# The Little Guy Won



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I cannot believe this actually happened, but I won. Now let me explain.

About 3 years ago I applied for a USDA-NRCS EQUIP Cost Share Program to convert a corn field I had into a grass field. It is a long story, but basically when a dairy farm that used my fields went bankrupt, I was left with a big problem. The field was on a 15% grade, with highly-erodible soil. Twice the water coming off this field washed out so bad into a paved roadway that I had to take the loader of my tractor and scoop the soil back up and put it into my field.

Well I applied for the program (essentially a grant), but the USDA-NRCS nevr explained anything about what I applied for. They also never showed up on farm. The day before the deadline, the woman running the NRCS called up and asked where the field was, and I told her, but all she wanted to do was pass the paperwork in and get the deadline over...a paper shuffle. So I was denied the grant, but a farmer only has 15 days to file and appeal, then another 15 days to file another another document saying you really want an appeal. Well I missed the deadline for that years appeal...

Automatically your request gets rolled into the next year, and sure enough it was denied again. I WAS LIVID. Because my wife is on the board that over-sees the NRCS I knew they had more funding available then what they had applications for, in essence they had money to pay for it, not to mention soil erosion was what the NRCS was founding upon in 1936. And now 3 years had passed and no one from the NRCS even bothered to show up on my farm. Well this time I was denied I did not miss the appeal.

A farmer has to pretty much jump through hoops in quick succession to do it, but I basically filed a federal lawsuit over this. The next day the loacl NRCS people showed up. I was working at the Christian camp, and yet they did not care, they wanted to talk to me at all costs. They were not used to a farmer filing a federal lawsuit over their inaction. They tried to get me to drop the lawsuit, but I was mad. They had not showed on the farm for 2 years, but I file a lawsuit and they are willing to show up anywhere to meet me the day after!

So the pre-hearing by phone went well even though I figured I would lose. The system is screwy, a farmer has to prove the NRCS was wrong, and yet the NRCS cannot be found guilty even if they did something wrong. As the Federal Judge admitted, the whole appeal system is just a way for farmers to vent. I was hoping to show that some issues were going on in my county, that the USDA-NRCS had their noses stuck in computer screens and not getting out of the office to talk to farmers.

I also elected to have the trial held in person, in Bangor, Maine and not by mail or over the phone. So they flew the Federal Judge out to Bangor to have this hearing in January. I was pretty much screwed because there was no accountability on the part of the NRCS, they just said, "we went by policy", which is true they did, even though they admitted it was a flawed policy. Now I say that because I was denied because crop rotating a field is not a "core practice", it is a minor practice that essentially does not get funded. It does not even get ranked. BUT no one explained this because no one ever talked to me, it was just a paper shuffle. However if I had put down that the ground was forever going to be grass and not rotated between corn and grass, it was a "core practice", I would have been ranked higher, and because of the high amount of funding, the fact that the watershed is high priority, I am a beginner farmer, and low income; I would have most likely been funded. But they never showed up and explained this, so I was thinking where row crops get all the funding here, putting down crop rotation was a better choice.

Well I go to court and really have nothing. My wife testifies that funding was available, but we were still denied. And me, I just say that the USDA-NRCS has a silly argument; "its like going down the road, seeing a bridge is out, driving into the river and telling the cop, 'well the GPS System said take this road.' They knew it was a flawed policy, but just did it anyway. They knew showing up on a farm was a requirement."

Well wonder of wonders the Federal Judge sent me his verdict and said I met an incredibly hard burden of proof, that the NRCS was wrong because they never granted me the technical assistance I asked for, they had funding and denied me, and that his recommendation was basically get my project funded after the fact! I can't believe I actually won.

This is good because the field in question was ripped open, but because I lacked the funding to sow it down, it just got worse as far as erosion goes, and basically I was left with a mess when the dairy farm filed for bankruptcy and left it. (They were supposed to crop rotate between grass and corn every 3 years because of the hillside and erodible soil). They also changed the policy down to the local NRCS office and now every farm applying must be visited, which is good, no more office-jockies.

But in a nut shell, the little guy took on city hall and won!


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

So what do you get out of the deal? Seed and planting money to replant?

NRCS has been the biggest waste of time for me...I pretty much refuse to be associated with any of the government farm agencies..


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Some folks seem to think that the USDA is all above board and without reproach, but as you found out Rutt and as many others have experienced, the USDA can be as backwards and corrupt as anything going.....and their research is greatly flawed in many instances. I hope it works out for you when this is all over.....and maybe that will be soon with your favorable ruling. Your persistence is admirable.

Regards, Mike


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

Wow, to involve Federal judges, government lawyers and such to plant a corn field, it must be good to be the winner..............


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

How many acres is this?


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

Am i missing something here Rutt? I read you leased a field out to another farmer, didn't hold them accountable to the lease agreement, they screwed up the land and the government was asked to pay for part of the reclamation costs? What do you suppose this action cost the taxpayers?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

carcajou said:


> Am i missing something here Rutt?


Probably....he said it was a long story.

Regards, Mike


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Yeah there is a lot missing.

"Leased Out" is a very loose term. My Grandfather made an agreement with another farmer (which of course being New England, we are related to) that he could lease his farm land out after he retired from farming in 1988. So from 1988 until 2015 that farm used our farm to grow corn and grass silage. We didn't get any "money" for it until 2008 when I introduced sheep back to the farm.

At that point they just provided my sheep with feed and not real money. I did not even keep the feed here, they trucked it 3 miles away to their farm, put it up in their silo and when I needed a load, they would truck it over. It was all good, I only needed to feed my sheep and wanted nothing more.

Then they filed bankruptcy, which was fine, but it left hundreds of acres in this county in corn fields which is useless to most people...me included. The farmer went to the USDA, explained the situation and they agreed to help convert it back to grass fields for the people he leased land from...but they never lived up to their agreement. That aspect of it is just water under the bridge though and has nothing to do with my appeal.

