Farm Leadership

[parsley]

Thoughtful observation, Tom. Producers need to
be active b/c the individual producer best knows
his farm and what best serves his farm .

The days of driving miles and eating and hotels
belong to the days that have died.

Producers can now participate by skype and
FaceTime etc, in their homes or through their
libraries.
.
True farm business leaders would never lobby
government to install automatic-deduction
legislation on wealth creating producers.

It is a business-foolish practice. An invasion of
property. An unecessary expense. It is forced
co-operation. It weakens independence. And it
furthers the goal of socialism. It is also the
avenue that leads to farmers footing the bills for
those who outvote their interests

A handful of legislated farmers, along with a few
dozen outside-interest board members, chaired
by Chief Spence reporting to a PM Mulcair, will
collect more than enough ag-land carbon taxes
to pay for UN Delegation per diems. Pars.

[danpenner]

back to the topic
all the arguing aside about funding whose nose is out of joint, and who doesnt want to pay checkoffs,

is the idea posted worth pursuing?

could there be benifit in working together?

is farmer conrtol of our future important?

can pulse, cereals, and oil seeds have common goals they can work on togerther?

[parsley]

National org will be on life support without
funding. You seem to think auto-deducts, by
existing orgs, will automatically continue.

I don't.

My reasoning:

Money supply will dribble. Taxes will rise.
Markets will struggle. Producer cost will soar.
Farmers will request refunds.

Which leaves national body on life support.

Do you have stored oxygen? Pars.

PS money is so, er, awkward, isn't it.

[bucket]

Danpenner

Sure the idea has merit.

The problem I have with checkoffs is the
organizations lack of authority or
responsibilty.

Look at flax. The problem started with
the breeders. Then the seedgrowers.

The bill was ultimately left with the
commercial farmers.

I have a request into saskflax about the
seed growers exchanging seed as part of
their responsibilty to this mess. No
return call yet two months and waiting.

[BTO_farmall]

Danny,

Yous Seem Much To Occupied By This. Give Me The Names and Phone #'s To all Yer Land Lords, And I Will Keep Yous Busy 4 a Few Weeks Anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rook]

Dan, how would this be different than the current Grain Growers of Canada?

[TOM4CWB]

Dan,

Perhaps you missed my post?

"After all is said and done... how much will actually get
done that increases profitability on our farms.

WGRF... BIG bucks were given to them (<$100M from
rail overpayment etc)... what did they do? They sat on
it. And then said they needed even more money.

Everyone wants a big contingency fund... and to keep
raising levys...

Now paid directors for:

Oats, Wheat, Barley, Pulse, Canola in AB.

Way over $1M [per year] in admin... that could be done easy for
half as much... as has been said before. Barley wheat
and oats can easily be administrated together like
pulses. Flax should be with Canola. Provincially.

Too many $$$/power turf wars, prejudice, and
arrogance to work together.

Our farms are paying the price.

Voluntary groups like the Wheat growers (who did so
much with so little)...are snubbed like they are ugly
magpies [as in bottom feeders]. Sad. "

You don't get it Dan?

At many meetings...the 'grower directors' are too busy to show up.

Cheers

[danpenner]

TOM4CWB
sorry about that
i think your wrong about the wcwga they are not snubbed ,acctually i think these guys have the total ear of the minister of ag,and do an excelent job of representing the intrests of their members,
how would emalgamating grower associations from provinces benifit your bottom line? by putting all the money from all provinces in one pot and having big money to spend on reaserch, variety development, market development, food and health inititives....etc.
rather than each provincial associations trying to acheive that within provincial boundrys
and end up with less administration and more dollars spent on improving your bottom line,
it would also allow us as farmers to retain ownership in what we do for a living.
grow food.


ROOK
grain growers of canada would be totaly capable of putting this together if the will was there to change how they are structured.
picture this, a board with representation from national oilseeds association (chair and executive director) then national pulse (chair and executive director) then national cereal association (chair and exec director) then a number of farmer regionaly elected representatives, with a ceo hired, and branching off of that a market development arm, a research arm, a lobby and farm policy arm...

organizations are in place we just need them to morph there efforts into one direction
it will make ag stronger

[TOM4CWB]

Dan,

The now powerful with the big $$$ express themselves on the contingency that they are 'elected' and therefore the annointed spokespeople.

Voluntary Producer 'associations' are therefore problems... that would be nice to 'minimise' These annoying folks all too often get in the way of the political elite.

How many electors voted to install ALL 11 of Alberta's new Wheat Commission? Less than 30 actually voted.... with how many wheat farmers in Alberta? In the 'election' I tried to get a voters list... NO WAY.

If elections Canada or AB saw this application of this 'democratic' process... Sour g****s if I don't say... I guess the rules are just meant to be broken...

NOT one of the AB Commissions districts/zones match any of the others... all have Different boundries. How do we hold local joint annual meetings?

I truly hope Sk and Mb do a better job of democratically forming and co-ordinating their commissions.

This does not make my annoyances 'right' and the power brokers 'wrong'... but on balance much money is spent... with what usefull outcome?

Just thought a little reflection from the 'west' might add a little 'light' to the topic.

1. A mail in/electronic ballot system of all producers is needed. One election meeting over 300-500km away... for an in person election... without a voters list... is....

2. A joint cereals group would be smart... pulse proves it can work.


Cheers!

[gustgd]

Thanks to those who said nice things about the
Wheat Growers.

Danny your idea has merit and people are
working on it. Probably a matter of time, I'd predict
5 years at the outside, for cereals. For provincial
commissions. Everyone has to deal with
provincial boundaries and those are not going to
change.
Example in your scenario, what if the
Saskatchewan and Alberta groups want to spend
research dollars on midge resistance, and sawfly
and say fusarium is not really a problem. What
would the Manitoba farmers say? Well that's
democracy? Probably not!

Tom
The railroad money, was contested by the
railways for about two years before WGRF could
access it. Then procedures had to be developed
and ways to determine good from bad science.
Every commodity group was polled to determine
priorities. Staff had to be hired to oversee the
projects that were approved. Contracts had to be
developed to recapture any intellectual property
that farmers had paid for. We've just recently
convinced the universities to use a standard form
or template so that we didn't have to have a
lawyer on staff to review every project
undertaken.
Then there's the issue of capacity. You can't just
inject 100 million into the Canadian research
system and expect results.

It was a policy originally to not spend principle.
After consultation with the member organizations,
discussions with farmers who've contacted
directors and the office as well as turnover around
the board table.
That policy was changed. Although that being
said I can't think of a good project that was
rejected because we had spent the budget.

If the farmers and the scientists around the table
determine that an idea had scientific merit and
was something farmers could use it was
examined.
Thanks for your interest.
Gerrid