Price advice
After noticing the current price of peas and canola, I thought of an old saying (that) one should study history so as not to be condemned to relive it.
I took a course in marketing. Cynic that I am, while sifting through the bulletins, learning to chart the plan of when to sell based on information at hand, I developed this idea. … Those publishing the bulletins and/or producing the News release
newss can tell when and how much I will sell, which is to their advantage.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Let us recall what has happened with peas. At the Crop Production Show in Saskatoon, we were told by the experts to look at the acres of peas planned, to look at the high production around the world. If we want to sell in the fall, we should lock in the current price even though it is only $3.50 per bushel. Better that, than what it will be in the fall. If, by chance, some company happens to offer to buy at $4, we better snap it up.
With advice like that, you can bet peas were contracted when farmers saw $4 per bu. Those same peas could have been sold at $6 per bu. How many millions of dollars did farmers lose?
Let us think of canola. Remember the time when the price wavered between $5.50 and $6 per bu.? When canola went over $6, the traders and advice givers suggested farmers take advantage of this price spike. Canola then went to $8. How many millions of dollars did the farmers lose? …
A few years ago, I was raked over the coals for saying I was not going to sell canola even though an adviser pointed out the current conditions suggested selling. When the price went up, I assume he wanted to buy my canola, thereby getting the price increase.
Who benefits from the advice given to farmers?
There is no use talking to my Member of Parliament, David Anderson, about this dilemma. He is in league with Stephen Harper…Are they looking at the millions they can make if barley and wheat are on the open market as well?
– Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
About tools
I noticed in Ken Ritter’s comment (Opinion, Sept. 27) he states that “the CWB is one of the tools that farmers use.”
In my opinion, describing the CWB as a tool farmers use implies that we have some choice in the matter, when in fact we don’t.
And while I’m on the subject of the CWB, why do they continue to refer to themselves as the Canadian Wheat Board? Should they not change their name to that of the Western Canadian Wheat Board in order to accurately reflect their demographic?
Or perhaps they should subject the farmers in Eastern Canada to the privilege of using their “tools.”
To me, Mr. Ritter, that would make sense and I’m sure that eastern farmers would welcome you with open arms.
– Carrie Kotylak,
Montmartre, Sask.
Land use
I have tried in vain for over a year to obtain information from my MLA regarding rights as landowners in regard to an application to develop an extremely dangerous sour gas project upwind of my home and the Town of Crossfield.
I finally met Ted Morton at a town meeting in August where he admitted awareness of his constituents’ concerns regarding the sour gas venture. He is also well aware of the current Surface Rights Act review and proposals that would help fairly and equitably protect the rights of farmers and other landowners.ÂÂ
He intends to wait until the royalties review has been settled before addressing these recommendations.
Morton shows no interest in the fact that so many of his constituents have been burdened with the overwhelming task of fighting first to protect their safety, and then to protect their land rights against transmission towers or sour gas despite repeated requests for his assistance.
His excuse for his total lack of response is a busy electoral campaign and a huge workload. Yet, a “top priority” in his Sustainable Resource Development ministerial portfolio is the land-use framework which apparently included some public consultation and deals with conflicts regarding competition for use – exactly what I was inquiring about.
One would think he could recognize an interested party, related issues, commissioned reports and proposed legislation. Nope.
He also conveniently failed to mention Bill 46, which would dissolve the Energy Utilities Board and many more of our rights at about the same time our hearing will be scheduled.
Bill 46 threatens to end our right to public notification of decisions, can prevent my verbal representation to the commission, limits me to 30 days to appeal a decision, restricts my ability to hire legal counsel when intervening in a hearing and they want to make this legislation retroactive to 2003.ÂÂ
I suspect that Ted knows that the SRA will not need to be amended to improve my rights if Bill 46 passes first. I won’t have any.
– Jan Porter-Hirsche,
Crossfield, Alta.
Dog thoughts
I was reading the article about a dog attack. (WP, The Law, Sept. 13.) Does this person have a dog or cat or both at her place? If so, she has the smell of the pets on her clothes, shoes or hands.
Naturally the dog is protecting his territory when he smells the odour of another animal.
Even petting someone else’s dogs or cats will still have the smell on that person. The dog only reacts like a dog when he feels threatened.