But my farm was really bad. This one field had not been crop rotated in years due to its position on a hillside and compaction was an issue. The plan was to rip out some rockwalls, make it bigger, then make it rectangular for the bigger equipment he had, and rip it open, put it into corn and break up the compaction. BUT because it is on a 15% grade, and is highly erodible soil, its supposed to be crop-rotated into grass every 3 years instead of 7. But the farmer filed bankruptcy before those 3 years were up.

Then we got 2 gales and a hurricane back to back to back and soil eroded and ended up in the paved roadway, so deep I was afraid a car would slam into it, so I scooped up the soil and put it back in the field. Obviously this was a serious issue, so I notified the USDA-NRCS. My farm is in multiple watersheds and this particular field is in a watershed that has its own EQUIP Funding because its so polluted. That was why there was plenty of money available to fund this project as my wife testified (as a board member of the Soil and Water Conservation District). Few people filed for EQUIP help in this particular watershed because it had its own fund and own special deadline. That was why I found it odd that we were denied.

In the end what they failed to do was give me the technical assistance I needed, in filling out the EQUIP Application in the office, and making an on-farm visit. They even admitted this never occurred...in 3 years time!! The woman running the NRCS office in our county at the time...lived in a YURT if that tells you anything and favored certain types of farms and they were NOT conventional. She quit and really was the issue here. She pushed certain projects like mine aside so she could fund her friends. (And moderators I am REALLY trying to be good here because I would really like to say what kind of farmers she made sure she helped).

So what angered me was:

They had money to fund anything in this watershed because it was deemed most polluted in the State

The NRCS was showing favoritism to non-conventional farms

The NRCS was not utilizing the local oversight of the Soil and Water Conservation District as cited by the law that started the NRCS

They never visited my farm in 3 years time, though requested

So I filed an appeal and won. It shocked me, but I won.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

This....explains a lot.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

Sure does, my apologies.


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

I am glad you came out on top. I am happy any time the common farmer gets some assistance when it is needed.

Each county qualifies for a certain amount of EQIP money. It varies from county to county and from year to year. The money is going to be spent on some project no matter what. They do not want to turn money back unspent.

Some NRCS offices are straight up. Others seem lacking.

I will never have a problem with a real farmer getting some help. It is the church playgrounds being over seeded, ponds put on golf courses etc that ruin a good program.

The monthly meetings are open to the public. That is how I learned about our local NRCS. I went and sat in and was impressed with the way things were run. The Supervisors and not paid employees and the Supervisors must approve the plans.

Before I became involved with the county committee I thought anything government was shady and lazy. I really appreciate what out NRCS office does.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Now I understand! Your grandfather "leased out" or had an "agreement" another family member at a less-than-encompassing price of maintaining the land properly and through a lawsuit, you were able to convince the government that the ill-conceived agreement and poor stewardship of the land are problems of the taxpayers.

It appears that you (via your federal suit) had deemed that you are owed the money of the taxpayers more than others in your area that "farm" in a manner which you do not see as good as your way? I expect that many of those that lived in their yurts claimed to be Christians too.

Some will say that "God has provided"...but others might say "he sold his soul for the almighty dollar" Be careful to see who is signing the checks...Satan has "given" way more money to mortals than God has (as the desire to have it is the root of all evil). Communism under the guise of Christianity...very clever.

Maybe someone's assessment was right about the east cost being full of a bunch of liberals/communists. (sorry to all of the conservatives on the east coast...I'm feeling a little miffed with all of the people bragging about the money they get from the gov't for all their personal endeavors, mis-dealings and unwillingness to pull their own weight).

If it was anything OTHER than farmer's welfare (foodstamps, obama care, obama phones, etc...), it would be looked upon with disgust by most on this site. I guess it's only "liberal" when it goes into someone ELSE's pocket...when it goes into "my", a"conservative's",or a "farmer'" pocket, it's somehow different.

Double the standards and half the responsibility.

Maybe I'm just bitter that I can't convince myself that it is ethical to take the money of the taxpayers just because I decided to buy a farm that is in a highly erodible area or a flood zone...I knew that when I bought it and it is part of the reason that it was in my price range.

...didn't say that it wasn't "legal"; heck there's lots of things that are "legal"....

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Lol....you're just a bitter old man  I don't know the first thing bout any of them programs...I'm just too damn stupid to worry with them...."ignorance is bliss"


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

I get a chuckle when someone bashes another for applying for a program. I wonder if they cash the tax refund check. Is that not also taxpayer money?

I save every receipt and have a separate checking account for the farm. Am I to feel guilty for taking advantage of every deduction I can?


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

PaMike said:


> So what do you get out of the deal? Seed and planting money to replant?
> 
> NRCS has been the biggest waste of time for me...I pretty much refuse to be associated with any of the government farm agencies..


Absolutely... Couldn't agree more.

Seems like it'd been easier and cheaper to just get some seed and plant it, manage it yourself.

I talked to NRCS here about running water to back pasture and they printed off about 5 pages of crap... I just wanted to run 400 feet or so of 3/4 inch poly pipe and put a couple steel troughs in... OH NO... It's gotta be done some "Cadillac way" to comply with their regs... They bring out a roll off truck with a concrete trough about 8x20 foot (maxed out the roll off truck) and you have to dig out the soil a foot deep, lay ground cloth, backfill with crushed stone, emplace the tank, which has to have an 8 foot crushed stone "approach" all the way around it on all four sides, and then a 3 foot concrete "sidewalk" around that. In addition, they'd have to come out and measure and look at their little pressure drop tables and figure out what size pipe I had to lay... which just off the top of his head would probably be between 1.25 to 2 inch pipe. I told them I had a subsoiler that I made a boot for it to lay tubing and just wanted to put in a roll of 3/4 black poly pipe-- I don't care if the pump pressure is at 60 psi and the float pressure is 40 psi, just so long as the water flows... "NOPE, can't do it that way-- we have to assess it and you have to install what we calculate is "right". I just shook my head and walked off-- would have cost me 10X the money to do it "their way" vs. just doing it myself, and then have NRCS guys coming around for the next 25 years to 'check on it' to see if it needed "repairs" (which I'd have to pay for to their standards). Then after all that, they'd "reimburse" me half the cost under the cost share arrangement... Which means it would have only cost me FIVE TIMES what it cost me to just do it myself.

