Farm Leadership

[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