Guesses as to what % of eligible voters actually voted in barley vote?

[poorboy]

I think that slightly less than 1/2 of the eligible voters will vote in the barley vote. I say 46%.

I am sure that for most producers the apathy will continue on just like usual. I sure hope that I am surprised at the votes returned. I wish the vote was yes or no, not yes, no or maybe. A 3 vote choice just confuses the numbers.

[parsley]

What does it say if 80% voted #3?

[chaffmeister]

It means 20% don't understand the facts (verifiable high costs, non-verifiable premiums).

[chaffmeister]

Correction: It means LESS THAN 20% understand. (Some of the 20% may have voted #2.)

[AdamSmith]

My guess is that around 32000 ballots will be sent in.

= 38% of the process oriented voters.

or

= 70% of real tangible barley growers.

results (the quantifiable final outcome, for those gov't agency types)

option 1 - forced collectivization 37%
option 2 - choice 39%
option 3 - cwb gets the high hard one across the forehead 24%

Next step, more consultation and navel gazing culminating with a grand announcement that this issue is complicated and that because so much is at stake that we need to go back to the farm groups and industry before we can move forward.

[kamichel]

Poorboy.
I just don't get your confusion. A vote for no wheat board involvement or a vote for open market with CWB involvement in the market is a vote for open market , no monopoly. I don't think too many people are confused like you are. The only reason to vote for no wheat board involvement would be say if one really hated the CWB from past experience. Or if one thinks the CWB drags down prices.
I have been given an open market offer of 4 dollar malt for new crop which kicks the CWB pro or fixed prices. Mind you it is for higher quality malt.

[poorboy]

Kamichel,

I am not confused, but I think that the ballot should have read cwb or no cwb on barley. A vote for cwb and open market could be interpreted as a win for both sides. The cwb side will say that it is a clear sign that the farmers definately want the cwb involved in barley sales and the non cwb side will view the dual market as a sign that they want an open market.

If you were not a farmer and were in Ottawa how would you decide what the majority of farmers want if the cwb and open market option is the one with the most votes. It tells you nothing. You don't know if most farmers are looking to keep the cwb actively involved and want a little bit of chance to sell barley themselves, or they want to open up the market and sell most of the barley themselves and yet want the cwb still providing a guaranteed price for when things go wrong.

[gregpet]

Poorboy

If you read the second question very carefully, quote 'I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.' That would tell the politicians in Ottawa that producers would like the option to market their grain to whomever they choose. Even my six year old daughter and eighty-five year old uncle can comprehend that without any confusion.

[wmoebis]

I think where the confusion lies is in the wording. "I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board" should be "through the Canadian Wheat Board"

"or any other domestic or foreign buyer" should be "or outside the Canadian Wheat Board to any domestic or foreign buyer" The CWB is not a buyer they are a marketer.

[parsley]

wmoebis,

The CWB is a buyer.

The CWB legally buys your wheat from you, and don't forget it.

There is a legal transfer of property from wmoebis to the CWB.

Think about it.

Otherwise, why would you have to buy your grain back from the CWB if they don't own it?

Parsley

[kamichel]

Like Cargill or JRI or SWP they don't neccessarily use the product , just transfer it from one person to another.

[kamichel]

To or through , what does it matter?

[poorboy]

Gregpet,

I agree that the question is worded simply enough and ottawa will get a clear message from it.

I guess in the back of my mind I am not sure that a cwb could exist in an open market setting, where is has to compete for product and try to get average prices for all producers. The hard part of the dual choice option is how to make it work. A simple choice to implement would be to leave it as is, or do like canola and just get out of the way. It was not so much the question that bothered me as much as how to make it work.

[cropduster]

PB......does it have to work??Do we have to live in the past?If our grandfathers saw us pecking away at these boxes ,wouldn`t they say `we are nuts`.Why have we adapted here but there is some biblical reason we have to maket some of our grain like it was 50 yrs ago??You are conditioned by the system to believe the glass is half empty!It is getting simply `pathetic` to watch/see Ritter whine that they can`t survive in a competitive market.(Kindersley, Wednesday)600% increase in uptake of marketing options is validation that producers are adaptable and their marketing organization is...stumbling...lost..can`t innovate..needs a grant...needs a lawyer...Even the fact that there is a vote is an admission that there should be a change.The idea of a vote NEVER came from Winnipeg ,it came from progressive growers!

[just_wondering]

cropduster
re: The idea of a vote NEVER came from Winnipeg ,it came from progressive growers!


The idea of a vote came from Ottawa despite the pleas of progressive growers, they felt that they had to satisfy Ralph Goodales section 47.1 which is B.S.
reply to original thread 44% turnout
question 1 35%
question 2 35%
question 3 30%
Strahl will announce August 1st 07 open market in Barley CWB still a player.
next day the sun will still rise in the east.