Alberta Government or CWB website

[wmoebis]

My question has to be, how many other initatives have we invested in that is questionable as to whether it is in our best interest?

Why do we need weather stations paid for out of our pool accounts. Check the Sask. crop ins. web site they have weather stations all over Sask. paid for out of our pockets. The tax payers of Canada pay Environment Canada to track weather, we farmers are tax payers. Why can't the CWB just access that info off the web or phone the guys at SWT and ask what the weather is like.

[charliep]

Your assumption is this website is funded by the CWB. I have no idea whether is it is or isn't. With the exception of monitoring, this type of software is likely relatively cheap once you have it established on a server and can be done by just about anyone.

Communication is the most important thing. I have faith that farmers can read information and can come to a conclusion that best fits their business and personal interests.

[chaffmeister]

Incognito (or should I say Kevin Nealon):

That was the funniest thing I've ever read on Agri-ville! I'm a big fan (suck-up)!

[parsley]

QUOTE:

"South West Terminal and the CWB have worked together to launch a series of weather stations in the southwest of Saskatchewan."
UNQUOTE

Do you really think SouthWest is paying CWB staff to facilitate the launch,and keep it current, charlie?

What are you sipping?

Parsley

[parsley]

Another thing charliep,

You say, "Everyone knows the CWB needs to change with the questions are how and how quickly".

Farmers don't need more questions. Or answers. Both are inevitably incorporated into another dog and pony show. The CWB well might commit a few cool $Million for that dog and pony show, and I think you're just seeing the beginning of it.

Listen carefully. And take a good whiff.

Your pooling $money is starting to float noisily through the media, and you can smell the "experts" and consultants and backroom fingers on it.

Farmers need action.

Bureaucrats love dithering >into stalltime >into inaction. There are panels, and consulatation meetings, and coffee sessions that pay per diems with your pooling money.Mileage. Accomodation. meals.

Is there anyone out there who does not understand that most of the farmers I know and talk with are ready to throw in the towel?

Parsley

[wmoebis]

I E mailed SWT on this issue the reply included:

From; Mark Schell;

Cost? "It was a cost sharing project. As far as the CWB's share; I have no idea. You will have to contact them directly."

Operating cost? "They are solar powered and radio linked to the internet which is cost bore by SWT."

"The program was initiated by the CWB, but my understanding is that many cutbacks at Environment Canada have resulted in the CWB looking to alternate methaods to gather their weather information.

[Incognito]

Wmoebis - how many of your durum dollars went to pay for the SWT/CWB weather stations?

I don't buy the Environment Canada excuse you posted.

The PFRA is/has been setting up additional weather stations for a year and will start to issue vegetative maps this year based on those stations and satellite shots.

With the money they took from your pooling accounts to fund the Gull Lake project, do you have access to that information or does Beechy, SK not count as a durum area?

These are monetary issues you now know about.

What about the clandestine funding that goes on and you don't?

You have been a staunch single desk supporter. What would it take to shake that belief?

I look forward to your thoughts.

[wmoebis]

That is exactally why I persued this expendature and posted it here for all to read. I don't understand it either and would like explanations as to why we need these types of costs. Especially at a time when many are having trouble just to figure out how they are going to put fuel in thier tractors to put in this crop.

Like any other organization where public funds are being managed I believe that the CWB has to be open and transparent. That is why on this and other topics I ask questions and read intently, both here and at the CWB, CGC and agents, about issues of marketing and expenditures that affect our bottom line.

I think that the integraty of the farmer elected board lies with us the farmer to give direction on these and other matters that are costing us money. It is up to us to question when we don't agree with issues. We have a right to know that every dollar the CWB is spending, out of our pool accounts, is for the betterment of the producer, not the industry. It is up to us to inform the board in a respectful manor of the direction we as individuals would like to see them take. Then they take the direction that the demacratic majority wishes.

The industry, as such, has ways and means of looking after itself, they can pass thier cost on to the next level, however for us the buck stops here.

We as producers are classed, by the gov't, as suppliers to the industry it is up to us to change that attitude unless of course, we like it. Because right now the indusrty likes it.

[parsley]

wmoebis,
How could Mark Schell not know how much money SWest received from the CWB for this project?

I appreciate very much, your research and posting. Farmers have every right to know what is being spent.

Why would the CWB fund SouthWest? Is the CWB just throwing around money, aiming at groups of single desk supporters?

Is the CWB simply providing trips as "was organized by Robert Chapman (Farm Business Rep) from the Canadian Wheat Board", for teacher's pets? A video of the WestCoast setup is ample, folks.

Doesn't anyone out there realize that gasoline is high, that grain prices are low, and that farmers won't be able to even pay the phone bill with the CWB's final payment?

(By the way, do you think the CWB ever refunded the political fundraiser money back into the pooling accounts?)

Parsley

[wmoebis]

I was passing on the info as I recieved it. I don't know whether Mr.schell was privy to the CWB's cost on this or not. I would question why he should be, when we aren't, as it is our money.

I believe that all expenditures of all transactions that are not directly related to the sale of grain should be posted on the CWB web site. Open and transparent. We should be made aware of all endevors past, future and presant that the CWB is undertaking on our behalf. Accountability.

If the CWB is building weather stations, or what ever, with money from our grain sales I feel we have the right to be asked if this is where we want to invest our money. Furture more, it should be the most cost effective way of achieving the goals that it is set out to do.