Same thing when I asked about their cost-share cross-fencing... he went in the back and printed off FOURTEEN PAGES of their rules and regs for cross-fencing. Their cross-fence was going to be better than my perimeter fencing! 3 steels and then an 8 inch wood minimum, a ton of reinforcement H-braces and stuff every like 1/8 mile, on and on and on... Again, it'd cost me 10X as much to do it "their way" to get half back, which means I spend 5X as much to do the job compared to just doing it myself my way and calling it good. Plus, they could come on the place anytime in the next 25 years to see if that cross-fence was still there... I asked 'what happens if cattle prices tank completely and don't bounce back and I decide to plow it all up and put in row crops, and want to roll up the cross fence?? "Well, IF we inspect and find the fence has been removed, you owe us all the money back WITH INTEREST... " Again, no thanks...

Uncle Sam waves some sweet carrots around to get guys "on the hook" but believe you me, there are ALWAYS strings attached! BUT, if it works for you, and you can live with the strings and the benefits are worth the hassle, then go for it... we farmers pay enough friggin' taxes we should get SOMETHING back!

Later! OL J R


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Tim/South said:


> I get a chuckle when someone bashes another for applying for a program. I wonder if they cash the tax refund check. Is that not also taxpayer money?
> 
> I save every receipt and have a separate checking account for the farm. Am I to feel guilty for taking advantage of every deduction I can?


So, if a person goes to Wal-Mart to buy a widget and the cashier tells them the total is $5.99 and the person pays with a $20 bill; by your logic they shouldn't get their $14.01 refunded?

The tax refund is the *difference* between the tax *you paid* and the tax that *you owe*. Getting a refund of your overpayment is not even in the same hemisphere as conscripting another to pay one's bills.

...and as far as deductions, sure they should be taken into account... Why? Because the taxes are figured on net income and NOT of gross income.

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

glasswrongsize said:


> So, if a person goes to Wal-Mart to buy a widget and the cashier tells them the total is $5.99 and the person pays with a $20 bill; by your logic they shouldn't get their $14.01 refunded?
> 
> The tax refund is the *difference* between the tax *you paid* and the tax that *you owe*. Getting a refund of your overpayment is not even in the same hemisphere as conscripting another to pay one's bills.
> 
> ...


Using your logic "free education" should no longer be free. All landowners would like their money back on every student that doesn't own as much property and are attending these new schools. And 911 should now have a toll on it. Because land owners are paying everyone else's way.

As stated b4 I don't need subsides to farm. But I need a fair shake in a free market. And I need reasonable tax rates, neither of which do i have. The American people directly receive a return on those subsidies right or wrong. If you eat your benefiting from the subsidies . we need cheap food so America can afford a new I phone, car, bigger house , and cable. Who wants to spend money in the grocery. Welfare, o-phones, o-care, isnt benefiting the whole nation.

I looked it up once and I'll try to find a link again. But I raise a steer for 14 months before I see a return. The retailer handles that same steer for maybe 14 days and makes way bigger margins. Hmmm I guess supply and demand in Ag doesn't apply to everyone. Like I said fair shake is all we need.

I do see your argument Mark. Really the last 5 years did not pay that much out anyways. Least not here. Who knows maybe the subsidies are cheaper for the American people than a fair shake for the farmer.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

bbos2 said:


> *I do see your argument Mark. *Really the last 5 years did not pay that much out anyways. Least not here. Who knows maybe the subsidies are cheaper for the American people than a fair shake for the farmer.


*That's all I can ask*. I sent a PM to another person that I may have offended by my ranting. Maybe it's best that I copy/paste it for all to read...

I hope you don't take my rants personally; I'm aware that, if you didn't have to pay taxes that go to Mexico, Pakistan, every God-forsaken program, etc...that you would have PLENTY of money to pay for the things yourself and wouldn't NEED (and I can understand the "need") to make use of gov't programs. To me, it's a necessary evil...evil none the less. But the "evil" (that's way too strong of word, but it fits the ol' cliché ) is ONLY necessary due to the gummint being out of control and taking all the money in and doling it back out to those that they deem worthy.
"Stealing" or "theft" is probably too strong of word to use, but only by degrees. I used the strong words to illustrate a point from the Christian point-of-view to a person that espouses their faith and to try to understand how they could rationalize it in-spite of their faith.

There are plenty of people on here that I may never have had that conversation with; but, the people who are self-proclaimed ultra-Christians and ultra-conservatives that rag on others for their liberal ways...well, that's another story.

And just to be 100% truthful, I have no ill-will against anyone benefiting from the screwed-up system...it's the system that is broken and good people are just trying to survive in spite of it.

One thing that people either like me or hate me for...I tell what's on my mind and my values don't tend to waiver. If it's wrong (even if it's a symptom of a bigger "wrong"), I'll stand against it---even if I stand alone.
Again, I have no ill-will.

Mark

As far as the Feds' involvement in education...don't get me started

911 (here) is not federally funded that I know of and is paid by the telephone users.

We could go on for days with ALL the "programs" that are wrong and unconstitutional...but as maw always said "two wrongs don't make a right". One time I responded "no, but three lefts do"...notice I said "one" time 

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

luke strawwalker said:


> Absolutely... Couldn't agree more.
> 
> Seems like it'd been easier and cheaper to just get some seed and plant it, manage it yourself.
> 
> ...


All of that to say that you have low standards? You have to up your game on your projects....


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

carcajou said:


> Sure does, my apologies.


No problem, I was not offended at all. People do not live here and just do not understand that it was not just my farm, but a lot of conventional farms, that the NRCS was not showing up for. I just chose to appeal the decision.

Now there is 3 different appeals processes:

Local

State

Federal

Because of the corruption at the local NRCS office, and State NRCS office, I went to the National Appeals Division. This was set up by Congress to allow farmers to appeal what is obviously favoritism. As the Judge himself said, the whole system is set up to just allow a farmer to "vent", and there is an incredible burden of proff on the farmer to prove his case. The only reason I was able to was the NRCS did not lie, they admitted they never did a conservation plan for my farm as I asked. My opening statement was to quote their mission statement and show they failed in all aspects of it.

