Cheap feed grain?

[cropduster]

Thanks for clearing the air about ABP Cowman !!And thanks for voting in the elections.I would like to see more of your type vote! It just seemed to me they felt the CWB didn`t negatively affect them,therefore no votes.Maybe I will go to Red Deer after all !! By the way, I went to jail with the two Jims also........

[parsley]

You bet, Cowman, I try to do what I can to see the best man get elected, even though it's probably pretty insignificant. I don't get a chance to vote for Chatenay or I sure would.

Not one bushel of our grain was sold TO the Board last year, but we did export to the USA. We circumvented all Board pooling when we exported for private sale. Got a Board license, skipped pooling. Got paid directly from our buyer and he paid for the freight. (None to Iraq.)

But I still want a vote because the Board affects transportation for us...containers for example. The Board affects licensing for every farmer, moving grain interprovincially or export. The Board impacts upon the elevators and all the grain companies. It is insidious.

Living with cows too many years, I find that too many cattlemen are too comfortably silent and support the grain farmer with a bit of reticence


Poorboy, many more than I, would grow cereals if we didn't have to haggle with the likes at the Board, so how about votes according to acres so I don't get shut out?
Parsley

[cowman]

Poorboy: Read my lips! I have no desire to vote in the CWB elections! I want nothing to do with the CWB! The only reason I bothered is I know Jim Chatenay personally and I believe the Canadian Wheat Board should be abolished! The same as all the bloody cattle associations! I don't need anybody to tell me what I need to do! I have awful deep pockets and I could probably outlast just about anybody on these boards if I chose to!
Cropduster: If suspect you and me are birds of a feather! I admire people who stand up for what they believe in. I don't know if I would have the guts to do the time for my convictions. You are a hero!

[cowman]

Parsley: It is with a lot of disgust that I agree with you about some cattlemen. I was talking to a straight cow-calf guy last spring telling him how ugly the fusarium problem could be for the grain farmer. His comment" Good! more silage for us. If they get fusarium they can't be exporting it for malt!"
I was frankly flabbergasted and I guess I pretty well gave him a piece of my mind! That kind of thinking just galls me no end! I just thought you ignorant old son of a ....!

[cropduster]

No,Not heros just trying to make a positive change in this country.I`ve heard those silage comments too and couldn`t believe the small horizon thinking

[TOM4CWB]

Cropduster;

I sure hope that the jail time you folks did will fruit some Alberta Government action.

As a person (among many) who heard Canada Customs tell people to remove vehicles... the fact they were willing to put you guys in jail ... simply shows contempt for justice... a sad fact the Courts in Canada are short on truthful reflection... and long on political interference to protect the elete in this Country, wheather they be civil servants or multi-national owner who own/owned freight lines/railroads.

About time we put our money where our mouth is, and offset the CWB buybacks... wouldn't you say Cropduster?

[cropduster]

I agree Tom,much as I would hate to use Albertan`s and Cowman`s tax money to offset a federal mistake.Do you think Mr.Ritter is more nervous with the federal political scene(Different appointed board members by Conservative gov`t)or what he heard in his private meeting with Shirley M last week??Let my answer my own question ......I guess a turncoat really doesn`t care!!

[poorboy]

Cowman,

From your original post I gathered that you could vote in the CWB elections, but you didn't think that you really should be eligible. I was just wondering out loud if possibly the voting on CWB issues would have different outcomes if it was based on seeded acres of eligible CWB crops instead of one vote per permit book. It is great to see people stand up and support or not support these different organizations that are supposed to represent us. Of the people at the top represeting us are so far removed from reality that they are often only looking out for themselves.

Cowman, it was certainly not a personal insult on the CWB voting.

