Strahl to Resign?

[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.

[Lifer]

"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."

It is important to respect the beginnings of organization. The war effort may have been a noble reason to restrict the rights of farmers.

However it is important to focus on the future. If you can't remember or don't know why it should be, maybe it shouldn't. Or the board needs to become relevant to us as farmers and other businesses that can work together to make something better.

[Fransisco]

If they haven't pointed them out by now they do not exist.

You are into the wishful thinking category with that one. It's too bad single deskers can't back up their claims with verifible facts.

[tower]

I had a quick search on the web and came up with this Univ. sask study. This is just the summary but was pretty interesting in itself. I expect anyone interested can find the full report.

http://www.kis.usask.ca/CWB_Studies/ExecSummary_BarleyReport2005.pdf

A comment was made on another thread regarding the sale of feed cheaply to feeders I agree that it is a problem. I can't find the posting right now but I seem to remember that this was a fault laid at the door of the board. I wonder if anyone has looked at what we are doing to encourage the board in this attitude, for example are we electing cattlemen as our local cwb directors?

Beyond that I think that there needs to be a shift in societies attitude about value added production if the value added comes from value subtracted elsewhere in agriculture, ie the pockets of the grain producers. This isn't a wheat board issue, Look at the number of cattle that Agricore and saskpool have now. There wouldn't be a shift simply because we went to an open market.