commissions and assosiations

[parsley]

Bucket, you are arguing with closet-socialiists
who claim to be free marketers. Note the CWB's
defense-argument vvalk threw at you.

What they don't understand is that REAL
marketers are willing monetary contributors.
Freedom requires personal responsibility. Not
force. It's a concept socialized are unable to
grasp, because it's a foreign action to distribute
your own money as opposed to other people's
money.

Show me the millions collected and you'll find the
well-fed inbred self-interests scheming. Triffid
was a shining responsibility; my research lent
itself to compiling a viable list of people who's
ethics earned them a "****off" app named
In their dishonor. Pars

They'll soon be buying ships. In secret. Pars

[bucket]

Farm ranger

I can gladly post a bunch of emails sent
to ministers and farm groups that turned
into futile attempts to rethink farm
policy.

The most recent was apas asking for Rrsp
to buy farmland. I sent that suggestion
to both them and the government in 2007.

I don't need to claim the idea, I just
wanted someone with the power to act on
it to actually do something.

Think how agriculture would look if they
would have acted on it 6 years ago.

And that's just one idea.

Pretty soon a person loses interest in
suggesting ideas because it doesn't suit
the boards personal agenda or gain.

I like to think of the bigger picture.
When I sat on the rm, I found it hard to
put in expense accounts because my
responsibilties rarely were out of my
way. Most times extra meetings never did
get expensed because I enjoyed knowing
what was going on and felt honoured that
my opinion mattered.

[bucket]

Farm ranger

If it is just a little paperwork then
make the so called majority fill out the
paperwork for the check off.

Leave those that don't want it alone.

I think you might be surprised how much
"majority" support you think this
commission has.

[parsley]

Farmers cannot afford to fund all the research
being deducted. Cannot afford. Don't have the
money. Lack funds. Are short of cash. Are up to
their yingynag in operating loans. Are Living year
to year. Owe money. Financed to the hilt. Are
struggling. Will have reduced capital.

Get the meaning?

AND ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE WILLING AND
EAGER TO DOWNLOAD HALF OF THE
EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC FUNDING OF
AGRICULTURE ON......yup, FARMERS. Pars

[bucket]

Parsley

Some farmers don't understand what you
just said because they have never had
anyone but daddy to explain stuff to.

Its a totally different dynamic and
leads to their holier than thou
atttitude.

[parsley]

I discovered what real farmers would do during
the Wheat Board fight. They crossed customs,
gave cash, phoned, networked, went to jail, and
stood up for something Publicly Too many pretty
boys hid in their Boardrooms.

The main reason we have free marketing today is
because the group of farmers who stood their
ground and went to jail, completely turned public
opinion, and broke governments' gall. Not
intimidated. But upfront. And standing up for
sound sound principal.

The pretty boys have benefitted from the boys
who paid the real dues.

I won't call the pretty boys cherry pickers; rather
I'll leave that as the name-calling card for the
Monopoly Crowd.

Each farmer can define himself. Pars

[parsley]

Let's be fair and present a bucket or two of
contrary view, a fair and balanced mime, strictly
in the interest of social science, of course. 


vvalk.  I've met your type many times. Want all
my money by force so your pals can pay for all
the  research and advancements I may not
approve of. It wouldnt   
make any difference if you just ask me for my
money  will it? Why not get benefits with good
will? 

Some of  these organizations   
overlap and waste my money. Are scarce
research  dollars  now instead being targeted for
lobbying?  Such as : working  on trade issues,
safety nets, tariff barriers like  china closing
imports down over blackleg or the  
triffid in flax issues, low level presence  or
chemical residues that may shut down exports  
to different countries making sure new GMO
traits that i dont condone,are acccepted in
countries that buy all the canola I am no longer
able to grow. 

More new traits in cereals that will help battles
new  diseases etc. could effect organic farms,  
but not necessarily in a positive way

I could go on and on to the reasons why the
principle of forced participation and mandatory
checkoffs  is contrary to a democratic country,
and  to privatley owned family farms, but why  
bother, since you probably favor a mandatory 
circle jerk in softly lit board rooms, with scripted
music. 

