steel,
farming is a profession where skills are built up over the years often without academic credentials so equally rewarding careers may not be forthcoming. The average age of farmers is supposedly 56 so desire for major change is unlikely.

If you subscribe to climate change then the droughts have been caused by urbanites and they should be liable. If you don't then the drought is natural variability at it's extreme and since we need to eat it is a good idea to ensure that we are able to in the future.

Why else stay? close communities, no peak hour, can find a parking spot and no smog. It might surprise you but not everyone wants to share the city ratrace.

"Why persist with a sinking ship and then demand subsidies and welfare to constantly sink money to maintain their subsitense?"

I guess you could ask that question of the motor vehicle industry,
which receives billions in subsidies. Why not simply close them
down?

Steel
Yabby has answered your question do you have a comment in response.?
I would suggest you also take note of the sub standard products that have flooded the country as the Nationals have betrayed our farmers.
Not to forget the disasters under most Labour states.
You might not think it’s such a good idea for farmers to pack up and leave the land either if the day comes that Australia suffers from sanctions.
Do not think it can not happen here.
Some choice ah- Eat vegetables and meats imported from countries that use humane excrement [in its natural state] as fertilizer or starve. That’s while you can get it of course.
The farmers are the backbone of our country Steel. We have about one third working to supply a food bowl to the rest of us.
Now if the Salvos were smart along with other Church Leaders they would start getting involved in Free Range Farming and call upon Woolworths and others to work with them.
There would-be so much money involved they would not require grants from The Governments.
It certainly would be a wise move to ensure food will be available to people in a few years down the track.
Salvos Agricultural Christian College of humanity and Humane Resources.
Food for Thought.
We are doing similar with the Australian Muslim leaders.
Let us all pray our own Christian Leaders will also plan for our peoples future.
Hello Yabby and Rojo. It wouldn’t be the same without you both.
Yabbys adventures to be continued soon.

PALE - on this one, you can technically be right, but in practice, be wrong.

The Federal Government offers drought assistance to areas classified with 'Exceptional Circumstances' while the Queensland State Government offers assistance to Drought Declared properties. Both systems use different classifications, but nevertheless, both do contribute hundreds of millions to the problem.
I'm not sure about other states, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have some kind of assistance program as well.

So why do I bring this up?

You are dead right in that farmers would probably prefer stock feed to gifts at christmas time.
The thing is, the Salvation Army's resources will do next to nothing. That's the pragmatic view - compared to the millions of dollars being poured into the drought programs, the Salvation Army could empty all of their coffers tomorrow, and within a week it would have been consumed and the situation wouldn't have changed much.

So yes - while buying stock feed is more practical, the Salvation Army has always focused on the human element - and if Farmers are pushing themselves to afford feed, the christmas gifts are designed to brighten an otherwise depressing day of the year during drought.

If the salvation army switches to feed, they will be providing a drop of funds in an ocean of a problem. Better they try to serve the emotional needs at christmas time.

I see what you are trying to do and it sounds pragmatic, but I honestly don't think it's the way to go.

PALE - also, I notice you damning the Nationals again for abandoning the farmers without citing examples - in a previous thread I pulled you up on it as well, pointing that this 'abandonment of farmers' was more due to the fact that the National Party is ineffectual than a desire to attack farmers.

As I recall the chief example you pull up was in relation to National Party policies in regard to live exports.
I get that that is your particular wheelbarrow to push, but in a wide array of agricultural issues, I think you do yourself no service by pretending it's the paramount concern, and whatever stance the Nationals have taken on live exports is representative of their greater intentions.

The Nationals do try to defend farming interests, they're just not all that good at it. It's the Liberal party which is keen on free market economics regardless of the effects on rural Australia.

Live exports are not the be all and end all of the rural sector.

If you're going to claim the National party are the ones responsible for damaging rural Australia, please provide more examples beyond your narrow focus of interest, and more specifically, prove that the Nationals were voting in favour of these negative changes.

Otherwise, I'm assuming you're just disgruntled because they're not on board with your live exports concern, an issue which contrary to your strident posts, does not have united consensus within the rural sector.

paleif,
I agree with TurnLTR comments about the salvos and think I said something along these lines last time this subject was raised. The Salvos are well regarded in human welfare, and I don't think their charter should be clouded. Church groups really don't have a lot of sway these days and are comprised largely by the elderly who are not usually in a position to help. You are right though to bring the plight of animals to their attention, they shouldn't be ignored.

I'd check your figures re: amount of people working to supply food etc. there are approximately 400000 people directly employed in agricultural production and would be surprised if those indirectly employed(middlemen and processors etc)amounted to 10%.