86.2%

[catchmeifyoucan]

Can you believe it 86.2%for the CWB in one form or another .They should be estatic.But what are they doing anything they can to slow progress.What about the 48.4% that want them as a choice.Their not listening.

[cropduster]

Never have!!

[wd9]

And never will.

[cottonpicken]

What would the results been if there were only two questions?

1 Board
2 No board

Most here should be glad there were 3 questions.With 3 questions you can manipulate reality with your own perception.

[SASKFARMER3]

Yea good thing their wasn't two questions being asked.
HAHA

The result would have been 60% NO CWB
40% want CWB.

Just back from three hectic weeks talking to farmers in Saskatchewan and its simple to spot the CWB supporter he is the one who is living on his interest from money he made in 1978 etc.
Or the young guy who doesn't understand whats happening with Agriculture and Farming plus its easy.

So yes they should have had just two questions and then how would the CWB supporters have judged the results. Like a true liberal they would have made up a committee and studied it till they were back in power.
Thank God its finally coming to a END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[craig]

As the 3 question debate continues there are two things worth noting. The CWB has claimed that option 2 was not an option and had ample time and resources to get that point across. So with the strong response ( vote) for question 2 what does that tell us. One maybe is that producers do not believe the CWB assertion. The other point is that a vote for question 2 is making the point that producers realize that there are 2 sides to this argument and that while they want change they don't want to deny other producers who still want to work with the CWB. This is contrary to the view of the CWB who believes it is all or nothing and the only vision is there's.

[wd9]

And that the vote would have turned out so the majority wanted #2. Discredit the most likely response, seemed like a good strategy to me if one was in the position to protect one's job in Winnipeg!

So cotten, agstar et al, given the government does actually go ahead with this, would you make a malt contract with Canada Malt or any other real customer with an actual delivery date and price, or would you continue being a part of the mystery pool, signing a contract not knowing acceptance criteria, delivery date, or the price you will get?

[FarmRanger]

What manipulation cp? The reality is 62% wanted market choice.
#1 allowed for no-one else to compete to BUY your grain.
#3 excluded the CWB as a competitor to buy your grain.
Question #2 allows the CWB to continue to compete in the barley market along with any other buyer. #2 option allows for the most grain buying competition, #1 the least.

My take on this: The #3 option gauged how many farmers are angry enough at the CWB that they’d sacrifice them as a large buyer just to get rid of them altogether. #3 would have carried the day though if the #2 question was missing.

[cottonpicken]

I would have to disagree about that farm ranger the anti crowd had a lot further to go than the pro crowd for a majority.You guys can spin this all you want.

Personally i dont care one way or another what happens.This hardly effects the price of a globally traded commoditie.

It is amazing how much bad blood this topic is generating.

[Jay-mo]

Your right on Farmranger. I voted #2 but had it been a choice between only #1 and #3 I would have voted #3 without hesitation.

[FarmRanger]

I don’t know cp, don’t you think that pretty well all the single deskers would have already been in question #1 category? We were certainly all told often enough by the CWB that they couldn’t exist in an open market, (though at least some of us, didn’t believe them and/or we were willing to take the chance to get an open market).

On the other side though, many of us who didn’t agree with a single desk voted #2. The CWB can choose to compete if they are able to add value to the marketplace. And if they can’t add value, why would we want them as the only buyer?? I saw no benefit to #3 forbidding them from buying barley; why limit the number of buyers and reduce the number of players competing for our barley?

You’re right about one thing for sure though cp, this whole thing has caused a lot of bad blood, and needlessly so. There will still be buyers looking for our barley after this is all over. Threatening to use farmer money from the pools to challenge the will of the 62% of farmers who want an open market, is just plain wrong.

[parsley]

cottonpicken,

Bad blood? People die fighting over property.

This issue is about property rights. Do we own what we grow?

That's the big picture.

You'll figure it out some day.

Parsley

[cottonpicken]

Thanks but no thanks for the lecture pars.

You want to talk about property rights,you cant own a house or piece of land without paying tax.You cant do anything without being taxed,taxed,taxed. So tell me do you REALLY own anything? And when its all over and you die guess what you get- TAXED!!

In the usa labour use to be considered private property and millions of people still refuse to pay income tax. There are major legal battles still being fought over the 16th amendment.

If you think some blow for freedom has been struck,think again.

[parsley]

Is this what you are saying:

1.You do not care if you own what you grow.

2. You do not care who owns what you grow

3. Your main issue is taxation.

Parsley

[kamichel]

I would also have voted no CWB if that was the only option against a monopoly. Tired of people talking about we were not asked fair questions when the questions were so simple.