TexasCHLforum.com

Apparently this has been in the works publicly since late-August last year. It was open for public comments via internet September 2, 2011 and closed December 1, 2011. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe ... -0001-0001

There was a public hearing in Tampa, FL on October 14, 2011. According to the transcript, 3 feds spoke and they opened the floor for comments. No one representing farms or farmers spoke. The feds had to sit and wait for 1.5 hours and then closed the hearing. Doesn't say if they were speaking to an empty room or not, but it appears that way.

I'm very surprised that other than a couple university extension people posting their concerns for family farms, not many others have. I'm sure we'd all agree that any injury or death or a child on a farm is horrible. But regulating small farms out of existence shouldn't be the answer.

Both my mother's and father's families were small farmers in Minnesota and in Mississippi. I don't know when or why their family farms stopped working, but I'd not be surprised if regulations, (or the cost of them), drove them both out of business.

OK, Got it.

BUT, the DOL is talking about keeping kids from being crushed in grain elevators, and the news article headline reads, "Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores" They aren't attempting to ban children from performing chores on farms at all, and the headline is disingenuous and inflammatory. Anyone reading the actual news release from DOL should recognize that the news writer took liberal editorial freedoms.

gdanaher wrote:OK, Got it.

BUT, the DOL is talking about keeping kids from being crushed in grain elevators, and the news article headline reads, "Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores" They aren't attempting to ban children from performing chores on farms at all, and the headline is disingenuous and inflammatory. Anyone reading the actual news release from DOL should recognize that the news writer took liberal editorial freedoms.

Did you not read the memo in the link provided by Keith B, or are you blinded by your undying affection for the progressive cause and/or current administration?

If this was such a disingenuous and inflammatory editorial hit-piece, why is the Obama admin walking it back?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 6-19-44-56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slowplay wrote:

gdanaher wrote:OK, Got it.

BUT, the DOL is talking about keeping kids from being crushed in grain elevators, and the news article headline reads, "Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores" They aren't attempting to ban children from performing chores on farms at all, and the headline is disingenuous and inflammatory. Anyone reading the actual news release from DOL should recognize that the news writer took liberal editorial freedoms.

Did you not read the memo in the link provided by Keith B, or are you blinded by your undying affection for the progressive cause and/or current administration?

If this was such a disingenuous and inflammatory editorial hit-piece, why is the Obama admin walking it back?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 6-19-44-56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So anyone who questions "The Daily Caller" is blinded by undying affection for the progressive cause and/or current administration?

Boy, I must have been doing it wrong for years...reading multiple sources, questioning things, trying to gain a greater understanding, and formulating my own position / view. Wow...to think, I wasted all this time.

My kids were looking for another excuse to get out of doing their chores.

I've gotten quite a few calls and letters from the Dept. of Agriculture wanting to know about my "farm" so far I've ignored them. They say I can be fined if I don't respond , we'll see.

Slowplay,
I read the original news article. I read all of the DOL news releases. I did not cherry pick adjectives and nouns. I read the whole thing. Perhaps the DOL >IS< doing something underhanded. It's government after all. But if I read the press releases from DOL and then read the 'news article', there is no way that the piece can be construed as being objective. Read the press releases yourself. If there was anything to this, other members of the media would be talking about it. Rush would be talking about it. He always finds tidbits like this discussion worthy. Don't assume that because some web page printed something as fact that it really is.

The proposed rule in no way compromises the statutory child labor parental exemptions involving children working on farms owned or operated by their parents.

pbwalker wrote:

Slowplay wrote:

gdanaher wrote:OK, Got it.

BUT, the DOL is talking about keeping kids from being crushed in grain elevators, and the news article headline reads, "Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores" They aren't attempting to ban children from performing chores on farms at all, and the headline is disingenuous and inflammatory. Anyone reading the actual news release from DOL should recognize that the news writer took liberal editorial freedoms.

Did you not read the memo in the link provided by Keith B, or are you blinded by your undying affection for the progressive cause and/or current administration?

If this was such a disingenuous and inflammatory editorial hit-piece, why is the Obama admin walking it back?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 6-19-44-56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So anyone who questions "The Daily Caller" is blinded by undying affection for the progressive cause and/or current administration?

Boy, I must have been doing it wrong for years...reading multiple sources, questioning things, trying to gain a greater understanding, and formulating my own position / view. Wow...to think, I wasted all this time.

I can't speak to what you might have been doing wrong for years, but your reasoning is certainly flawed by misrepresenting the comments I directed to gdanaher.

I was asking if gdanaher read the DOL release because it lists several farm activities that are to be prohibited under the proposal. While gdanaher correctly points out (in the most recent post) that the proposal allows for an exemption for children working on farms owned by their parents, the proposal does provide for additional small farm regulations. How will these new regulations get enforced and how would DOL make sure that family farms aren't hiring nephews, nieces, cousins, or even young friends of their children that want to earn a little spending money?

The proposal would ban children from performing numerous farm activities - gdanaher incorrectly claimed "They aren't attempting to ban children from performing chores on farms at all, and the headline is disingenuous and inflammatory."

