Goodales Revenge Debate

[wd9]

While this topic has shown up from time to time, OK all the time, when I look back in history there is one glaring fact. The inability of 'choice' directors for the CWB to actually make it to the board table.

Blame Ralph, voting, elections, all you want, but all farmers were given the opportunity to choose directors for the CWB by Ralph. Does the blame perhaps lie with the inability of the 'free choice' organizations and supporters to materialize their vision in the form of directors of 'choice' actually being on the board guiding it into the new future?

[TOM4CWB]

WD9,

There is no question the CWB Director Election Regulations are weighted in favour of the small land holders.

"Goodale's Revenge"

With that issue aside... it is clearly the "market choice" Candidates who are in the driver's seat now.

With $$$Billions being dropped on the floor and stomped on by CWB management... for the "single desk";

It is time to elect clear thinking Conservative Directors.

Does anyone seriously think Harper&Strahl will negotiate the best deal for the grain grower's monopoly... with Macklin, Oberg, and Hill in charge?

We need to vote for the next generation of Directors... who will extract the maximum return out of our "single desk"...

Before it vanishes into thin air... like the CROW did!

[liberty]

Despite some recent improvements, the voting system is still weighted heavily in favour of what I would term marginal farmers; i.e. part-timers or share-cropping retirees who, as individuals, produce relatively small amounts of wheat and barley. These bit players vastly outnumber the larger operators and due to the one-producer-one-vote concept are able to essentially hold the CWB hostage to parochial interests.

If the voting system was changed to one-bushel-one-vote, you would see a marked change in the board of directors. Recent polling numbers confirm this. And there's nothing "unfair" in such a change. Those with a bigger financial stake in a system should have a bigger say in how that system is run.

For whatever reason, probably the financial concerns of Liberal business interests, Goodale essentially sowed a mine-field around the CWB in order to make substantive change very difficult.

[cowman]

One bushel...one vote...are you kidding me? How about one vote for every dollar you pay in taxes? Get rid of all those senior citizens, homeless types, single mothers! Are you some kind of Nazi or something?
The fact is there should be "NO VOTE"? This isn't about democracy but about fundamental freedom...the right to sell your product to whoever the hell you please, and not that drivel about what is good for the "collective"! No one has the right to tell me what I can do with my property!
The "collective" is nothing more than commie mob rule...and nothing more!
You would be better standing up and demanding your rights than participating in this mockery called a plebisite?

[liberty]

Cowman,

You should calm down. I'm certainly not a Nazi. I'm on the same side of this issue as you are. I didn't say that I endorsed the concept of a vote on this issue. I just wanted to point out how the present voting structure is tilted towards one outcome, while a different structure would give very different results.

To be clear on this: I don't think that a harmless activity such as selling wheat should be subject to any kind of vote.

[wilagro]

I dunno cowman, without the "collective" (CWB). the "divide and rule" boys will win again.

She'll be a "free for all" fer sure after they destroy the CWB.

IMHO

[craig]

Wilagro. Are you backing a conspiracy theory. Who are the divide and rule boys. I like your reference to a free for all. Those looking for change would suggest that that is exactly what they want.

[wd9]

Two a$$umptions from what I see in the posts. That small farmers are not open market supporters, that the voting system is to blame.

Got objective data to support either or both a$$umptions?

[TOM4CWB]

wd9;

I certainly heard the small quarter section farmers say they didn't have time to market their grain last night.

These would be the WILDROSE folks who would naturally be at the meeting.

The folks who feed their own grain and had stat. decs. were the best supporters... as the CWB is really starting to bite into cattle profits.

I don't quite understand how the CWB continues to drive barley prices higher as the FPC for both malt and feed ended Nov 1 didn't they?

So does this mean reverse tendering is being used to draw in supplies to the pool?

I see that DTN said Barley is now higher than the $172/t in 1996; now it is @ $174/t.(US)

[liberty]

wd9

Have you not seen the Ipsos-Reid poll re the CWB? It was covered extensively in the mainstream media around a week ago.

53% of farmers with sales under $100,000 strongly support the board

40% of farmers with sales over $250,000 strongly support the board

In the group with sales over $250,000, 21% are strongly opposed to the board, and a further 17% are somewhat opposed.

The question was not specifically about the single desk, but I think that it's reasonable to assume the results would cleave along similar lines.

[Incognito]

Like $250K is relevant anymore

6 quarters of canola at 35 bushels an acre at $8.00 is over $260,000.00

[cottonpicken]

Boy if we get dual marketing this chat board is going to get real interesting.

[cowman]

I might point out that the area I live in voted overwhelmingly for Jim Chatenay? A voice in the wilderness for quite a long time? There are not a lot of large grain farmers in this area as the land is very expensive and in many cases better suited to cattle! In fact Chatenay was not a large grain farmer but more involved in cattle.

[Vader]

Chatenay is no longer involved in either cattle or farming. One would wonder if his viewpoints continue to carry any validity. He will probably not be eligible to vote in any CWB events in the future.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

You are quite a show.

Chatenay still owns farm land, and still has farm income. He is also entitled to hold a CWB Permit Book as an actual producer.

For you to write... what you just did... is character assination and liable slander.