This is not a win just for me...yes I will get my field reseeded into grass and stop the erosion...what the NRCS was founded upon, but new policies are in place state wide so that when farmers ask for hlp, the NRCS gets out of the office. Their own mission statement says "boots on the ground".


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Mark,

You will never agree, but I feel I took the high ground on this. I had the time and intellect to appeal what I knew was wrong. If Katie had not been on the board and let me know that there was plenty of money for funding, I would have never seen the red flag go up. Its not a "win" just for me, its everyone in the State of Maine, the NRCS was not working for the people, they were holed up in their offices catering to their friends.

As for my farm, I think that was moral too. When you have an agreement made well before I was even born, and then the land goes to my dad for years and he holds to something his father agreed to, and then it holds up with a third generation long after both original agree farmers die; in this day and age where seemingly everyone seems to look out for themselves, I think it is highly moral.

It even hurt me financially because I had to stay small as a sheep farm because the dairy farm used the fields. Yes I was getting free feed, but at what point do I get so big that I am taking advantage of them. The agreement worked from 2008-2015 because in comparison to the amount of feed taken off, to what my sheep ate, was so small. Yet it worked for me because I got ideal feed without having to buy expensive equipment. Considering in this day most neighbors cannot agree where to put up a fence between them, considering the value of the feed, the cost of property taxes, the cost of equipment, etc...I think that was a pretty good relationship all things factored in..

When they filed bankruptcy things did change though. I have a soft spot for dairy farmers because of how hard they work, but when they got done doing that, I needed the feed to see if I could make it sheep farming. They proved they could not do it as dairy farmers, so now was my shot at full-time sheep farming.

Government+Money=Mark Rant

That is too bad you cannot see the silage for the field. Sadly times do change, but I suggest that few places would have verbal agreements between farmers that last long after the agreed parties are long since dead.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

BTW: I used those farmers for a years putting up hay for my sheep. I got 50% and they got 50% which they now sell as haying contractors. The problem was, the 50% was not a big enough cut for them so I was very low priority. The last time they cut 1st crop was in August, and by then it is too stemmy for sheep. Sadly the agreement no longer worked.


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

More "spin" on this thread than the corner pool hall!!


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

glasswrongsize said:


> So, if a person goes to Wal-Mart to buy a widget and the cashier tells them the total is $5.99 and the person pays with a $20 bill; by your logic they shouldn't get their $14.01 refunded?
> 
> The tax refund is the *difference* between the tax *you paid* and the tax that *you owe*. Getting a refund of your overpayment is not even in the same hemisphere as conscripting another to pay one's bills.
> 
> ...


No, this is your logic and I am glad you put it in print.

By your logic stated above any person should only pay at WallMart with correct change.

How can you say your tax return is owed to you? According to your discussions on this forum, anything from the government is a hand out. The money you receive from the IRS is tax payer money. Why are you over paying to begin with? By your logic, once the government possesses the money any return is a hand out, welfare, food stamps, free cell phones.

If we are going to paint any government program with the same brush, then paint them all.

No government help to natural disasters like Katrina, no help to the ranchers that lost 60,000 head of cattle to the early blizzard that hit the Dakotas, no help to earthquake victims.

There are much bigger fish to fry than jumping on a farmer for qualifying for an Ag program.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Lostin55 said:


> All of that to say that you have low standards? You have to up your game on your projects....


No, that's to say the gubmint way of doing things is 10X the cost of doing it yourself...

I put in the steel trough and the 3/4 inch poly pipe for a few hundred bucks. Works just as good as their project which would have cost THOUSANDS to do, which *I* would have had to pay for IN FULL, and THEN get "reimbursed" under cost-share.

And people wonder why the country is going bankrupt...

Later! OL J R


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

You have no sense of humor.


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

glasswrongsize said:


> *That's all I can ask*. I sent a PM to another person that I may have offended by my ranting. Maybe it's best that I copy/paste it for all to read...
> 
> I hope you don't take my rants personally;
> Skip A Rope, Mark


I do not take your rants personally and hope you, or others don't take mine personally. I enjoy a good disscussion on any topic. Especially on this site. Everyone one is good about staying level headed.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Luke Strawalker,

I do not think you understand how the system really works. When a cost share program like what you describe...stock tanks for rotational grazing...is calculated, it is done according to what it would cost the Federal Government to do it. They all stinking well know we are farmers and that we can do it much cheaper, but that is how they have to do it so that there is a level playing field. As long as the farmer meets the criteria the pay-out is made.

Take for example a road I had built to a far distant field. Rather then drive through a stream, a road was built. That road had to be 16 feet wide, 1 foot deep of gravel and have 18 inch culverts in two areas over its 1/4 mile length. They figured it would cost $10,200. I built the road 20 feet wide, put in 4 feet of gravel, and installed the two culverts for its 1/4 mile length for $8,000. The reason was, I have my own gravel pit. I met the criteria, and was under budget. Even still, I got to keep the extra $2200.

Now I over-did it because I could and wanted a decent road, but the Federal Government cannot pay for shoddy work. Your stock tanks might work, but there is no doubt that what they proposed was a better long term solution. A farmer always cares about the "how"...as in how much will it cost, where as the Federal Government is more concerned about the "what", as in what are we accomplishing with this project. As long as it is accomplishing something for conservation, how much it costs takes second place.

As for the cost share part, that is interesting too. In your stock tank example you must not have approached the NRCS in quite awhile because you can now get a high percentage of the money up front to do the job. Not all of it, they want to ensure you actually do the practice after all, but they will help you get started.