[cowman]

Sorry Poorboy: I'm a little pyscho lately...too many darned calves coming, too little sleep and money!
For the life of me I have no idea why they sent me a ballot. I think the last time anything was sold off this farm to the CWB was in 1964! And you are right I probably shouldn't have voted but who knows what the future holds...maybe I'll have to go back into growing grain?
The problem I see with the acreage/vote is that a few large producers might control the industry. Now that might be a good thing but I doubt it would ever fly in our democracy? Why the largest producers might end up being Cargill or ADM?
Perhaps I get disgusted that in the cattle business we now have a very few large feeders/packers in control of our industry through the ABP/CCA. They tend to support the feedlot/packer interests rather than the primary producer...and further more they make us pay for the whole thing through the checkoff.
At least you grain farmers have a vote on how you want to go. And consistently the farmers on the prairies have voted to continue with the single desk! That tells me the majority want the single desk? Now maybe that isn't right but you do have the ability to convince others to change their minds?
The sad thing is I do believe the CWB could have been a positive thing for grainfarmers. It could have been used as a check on the wolves in the grain business instead of another screwed up beuracracy. If they had just done some movement on the single desk thing they could of had close to universal support?

[JACKFLASH]

Cowman:

Do you know how many of those ballets get send by the CWB to producers like yourself,who are small grain producers,and most of your production goes into feed industry.

Or the semi-retired or retired farmer who is 65 to 80 years old,who has cash rented out,or crop shared to solely keep a permit book to claim deductions on the farm.

Lots,To the CWB this is a free vote in their favor. These old farmers to their defence don't know any better.

Then again you have us younger farmers buying the 200,000 tractors and huge imputs farming the acres. I think I should have 4 votes.

[charliep]

The Australian compromise is to have votes weighted both based on size of business and a simple vote. 50 % of the vote (I think - should check) is based on size and the remainder is one farmer/one vote.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

My number 9 of the 10 things the CWB needs to do was;
http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1076353929

"Acreage/production based voting rights in CWB elections based on land assesment (Municipal Assesments) for the operating units who actually operate the production unit."

If I can grow wheat or barley... then I should have a specific right to vote on the produtive capability of the land I farm.

[poorboy]

It would be very interesting to track the total tonnes of deliveries to the CWB versus the permit book number and vote. We could look after the election at what the vote was with one vote per permit book and compare that same vote using the computer to a vote using production and see if it is the same outcome. If both systems vote for single desk selling, that would mean a lot to me.

Tom,
Your system of basing votes on productive land assessment is good, but has some drawbacks. If you have some very highly productive land, but only grow canola, peas, and feed barley, should you have a greater vote than a 100% wheat grower in the lower productivity areas? Yes you can grow more grain, but if you deliver none to the CWB, should you be able to outvote a person who is making all of his living from the CWB. In my example you would not even be using the service, but having more clout.

If I could see the breakdown of the voting on elections from size of farm, age of operator, etc., it would help put my mind to ease. Maybe every catagory would have a majority vote. If it did then I would sit back and not be so critical of how things are working.

[cowman]

Maybe we could take this concept further...into the federal/provincial/municipal governments? Base it on how much income tax you pay? So the person paying say $5000 gets one vote? Then the bay street stockbroker paying $50,000 gets 10 votes? I think that would be fair after all who is contributing the most here, right?
Of course all the working poor and the little welfare mommas wouldn't get a vote, after all they aren't really contributing? Then we could further cut out their interests until we got rid of them?
I suspect most of the ballots mailed out to guys like me get tossed in the garbage...very few care? As I said if I didn't know Jim I would never have bothered and I never will again. Better to work with Shirley to scrap the CWB than try to take "voting rights" away from those old farmers? When you start to try to disenfranchise people they get stirred up? And it sets a very bad precedence?

[boone]

cowman: best points yet, but don't be surprized if it doesn't catch on right away. The reformers of the world only want voting change when it will perceive to give an advantage, the criteria used is poor but so will the next be. If I could just afford a couple of 200,000 I assume$ tractors they might make me pres., anyway good luck calving. (sincerely)