Perhaps the owners should put the pet on a leash if visitors arrive, not knowing the circumstances of that other person.
That’s likely the reason why a lot of dogs bite that don’t usually react that way.
It happened to me. My gloves smelled of cats and the dog lunged at my gloves.
The next time no cat smells and the dog was fine. It’s not always the dog’s fault. Sometimes you have to think like a dog.
– L. Johnston,
Hazlet, Sask.
Memory lacking
I want to reply to Mr. John Hamon of Gravelbourg regarding his letter in the Sept. 13 issue of The Western Producer.
He professes to know everything but seems to be lacking in memory; like, and I quote: “the metric fiasco” and the “termination of the Crow Rate.” And then places the blame on Jean Chrétien and Ralph Goodale.
As I recall, the government of Canada and the United States both agreed to change to the metric system. The U.S., as with other agreements, backed out. Canada did not. So, rightly or wrongly, we are well into the metric system, as are others in the world. I would suggest you go get a school kid to teach you.
As to the Crow Rate, you well know that U.S. had complained bitterly about the differences in freight rates for grain in our two countries and said if we change our freight rates, they would reduce their subsidies to their farmers.
We did that in good faith. Their new farm bill is even higher than the last one – another broken promise.
If you want to blame someone, you better look at what the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association was saying for years. Just get rid of the Crow Rate, the railway would move grain so fast and cheap from their inland terminals.
Well, that’s not the case on our farm. We have a 50-mile haul. Even a large town such as Gravelbourg is without an elevator or a rail line.
As well, all the many other industries would flourish as a result of cheaper grain.
As to your final comments regarding the Canadian Wheat Board and resisting change, after canceling 16,000 voters from the CWB voters’ list, firing the board of directors, appointed a chief executive officer, putting an unfair question to producers and not following the rule of law and democracy as we know it in Canada, why would anyone vote for the current government?
Could they even resort to tampering with the general voters’ list?
– Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Promise kept?
I received in my mailbox a glossy four page pamphlet from my MP David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands) with a big headline “Equalization Promise Kept.”
Mr. Anderson explains the Conservative government delivered $878 million in new federal money for Saskatchewan budget 2007. Mr. Anderson also enumerated the federal programs this new money supports: support for agriculture, biofuels, child tax credit, increase in capital gains exemption, plus some other minor programs.ÂÂ
Whoa, that is not the equalization promise the Conservatives made to the people of Saskatchewan during the last election. But Mr. Anderson already knows that….
The commitment the Conservatives made was to remove nonrenewable resources from the equalization formula, period. That commitment contained no caveats, caps or clawbacks that somehow are now part of the formula.
The actual promise made would have given Saskatchewan $800 million each and every year, which Saskatchewan could spend as it saw fit. The promise was not an equalization formula that will reduce Saskatchewan’s share of equalization to zero in two years. There is a major difference.
 The Conservatives now trying to bribe their way out of their commitment is not going to fool anyone.
– Henry Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask.
Nuclear worry
I am greatly saddened that Alberta Energy has been granted a permit to build on my home stomping grounds with a nuclear reactor that will provide 70 percent of its energy to an undisclosed source.
Why are Albertans not being told and kept in the dark about who will be the recipient of the bulk of this energy produced? We all have a right to know.
I would hope that all residents of the Peace River country become informed and vocal about their thoughts on the installation of a nuclear power plant near Lac Cardinal. …
One only has to look up on the internet about disasters that have happened to Three Mile Island, Love Canal or Chernobyl. The ongoing health problems and deaths are staggering from these disasters. Could it happen here? Although nuclear energy may be the cleanest choice for the environment initially it only takes human error to cause a meltdown.
So, what if we have one oops? Then what? It will be too late to change your position or express your concerns. You might not be around to do so.
I am appalled, saddened but not surprised by the constant lack of values that the present government has shown that affects so many Albertans. The political founders of the Social Credit party must be turning over in their graves with the degradation of Alberta society and now the environment. …
I am most saddened for the children and the unborn that may be affected by the choices we make today. Not speaking up is also a choice. Why should we endanger our lives to benefit an undisclosed source? ÂÂ
– Maureen Reid,
Grande Prairie, Alta.
