

As to karst, I find it odd that the septics around the she aren't an issue of concern or protest, clearly since their are hundreds that discharge thousands of gallons into the ground, they aren't a concern either.

Of course, Incorporation, by far, is the best possible solution of possible solutions since it puts ALL of the manure into the ground, where it is closer to the karst (just like septics).

Obviously, dealing with the unregulated air emissions would just be ludicrous, and deprecating the solids, drying them, and using them in phosphorus poor parts of the world would not be a good idea.

Shoot, why would anybody ever consider to harvest the P since their is only about a 30 year supply left in the US? Just dumb.

Man, I have not had so much fun poking at good scientific options in a long time. CC, Thanks for helping have a good time to poke fun at bad scientific ideas, in comparison to the complex process of incorporation, to deal with the potential environmental issues associated with large Cafos!

Interesting enough, a soil test phosphorus level of 30 lbs per acre is considered optimum for vegetative production of plant material, and EVERYONE knows that, and NOBODY ever adds more, EVER.

Ok, switching to a serious tone here.

FYI - I have not seen the soil test P levels out there, nor the Nutrient Management Plan. That stuff is usually not available to just anyone, and the P-index is a tool for minimizing risk of nutrient runoff. P does not leach very much, about 90 percent in runoff is soluble P, And the risk of P in soil going somewhere (or being transported) is associated with soil erosion and sediment transport. Not just anyone can work every tool. It is often likely that people can misuse a tool, especially if not trained well in how to use it correctly like it was intended. To me, that would be an engineering program of some kind. Could I monkey around with it and get some results, yes. Would they be the right results? Probably not.

So incorporation would lessen P concerns, but not N. N is a greater threat to groundwater, P is a greater threat to surface water.

Now, would the P in surface runoff from this farm from land application of manure be more than the inputs from any existing treated sewage wastewater discharge into the river permitted? Maybe marble falls. Definitely not Marshall or jasper.

How about from the tourist peeling in the river? Probably not.

How about the cumulative impact of all the farmland? Probably not.

How about all of the septics? It depends on if the are functioning and installed properly - which is a stretch at best.

So here we are with lots of phosphorus nutrient sources to be managed, but the only one that you, CC, seem to be fixated upon is this one farm.

It seems to me that addressing them all, throughout the entire watershed is the best, most agreeable, and easy to buy-in and achieve buy-in from all watershed stakeholders approach.

By the way, are you a former university professor by chance? You kind if remind me of one. Maybe you are just really well schooled and a retired industry scientist? Either way or neither way I am enjoying the conversation.

Catch up with you later, pal.

Cadron Boy wrote:Great reading gentlemen ... Roger: A bull's eye!

And I smell a consensus brewing ... for it seems

We all recognize that food, transportation and energy translate into environmental impact.

We all recognize that some places are bit more "special", i.e. Buffalo River National Park.

We all recognize that much of what we are doing -- in fact, the very essence of the way we live -- is wrong. Unjust.

And we all recognize the need to act. Passionately and with urgency.

From there it is a mix of ideologies, politics, perspectives, and just plain old stubbornness that separates us. BUT it also strengthens us -- helping us individually and collectively become stronger by harnessing the power of diversity. So let's never lose track of the big picture in which we all continue to work together to make the world a better place.

Sustainability, conservation, and preservation all carry a similar theme: we have but one home and we need to take MUCH better care of it.

TANGENT: While my heart goes out to those in Oklahoma I stand in awe of nature's power tonight...the rain is like an outpouring of love and nourishment.

Was lost in getting back with CC. Yes, CB - I think we are all learning, and I think we all care. Dango stubbornness, cognitive dissonance, and ideology are the only things separating us.

This will not be "organic" or "clean" pig poop. These animals will have food through their system at an unnatural rate. They will have antibiotics & more "stuff" put into them that will run out the other end than you want to know.

Making fuel or worm food sounds good BUT at the volume we are talking it would take more money than the "environmental sensitive" farmer & Cargill would want to put into the process. They want to make money - that is the whole purpose. It is cheaper to pay the fine than not make a problem.

Cargill could give a rats a** less about the people of the county & certainly could care less about our Buffalo, White & other rivers down stream. The poor farmer just wants to support his family & Cargill has told him to trust them... you bet!

People have to eat, pigs have to be raised BUT it can be & is being done in a better way in many places. Why do you think states have stopped these types of operations? That is why they are coming to "good 'ol Arkansas" where money can buy you anything your corporation desires.

Again -- lots of good stuff. Lots of caring.

First I see another point in which I think we can all agree:

The "most agreeable" optimal pursuit would be the elimination of all pollutants within the entire watershed -- be they septics, road runoff, free range livestock or road litter. And that the most effective management will include a "buy-in from all watershed stakeholders".

And I hate to come down hard on Cargill (deservedly so) -- in part, because its an indirect reflection on each and every one of us. The truth is that there are 9 billion mouths to feed and the environmental impact of agriculture far exceeds that due to the manufacturing of goods and production of petroleum and chemical products. And unlike fossil fuels and such, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products. As MissEllie suggested -- too much of this stuff is mislabeled as "food".

In another forum within this venue many years ago -- we concluded that the most important thing we could do to improve our world was through education. We even talked about taking on a mascot and going to schools because you got to reach them early in life -- and talk about sustainability, the necessity for pure water and air, and living in an environmentally conscious way. By the time we get older we get set in our ways and none of us are going to change unless major trauma or calamity comes to our lives. We will continue to eat "crap", we will continue to put shampoos, conditioners and hormone-disrupting chemicals down our drains, we will continue to consume, consume, consume.... Unless we change our ways, sadly I just don't have much faith that the earth can survive as we know it.

But today: it is a great day! One for all of us to enjoy. Time to paddle!

