checkoffs opt out question?

[parsley]

I don't like the direction some folks are pushing for either.

Nor the "shame, shame, shame" methodology:

"Its unlikely the people that opt out of the checkoff care if there name is public because it does not seem to bother them that the rest of the farmers make the industry better and they just leach off of it."

(Yes, well, I can kind of relate to why some farmers would begin to think a leadership ability course should be mandatory...)

I'd boldly post my name if I apply. Over the years, for any checkoffs, we've never requested a refund. After all, it's been for research.

But upon adding up the checkoffs in all crops over the past year, I'm aghast! And the people scooping in, and managing the money are becoming greedier than ever.

Maybe the CWB can follow suit, (experienced as they are) and deduct a check-off from all canola growers.

After all, the CWB markets all over the world and have argued that organic growers benefitted from CWB marketing, so I'm sure they could make the same argument for a canola check-off pocketed by the CWB, claiming the CWB residually builds markets for canola growers.

Residual benefit could surely be legitimatley deemed mandatory in the eyes of communists, I'm confident.

Charleip, what was the marketing budget of the CWB last year? Do you have it handy? I downloaded their 4MB of disguise, that does not directly list "Marketing Costs for 08-09" (That's too simple for the simple, isn't it?)

I's like to know though, as we could determine a residual percentage from the total "all cwb crops" figure, and send the bill to canol growers, since we are into measuring benefits with green eyes.

Is there absolutely no decency, anymore? Pars

[wd9]

Charlie, what about the guys who just opt out regardless of how much good work is done? Or the ones that are so naive that the accountant applies for the refund without them even knowing and makes the accountant look good cuz he gets a bigger refund?

Some just take their money back and let others pay for and do the work yet enjoy the benefits of the labour and money of others.

A bit more public wouldn't hurt, at least not to those who pay for the benefits the free-loaders take.

[parsley]

I thought the Western Grain's Foundation was in Canada, charliep.

Certainly my income tax money oer the years, was made out to the Receiver General in Canada, which is probably why I am in such a pissy rage today.

And I'm sure "the idea would work to reduce free riders" is a concept a lot of ag consultants who recieve tax dollars for ag projects would be rather surprised that it was a bit of the free riders whose money they applied for. (btw, I am not in any way saying you applied for or recieived any tax money, brenda.)


Spoiled, self centred people who believe the world owes them a tax-dollar enriched living don't like to be reminded whose money it really IS. It's such an embarrassing, er, nuisance, isn't it? Pars

[parsley]

"A bit more public wouldn't hurt"

comes at an inopportune time as I write out a tax cheque, so excuse my sarcasm as I say to you:

"Did it ever occur to you that perhaps farmers cannot afford to pay for all research they now are expectwed to payfor considering farmers' net pay is almost in the toilet? (Unless statistics Canada is lying) Governments realize this... and that is why they are downloading costs.

If farmers simply don't have the money, how long will you continue to call them research cheapskates and free loaders? Or is it just your parlour game? Pars

[parsley]

On the CWB website in the 2009 annual report, here is a list of the CWB Directors who sit on other Boards:


**Canada Grains Council Board Member Ian White

**Canada Grains Council On-Farm Food Safety Committee Committee Member Jeff Nielsen

**Canadian Federation of Agriculture CWB Representative Allen Oberg

**Canadian Federation of Agriculture Grains and Oilseeds Committee CWB Representative Allen Oberg,

**Canadian International Grains Institute Board Member Henry Vos

**Western Grain Standards Committee Member, Wheat Subcommittee Kyle Korneychuk

**Western Grains Research Foundation Board Member Cam Goff

**Western Grains Research Foundation Member, Wheat Advisory Committee Bill Woods

**Western Grains Research Foundation Member, Barley Advisory Committee Kyle Korneychuk

Take a look. All of them get a cheque from the CWB itself. And then a cheque from the additional Board's they serve on.

And I am going to take a guess that there are some farmers posting on AV who sit on Boards representing other council's and associations and also get cheques to "serve".

Serve.

How are ordinary farmers' bottom lines these days? How are your "servers" working for you these days? Are you satisfied?

Are they on "self-serve"?

Should checkoff fees be generally reduced across the spectrum, and programms reduced, and committee time reduced and per diems reduced?

Or is living beyond one's means passe? Pars

[charliep]

wd9. Will stay out the debate whether should be mandatory or voluntary. Only observation is research and development is important to any business including agriculture. Having farmer money at the table gives your businesses a say in direction of activities. That includes the organic industry. The fancy stuff around biotech always seems to come to the forefront but much more is the rather mundane issues of improving agronomics/developing consumer traits via more conventional tools.

