Cattle futures dive

[bucket]

What i read from gust's posts are that the member are enuring they have another meeting to go to, to collect some per diems.

A sask wheat commission - to collect dues? WTF?

Why not just ask the minister of ag to get some of the overpayments of freight sent to the commission - get a huge surplus - and then budget it like an annuity to run the commision.

We don't get our money back in reduced freight rates, instead the overpayment goes to the WGRF. Get some of that money apportioned to you for the wheat commission dinner fund.

[gustgd]

WD9 I agree with your point about dollars.They are needed, and thats why we are always looking for new members. GGC is an effective lobby group. Yet they are an umbrella organization. they need strong membership to be effective.

Where I think we differ is the time frame. I don't have supreme confidence in the commissions to do the right thing on policy. Remember when the Manitoba Canola Growers decided to poll their members on selling Canola through the single market CWB. I cant remember if the Saskatchewan or Alberta commissions took a public position. I'm going to guess not.

We have a strong working relationship with the Federal Government. As well as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. We don't have the same influence with Manitoba Ag.
Who do you suppose the Federal NDP will go to for policy if the conservatives stumble? I imagine that the commissions will play nice, they have to pick their battles.

Another point I have heard on the Canadian Canola Growers is that they use the money earned on managing the Canola Cash advance to advocate policy. R&D and Market Development is handled by commissions. Is this accurate? Wheat/Cereals dont have this option.

[gustgd]

Bucket
Not sure on your point about WGRF. The Wheat Growers are a member around the table.

At the Wheat grower Edmonton meeting I heard more about completely eliminating the revenue cap. These people argued that with increasing Oil and Potash Grains need to be able to compete more.
I argued with the Duopoly of rail we still need a check valve to prevent gouging.
Your point about per diems and loving to go to more meetings doesn't deserve a reply.

Let us know how you want to run things, show up to some meetings make some calls advocate for change. Don't just snipe from behind a computer it doesn't help.

[bucket]

gustgd

I am not sniping from behind a computer, you know who I am and you know how to get ahold of me as well.

Its your job to get ideas. If you don't like mine then don't ask. As far as making phone calls, I do lots of that and I don't need to have my name attached to a group or an idea. I like to put the idea ideas forward and someone else can run with it.

I just gave you one. Get the money from an apportionment of the overage of the rail cap. western grain research fund (WGRF) I think is where the overpayment of the rail cap currently goes.

The rail cap is a great way to fund a commission (if, in fact, saskatchewan farmers need one. Personally I don't think we need another checkoff) until it is eliminated. I am not sure I have seen any value from the millions of dollars that has been siphoned off to the WGRF through an overpayment of the rail cap.

The check offs have to be refundable.

The commission you are setting up should have there policies available soon. I will take a look at them and comment on the deficiencies, if you like.

Most would think there should be some efficiencies created by consolidating all these groups. Less administration and meeting, more bite to the policy.

Joint running rights for the rail would help and if you guys are so tight with the current governments maybe that would be a first policy step to get the railroads smartened up.

Potash is a fraction of grain movement and fewer points to serve. Grain gets used as filler work for the railways - that has to change.

[Jfreedom]

Bucket you should investigate your statement
about potash being a fraction of grain shipments
.When at a conf this summer the spokesman for
PCS stated that potash is projected to increase
from 8mil tons to 33 in the next 5 to 7 years. This
is a company that owns its own cars and fixes
them ,owns the unload facility and the boats that
transport the product . The only thing they don't
own is the engines and track all with no revenue
cap .If you ran CN and CP whos product would
you haul . Your handle is appropriate cause
hanging a bucket of wheat on a potash car might
be the quickest way to get our grain to the coast
in the future .

[blackpowder]

I don't think I know enough about the
WCWGA yet to make a statement. As a
member I wouldn't mind seeing a annual
report and perhaps a survey shortly
after the AGM. $250/yr so far seems
cheap?
I too have questions for the WGRF,
and I guess I again have to learn more.
I'm not crazy about some of their
proposed expenditures. Sounded to me
like they were trying to be another
Alberta Ag with a %30 allotment for
agronomy research.
The rail freight cap as we know it
today could be a dead man walking. And I
believe it should be.

[bucket]

jfreedom

8 million tonnes is considerably less than the 20 plus MMT of grain moved by rail currently.

Good points though because if potash and grain start to equal in exports, all the rail cars in the world won't help move it with just a single line with a union doing the work.

Joint running rights and a twinned line at least to calgary would be a big help.

Then someone will have to start looking at the european boring machines to punch another hole through the mountains to twin the rail lines.