And then there is the pay back. A farmer does actually pay that money back...in the form of time. Every practice has a certain number of years that the NRCS deems necessary to recoup their money so to speak. In the case of that roadway, it is 15 years. Now if a farmer retires or sells the farm, THAT MONEY MUST BE PAID BACK. I think fencing is 15 years, a manure pad is 7, etc. In other words, while a farmer does not have to physically pay back the money, they do have to farm for x number of years. The reason is simple, they do not want people improving their farms, then getting out of farming and having their property worth a lot more at tax payer expense.

Now having said that, the reverse can hold true as my ex-wife discovered. When I got divorced my ex-wife wanted her share of the farm. Well I had a few NRCS EQUIP Cost Share Programs that had not reached their maturity dates so I asked the administrator how much it would cost me if I got out of farming today. It is a long story, but the long and short of it was, my ex-wife would have to PAY ME $22,000. I asked her if she was going to pay in installments or all in one lump sum. Her lawyer looked at the piece of paper from the USDA and said, "we don't want anything to do with your farm." This is fair, I had the burden of physically farming for the next ten years or so, so the NRCS cost share programs were recovered while she was washing her hands of farming altogether.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

bbos2 said:


> I do not take your rants personally and hope you, or others don't take mine personally. I enjoy a good disscussion on any topic. Especially on this site. Everyone one is good about staying level headed.


I agree, I don't take anything personally. I don't drink beer, but if I was at a pizza place (and got a government grant to do so) I would buy everyone a beer. There is not one person I dislike on here.

Mark, my deepest apologies, I should not have used the word rant. I like your discussions.

I am also HONESTLY JOKING about the government grant for beer. It was a tease and nothing more.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

Do you get a grant for your bread and milk? Maybe one for dog food?
It seems as though you utilize grants for nearly every project that you have mentioned.
Then again, with a spouse in the office, I suppose you would be appraised of any grant money available.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Tim/South said:


> No, this is your logic and I am glad you put it in print.
> 
> By your logic stated above any person should only pay at WallMart with correct change.
> 
> ...


No, Tim; it was the polar opposite. I used wally world as an example and they may have not been the best example as they only "held" your $14.01 for a minute amount of time; The purchaser trusted that, even though they overpaid with the $20 bill, they would be returned their $14.01. It's a bad example as you the money never left your grasp by more than a few seconds (but they did have control of the overage for a time).

I will try a different example to explain: A person goes to a gas station needing gas and there are only prepay pumps; the person, not knowing exactly how much it will take to fill the tank, walks inside and gives the attendant a $100 bill. The person then returns and fuels their truck and (their $100 bill is under the control of the attendant whom you must trust to a certain extent...or have no other choice than to play by their rules). He tops off the tank; at that time and no time before, he FINALLY knows how much he owes. He put in $75 worth of gas and returns inside to retrieve his return of $25.

So the point I'm trying to make is that correct change is NOT needed because any overage of prepayment is returned to the payer.

The taxes are very similar to the pre-pay gas pumps in that the gov't will not wait until April 15 for the majority of their money. It must be prepaid even though the actual due-date is April 15. If a person/business has not prepaid a certain percentage of their tax liability for this year, they will make you pay more (quarterly or monthly or whatever) next year. The gov't WILL NOT extend credit on one's taxes without penalty.

So, what a lot of people in my circumstances (off-farm job with additional farm income) do is have additional taxes taken from my paycheck every week to ensure that I have prepaid enough of my taxes that my tax bill (the difference between my tax liability and the amount that I have already paid) will be very low or, in the event that I paid more than my tax liability, I receive a return in the amount that I overpaid. I will be getting a bigger tax return this year because I have too much taken out of my weekly check to compensate for estimated income from hay sales. I misjudged and sold less last year that anticipated; but I have sold more since Jan 1st than I sold the total of last year.

I prepaid taxes to keep from owing a huge amount from net income from the farm (that was less than anticipated in that tax year.) It looks as though I will have more profit this year (all else being equal) than last year due to how the sales fell in the calendar. I overpay every year because I "trust" the gummint will return the amount that I overpay. Just like giving the gas attendant more-than-enough to cover my anticipated fuel bill...I "trust" that I will get my change returned to me.

If I make 40k at my day job and my tax bill is going to be 5.2k (the tax liability can't be estimated prior to the end of the year), I would have my employer take out $100 per week and on April 15, there would be no bill nor refund. If I have my employer takes out $110 per week instead, I would receive a refund of $520-as that is what I overpaid. The extra money that was prepaid is no-more the gummint's money that the extra $25 at the gas station was theirs. They DID keep it until the bill amount was known, but it was NEVER theirs...it was always the payer's money but was merely being held until the bill was tabulated.

I tried to wrap my head around someone not understanding that and them lumping getting a tax refund as the equivalent of applying for a grant/program etc... (I really do try to understand the thought processes of others especially if I disagree)

I may be way off-base here and I may have been referring to someone who pays taxes and receives a refund in the amount that they OVERpaid; while, (maybe) you were referring to the proverbial single parent of 15 kids who worked for 2 weeks at McDonalds and paid a grand total of $100 into their gummint account (we all have one; it's your ssn), but somehow through "earned income" or whatever gets $13k on their tax "return"?

If you were referring to someone that gets a refund of their OVERpayment as the equivalent as making the use of grants/programs, I must disagree. The overpayment was made with the understanding anything above-and-beyond the tax liability would be returned.

If you were referring to the person that had 15 kids and got a "refund" (which is the wrong word because a "refund" implies that it was a return of overpayment) of $12.9K MORE THAN THEY PAID IN by making use of rules/laws that were implemented on a gumment that is hell-bent on wealth redistribution...I'll throw in with you on that all day every day that it is no different than getting a grant.

It's merely making use of the rules as they are written---right wrong or otherwise.

Skip A Rope, Mark

Rut, the "rant" description never even made a blip on my radar. I would have to go back quite a ways through our conversations to even see who used the word first...it was very possibly I who used the word "rant" as I am fully aware that it is an accurate description.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I took some classes on farm economics and the accountant instructor said this and I will never forget it...

"In Iowa they raise raise pigs and slaughter hogs, the IRS does the same thing."

What he was saying is, its okay to take your deductions, however take too many deductions that might even be legitimate, and the IRS will come after you.

