Strahl to Resign?

[tower]

Tom4cwb I thought you might find this site usefull, plenty of info on a variety of agricultural concerns related to fair trade issues.

http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/bin/view.fpl/1194.html

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,

You asked.

I gave you an honest answer.

Our farm has practiced "Fair Trade Grain" with these "Value Chain" participants; reasonable people can create new prosperity... IF they are willing to respect each other.

Chairman Ritter does not want to lead, and it is very unlikely the new President and CEO of the CWB will be any better than Chairman Ritter is now.

The attitude that Ritter and the "Single Desk" Directors have of using a GUN to force us to market through the CWB is a pathetic fear based tactic that will never produce a "Fair Trade Grain" system.

As for Chairman Ritters comment that Minister Strahl sit down and negotiate with the CWB... this is a pure cop out.

Minster Strahl has made his points at every single CWB meeting, that any of his appointed DIrectors participated in.

Chairman Ritter and his tools of destruction have found a way to point that CWB gun at themselves and hurt the relationship with "designated area" growers in very real and substantial ways.

They would rather destroy the CWB than make it the instrument of a "Fair Trade Grain" prosperity.

Shame,

Proof the CWB "SIngle DEsk" it simply geared to steal growers grain at below premium price and the majority of the time below the cost of production.

LEAD, Follow, or get out of the WAY.

If you can't figure it out... please GET OUT OF THE WAY!

[Jay-mo]

What really bothers me about this whole thing is alot of the news stories talking about how "farmers" need to be the ones deciding the barley issue. Then in the next breathe they quote the pro-cwb talking about how its so great that a judge stopped barley from going open market....??????
I personally dont know any farmer or even non-farmer that supports the cwb monopoly on barley or wheat.
Where are these "farmers" that are making the decisions on behalf of all farmers??
What a freaking joke!

[tower]

Tom4cwb, I never said you were being dishonest, if you can please let us know what the details of your fair trade contracts with the various companies were. I said that I couldn't find any evidence on their websites showing that they were willing to abide by fair trade standards and I would be hgappy to learn differently.

It would be quite a turn around for many of them and a welcome one.

The cwb hasn't used any gun that I know of other than the rule of law which is kind of a standard thing that a lot of people look to to preserve societies values.

[Fransisco]

The appropriate use of force by a government is to protect a persons rights. Using the 'law' to take away a persons rights, in this case the right to the property that they themselves created, is not what a civilized nation does.

There is nothing civilized about putting farmers in jail for selling their own wheat, it is the exact opposite of justice, and is no better than any other form of theft.

It's long since time to take the gun away from the CWB and let them earn their business honestly.

[Fransisco]

Tower anyone who believes that it is perfectly fine to put their neighbors in jail because they have a difference of opinion on how to market their crop, has serious deficiencies in the morality department.

[parsley]

"The cwb hasn't used any gun that I know of"

What kind of claptrap are you trying to pan off on Agrivillians, tower?

Arresting people for what they grow is despicable. And that is what the CWB advocates.

Parsley

[tower]

Fransisco, civilized nations do quite a few things that infringe on the rights of individual citizens. Sometimes it's necessary for a society to take a broader and more long term view than an individual is likely to have. You tell me where the line is between accepting the law of the land and civil disobediance. For example a a travelling salesperson driving after having been suspended, a trucker operating an unsafe machine on the road because it is too expensive to fix, moving grain across a border because more income can be gained by limiting the effectiveness and therefore the value for other farmers from the cwb.

[Lifer]

"moving grain across a border because more income can be gained by limiting the effectiveness and therefore the value for other farmers from the cwb."

If the end result was what I'm reading from you, that more benefit to farmers is happening in the system of control we have now. I would gather that would be acceptable to a majority of farmers.

Nothing credible has backed up the assumption that farmers gain more value from the current CWB system.

[parsley]

tower, can you not understand the difference between rules that are put in place to keep people safe, as compared to rukes that are put in place to supposedly sappease people's greed?


Singledeskers claim they want the Board so they get more money.

Parsley

[kamichel]

Tower Said.
moving grain across a border because more income can be gained by limiting the effectiveness and therefore the value for other farmers from the cwb.

I am sure Canada is the only country in the world where a farmer can openly state that some farmers lost sale is great for their own economic prosperity and have special rules enacted to gain their goals. And actually feel good about it.
And actually think they are doing all farmers good. I am joining the F-OFF.

[tower]

lifer, and yet a majority of farmers want to be able to deal through the board. I understand that the percentage of the American population for example is approximately the same as in Canada. I would think with the natural advantages of the lower 48, plus the much higher level of subsidization that more farmers would have been able or willing to hold onto their land.

Perhaps there are advantages that are not pointed out to us from an agency that like the board has been around long enough that few remember its reason for being.

[tower]

kamichael, I would bet that most countries have disputes between farmers over access, marketing, and philosophy. I would also bet that there are farmers in each country that feel good about winning a battle of import from time to time. Would you have felt good if the feds had won the court case?

[Fransisco]

No, the majority want choice. Survey after survey for the last ten years, not just the plebiscite, according to Ritter, want choice.

But so what? There are plenty of things in the world that the absolute majority gets no say in and who I sell my grain too should be one of them.

By the way all the price comparisons I have seen between the board and the northern US are non-subsidized ones with the board on the short end of the stick every time.

You single deskers shrug off my rights as if they are nothing, force me to take less than I would have otherwise gotten on my own, then come up with all these rationalizations why less is more and that its for my own good when it clearly is not. And then in the end claim that my forced loss is someone else's gain so that makes it alright.

That's some pretty stink'in think'in.

[Fransisco]

And the reason the 'board' came into being was to provide cheap grain to the war effort in Europe. The war is over tower.