This country's politicians lack a whole lot of vision. They can gladly talk about all the resources this country has but fail to put a plan in place to export it. The infrastructure has to be put in place BEFORE the plants are finished being built, otherwise the bottlenecks start right at the interior plants.

[gustgd]

As I understand the reason the rail overpayments
go to the WGRF is ease of administration. All
crops shipped by rail weather Canola to
Vancouver or Canary Seed to Mexico all
contribute to rail revenue and are counted
towards the Cap. Decisions are made by farmers
on net price. People have told me lawsuits are a
potential problem if decisions are changed
retroactively. I remember this discussion last time
the railways had an overage. I don't know if some
of you made your decisions known outside of this
forum. I would say that some of the Wheat grower
directors might agree with you. I do not.

The point I'm clumsily trying to get across is. The
idea that rail overages should go to commissions
can't work. First of all
A)not bankable, commissions must have some
sort of reasonably stable funding *if* you wish
them to continue services.
B) to many commissions/crops back to wd9 point.
C) three provinces.
D) administrative nightmare.

But I may be wrong?

[gustgd]

Blackpowder we do annual updates. And part of
your membership fee goes toward mail updates a
couple times a year. Members also get e-mail
updates a couple times a month. Our exec
director Blair Rutter and all directors are a phone
call away. All directors are volunteer. No Per
diems.

Bucket your right I'm sorry. The sniping comment
was uncalled for. We have talked but never on
this issue. Give Blair a call maybe he can explain
it better. I just don't think your right. Although if
other directors outvote me....

[wd9]

Tom4, I would hope the new Alberta wheat
commission won't be as you suggest. Still
not sure why ABC just didn't add wheat to
their portfolio.

Thanks Gustgd for your good answers, this
is a tough topic.

[bucket]

gustgd

The only reason I said to use the overage is, if I remember right the WGRF has recieved over 70 million dollars in the last decade.

Its technically farmers money anyway. Using apportionments to grain hauled, I am pretty sure wheat's share would be the largest.

I am not getting the overage back, so if some goes to this commission thing, what's wrong with that.

And WGRF, should be more than happy to part with the windfall they have had.

I am not sure how much it costs to run a commission but, as I said earlier, if you had a large fund to draw on as an annuity type of thing, it may solve the funding issue. If you could get, let's say, 5 percent of that money, it should provide you with a good startup fund.

Points B and C - maybe we don't need provincial commissions.

Point D - consolidate the commissions and you put that issue bed quite quickly.

Commissions if you compare them to governments create these administration nightmares. There are less people in western Canada than the state of california but western canada has eight times more trough feeders (politicians) who can't get their head around consolidation. Same with RM politics as well. Enough said.

I am not sure why there can't be a western canadian wheat commission.

[gustgd]

Bucket more than technically. It is farmers money.
It won't go to commision's as I see it Fed
provincial splits and fights.

WGRF is spending/investing on 6 areas to
improve farmer bottom lines. Based on surveys of
all commodity groups priorities. Parting with your
money that way.

Budgeting $4 million/ year at .52c/tonne for wheat
commission in Sask.

Not sure where you'll get 5% return on money
guaranteed and not put principle at unnecessary
risk.

Consolidating commision's, agreed but that's an
argument I lost back in June. See previous
threads....about leadership of smaller crops
thinking they will get swamped by wheat.

Agree again about number of Trough feeders.
CFO you really want to hold California up as a
model government.

Legislation makes commissions provincial.
Councils are federal. Voluntary associations can
be both.

[bucket]

gustgd

Now I see where you are going. Never thought it would take 4 million to run a provincial wheat commission. As I said earlier I had no idea what it costs.

I still fail to understand that as long as there is an overage on rail freight why farmers can't decide where the money goes. The government, railways, the WGRF and others could get together and decide where it goes fairly. I still think of that one year where there was a 70 million dollar windfall for WGRF. Surely they haven't blown through all that yet and are using it as a reserve fund of sorts.

I don't like these long winded posts but something like the overage on rail freight, I am sure the minister would look at a different cost sharing arrangement. Otherwise I see the long road ahead of you.

I referred to the 5 percent coming from the percentage of the overage. So this year the overage resulted in 6-7 million, the commission would recieve 300-350 thousand. Maybe you could see if that percentage based on grain movement could be higher. Don't know. To me it seems easy, to you, with all the legislation you have read, not so much. But you have spent alot more time on this. It can't hurt to ask for a change in overage funding groups though, can it?

BTW, california was just used as population comparison, nothing more.