If the CWB was open about ALL expenditures of our money I believe that a lot of questions and accusations, that we all have, would be answered and alleviated. If supporting a group of people to tour the port is going to increase my bottom line I say, go for it. Other wise I don't want to even pay a farmer relations wage to organize it.

With tight margins that we are faced with we are all scrutinizing our expenses and the CWB is one of our expenses. They have to expect to be scrutinized and questioned on each and every dollar that they are spending on our behalf.

You can be sure that at the end of the day our bankers and accountants will be going over our books with a fine toothed comb. I wonder what they would say if we told them that "I could have made that payment on my tractor, but I built a weather station in Frontier instead".

These issues have absolutly nothing to do with monopoly, single desk selling or dual marketing they have every thing to do with open, transparent accountability.

In my opinion, untill we are operating in a market place where our money after the sale is made ,at least, is all accounted for and is there for us to see where it has gone and that the industry, as a whole, is operating with integraty on our behalf using my commodities, so I can see the true value of my commodity then and only then can I or any one else, in my opinion, make a true judgement on the value of monopoly or any other method of disposition of commodities. Whether it be grain,cattle,pigs,milk,hay or goats.

Don't get me wrong I am not accusing anyone of miss managing or using my money. I don't have any records of how my money is being spent or what value I get out of it.

I would like to see them so I can make an open minded, honest opinion.

[wmoebis]

On the lighter side guys.

Maybe we will be able to predict the weather better than the weather men. Not wrong AS often.

[mschell]

Hi All.

A friend of mine from Alberta told me that there was some discussion in this forum using my name. So, I thought I would chime in and see what was being said.

First of all Mr Moebis, I think it was rather unfair and sneaky of you to contact me only to post my words without my approval to try and support your argument against the CWB. I thought you were genuinely interested in the project. For the record, the reason that I did not provide the exact amount SWT contributed for the weather stations is because SWT's expenditures are private and I cannot divulge those amounts without my Board of Director's approval. I will tell you that the units in question are surprisingly inexpensive.

The trip to Vancouver that was attended by some of my staff and our Board was paid for entirely by SWT. The CWB merely organized the tour. In fact, the CWB arrange trips like this each year and anyone that wants to attend can do so provided he is willing to pay his own way. You only have to contact your local CWB Farm Business Rep.

I also find it rather ironic that the person asking "Why are website owners anonymous?" has a name called Incognito.

Intricate Networks is managed separately from SWT. My understanding is that some area farmers approached Intricate and asked if they could develop a forum where info could be exchanged about the CWB. SWT or the CWB is not involved in this forum. In fact, I was actually at a convention out of the country when this forum was set up.

It appears from the flavor of some of the posts that many believe that there is some secret relationship between SWT and the CWB. I can only tell you that we have close relationships with all industry players including the CPR, the CNR, ITAC, the CGC, Rahr Malting, Cargill, A/U, JKI, the CWB as well as any other organization that is involved in the grain trade. Afterall, my objective is to move as much grain from the farmers that own SWT and make a profit that is returned to those farmers. The only way to achieve that is through strong, healthy, relationships.


Mark Schell

[TOM4CWB]

Dear Mark;

Incognito wanted to use his own real name... and did for a while... until the Agriville Management MADE him scrap his own name.

I heard a good one at Grain World;

The CWB is NEVER wrong... it has just become less right!

[parsley]

mshnell,

You have certainly tried to put wmoebis in his place.

You have made it abundantly clear to farmers on this website that SouthWest's relationship with agri-business is cozy, but is your personal attack on wmoebis a reflection of South West Terminal's attitude towards farmers?

He simply wanted to know where/how farmers' money is being spent. I would guess that a reporter could ask and get a more definitive answer.

"How much cash did the CWB give/spend on this weather partnership with SW Terminal?", of course leads to how many other terminals are "partnering" on farmer money. It adds up when you're shelling it out, mschnell.

That's the REAL point wmoebis was trying to make.

How much cash did the CWB give/spend on this Vancouver trip with SW Terminal?

Either:

1. Robert Chapman was volunteering his organizational time to SW

OR

2. Robert Chapman was being paid by farmers (via the CWB), in which case wmoebis has every right to question where his money is going.

Which is it, mschnell?

If it was the former, Chapman needs an apology. He can do whatever he wants in his spare time.

If it was the latter, make sure you understand that farmers have every right to question what their money is being spent on.

He asked. SouthWest declined.
And the CWB will do the same.

That is a "close relationship", indeed.


Parsley

[parsley]

wmoebis,

There is an education tax on famland in Saskatchewan. The Government gradually committed less and less money for funding education, and gradually taxed landowners more and more to make up the deficit in education spending.

In some areas, landowners are now paying over 90% of education costs.

Only the Government and the teachers are allowed at the negotiation table, deciding how the money will be spent.
(CWB and aindustry)

The funding-landowners are banned.

The teachers and the Government, too, had a "close relationship".

Landowners fought back.

On April 1, 2006, the Saskatchewan government will be adding 52.8 Million targeted to relief of farmland taxing. This will translate into a 38% reduction to the education portion of property taxes for farmland and will be a permanent funding.

The CWB funds everbody and everything with your money to keep the monopoly.
And farmers have quietly paid and paid and paid.

I understand that the Inland Terminal Association just came out with a position to support the single desk. Why wouldn't they? The CWB is their cash cow.

But how much money do farmers get from the pooling accounts?

Remember what I have posted so many times, wmoebis:

Humiliation, alienation, intimidation.

All tactics to keep the farmer 'in his place'.

Farmers will pay and pay more until you begin to question.

Parsley