Your obviously so closed minded why bother  
wasting the time with a cheap ass lookin for other
people's money to spend. Pars
    

[parsley]

Of all people on AV , farmranger, I least
expected you to try and sell the cherry picking
argument to defend monopoly funding. #FAIL
#BOARDROOMKOOLAID? Pars

[FarmRanger]

Parsley, I’m not sure I’m understanding you. I thought you were the Queen of farmers doing things themselves and keeping government out? Here you are advocating for total government public research funding with no input from farmers because we can’t afford it?? My understanding is if farmers are paying a <b>portion </b> of research then we get more say in what that money gets spent on too. The reason I bolded portion is that right now the money farmers spend is multiplied many times by public matching…how is that a bad thing?

Parsley, it’s not socialist to want to work with others in your industry with the same interests as you. The checkoffs are used to fund activities which benefit all the growers of that crop. Refundability ensures accountability from those charged with directing those funds to their best use for the benefit of the farmers who paid them in the first place.

Bucket, did you ever think that perhaps your RRSP land idea might have a few flaws and that was why it was rejected. I’m not sure what you had in mind, but I would assume that it would have something to do with allowing principle payments on land to be deductible as an RRSP contribution? This would have the effect of an immediate jump in land prices as you could buy land with pre-tax dollars, rather than after-tax dollars. This is great if you’re about to retire, but would increase costs within our industry, in effect capitalizing a tax deferral into the price of land. I apologize if that isn’t what you had meant.

[parsley]

The piece was a parody of vvalk's shotgun blast.
Note I said a "fair and balanced MIME." a mime
copies.

I'd like your hear your philosophical defense of
monopoly deductions, though. Would be a first?
Pars

[danpenner]

http://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31401&It emid=427

for those of you intrested cut and copy this link into your browser and have a read, this article does a good job of explaining why were talking about this issue.

i dont think the issue is refundable checkoff or non refundable checkoff

the issue is lets spend checkoff dollars in a more collective manner

fyi theres another article in the last mb cooperator on page 2 that also does a great job of explaining the thoughts behind the commisions and associations post.

[danpenner]

this is a little long but heres the MB cooperator article that does a real good job of explaining the letter that was sent to associations commisions and government


