The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1938-02-03
LAMBERTON. SANBORN
LANDOWNERS MEET
ON WEED PLAN

A group of 80 landowners and
farmers from the worst weed in
tested section of Redwood county
met with the county board Tues
day and passed a resolution asking
consultation with state and county
weed authorities before spraying
is done on their land. They prom
ised all possible cooperation with
a smother crop weed control pro-
gram and went on record as ask
ing the county board to appeal to
the state legislature for a one mill
statewide tax for weed control.
The group of Lamberton and
Charlestown township landhold-
ers appeared in the morning with
their attorney Julian E. Morten in
what appeared to be a belligerent
state of mind but settled down to
a calm discussion of weed prob
lens as the session heightened in
to the afternoon.
"We do not dictate weed spray
ing policies and have no more pull
with the state than you have, "
said E. A. Pease, chairman of the
county board.
It was explained that the coun-
ty board is not part of the weed
eradication program, only buying
sodium chlorate and other chemi-
Gals for spraying. A member of
the township board and the state
weed inspector together determine
which farms shall be sprayed and
the extent of spraying operations.
Objections to the county creep
ing jeny eradication program as
now conducted were voiced by
August Niemann, mayor of
Springfield, who waved a 1925
spray bill as he talked, DR.. Clar-
ence Boelke, Sanborn dentist
whose father owns county farm,
Gust Koenig, ard William Volmer,
retired farmers, William Raveling,
secretary of the North Star Far
mers Mutual Insurance company,
Ted Kuehl, officer in the Lamber-
ton bank, Walter Yaeger, Sanborn
banker and H. E. Kent, Sanborn
postmaster, among others. Many
of those attending have not yet
been affected by the jenny spray
ing program, but were apparently
there with fear that because Of
weed conditions in their section,
large tracts of land would be
sprayed in the future at high cost.
Lack of notifications to land
owners as to the time and place of
spraying their tracts, and the high
cost per acre, never less than $50,
were the main objections present.
ed.
John Arnett, state weed in
spector of this county who came
in for his share of criticism on
the notification question, agreed
to cooperate in policy of smoth-
er crop eradication mentioned in
a resolution passed by the group
of land owners. The group asked
to be consulted before spraying
wherever possible and that esti-
mates as to cost of spraying on
their farms be presented. State
law requires only that the occu-
pant must be notified and in many
cases tenants have failed to in
form landlords of spraying acti-
vities. Comment brought out
that spraying bills to owners UNI
aware that spraying had been
done came often as unpleasant
shocks.
$50 easy on spraying was
their plea.
Sentiment at the meeting was
for creeping jenny program
with certain curtailments as re-
commended. When H. E. Kent
offered a motion to dispense with
spraying entirely, no second could
be obtained
All expressed enthusiasm for
the smother crop plan and passed
a resolution providing that they
would cooperate with the state
department in that project and
urge other county farmers to do
likewise.