Paul Carles’ ingenuity got him through the perils of a recent Saskatchewan storm, but we were delighted to discover that the Western Producer helped him out a little.
As reported in the Feb. 12 Regina Leader-Post and in other media, Carles was trying to help marooned motorists caught in the Feb. 10 snowstorm when he became disoriented in the blinding blizzard while riding his snowmobile.
The Radville, Sask., area farmer eventually found a grain bin with an old truck and tractor parked beside it. In those vehicles, Carles found a coat, matches, oil and an old Western Producer. Inside the bin, he used the newspaper to light a fire, fueled it with old bin barley and oil, and kept himself warm enough to survive the night.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
Ordinarily, published reports that farmers are burning copies of the Producer would not be greeted with glee here at the office.
For this reason, our marketing director has already rejected the Carles story as the subject of future promotions along such lines as: “The Producer can save your life! Good reading and combustible too!”
Nevertheless, we were happy to have provided this service to Carles and would also like to thank the guy who took along his copy of the Producer in the first place for in-the-field reading. At least, we assume he took it along for reading. And we’d be happy to replace his copy if he so desires.
From time to time we hear from people who discover back issues of this newspaper in attics and basements, granaries and chicken coops, where they were stashed by former readers.
WP staffers of previous years must take credit for providing content that old-timers found precious enough to save. Can’t help being pleased, though.
While I personally make it a point never to use this newspaper in the bottom of the guinea pig cage, there’s no doubt the Producer has more than one life in many farm homes. Besides fire starter, we’ve heard that it is used for plugging holes in granaries, polishing windows and wrapping greasy tractor parts. It is frequently the first line of defence in keeping mud and manure from tracking onto the kitchen floor.
All to the good, I say, though I do hope people read some of it first. The Producer itself may contain about five percent recycled newsprint, so we’re hardly ones to quibble about alternative uses.
If you’ve used the WP for some unusual purpose – and again, let me reiterate and repeat and emphasize that I hope you read it first – please let us know. Meanwhile we’ll occupy ourselves by publishing the facts and maybe even saving lives, one snowbound farmer at a time.
Urbanization
I have a few more observations on the urbanization of thought in North America.
Last fall I turned on the radio and heard Michael Enright of the CBC interviewing a professor Hart who teaches at a university in Central Canada. He has written a book on Canada as a trading nation. He spoke on tariffs; he spoke on subsidies.
At first he sounded erudite and reasonable but began to sound less and less so as he moved into my world: farming.
He spoke about how he would ask his students if their ancestors had been farmers. Most would reply that they had been, but few come from farms now. He claimed that none wanted to return to the farm; there are more opportunities in the cities.
He tied that to poor people in other countries who build roads with pick and shovel. We could, he said, supply them with huge machines for the job, although it would put most of them out of work. They would, he claimed, have other opportunities. Where would they come from if they aren’t already there? It seemed to me that the professor thought that how he lives or how urbanized people live is the only way….
There is another person, in the United States, in some “official” position perhaps, who claims that North America should get out of agriculture altogether and import all food from Third World countries. What a lot of situations could arise from that idea.
Maybe he’s the same person who, in 2003, came up with the idea that all dairy cattle in the United States should be moved into the desert so that houses could be built on all the lovely green pastures. Thinking can’t get more urbanized than that …
Sometime last November I answered a phone call from a charitable organization to which I’ve donated in the past … but I said no this time. I told the voice that because of drought and BSE, I couldn’t give to any charity the same as in the past.
“Oh,” said the voice, “do you think you could give something next month?” The area code was 619, as urban as one can get.
But I was slow, wasn’t I? I could have offered thousands of pounds of hamburger.
– C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
Health impact
At its May 2001 annual meeting, the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association passed a resolution calling for policy action concerning quality of life of individuals in regard to air quality, safe water and safe food production.
In August 2002, the 135th annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association adopted the following resolutions: that CMA express its concern regarding the risk to public health in rural areas that is presented by the development of industrial hog farms; that CMA ask federal, provincial and territorial governments for a moratorium on the expansion of the hog industry until scientific data on the attendant health risks are known; that CMA urge the federal, provincial and territorial governments to initiate and support research into contaminants associated with industrial hog farms.