I was challenging that statement and made no reference to the Daily Caller. However, I don't find the Daily Caller to be disingenuous or wrongly inflammatory in their reporting of the DOL proposal.

gdanaher wrote:Slowplay,
I read the original news article. I read all of the DOL news releases. I did not cherry pick adjectives and nouns. I read the whole thing. Perhaps the DOL >IS< doing something underhanded. It's government after all. But if I read the press releases from DOL and then read the 'news article', there is no way that the piece can be construed as being objective. Read the press releases yourself. If there was anything to this, other members of the media would be talking about it. Rush would be talking about it. He always finds tidbits like this discussion worthy. Don't assume that because some web page printed something as fact that it really is.

The proposed rule in no way compromises the statutory child labor parental exemptions involving children working on farms owned or operated by their parents.

True, but the Daily Caller reporting discusses many other examples, irrespective of the parental exemption in the proposal.

I spent a lot of time working for my granddad in the summertime from my young years through my college years on his ranch. I drove tractors and other machinery since I was old enough to reach the pedals. From my skimming of the articles posted, there's a lot of prohibition to who can and can't drive machinery on the farm... I learned to drive machinery at a young age moving round bales, I use the skills learned in the field to this day driving forklifts/manlifts. As a child behind the wheel of a tractor I was a potential hazard to property and persons outside the tractor but that's about it. It's a rite of passage and a badge of responsibility when the adults feel that you are competent enough to operate the equipment by yourself.

No mention of the use of chemicals in the articles (roundup/grazon/remedy). I think somebody missed the point when they wrote this garbage...

texasmusic wrote:I spent a lot of time working for my granddad in the summertime from my young years through my college years on his ranch. I drove tractors and other machinery since I was old enough to reach the pedals. From my skimming of the articles posted, there's a lot of prohibition to who can and can't drive machinery on the farm... I learned to drive machinery at a young age moving round bales, I use the skills learned in the field to this day driving forklifts/manlifts. As a child behind the wheel of a tractor I was a potential hazard to property and persons outside the tractor but that's about it. It's a rite of passage and a badge of responsibility when the adults feel that you are competent enough to operate the equipment by yourself.

No mention of the use of chemicals in the articles (roundup/grazon/remedy). I think somebody missed the point when they wrote this garbage...

I remember the Summer I was nine and at my uncle's cabin in the woods of Kentucky. His neighbor had a field that had grown up and I was asked if I wanted to learn to drive a tractor, which I did. After about a half hour worth of instruction, I was turned loose with a full sized Ford tractor and a Brush Hog. 80 some acres and 3# of water weight later, I had mowed the entire farm. Would not have missed that opportunity for the world and carry it today in my ability to operate machinery and a positive impact on my work ethic. Under the DOL ruling I would have been banned.

Dragonfighter wrote:

texasmusic wrote:I spent a lot of time working for my granddad in the summertime from my young years through my college years on his ranch. I drove tractors and other machinery since I was old enough to reach the pedals. From my skimming of the articles posted, there's a lot of prohibition to who can and can't drive machinery on the farm... I learned to drive machinery at a young age moving round bales, I use the skills learned in the field to this day driving forklifts/manlifts. As a child behind the wheel of a tractor I was a potential hazard to property and persons outside the tractor but that's about it. It's a rite of passage and a badge of responsibility when the adults feel that you are competent enough to operate the equipment by yourself.

No mention of the use of chemicals in the articles (roundup/grazon/remedy). I think somebody missed the point when they wrote this garbage...

I remember the Summer I was nine and at my uncle's cabin in the woods of Kentucky. His neighbor had a field that had grown up and I was asked if I wanted to learn to drive a tractor, which I did. After about a half hour worth of instruction, I was turned loose with a full sized Ford tractor and a Brush Hog. 80 some acres and 3# of water weight later, I had mowed the entire farm. Would not have missed that opportunity for the world and carry it today in my ability to operate machinery and a positive impact on my work ethic. Under the DOL ruling I would have been banned.

Same type of thing here. When I was 13 I spent the summer working on my Uncle's cattle farm. I learned how to drive a tractor, bail hay, string barbed wire, work with the cattle, etc. It was hard work, but it was educational and usually (de-worming cattle was not) fun. With the proposed new rules, it could impact this type of scenario. It could also prevent an FFA kid from raising a cow or other animal for show. There are kids out there that do this and end up selling the animal for over $100,000 dollars and get their college money.

As for the dangers, yes, there are dangers. I do know of two instances where a high school age kid suffocated in a silo in my home area (I grew up in an agricultural region.) But I know of a lot more kids who were bored, didn't have anything to do and ended up stoned or drunk and wrapped their cars around a tree, killing themselves or others in the vehicle. I think the DLO should leave well enough alone and deal with individual reported cases, than to try to put some blanket safeguard into effect that will do nothing but damage the chances for a kid that wants to learn about farming or ranching. Their 'protect the children' guise is no different than the government trying to make a ruling saying your kid can't shoot on the school trap or skeet team because it is inherantly dangerous.

Keith, spot on.

This sort of thing is never about safety, but control. I doubt these new rugulations will save a single life...but they will give the gov more power, which is all they really want anyway.

The DOL has dropped this.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/amid- ... abor-rule/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The decision to withdraw this rule — including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ — was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

Kythas wrote:The DOL has dropped this.