Cattle association name must change
I show much appreciation to the Producer for reporting and writing an editorial on the proposed change to the name of the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association. I support Ross Macdonald in his motion to change the name of the SCA.
I found it interesting that the SCA has only been in existence for 12 years. Since this is the case, I wondered why we would have picked such a name in 2009.
Comments quoted from former chair Rick Toney show that there is a need for change. Instead of discussion, it sounded like a shout-down.
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
Society has been dealing extensively with inclusive language since the 1970s. To say it is part of some political agenda, craziness and a bunch of garbage is not helpful. To say that no woman has been “put down” by the name is a bit presumptuous.
I would agree that some would say it doesn’t bother them, but perhaps it would help if some were not excluded by making the name gender specific. Make it a simple cattle association and you can keep your SCA hat or follow Manitoba’s and Alberta’s lead in being beef producers.
Because about 30 percent of farmers and ranchers are women, it makes sense to me. It may seem a silly argument, but what if it were called Cattlewomen’s Association. Would the men be OK belonging to that?
If the SCA is a marketing branch of our beef, then we must be seen as a progressive business. The SCA has spent thousands in radio advertising, and every time I hear the commercials I think that the name inhibits the target audience. Women still, by far, are the people who shop for most of the groceries for households. Does the name “cattlemen” encourage them to visit the website for recipes? For some who live in cities and have money to spend, it sounds like an old boys club. Just some food for thought.
It has been years since I was writing papers in university, but even in the 1980s we were encouraged/instructed to use inclusive language. We no longer call people firemen or policemen and neither should we still call ranchers cattlemen.
Here is hoping for warm calving weather and water to fill the dugouts.
W. Peters
Hanley, Sask.
Small farms die, and towns are next
I have often seen a quote in your paper that sort of goes, “destroy the farms and grass will grow up in the streets of the cities.” Well, I think the quote could be modified a bit to apply locally. It would read, “destroy the small farms, and grass will grow up in the streets of the small towns.”
I have seen concrete evidence in my hometown. It was a 160 acre town, one that thrived when it was still possible to raise a family on 160 acres. There were many such towns in Saskatchewan.
Next to die were the 320 acre towns; 640 acre towns will be next and so on. The dying will be a slow process, but anyone with a good eye can see it happening.
I am not sure what the acre number is for your town, but you can be sure there is one.
Another interesting thing I have noticed is that the larger the farms become, the longer the lines get at the food banks. If the numbers were placed on a graph we would not see an inverse relationship. The country that used to be the breadbasket of the world is quickly becoming a basket case.
Politicians, it seems, would rather have history repeat itself rather than learning from it. Instead of non-answering the repeated similar questions put forward in question period time, they would be better spent studying the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
I am saddened to think of the kind of country we are leaving for our grandchildren.
It also seems our precarious supply of COVID vaccines has been compromised by a comment some brain dead individual made about the marketing strategy India is proposing for its farmers. No doubt the term CWB does not show up anywhere in his memory bank.
Lawrence Gutek
Hendon, Sask.
No global warming, no carbon tax
Various media sources have inundated us with global warming the last few years.
From individuals through to certain groups, we have heard ample reasons to alter behaviour to stop global warming. Even our federal politicians have become involved to the point they set up a carbon tax and now multiply it. Every time they do so, they are talking that that will reduce global warming.
I personally have had my doubts regarding global warming since the very beginning. Number one, no one person nor group has shown any data to show actual global warming. It has all been words and only words with zero physical data.
I have been recording weather data for over 40 years and have arrived at the following decades and their mean temperatures:
1981-90: 1.8 C
1991-2000: 1.79 C
2001-10: 1.87 C
2011-20: 1.97 C
Upon viewing that data I find we have roughly the same mean temperature for the last decade as the first decade. Therefore I can truly say there is no global warming. In fact, the temperature has remained constant. Therefore, we also do not require a carbon tax.
Delwyn Jansen
Humboldt, Sask.