[charliep]

It would be interesting to compare what malleefarmer pays out to GRDC and from there end use levys for seed varieties to our amounts. Ianben has participated for a while but European farmers also pay for use of seed varieties (no choice) even when common seed. This is how their research is funded.

[parsley]

"The fancy stuff around biotech"

Na na na na. Wrong spraypaint charliep.

My point was about paying.

gusty put it out there that cheapskates opted out of paying checkoffs, and therefore should be made compulsory. wd assented.

I countered by saying my organic tax dollars paid for conventional ag research which is mostly biotech theses days, but I have traditionally paid and shut up. (Until now.)

My other point was this....did AV'ers ever think that maybe 'checkoff cheapskates' can't really afford to go to the bank to get another loan to fund research?

This session is NOT about organic vs biotech, but we could sure as heck drag in that duck if you'd like. LOL Pars

[gustgd]

If you think people are into Ag policy for the Money, the term delusional comes to mind. With the Wheat Growers its ZERO per diems plus expenses. If we submit. I usually submit for airfare and hotels. I cover ground transportation. With the WGRF I think it's $180 a day, might be $200. Last time meeting was in Saskatoon we stayed at the travel lodge and ate at Tony Roma's la de dah. You know what happens at home. Either work doesn't get done, my family picks up the slack or I pay someone to cover for me.
Anyone who goes into Ag policy does it because they hope to do better for the industry.

As for farmers not being able to afford research. That's asinine, we are in a competitive worldwide market, and you want to spend less??????

I'd rather call research a tax that everyone should pay. Although in this proposal you get the chance to get your money back. It's just that you have to face the community.
If some want to call it stealing they just don't get it.

Parsley we'll have to agree to disagree on this before you start to look more out of touch.

[freewheat]

Well, I for one would care less if my name was available for veiwing on that list. Most of my neighbors could care less either. Some areas have had such poor farming years for so long that yes every 200 bucks makes a difference. I know many of my struggling buddies would GLADLY allow their names to stand on that list. In fact if they missed me somehow, (should I choose a refund someday) I would request they list my name. I find it a wierd idea, it's not like checkoff's and the research they fund, are near enough and dear enough to every farmer's heart, to care about the non-funders. If my neighbor withheld his checkoff, more power to him, he produced the crop, it's his money. I don't opt out. If I did, I wouldn't feel like a freeloader though. If my neighbor opts out, I don't think he's tryin to get a free lunch either. I would say it is up to him, and if he doesn't beleive in it so be it. I want to opt out from the CWB because I don't beleive it offers benifits to my farm; if the CWB put up a massive poster with my name on it, saying I don't support their uncouth ways, I would be proud, just like my neighbor who decided he sees no real or perceived benefit from his checkoff dollars. A free lunch? Of what? Many guys would like a list of the big hurdles that their checkoff dollars have helped to clear, as many guys have no idea what their money does. I think the charitable checkoff receivers need to let us know more clearly every month for example, what our money is doing. If they publish this, with positive developments, then we as farmers would feel more in touch, and less likely to be prone to cynicism, doubt, and we would then have a reason to be excited at what our checkoff dollars are doing.

[gustgd]

freewheet I am just floating some alternatives.
We could go to end point royalties like in France. Standard royalty rates for all commodities you declare the variety, the company (private or public) gets the money.
I believe Charlie new the answer when he asked Mallee about the GRDC in Aust. 1% of gross sales goes to the pot.
As far as your area. That's why, when someone suggested phone numbers. I wrote against it. Nobody knows your situation but you if you can face your neighbours thats all I need.
Your CWB example is a good one! I too would opt out, and put me on a list as actively working against the monopoly.

As for not knowing what what your check off dollars are doing for you. That's where organizations fall down. In my mind its a money saving technique. Mail outs are not cheap and people have to be hired to write all that content. In any group I have seen driving down admin costs, and lean operating are always a priority. What do you think it costs the CWB for their daily e-mail as well as the envelope stuffers sent with every piece of mail that goes out?

WGRF has a list of Varieties that they have contributed to here is the wheat list http://www.westerngrains.com/index.asp?id=1210101&gfx=&ts=0
and specifically The wheat midge trait (sm1)

here's a canola example

http://www.canolacouncil.org/news/1999/resistant_varieties_add_to_clubroot_arsenal.aspx
you get the idea.

On a side note what traits would you like to see?
How do you want to get there?

[ajl]

You do have to remember that the benefits of research accrue to consumers not to producers. Farmers research how to produce more and consumers benefit by be able to access the production at a lower cost since in ag you can't pass your costs on. By and large there is very little value to farmers in a lot of what the commodity groups do.