Yes VS NO on Flood Help!

[SASKFARMER3]

Seems this is a subject that is on most peoples mind right now. Yesterday an Agrologist friend of mine said no way on help for flood but I reminded him how much work will he get this year. He didn't get it. But is that a fact people in Canada just don't get it, food is food. Once in ND I was with my family and my boys were swimming in hotel pool a guy sat down and offered me a beer. We chatted and he asked what I do for a living I explained I farmed. WOW he said congratulations that's a wonderful carrier. I was speechless. (Yes ME) So I asked him what he did, "Oh I drive anhydrous truck and haul fert rest of year" HM. IN US farmers are looked on first then it trickles down. In Canada were looked at last I feel.
But for this discussion lets look at giving $50.00 an acre on top of other Programs.
No crop vs $100.00 An acre.
Well for those who complain Canola has risen 1.00 a bushel since the disaster hit so you have an extra 40 to 60 in your pocket or more. For you it will be pay day. Now with no crop you have to wait months even years to get money from the different programs and have to deal with banks etc to survive. (not fun). You also have to be pro rated for Crop insurance so your 50 is probably 45 or 40 after its all said and done then crop insurance premium is taken off that. So If you seeded half your crop your check will be SFA.
IT will be months till one gets help from any program months.
So where do people stand Yes for help or No for no help.

[furrowtickler]

The sad thing is your right s/f. The reality is it took two years for the cattle guys to get assistance so I would not hold your breath, but I agree with what you say. And without a doubt there needs to be assistance. After staying away from this debate what about $50 unseeded and $100 seeded then there is agri stab and crop insurance that could kick in, no? We have a good crop here so far, but we could end up with sfa as well - long ways from the bin. Funny thing is there is some bad crop here as well, my 25% theory is pretty much bang on for this area - so should guys in this area get in on this gig too even though conditions were favourable to be done by the long weekend if you managed your time efficiently? I think this debate will be endless.

[furrowtickler]

But then again there is less than 1% flooded area north of the river, so maybe I should stay on the sidelines. The issue for some here will be frost not flooded acres. That may be anouther ship show as well.

[SASKFARMER3]

I worked for Gov. for years lots of talk and very little gets down to farmer. On average most farmers get less than their accountants from these programs. Yes MNP that's correct. You set guys up to exit the industry. But when you cant seed vs seeding into dry ground its two different things. Last year is prime example, Alberta got crop in ground it didn't rain till July 1st and man did it look ugly, but then it rained and rained and open fall, notice I said open fall if it would have froze on 5th of august or 5th of Sept then wow what a mess. Their is a million answers to this one. But back to point if you can seed and sorry no one pours the inputs when its extremely dry. But you seed and hope it rains then top dress etc. But when the seed is in the bin you don't have any thing to sell and no crop insurance to base your return on. You need to plant to get insurance. Then their is the massive subsidies to Auto industry and Banks. Yea the big boys needed a huge amount of help in comparison to this flood. Then their is the G8 costs that we pst away a billion for what a few hour meeting. So its a tough one, but their has to be something done. Again those with crops will benefit from higher prices if they get the crop.

[furrowtickler]

I am not comparing wet to dry, just offered an opinion on what should, could, may be done. I understand what you are saying and so many others - again and again.

[sawfly]

I don't want to sound like a hard ass
here , but changing the rules after the cards are dealt.
if farmers start renting the whole country . raising rents and land prices.
for everyone .farming the max they can get done if weather is perfect.
then things go wrong and they get bailed out. then why not bid 80$/acre next year.

some areas need a bit of a top up sure.
if you want to keep people in the country.
how about some caps on acres.
a general acre payment does the young and small guy no favors. just raises future costs.
again the the guy with 10-20,000 acres will fare a lot better with 100$
because he did not turn a wheel on 15-18 thousand of them.
Compared to the prudent operator , that got 50% in the ground.

every situation is different

funny when the check go's to some one else its socialism.
when it comes to me it's a necessary
government response to unforeseeable
circumstances and a benefit to the whole economy

[parsley]

You have a point re consistency, sawfly.

[Burbert]

The required programs are in place to help. With Harpie in charge, there will be NO EXTRA help. A huge amount of whinning and snivelling will/should help, since they kin tinker wit the programs, if'n they wants ta. After all, the Amerikins will make up any food shortages that may occur cause Costco and Walmart got lottsa stuff!

[bucket]

The sask ag minister said yesterday " what the levels of government could afford...."

When GM and chrysler came knocking there was no talk about what anyone could afford - they were going to match what the US government did proportionately. To the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

I thought that set a precedent to helping out industries but apparently I was wrong about the conservative government. Wonder how this will play out for them come election time?

There are plenty of ways to deal with this mess. 100 bucks an acre with 10 bucks repayable after the 2012 growing season. Moratoriums on debt repayment or in other words you don't lose the farm for a 1 in 500 year rain event.

The federal program won't kick in for years and some farmers will be out of business by the time they receive any money. Not good for the young guys either - some say they are considering moving back to what they were doing and waiting for the inheritance rather than using it up for a disaster and the aftermath from it. It will take years to recover from this.

