Will you be able to vote in the next CWB election? - Interviews with Richard Phillips and Larry Hil

[furrowtickler]

Shane, 99% of crop share landowners still take near zero financial risk in growning the crop - self explanitory. It is still in their best interest to make money(crop share) - which pretty much excludes cwb grains period - if they have a brain.

[Hopperbin]

Since it is the correct thing to do the NDP will be against it because they are mindless. Liberals will try to make it look like it was their idea and or try to display they are in control. They Bloc will be against it also, because they don't give a rats ass about the west.

And the 40 tons should allow most organic producers to vote. Would hate for them to lose their vote. But since if a lot of farmers don't deliver to the board I wonder how many will actually go through the bother to apply to vote now that they can. Will be the best election ever in my opinion.

[furrowtickler]

Some guys here, and else where can take 40tn in an hour at harvest - most can do it within two or three. IMO 100tn min - this is the new millenium not the thirties/fourties, puck me they are still thirty years behind with this policy. Strickly weighted votes - no other option, IMO. More tns more votes.

[Hopperbin]

Sure Furrow some guys can take 40 ton an hour. Many can do much better, do we need to run our country by a few man's wealth, debt level, acres? One person one vote is the right way to go. All producers should some how get their ballot in the mail though, not through some application process.

[Fransisco]

Hopper, this is not about running the country. It's about selling YOUR grain. I'll say it again, YOUR grain, the grain you grow, on YOUR fields where you have to pay all of the bills. It is your grain by right, not by somebody else's permission.

This whole voting thing is ridiculous in the first place. And its a complete farce because at the end of the day the ultimate power rests in Ottawa. The Lib's designed it that way so you could fool yourself into believing you had a tiny bit of say when really you have none. Fiddling with tonnage levels for ballots isn't going to change that.

[FarmRanger]

One man one vote is best, IF every individual has
rights to own, use, and dispose of his property as
he sees fit. Otherwise, it's just the tyranny of the
majority.

[parsley]

I read your opinions on voting eligibility.

It seems not forward, reasoned thinking, as I have observed success cannot be soley based upon, for example, size, nor worth, nor gender, nor location, nor the size of testicles, nor amount of gall.

Should farmers be restricted from voting because they don't 'appear' big enough, (numbers or money wize) to aggressive agricultural central planners?

Certainly, the CWB itself, has deemed all DA farmers as a bunch of growers needing looking after; an incapable lot; so it is no wonder that some of the leadership spawned from that climate do not believe in you, do not believe in the ability of farmers.

What principles should participation be based upon?

#A How about Proposed Livestock Voter-Eligibility Based on WORTH? :

Richie Dumbass claims eligible cattle voters should get a vote ONLY if they have 75 or more calves per year. (An arbitrary number dreamed up at a lap dancing bar.)

Sounds simple, huh? Take a looksee.

Old One-Eyed Lou has a cow calf operation and sells calves in the fall. He owns 100 cows and aims to sell 100 calves yearly. He's eligible to vote.

100 X $800.00 per weaned calf(2010) = $80T

He plans on doubling his herd so he can realize $160,000/year.

2. Slim Butt has 25 purebred Charolais cows and a 24K gold reputation. Sells 20 yearlings per year at an average of $8,000.00 per head in his sale = $160,000. Can't vote. He plans on doubling his herd so he can realize $320,000/yr

So....How are these stupid petty eligibility rules made in backrooms by people ineligible to reason, going to REALLY impact agriculture?

Only a Richie Dumbass would promote one operation over another based upon numbers of cattle sold.

#B Proposed CWB Voter Eligibility Based Upon Impressive numbers.

You want big-acres based, boys?

How about a million acre farm being the eligibility requirement being lobbied for, with that single farm's one hundred thousand eligible corporate shareholders, who recieve an annual crop share, being able to vote?

And WHAT IF the following year, the 100,000 eligible voters pass the following resolution:

RESOLUTION: "Only those who participate in and own a million acre farm or more are eligible to vote in the CWB elections."

The Richie Dumbass types don't anticipate the end result scenarios from catering to a gang mentality.

You know, ...the biggest gang wins.

Is that what farming should be about?

Shouldn't every farmer reading this site, be wanting his young son, buying land in his own name, and proud of it, to be able to actually call himself a farmer, and be able to vote in a farm commodity organization that works for the benefit of any farmer growing that commodity, regardles of size of his modest but growing farm? Should bushels or farmgate price matter? Or his age? Or IQ?

If you are a farmer, are you not a bloody farmer?

