Letters to the editor

Pasture fee

The other day I received an invoice from the unique financial services department of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development for $1,000 for pasture insurance. As we had not signed up for the insurance this year, I called to report the error.

Then I was informed that our ever more paternalistic provincial government had taken it upon themselves to reinsure everyone that had it last year, unless we called to tell them otherwise. You know, Columbia House style.

One might ask what a government that professes to be pro free enterprise is doing in the insurance business in the first place, and in so being, are they so hard up for clients that they have to resort to trickery?

Read Also

Worrisome drop in grain prices

Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.

The original posting date was Dec. 16, 2004 and we were not notified again until this statement, dated July 5, 2005. Our private insurer would not let an invoice remain outstanding that long.

I do remember getting a rather elaborate looking package from AFSC in January, and thinking the provincial government must have as many friends in the printing business as the federal government. However, as we had decided not to purchase insurance this year, it went in file 19.

The Statement of Account – Insurance reads “outstanding balances will be collected through liens on the grain market.” As we do not ship grain, I was wondering if the provincial government was going to use their far reaching powers to prevent me from obtaining a drivers, fishing, hunting and/or marriage licence until I pay up?

– E. Roth,

Edmonton, Alta.

Border runners

Re: “Trials abandoned for border runners,” July 7 Western Producer.

There was no doubt that the federal government would drop the border charges against the farmers because the Canadian Wheat Board is in a legislative mess.

The original trial and first appeal were both based upon a false premise. The crown gave incorrect information to the courts by stating that the national section 46(d) of the CWB Act, requiring all exporters to pay a fee based on the price difference inside and outside Canada, describes and mandates the buy-back in the West.

Many pages of compelling and irrefutable information were provided to the three Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judges revealing that the buybacks have absolutely no connection to section 46(d) and that the crown had badly blundered. The consequence is that the monopoly is not mandated by the act but rather, is simply imposed on western farmers by CWB bureaucrats in an unauthorized arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.

Unfortunately, all this information about the CWB was completely unaddressed by the judges, who instead grasped onto a technical reason to let the farmers go, which the previous courts, that were relying on the crown’s false information, had rejected.

A cynic could conclude that the farmers were let go in order to hide the truth about the CWB.

Make no mistake, the CWB and Liberals will already be scheming to change the legislation to save their hides.

If we let them get away with it, we deserve what we get.

– John Husband,

Wawota, Sask.

Climate change

Re: the front page “climate change” article and the special report in the Western Producer, July 14 issue.

As a start, the increase of energy in the world’s atmosphere, brought about by the increase of heat retaining C02, methane, etc., manifests itself in our daily weather. We are simply refusing to accept this fact.

This condition is not helped by the refusal of the provincial governments to formally accept the science of global warming. Just what will it take for our governments to get off the fence and get their heads out of the sand?

Even the Western Producer falls somewhat short. It doesn’t explain why Western Canada could get cooler and wetter. There are good scientific reasons for this.

In the farming environment, what could farmers do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Given the low farm-produced commodity prices, costs of newer, more fuel efficient tractors, etc., and the machinery required to collect methane from livestock waste, it may only be a dream for many primary producers. Rural communities, to ensure their continued existence, need to be more vocal in this area.

In the area of mitigating the impacts of climate change, what to do? Probably the most effective initiative is suggested by the special report statement, “design and implement new policies to encourage farmers to adopt proper water and land management practices.” Yes.

And what about the provincial governments, who manage vast amounts of crown lands, much of it leased, to graze domestic livestock? The practice of grazing domestic livestock on native forage has to be the practice most needed to be changed. Even under the most stringent level of grazing level management, the natural ecosystems are negatively affected and the capacity of the grazed area to retain surface water is much reduced.

Isn’t it time for the provincial governments to get with the job of protecting the environment and designing laws and practices which mitigate the impacts of climate change?

– Alex Bauer,

Whitecourt, Alta.

Why crop report?

Last week’s glossy Saskatchewan crop report of a bumper crop makes a person wonder what are the real intentions and whom do they really benefit?

Like most farmers, I do not sell my crop at once nor do I price all crop from a single contract. Experience has taught me to take advantage of late summer weather rallies. I grow milling oats. This might have been my profit for the year….

I harvested decent quality oats fit for the oat milling market but far short of the 11 to 12 percent moisture levels required. I dry down grain to required levels using bin aeration.

This year’s high humidity during May, June and most of July created aeration drying problems. The crop in the bin was simply not drying. It was just this week (second week in August) that I was able to almost complete my aeration grain drying.

With the rising future oat price through July and into August, I knew I had made a wise decision to withhold half of my oat crop. Prices rose to $180 per tonne. …

As many of you already know, farmers in Manitoba were unable to seed more than 25 percent of their crop.

A large percentage of milling oats is grown in this region of Manitoba. I knew it and most grain brokers knew that good milling oats would be in short supply in Western Canada.

Prices looked very good until Saskatchewan Agriculture released their glowing crop report. Based on less than a handful of farm reporters, of whom none were from east-central Saskatchewan, a bumper crop was reported. …

This glowing Saskatchewan crop report has cost me big dollars that I will never recover. How necessary are these reports and really who benefits?

I have questioned Saskatchewan Agriculture spokesperson Terry Bedard. I have been told that there are very few crop reporters. She requested that I become a volunteer reporter for east-central area. I was not offered an explanation why these crop reports are released without any form of accuracy.

I asked whether the grain brokers or the grain farmers benefited from this report in some mysterious way. I wasn’t given an answer to that question.

At this point I must ask the public for their opinion. Would General Motors or Ford Motor Corporation allow the federal or provincial government to make an Automobile and Truck Manufacturing Progress Report and submit unsold inventory? …

I am sure that neither automobile manufacturer would permit this infringement and price manipulation of their inventory by the government. Why is this coercion practised in agriculture?