On Jan. 9, 2004, the American Public Health Association issued a resolution urging federal, state and local government health agencies to impose a precautionary moratorium on all new concentrated animal feeding operations – also known as ILOs and factory farms – and to initiate and support further research on the health impacts of air and water pollution from such operations. …
How much longer will the federal, provincial and local governments, elected to exercise due diligence to protect the citizens of this country, continue to finance and support this activity while ignoring the informed calls for a halt to this threat to Canada and its residents?
When will protecting the health of Canadians become more important than lining the pockets of the pig factory owners and their friends?
– Elaine Hughes,
Archerwill, Sask.
Hard truths
Where do we go from here?
The BSE crisis is causing more upheaval in the Canadian beef industry than anything that has been thrown at us in 40 years.
Since I started raising cattle at the age of 13, with one heifer earned from my dad by doing field work, we’ve had years of feed shortage, disease scares, wage and price controls, etc. Nothing compares to the stress levels brought on by our present dilemma. …
In the face of these events, our trade agreements with the U.S. have proven useless. It now appears our access to U.S. and other offshore markets are many months, perhaps years, away.
How are we beef producers to carry on? Does the Canadian voter have the political will to support producers until things return to normal?
What is normal? What will consumers demand of beef producers to maintain their confidence in our product? What parts of the production chain will survive present conditions?
We all know that costs in our system get passed on to the primary producer, the gals and guys that spend the endless hours needed to ensure a calf crop every year. This is the base on which the entire industry rests. …
The point I am trying to make is to envision what our industry should look like when this is all over. Our number one priority must be to maintain and restore consumer confidence in beef, for without a market we are nowhere. At the same time, to provide producers with a firm foundation for economic prosperity.
I suggest the following: 1. A national program to remove older cull cows from the food system. That means their destruction, either through incineration or burial. Compensate producers at the same level as those removed through BSE traceouts.
2. A return to farm-based cattle finishing. At one time, 85 percent of Saskatchewan calves were finished here. There is no physical reason we can’t finish all of our calves here. This holds tremendous potential for maintaining consumer confidence. It would make the job of tracing animals immensely easier. It would eliminate the expensive ownership changes now in our system. It would eliminate many of the environmental concerns around mega feedlots. It would spread the economic benefits and risks more evenly among producers.
3. We need a much broader scientific attack on BSE. … Much of the present BSE wisdom is contradictory and full of holes.
As individual producers, our actions and the decisions we make will have little effect on the direction this runaway train wreck is headed. The all-powerful decisions will be made in far-off board rooms and legislatures.
That doesn’t mean we should give up. … We must voice our concerns and beliefs and tell the hard truths as we see them.
– Don Voss,
Spiritwood, Sask.
More buyback
Mr. Husband’s letter “Buyback a flaw” (Open Forum, Jan. 15) seems to have three parts, if you count the name calling.
The first part is some hair splitting about who holds title to the grain in a CWB buy-back process. The whole point of the buyback is to give farmers the freedom to market their own grain. The legal technicalities about who holds temporary title are pointless.
The bottom line is that farmers who use the buyback directly sell their own grain, and collect any premiums above the CWB price in a particular market.
In addition, the farmer gets any interim and final payments that the CWB pays on that grade and quantity of grain. The grain stays in the farmer’s bin until he delivers it to his customer.
The buy-back process discourages, but does not stop, individuals from undercutting the CWB price and therefore also respects the rights of those who understand the value of the single desk. It was a sensible compromise when it was included in the CWB’s legislation, and it still is.
The second part of Mr. Husband’s letter is a convoluted legal argument around whether the buyback is a tax, if the buyback is in the CWB Act and so on.
However, the buyback has been tested in court several times in the recent past. Each time the courts have found it to be within the authority of the CWB.
The final part of Mr. Husband’s letter is a bit of name calling and that is a propaganda device some people resort to when they do not have accurate facts and information to validate their point of view.
However, I will not let name calling stop me from pointing out that one can only have real freedom within the context of a community. The CWB buyback makes it possible for producers to sell their own grain anywhere, anytime, without undercutting the CWB price and hurting the rest of us.
– Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