By Allan Dawson
co-operator staff
AManitoba farmer mounting
an effort to create one
big commodity association
says a splintered voice is not only
expensive, it could cost farmers
control of their industry.
As the number of commodity
organizations collecting checkoffs
continues to grow, a 5,000-
acre Manitoban farmer can be
paying around $20,000 a year in
checkoffs, said Danny Penner, a
Halbstadt-area farmer and former
president the Manitoba Pulse
Growers Association. He says
checkoff dollars would be better
spent on a larger, more efficient
national commodity association.
“If we continue on the road
we’re on, people are going to see
themselves putting too much
money into small-picture thinking
and they’re going to vote with
their dollars and they’re going to
take more and more money out,”
said Penner.
“If we are moving forward
and the people spending a lot of
money see there is a vision and
there is a movement and something
is going to come of this, and
the dollars they spend are going
to have a national or international
focus, I think they’ll more likely
leave their money in.”
Penner, whose father Jack was
the first president elected to lead
Keystone Agricultural Producers,
crafted his proposals after consulting
some like-minded farmers,
and then emailed them last
week to western Canadian commodity
groups, the federal and
Prairie agriculture ministers, and
several reporters.
“We are writing to request your
support for the creation of a new
producer-driven national farm
organization that would work to
solidify marketing systems for
grains, oilseeds, pulses and special
crops,” the document states.
No matter where farmers
stood on the Canadian Wheat
Board, its mandate change “left
a void” the document says. To fill
it, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta are creating wheat and
barley associations. And there are
already winter cereal, oat, pulse
and canola associations in those
provinces.
Farmers would be better served
by a single national, or at least to
start with, western farmer-run,
commodity associations, Penner
said. Each would send representatives
to sit on the board of a single,
national farm association, which
would also elect farmers, he said.
“Then the minister of agriculture
could say, ‘I’m going to
Winnipeg and I’m going to meet
with these guys and I can cover
everything in two days rather than
travelling all across Canada trying
to get fragmented views from
each individual organization,’”
Penner said.
Subcommittees could work on
local issues, but the focus would
be on the big picture and using
economies of scale to deliver
more bang for the buck, Penner
said.
Several national commodity
groups already exist, including
the Canada Grains Council
and Canola Council of Canada.
Meanwhile, work is underway
to set up the Cereals Council of
Canada. But these groups are
dominated by “industry” representatives,
Penner said.
“We’re looking at something
that’s going to be farmer run,” he
said. “Industry has a place, but
if we allow the life science companies
to lead us... ultimately
I don’t think that’s in the best
interests of farmers and consumers
alike.”
The Grain Growers of Canada,
an umbrella organization for grain
commodity groups, could play
a role in setting up a new single,
national association because it is
farmer run, Penner said.
“But they would have to take a
really large step forward in how
they are managed and how they
would see themselves growing
into this,” he said.
Penner said the Canadian Grain
Commission could also play
a role in getting the association
going. Having a national farmerrun
association could also take
ownership of crop varieties developed
by Agriculture and Agri-
Food Canada after it pulls out of
research, Penner said. If farmers
don’t organize, those crops will
end up owned by private firms,
he said.
“I’m not calling that the end of
the world, but it doesn’t give us
any control over what we’re going
to be dealing with in 10, 15 or 20
years,” Penner said.
Penner’s document doesn’t
spell everything out and that’s
deliberate, he said. It’s meant
to be thought provoking, not
prescriptive.
So far feedback has been positive,
Penner said.
“The responses I’d say are 90
per cent on side and 10 per cent
skepticism,” he said.
“It may not happen from this
initiative, but it will happen,”
Penner predicted during an interview
March 7. “It has to happen
and if it doesn’t happen we’re
going to be in trouble because
we’re going to lose control of our
own industry.”
See Page 5 for the full text of
Penner’s pitch to fellow farmers.
allan@fbcpublishing.com
Farmers urged to

[parsley]

Bird's view:
Gov'ts borrow/spend
Govts ended 100%-funding for research
Farmers filling in funding hole.

Banks are getting antsy.
Farmers don't have the investment money
Amazon has.

No refundable programs should be mandatory.
They will become non-refundable or what is the
purpose. pars

[bucket]

My idea was the equivalent of a first
time homebuyer.

Was meant as an idea to get land buyers
a shot at buying land and investing in
themselves.

Instead it is now used as a way to
compete against the very people we need
to keep our farms turning over to real
farmers.

Now we will have investor money making
farmers peasants.

I am beginning to understand why it took
so long to eliminate the board through
the discussions on this thread.

[FarmRanger]

My apologies Dan, I was a part of the derailing your thread.
While I agree that there may be some duplication, that can be kept to a minimum by each provincial commission concentrating on provincial issues and working together on the “big picture” national issues. I fear having a large superboard because it concentrates decision making in one spot with the decision makers being too far removed from the people who elected them.
I wouldn’t want my MP making decisions on where the water lines in our rural water co-op are allowed to run. On the other hand, I don’t want my county councillor negotiating tariffs with the Europeans. Some things are better handled at a local level, and some are better handled by people with a national focus.
I’m not sure where the 4-5 dollars per tonne is coming from, I’m pretty sure there aren’t any checkoffs anywhere near that right now? Going back to your analogy with pulses; having all pulses under one commission instead of separate pea, lentil, chickpea, etc. This is more like an all-wheat commission rather than having hard red spring, durum, winter wheat, soft wheat, etc. so I’m not sure there is a huge difference in what you’re asking and what is being planned? Maybe that could be expanded to include all cereals, but that is something that will have to evolve in the future (maybe with your input?).