Take this observation from a man who grew up on a one mule, one cow and several hogs red dirt farm in North Ga, then worked his way through Georgia Tech to become a so called engineer. I believe in the scientific method, but common sense will win out any time when it comes to machines digesting poop back into a desirable fertilizer material.

I do not believe any of the plans discussed in this thread will save the Buffalo from becoming a poop canal to the White River and thence to the ocean.

The area around the Buffalo just might handle the mule, cow and pig poo from a community of one family barely getting by farms. I kind of doubt it, but it might. When you start pumping large amounts of surrounding towns of densely packed people and acres of pigs packed nose to tail with heads in feed troughs full of who knows what to add weight in the shortest amount of time - you are going to get more human and pig poop than the porous ground around the Buffalo drainage can handle as a poop to fertilizer machine. We know there have been poop spills from the sophisticated waste treatment plants some Buffalo are cities use.

I don't care if the containment pond has a spillway or not, sooner or later it will develop leaks and the poop will go directly into the Buffalo water. Spraying all that poop on limestone riddled cave country to me is like pumping it direct to the river, just takes a bit longer time.

Richard related that he was already seeing algae growing in the pools.

Like the canary in the old coal mines, this is a sign of worse things to come.

It is pretty easy to figure out that when you overload the capacity of any machine to process what ever it was designed to handle as a load - something is going to go wrong in the system.

If a farm raised, ramblin wreck engineer from GA can figure this out - seems like the smart people looking out for NW Arkansas health could as well.

But, maybe not

Money trumps most anything these days

The only way to save the Buffalo in my opinion is to get smarter lawyers than "they" have.
or
Raise such a massive public outcry that the operators decide to go some where else to raise their pigs.

KNWA aired this interview. It looks like the Henson's (Owner's of C&H CAFO hog farm) are talking to the press. And, to me, they sound nervous.

http://www.nwahomepage.com/story/d/stor ... ahSyDsPVxQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think Mr. Henson hit the bulls eye. There is absolutely no piece of information that could be discovered about how the how farm might not be bad for the buffalo that anyone of the belly aching pork eating people of the world would believe anyway.

Henson is feeling the heat, as that lame attempt to rationalize his actions to the media proves . Anyone that has ever played poker can tell this man is nervous about the cards he is holding.

to me, playing poker with cargill and the politicians was more of a gamble than swimming with sharks

word.

Playing poker with the landowners that OWN 54% of the watershed, who are in charge of making decisions on their land, and who make decisions at the municipal and state level in the good ole boy state is seriously flawed logic. Counter-productive.

This news story though, was one of the very best pieces to date. non-biased. good stuff.

I know that Van is biased for sure. So it's easy for a person to say he is biased. I believe his research will not be biased, even if he is.

I know that the UA team is not biased, and are among the best in the world. The research will be good no matter what.

It could be the case that neither studies confirm any of the hype to date. It could be the case that they both confirm. It could also be the case that confirmation or non-confirmation or could occur.

Either way - The continuous alienation of the people that own the land and make the decisions in most of the watershed while simultaneously not doing jack to do what is really necessary to protect the watershed long term and working together as a broad-based stakeholder group in a holistic way is tactical error if truly protecting the watershed is the goal. There is no way to do it without landowner and decision maker buy-in.

Half ton,

We've talked about this before. Wouldn't a holistic mindset mean more than one approach? I still advocate the divide and conquer technique, and I think that litigation plays an important role in that route. Also from my contact with locals, they're not exactly loving the hog farm.

I think what everyone on this thread wants to know about your opinion is whether you would advocate removing the farm or not. I know that watershed management in general is your attitude toward the issue , but the very basic question is whether having the farm improves or harms the watershed? To me, that is a very simple answer.

mgood wrote:Half ton,

We've talked about this before. Wouldn't a holistic mindset mean more than one approach? I still advocate the divide and conquer technique, and I think that litigation plays an important role in that route. Also from my contact with locals, they're not exactly loving the hog farm.

I think what everyone on this thread wants to know about your opinion is whether you would advocate removing the farm or not. I know that watershed management in general is your attitude toward the issue , but the very basic question is whether having the farm improves or harms the watershed? To me, that is a very simple answer.

You are correct that a Multi-pronged approach is holistic. It is the best approach, but all I see is one right now and it does not involve winning hearts and minds of watershed residents, taking into account all sources of pollution, developing a comprehensive watershed protection strategy, and gaining the buy-in of all stakeholders.

I've never minded the lawsuit or legislation. It's the sensational, counter-productive, biased, and mis-information campaign from the beginning along with narrow mindedness as if removing this farm will somehow magically protect the river and it's watershed and nothing else is currently impacting the river, or will impact the river other than 1 farm. I don't think removing the farm is the answer to protect the watershed. It could be a part of it, but it could also not be. And nobody quite yet knows the difference for certain. So to go all in on the Hog Farm is a bad bet in social political terms in this region of Arkansas at this point in time. Making it a part of a comprehensive effort is certainly understandable.........but to date........The current approach continues to make County Decision makers and the culture that owns most of the land more resistant to wanting to work with anyone, and no on the ground real time improvements are being put into place within the watershed, understood or embraced by the people..........we are getting further and further from holistic progress and broad based stakeholder buy-in every day with the current approach.

Thanks again for bringing some some good points into the conversation. I appreciate your though, intellectual contribution, and meaningful engagement. Make me happy, and you could easily begin to make the 54% land ownership happy. I am similar to litmus paper in this issue. I am in the middle and I know players on both sides.

lets go all inclusive, right now. Lets go broad based, right now. Then you will see watershed protection progress......I kid you not.

I found this, but have not seen the link posted here.

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from- ... River.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wayne