[skhadenuf]

sf3, bucket, and others thanks for the support, furrow you too make valid points, what it really comes down to is the same old thing. We have no effective, efficient, quick responding, take it to the bank program in place, whether your wipeout comes flood in the spring or frost in the fall. The market is not compensating enough when we grow a crop to cover years like this when there is nothing at all you can do and you're wiped out. In fact the market is barey paying the bills when you grow an average crop, yet those up the chain have profits built in at every step taken and they should but so should it be down at the initial place where the main risk and work occurs. And with the current programs we now have included a whole new self created occupation in nerdy accountants that are needed to fill out the bloody forms for a program that really has no direction as to what it is supposed to do or accomplish other than fill the pockets of the nerds whom I might add **** up more than us not so bright farmers with us picking up the fall out of the **** ups.
We have no leaders in agriculture at all that truly represent all of us.
As far as no money for a good program bullshit to the highest degree! A billion dollars for gun registry that was supposed to be stopped and now is going on costing as much or more, billion for G8, G20, and when reporters asked the leaders what did you accomplish the most you could get out of them is it's a work in progress and oh yeah we'll need more meetings but the food and booze was great! Why wasn't that meeting held in Western Canada to pump that billion into a Western city, or had in a location where the expenses would have been a fraction?
Maybe we farmers need to hire a Rahim Jaffer to go around buy off MPs for inside tracks and influence on making a program that works.
Of which by the way all we need is a program we buy a dollar amount say 250 and acre and different levels of coverage. You'd get rid of thousands of nerds crunching numbers filling out forms, have a definate number to manage your farm, and would be responsive within weeks of your harvest or disaster occurring. Checking and others expressed abuse would occur, no more than the current crop insurance, if people are going to hide grain from that kind of program they'll hide it from crop insurance. The CAIS PROGRAM IS THE MOST CORRUPT, INEFFECTIVE, UNFAIR, UNTIMELY, COSTLY, AND MANIPULATED, OPEN FOR FRAUD PROGRAM IN HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE. You want a payment here grandma will give you a bill IOU for fertilizer or other inputs, not a thing anyone can do, How about this one Daddy collects 3 years sonny gets all the crop 3 years then they switch, build the margin steal the money, anyone want more examples.

[sewen]

Get rid of CAIS (whoops I mean agristability) which pays money to SOME farmers for no reason at all and there would be lots of money for disaster assitance.

[mcfarms]

Relax kids, whether you should get a larger payout or not is moot as I believe you will, likely about a 50 dollar top up on the 50 you would get from crop ins. I don't like it much as I felt the recent drought payout to ranchers is a joke . ( My application is here and it will get filled out after we get the biggest hay crop- we may have ever had cut and baled)

Here is why you'll get something it's because if the programs Cais, agriinvest etc. were allowed to or fixed so that they did work the politicians would not be able to make splashy announcements claiming 100's of millions to the poor helpless farmers and they couldn't pat themselves on the back and remind you on election day how they rode to your defense.
But what they are really doing is just writing you an advance payment on the programs which should be held to light on years like this and the flaws exposed, but won't be as these ad hoc payments don't allow that to happen.
But also what it is doing instead of saving the day is slowly turning the urban voters against you and I and programs such as Cais and agristabilty and agriinvest and even crop ins. etc which if operated properly and staffed correctly could quietly go about the jobs we would hope they were designed for.
I am afraid that if we as farmers don't learn to stand on our own feet in the industry we chose and were not forced into, sooner than later the urban support we have had over the years for programs such as crop ins. will vanish and the little amounts we've received in years like this will pale next to the costs we may see associated with risk management in the future.
If you are in a job or in a position in life where you cannot survive without outside assistance there is a bigger problem at hand than the one currently facing you. Doesn't matter if you run a 75 quarter mixed farm in South central Alberta or the quicky mart in springfield. If you haven't got the ability to absorb the risk presented to you in your chosen profession maybe it wasn't a very smart move to choose it.

Again relax the cheques in the mail whether we deserve it or not is another matter.

which reminds me I need to phone again to ask where my 2008 agriinvest statement is 2 years late and all..

[checking]

Skhadenuf.

Tell it like it is, or don't tell it.

You stated you want a simple program guaranteeing you a basic amount, regardless.

My comment was, "Do you see any abuses that could come out of a system like that?"

Insurance is not there for people to better their position. You should hope that you never have to collect on your premium. If you want your simple program that says we won't let you fail, be prepared to pay for it, and don't force my participation.

If that is offensive, then Sf3 your correct that I don't get it.

[agstar77]

No. There is crop insurance and agristability. If Those don't make it for you, then it's time to pull the plug. The rules of the game were clear before we put a crop in. The only difference this year is the widespread nature of the problem. Is crop insurance good enough, probably not. It should be fixed. Is agristability good enough, probably not. Fix it. I don't see any way a fair payment could be made. Maybe land prices and rents should decrease reflecting more of the risk. We don't have crop insurance but we are in agristability. The real problem is overall profitability. If margins were better , we would better survive these type of disasters. As an example the % hog farmers receive of the supermarket $ has gone from 30% in 1980 to 15 % in 2010. This trend can't continue , there is no room for risk.

[wmoebis]

I agree with Agstar77 and sewen.

Get rid of the payouts when there is no disaster. Let crop insurance and personal risk management work.

Like Agstar said we knew what the rules before we put crop in ground. That is when we should have been talking change. Just like the price of grain we know the price before we plant it, don't cry after it is in the bin and contract signed. If you are signing contracts with crop ins or grain markets (incl. CWB) you are saying yep I'll play by your rules and prices.