Its well heeded advice.

Another thing to keep in mind is, Al Capone did a lot of nasty things and got away with it, but what put him in prison was tax evasion.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

Lostin55 said:


> Do you get a grant for your bread and milk? Maybe one for dog food?
> It seems as though you utilize grants for nearly every project that you have mentioned.
> Then again, with a spouse in the office, I suppose you would be appraised of any grant money available.


It would sound that way doesn't it? 

What a farm gets for conservation cost share programs really depends on where your farm is located. This is Maine so we live in very rolling country. As I have mentioned before, I live on a hill and my farm bi-sects different watersheds. This one is deemed one of the most polluted in the State so it gets a fair amount of funding, its also in a separate EQUIP Pool then regular EQUIP with its own deadline.

But I have other fields that are split between watersheds, so when I apply for a EQUIP Cost Share Program, because the practice helps 2 watersheds and not just 1, it increases the ranking by quite a bit.

I am ranked 19th in my town out of 30 farmers. I have got $37,000 so far, split between rotational grazing, a manure pad and a roadway. Even then, its not as bad as it seems because we co-farmed with that dairy farm, so the roadway was something they used as much as me. (Currently the roadway is being used by the logging trucks so it is getting multi-use, year-round use).

Now that big dairy farm...they are well over $600,000 in subsidies, but here is why. They live on a bigger hill then me, and LITERALLY, the right side of the barn goes into one watershed, and the other into another so everything they apply for, they get. So it depends on where your farm is on these things. It has nothing to do with my wife (nor me, as she took over my position). In this case, I had already applied for the EQUIP Funding, she just informed me that because of the amount of funding, and amount of applications, we were sure to get it. When we were rejected, I knew something was wrong, and it was.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I am not sure how it works in other states, but in Maine, as screwed up as the NRCS is, they is a protocal. That is the Soil and Water Conservation District sets up a meeting in our county, and they announce it publicly. At that meeting, THE CITIZENS decide where the money for the county will go, manure handling, forest, crops, pasture, etc.

Here is the thing, NO ONE SHOWS UP!

Instead of farmers showing up, because naturally they are busy and have things to do, the government agencies show up, like the Maine Forest Service District Forester, the people from the local Environmental College, the Land Trusts that have people on staff...so this is where the money gets diverted. If farmers showed up, they could help themselves to fund the things that truly make a difference.

Now I say difference because for years I fought with the Forester because in Maine, where 90% of the land is forest, it is STUPID to spend money on something that grows abundantly. I don't eat trees, and the last I knew trees scrubbed carbon dioxide from the air and filtered out soil just fine. Lets invest in pastures, row crops, soil erosion and whatnot instead.

One big thing in my county is actually blueberry growers and every other year they have to burn their fields causing forest fires, smoke in the air and use thousands of gallons of diesel running their burners. This can be avoided if they can clear the rocks out of their fields so they can flail mow instead of burn. But its hard to divert money when the blueberry growers are not there to lend their voices to the argument, so instead money goes to forestry. Now this is the sad part, instead of spending money on actually working a forest to improve it, 75% gets spent on building roads to woodlots so people can cut their wood off. Its not against practice, a forester has said a road is needed, and so that is good pasture, row crop, manure handling, and blueberry field money being wasted simply because people don't show up.

There is local control, but people don't use it to their own advantage.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Using Rut as just an example only because he volunteered the figures that his x-wife would have been on the hook for $22,000 (presumably her half of $44,000 in grants/programs/gov't funding)

Using the most current numbers (honestly the first crap that popped up when I googled each of the figures...and I'll submit that the numbers may not be right...they're what I got.) The average American's tax bill is $9118 with $448.60 going to the UDSA and $134.58 (0.01476%) of that going toward farm bills (the remaining $8669.40 going towards roads, military, funding foreign nations to be our "friends", funding the research of underwater basket-weaving in the Sahara, etc...) America had a total tax liability 1,355,000,000,000, so divided by the average tax liability ($9118) is spread out over 148,000,000 taxpayers/families. The farm bills (not inclusive of "food stamps" which is in excess of 70% of the USDA budget) get @$20,000,000.
Assuming that $44,000 was the total taxpayer money that Rut was on-the-hook for with the gov't; it would take the taxes of 326 families to pay for your programs you had at that single point in your life.

or, if one is claiming that they are only be getting money back that they paid in (now, be honest with yourself and only count the portion of the total tax liability (0.01476%) that goes to farm programs as we ALL are also paying for the other stuff right along with you.) you would have had to pay $2.9 million in taxes to equal the ($44,000) from what you provided.

...or if your tax liability is average (but Rut stated he was "low income") it would take 326 years worth of taxes.

As far as the argument of "lower food prices": Approx $448.60 is taxed per family/taxpayer and given to USDA to achieve "lower food prices" that don't show up on your grocery bill., but the cost is still there. It's not REALLY cheaper food; a portion of the price of the food is disguised as taxes. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul make Peter sore.

Sure, it's cheaper for SOME on the scale; for many on the scale, it's actually "free" via food stamp programs. That, in turn, makes the total cost of food higher for those that are above the break-even point of tax liability vs grocery store savings. On the whole, the food is no cheaper; the costs are just hidden....it's been socialized.

Skip A Rope, Mark

My math will not stand up to precision scrutiny and was using round figures that I could attain. It also doesn't include the fact that money is being borrowed from China to help make our food "cheaper".

PS, While I was finding and running the numbers on this, I see that the figure Rut is using is 37,000 instead of 44,000 , but the point is nonetheless illustrated.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

But.....if the costs of food soars (much more than you think it actually is...) and "famine" ensues......the outcome will be very, very ugly. So subsidies grow larger to "keep the peace".....


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Lostin55 said:


> You have no sense of humor.


Sorry... hard to tell sometimes on forums, when someone is kidding or when they're just being snarky...

I've had a lot of folks tell me I'm so cheap I squeak when I walk... thumb thier noses at me for doing it the "cheap way", but IMHO, heck if it works, what's so great about just spending (wasting, IMHO) more money to "do it fancier"??? I guess I get a little sick of that sort of thing and took your comment as one more in that category.