Does the CWB have the moral or legislative right to deem a five hundred acre farm a voicless plot, whilst anything larger is represented?

What would you respond to this:

"Any farmer who has gone through bankruptcy or Farm Debt Review Board should not be eligible to vote in any CWB election?"

Or this:

"Any farmer who does not carry crop insurance is not deemed a farmer, and therefore cannot vote (There goes me!)."

Or:

"Any farmer who does not realize $4M/yr gross from farming cannot vote"(some smart marketing farmer ended up with only $175,000 gross but with $75,000 net, and yet couldn't vote. The $4M gross farmer only ended up with $152.25 net but got to vote) What's the matter with that picture?


"Any farmer who does not realize $90,000/yr net from farming cannot vote"
(some guy with 20,000 acres ends up with $1200,00 net and can't vote)" Huh?

" Only organically certified farmers can vote in CWB elections." Fits like a sock on a rooster, right?

All ill thought-out policy is folly.

The only thing bad policy does, is this....it picks winners and losers.

The Richie Dumbasses suggesting quick fixes for Agriculture have not based their policies upon sound principles BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THEIR INTENTION.

If agriculture, including the farm community, is going to do well, farm leaders must choose sound principles when they speak for, or lobby for, or work for farmers.

Equal opportunity.

Not equality.
But, equal opportunity.

Pars

PS Re Participating in Farm Organizations: Those Richie Dumbasses promoting centrally planned policy will ONLY court and accept farmer memberships from their current backroom benchmark membership reguirements.

The rest of you will be spurned:

"Don't call old George back for approving his membership application for hell's sure. He only got sixteen quarters and he don make us look any better than we already is when we go lobbying for more government funding."

[FarmRanger]

Pars, you can call yourself a farmer, rancher, or a
fiddler crab for all I care; just don't tell me that a
fiddler crab should have a right to vote to
confiscate another farmer's production.

That is the bigger issue.

[parsley]

1. A TONNAGE eligibility does not address the marketing choice issue. Neither does deleting 70 year old farmers off the voters list.

2. btw, did you recall that other "grains" can be legally added or subtracted from CWB marketing, according to the CWB Act? For example, wheat could be dropped from CWB marketing entirely, and canola added.

3.The CWB Act, working in tandem with its' sister act, affects many facets of agriculture, including elevators, and railroads which are legislatively designated as "works for the general advantage of Canada."

Isn't that rather, er, astoundingly important, compared to limiting farmers to 40 tonnes?

Wouldn't any business minded organization conclude that the first goal, the primary goal, the unrelenting aim, of ANY organization
'working in the interest of farmers'

as well as sound business practices, should FIRST be to pursue relegating 'works for the general advantage of Canada' communist kind of regulation, to the garbage can, instead of chasing after, of all things, real farmers' eligibility to participate?

Businesses would work with farmers, wouldn't they?

Limiting voting elegibility does not help real farmers in the end game. Any Minister can and will use their legislative veto when they WANT TO, anyhow.

Ritz simply does not want to. He has his people in place in the farm community who do not pursue the REAL issue of market choice, did you notice?

Property rights. Grain ownership. Free marketing. All hould be the focus. NOT CWB elections.

Ritz has made sure the politics is toned down so the public only hears about '40 tonnes', which hurts farmers, but leaves the government unscathed. That's what your farm representation has done to YOU while you lie prone, politically snoozing.

The organizations who ballot-bind some segments of farmers are not looking out for the general interest of farmers.

btw, ass much as you do not agree with socialist farmers, they are, indeed a political fact.

As much as you don't agree with socialist legislation, it is indeed a Conservative fact.

Chasing after voter eligibility bait is like diverting whining farmer-kids to play in the sandbox, leaving the political adults to safeguard compulsory government marketing.

You have been duped.

[parsley]

Look farmranger, I know lots of oil rig kids that always wanted to farm, and they are buying land, a little at a time, and as it comes up for sale. Prob most will not get a vote.

A couple of quarter sections, work like hell and pay their way.

They rig full time as they are still physically able, and farm when they can. Call them ABC FARMERS.

Are they what you would probably deem 'true farmers'? NO. Their primary work is not farming. Should they be encouraged or discouraged to farm?

Does the farmer who rents 10,000 acres, call him FARMER XYZ, and borrows money to put in every crop, and has declared bankruptcy a couple of times, and rents all new equipment,and constantly lobbies for a government payout, better fit your paradymn of an 'acceptable' farmer designation? He'd get a vote for sure.

You say XYZ should get a say on where farming should be headed. You say ABC should not, (based upon your constantly changing criteria)?

Yes, well.