KAP resolution on gag order

[craig]

Just was looking at KAP resolutions from their annual meeting. I have never seen so many resolutions come from one organization at one meeting. Would seem that it would a take a full day to get through them all. Why the resolution on the gag order. The CWB has never abided by the gag order since it was given. Is KAP suggesting that is all right for the CWB to spent producers money to support one side of the argument when it is full well known that there are a number of producers who don't support the CWB in it's current form. These same producers also participate through the CWB in marketing because they have no other choice. Maybe they should have had a resolution for those producers who would choose to do so that they would volunteer a percentage of their final payment to support lobbying to retain the wheat board in it's current form. They could also use these funds to commission another 10 studies to show the value of the CWB. Somewhere the motto of returning all funds after administration and marketing to producers has been lost. What has also been lost is the definition of what is producers money and what is CWB money.

[Southpaw]

The last 2-3 years KAP has become a very LEFT wing organization. I'm not sure why there has not been those interested in Freedom to sell their own products at KAP meetings. Especially in Manitoba, those interested in marketing freedom need to get vocal. I also see that there are 3 or 4 NFU types on the canola growers and seed grower organizations. Pretty scary.

[mustardman]

I think these groups are maybe seeing things the way they they really are.

Forget the labelling ie. left wing, socialist etc etc.

I think KAP realizes that MARKET POWER is what we as producers need .

Everyone else in the food chain has it and everyone else in the food chain work together to a large degree wether you want to believe it or not.

[craig]

Mustardman
If that is the way KAP feels that is fine but that is not the resolution they presented. The removal of the gag order implies that is all right to use producers money ( from all producers)to defend the single desk. From recent polls and plebisites it has been determined that a substantial number of farmers do not support that view. This same group of farmers is currently forced to sell their wheat through the CWB. If KAP put forward a resolution supporting a single desk , I would have no problem with that. I would suggest that instead they chose this route to try to look like they are taking neutral position.

[wilagro]

And what about the millions spent by the province of Alberta with their advocacy of choice, their website, their tax dollars GIVEN to other objectors of the single desk?

If anything, this bloody province should take a neutral stand on this issue. Why should our/my tax dollars be spent on propaganda?

[charliep]

Just out of curiousity, are Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments silent on this issue?

My only comment is that the CWB doesn't have a monopoly on information. Many of the studies and other information are being used in the current debate. Everything that has been done is available to review. Farmer can read it and come to their own conclusions.

If you take issues with certain articles or studies, I encourage you to bring this forward for debate. That is the purpose of the information.

[cropduster]

So,Mustardman,how come with the CWB`s market power, are barley guys selling to cattle guys........certainly the `monopoly market power` should get a better price......NOT??Only the diehards are selling to the board dreaming of a BIG final payment.

[craig]

Wilagro
You have a valid point. I'm sure there are producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan thinking the same thing about their governments stance on the issue. I guess my response to your comment is maybe the provincial governments response to this issue may truely reflects the views of the majority of producers in a particular area. Since we seem so hung up on majority rules the solution might be a provincial vote to remove Alberta from the designated area.