If I'm kidding I usually just put "j/k" (Just kidding) after the comment to clarify...

YMMV... OL J R : )


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

RuttedField said:


> Luke Strawalker,
> 
> I do not think you understand how the system really works. When a cost share program like what you describe...stock tanks for rotational grazing...is calculated, it is done according to what it would cost the Federal Government to do it. They all stinking well know we are farmers and that we can do it much cheaper, but that is how they have to do it so that there is a level playing field. As long as the farmer meets the criteria the pay-out is made.
> 
> ...


I guess... and like I said, if it works for YOU, go for it!

I just know that for me it was asking for a gold plated brick house when a single wide mobile home would keep you just as warm and dry...

Maybe not as fancy, but I never cared for "fancy"...

And, around here anyway, when it comes to *our money*, you better believe that final driveout prices is gonna beat "conservation" any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Your mileage may vary...

Later! OL J R


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

glasswrongsize said:


> (snip)
> 
> The taxes are very similar to the pre-pay gas pumps in that the gov't will not wait until April 15 for the majority of their money. It must be prepaid even though the actual due-date is April 15. If a person/business has not prepaid a certain percentage of their tax liability for this year, they will make you pay more (quarterly or monthly or whatever) next year. The gov't WILL NOT extend credit on one's taxes without penalty.
> 
> ...


Agree... I did the same when I was driving a school bus.

I got sick and tired of all the BS... they were "constantly" screwing with our deductions... most of it started with the "stimulus" checks the gubmint sent out after the collapse in 08... then of course they kept that going for a few years in varying degrees in one form or another... Everybody was thrilled to pieces to be getting money back from the gubmint in the mail to go blow on new bigscreen TV's and other assorted crap. The gubmint was counting on that to keep the economy from caving in, and it worked, more or less as advertised, because most people are idiots. I knew straight off that wasn't "free money" and that it'd have to be paid back, so it went into savings waiting for the day which sure enough came around when it had to be paid back.

They'd cut our withholding because they wanted people getting more money in-pocket to blow every week, rather than it sitting in the gubmint's hands waiting for them to spend it or, worse yet, them having to REFUND it later on...

Thing is, I HATE having to cough up a plug of money around tax time... I'd MUCH rather "overpay" by $20-25 bucks a week all year, and end up with a nice little refund (or sometimes not so little, depending on how things work out) at tax time, rather than end up having to try and scrape up enough money to send Uncle Sam a damned check when I least expected it.

Now, the IRS doesn't like that, and the pointy heads figuring "the velocity of money" and all that nonsense doesn't like it-- it's taking money out of circulation to their way of thinking. Well, crap on them... they're not the ones having to scrape up the extra dough if I end up owing the IRS on tax day... My tax lady told me basically that the IRS wants to end up "even-Steven" on tax day to the extent possible... they don't want to have to issue you a big refund check, but they don't want you owing them a ton of money either. Well, again, that's all well and good if you're a single guy or a married guy with one or two kids and you work a 9/5 job and that's it... you can pretty much figure your tax bill (and therefore withholding) down to around the dollar mark, anyway... BUT, if your FARMING and paying self-employment tax, making improvements on the farm, don't know exactly what your costs for the year will be til it's all over with and don't know how much you'll actually make til it's all over with, so you REALLY DON'T have any idea how much tax you may owe til it's all over with, well, in that case, me personally, I'd rather "overpay" and have a nice cushion... if things went well and I WOULD owe a big tax bill, because I "overpayed" on my job withholding, I end up owing nearly nothing on tax day, or maybe even getting a dab of a refund. If things go the other way, I end up with a nice, sometimes REALLY nice refund... And why the h3ll should Uncle Sam care?? He just got to use my money interest free for the better part of a year; a convenience I'm more than willing to extend to not have to scrape and scrimp or borrow money or eat PB&J for a month after tax day (like we had to do one time) just so I have a little extra in my paycheck every week the rest of the time.

I FINALLY got SO sick and tired of having to go to payroll and adjust my withholding (because we'd get notices in our mailboxes at work that "the gubmint is reducing withholding, therefore $XX less will be taken out of your check next month-- if you need to adjust this, see payroll"... I finally told them to take an extra $50 bucks a month out of my check from then on... Like I said, one year I ended up with a $3500 refund check... course most years it was more like $200, and the most I ever owed after that was like $150... Ever get blindsided and end up owing a bunch, you'll think about it...

YMMV... OL J R


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

I'll keep my money in my pocket as long as I can and pay it when I file my taxes,today.No way I'm going to let them use my money for free all yr.If I pre pd for seed or chemical I would get a discount.

I can manage my money just fine,better then the goberment and will pay it when it's due,not before.


----------



## RuttedField (Apr 24, 2016)

I am with you Swmnhay; most computers come with Excel, employment tax is around 35%, and its pretty easy to self calculate what is owed at any given moment based on how much profit or loss a farm has on their Schedule F Form.

It looks something like this,

=sum(f332*35%)

My accountant loves me.

Now when I worked the shipyard, that was a different story. I claimed single and no kids, had a ton of taxes taken out, then got a nice check at income tax time. (I am married with 4 daughters).


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

swmnhay said:


> I'll keep my money in my pocket as long as I can and pay it when I file my taxes,today.No way I'm going to let them use my money for free all yr.If I pre pd for seed or chemical I would get a discount.
> 
> I can manage my money just fine,better then the goberment and will pay it when it's due,not before.


That's fine if you have a big enough operation and big enough cash flow...

Different folks have different ways of doing things. Depends on your point of view; no right or wrong to it.

When I was driving a school bus, it was mostly for insurance benefits and to pay the taxes via withholding, so no unhappy surprises on tax day.

If you're farming a lot of ground and having hundreds of thousands of bucks or millions going through your hands between crop sales and buying inputs every year, you're having to pay quarterly anyway, and a few thousand dollar tax bill is just a blip on the radar, so it's not a big deal for you. Like you said, prepaying for seed alone could probably save you a good part of your tax bill, so better to put the money to that than having the money sitting worthless in Uncle Sam's grubby hands doing NOTHING for you...

