Is it wrong for check off farm groups to not comment on various general farm policies and reserve their comment for ones that directly affect their crop? For example, should sask wheat be spending our checkoof to try and resurrect the wheat board?(they are by the way) Or should pulse be spending money to research a position on drainage? (A divisive issue if ever was one)
Seems to make sense that groups stick to policy that directly impact what they are responsible for, collaborate on larger issues (like grain transport ) and leave political issues to member based where individual can decide if they want to belong or not.
It does take money to present well thought they researched policy positions.
Disagree?
Seems to make sense that groups stick to policy that directly impact what they are responsible for, collaborate on larger issues (like grain transport ) and leave political issues to member based where individual can decide if they want to belong or not.
It does take money to present well thought they researched policy positions.
Disagree?
Comment