One thing I've learned in life is that there IS NO "one right answer" for everybody-- no "one size fits all" and when someone/something tries to "force" that on everybody is when SOMEBODY, usually MOST FOLKS, are gonna get ROYALLY SCREWED...

Later! OL J R


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

Steve Martin, in his white-suited '70s splendor, smug self-satisfaction on his face, repeats the assertion in his best infomercial voice, then adds: "You say, 'Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?'"

"OK first," he explains, "get a million dollars."

Then, when the tax man comes to your door, you look him in the eye and say two simple words:

"I... forgot."


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

luke strawwalker said:


> That's fine if you have a big enough operation and big enough cash flow...
> 
> Different folks have different ways of doing things. Depends on your point of view; no right or wrong to it.
> 
> ...


I agree there is no right or wrong way.

But for a person drawing a wage and getting a $5200 tax refund it would make much more economic sense to take $100 a week out of his check and put it in a savings acc,retirement acc,or put it towards bills.People would sooner get a larger refund and have Uncle Sam take it out of their check then manage the money themselves.

My CPA said I could pay quarterly but it is not required.Again most do so they don't have a large tax bill once a yr,but again I'll manage my money until then and haveing it work for me instead letting Uncle Sam manage it.

Our society just doesn't know how to save.Instead of getting Liberal Arts degrees they should be teaching more economics.

A couple things I recall from High School economics was to have 6 months income in a rainy day fund and if purchasing a house you can afford your income X 2.5.Now no one has a rainy day fund and everyone wants a McMansion


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

swmnhay said:


> But for a person drawing a wage and getting a $5200 tax refund it would make much more economic sense to take $100 a week out of his check and put it in a savings acc,retirement acc,or put it towards bills.People would sooner get a larger refund and have Uncle Sam take it out of their check then manage the money themselves.


I would add one 'small' part to this 'refund', for those making less than $38,173 (AGI, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers, 2014 figures), had an average tax rate of 3.45% (of their AGI or about $1,311). With the income tax credits, that a fair share get, it's not a 'refund' but more of a 'redistribution of wealth' IMHO. They have nothing withheld through out the year, so can't save, invest or do anything, with the so called 'refund' until they get it in hand.

The top 50% of all tax payers (those above $38,173 in 2014, latest figures available) paid 97.25% of the total income taxes (table 6 on page 9 of attachment)!! FYI, the top 25% starts at $77,714 AGI and pay 86.78% of all income taxes (table 7 and 6, pages 9-10 of attachment).

As swmn mentions, as a farmer (if you qualify to file as one), you don't have to make quarterly payments (but your income taxes are due the end of February (and not April 15th).

Larry.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

A timely conversation about taxes. My blood pressure is going up as I read this thread. Having already done my taxes, both personal and business, I am fully aware of the depth of the govt penetration, into my wallet.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Lostin55 said:


> A timely conversation about taxes. My blood pressure is going up as I read this thread. Having already done my taxes, both personal and business, I am fully aware of the depth of the govt penetration, into my wallet.


I just did mine.

Wait. That was in October. And for 2015. Oops. April 15 comes quick when you were 6 months late last time.

Last year I did fairly well on my taxes (the ones I finally did in October). By that I mean the exchange of money was fairly minimal after filing. I think my fed return was about a $50 refund.

I agree with Cy. But being as all of my tax dollars come out of my paycheck, I find it hard to owe. I know I would be better off. Slightly. But sending in that check would break my heart.

I may be wrong, but for someone like Cy, he is writing the check either way. Just a matter of how much and when.


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

I just put my check in the mail today for the IRS. I kinda like paying taxes now, means I'm making money. I had a couple of years when I started that I didn't pay taxes, showed a loss, wasn't much fun.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

That is one way to look at it. One one hand I am in a fortunate position, on the other hand the tax man gets more than plenty. I think of what could be done with that amount of cash, to improve the place. I guess I should just go down to the NRCS office and apply to get it back in grants


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Lostin55 said:


> I guess I should just go down to the NRCS office and apply to get it back in grants


Minus the government's fair share naturally. 

Larry


----------



## azmike (Jan 4, 2015)

Trump's new budget:

Agriculture

_DECREASE: $4.7 billion, 20.7 percent_
Numerous loan and grant programs are eliminated, staffing at USDA Service Center Agencies is reduced and funding for USDA statistical capabilities is cut. Rural Business and Cooperative Service discretionary activities are eliminated and major new Federal land acquisitions for the National Forest System get the axe.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

That is the only way the Federal deficit will ever be reduced.....cut EVERY program by 20%.....some should be cut in half....and some should be eliminated.

Regards, Mike


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Just this morning talking with a covers crop guy.they are subsidizing it $50 an acre.The guy tells the NRCS lady it only cost $35 for the seed.Her response was they need to get rid of the money.

This is how our guberment works.


----------



## bluefarmer (Oct 10, 2010)

swmnhay said:


> Just this morning talking with a covers crop guy.they are subsidizing it $50 an acre.The guy tells the NRCS lady it only cost $35 for the seed.Her response was they need to get rid of the money.
> This is how our guberment works.


What would you plant for a cover crop this time of year?


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

bluefarmer said:


> What would you plant for a cover crop this time of year?


He was talking about in standing corn or after corn silage harvest.

No planting here now the ground is froze and snow on the ground.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Remember a very large portion of the USDA budget is not directly towards farmers or farm programs(IMHO) but stuff like 'food stamp and free lunches'.

Larry


----------



## olschoolsteel (Mar 6, 2016)

Before anybody gets too excited, farm subsidies and SNAP programs are exempt from the budget cuts. Sorry if this takes the wind out of any sails.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

olschoolsteel said:


> Before anybody gets too excited, farm subsidies and SNAP programs are exempt from the budget cuts. Sorry if this takes the wind out of any sails.


Well that's too bad.....they both need pruning.

Regards, Mike


----------

