Letters to the editor

Fair chase

To the Editor:

Re N. Sibley letter Dec. 7: Another great letter from a person with obviously much experience and knowledge. How very true your statements are, for I too have tried to convince government that this baiting of big-game animals is neither sustainable, nor is it safe. And it is definitely immoral.

Provincial standards on proper disposal of animal carcasses to help stop the spread of disease is also ignored.

“Bears and You,” sent out by Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, states never feed bears or leave food for a bear; you will invite trouble for yourself as well as for the next campers.

Read Also

Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality

Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.

Bears that have been fed lose their natural fear for humans. When bears start to associate their food with humans, they become a nuisance. Bears usually have to be disposed of when this occurs.

Don’t let yourself be the cause of a bear’s destruction. It is unlawful to feed bears.

To your question, N. Sibley, why are WLF so quiet on this issue? According to an article in Field & Stream, October 1993, the Boone and Crockett Club scores big game killed in Fair Chase. Fair Chase meant hunting without traps and bait. It meant not shooting swimming animals or game hobbled by deep snow. It meant not using artificial light.

N. Sibley, I wish there were more people like yourself and I who would get off their ass and speak their mind before it is too late.

Wildlife, resident hunters and taxpayers of this province are the ones who will pay for this disgraceful, unsportsmanlike practice allowed by government.

There is no doubt that bait-pile hunting will stop, but only after it is far too late. Please write the Hon. Roy Romanow and voice your opinion before it is too late.

– K. McDaid,

Leoville, Sask.

Nice banks

To the Editor:

The banks have come out very nicely this year. The highest of the “Big Five,” the Royal, made $1.26 billion in profits with the other four right behind. The CIBC with $1.2 billion and so on.

Now these high profits are made mostly on the backs of small Canadians.

How much farm land in Canada do the banks now own? And this is just one example.

Then of course there are the “service charges” which are totally ridiculous and are on everything you do.

Our governments are in a sea of red ink from the smallest to the largest so I think maybe the “Big Five” as good corporate citizens should pay just a wee bit more tax. I don’t think any other corporations in Canada come close to these high profits this year. The banks run Canada instead of our governments doing so and this is very sad indeed.

– Keith Warren,

Ogema, Sask.

Crimestoppers

To the Editor:

I was appalled to read Verna Thompson’s article associating Crime Stoppers with “informing”, “spying” and “Stalinist” societies. It has never occurred to me that telling the truth and standing up for victims of crime could be nauseating or in any way like a Nazi.

Indeed, it is sickening to me to think that Ms. Thompson would encourage us to shush because we would be shaming ourselves if we told the police something we saw.

I can’t believe that the principle of not tattling is more important to teach and observe than the principle of truth and integrity.

Speak for yourself, Ms. Thompson. Crime Stoppers is a very important organization and certainly doesn’t need your downplay. Peace and goodwill to the victims of unsolved armed robberies, two murders and thefts, not to mention a very strange disappearance. All in our town!

– R. Zingre,

Cecil Lake, B.C.

Short lines

To the Editor:

Re Don Loewen’s column of Nov. 30: It has many people shaking their heads trying to comprehend his own contradictory position on Bill C-101, short line railways, and deregulation of the grain-handling business in general.

First he says Bill C-101 is all right but then complains loudly about the “hurt” the 10 cent/tonne the existing short lines are to receive under the new bill.

Let’s put that 10 cents into perspective. At an average yield of one tonne an acre the cost to a 1,000-seeded-acre farm would be $100.

This seems a very small amount compared, for example, to research checkoffs.

Everyone seems to agree that short lines have the ability to contribute positively to the overall handling system.

It is inaccurate to describe the 10 cents as a subsidy.

In the netherworld of railroad accounting there was no other way for short lines to be paid but to create a 10 cent/tonne “division of revenue.”

While decrying the loss of regulation, he points out that the rationale for it was partly to reflect back to producers the real cost of grain transportation.

Why then has the Pool chosen to not show elevation and freight deductions on their grain tickets? What are they trying to hide? Are they embarrassed at the disproportionate share of the grain revenue they receive for elevation? Are they trying to protect the railways from the same thing?

By the way, if you sell oats for example, about half of your cheque is deducted for freight and elevation.

It would appear from reading Mr. Loewen’s various proclamations that he has lost sight of the original goals of the Pool and co-operation, one of them being that the costs and benefits of exporting grain should be shared equitably by all farmers.

– Donald H. Voss,

Spiritwood, Sask.

Beef exports

To the Editor:

Re Dec. 21 article about beef exports to Asia: The above-mentioned article appears to suggest that cattle producers are withdrawing support for export market development in favor of domestic national promotion programs.

Canadian cattle producers, myself included, have for 20 years supported national promotion in this country and the debate reported in this article was only a reaffirmation of that commitment.

In 1987, a referendum held by the Alberta Cattle Commission (ACC) committed 95 cents from each checkoff dollar to the Beef Information Centre for national promotion.

Cattle producers have clearly indicated that they believe in and support that commitment.

In recent years, an opportunity to export beef to Pacific Rim countries has evolved. The Canada Beef Export Federation was set up in 1989 to take advantage of this opportunity.

The competition from Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.A. in Asia is tough and very well funded. Alberta cattle producers have responded to the challenge by increasing funding to Canada Beef significantly over the last three years.

In addition to producer funds from the ACC checkoff, the government of Alberta has also been a major source of funds for the Federation. The same can be said for the government of Canada and for producers and governments in other provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan. The Federation also receives strong support from beef packers and processors across Canada.

I believe that cattle producers see support for export market development on the one hand and national promotion on the other hand as a double-barreled approach to solving the problem of surplus beef supplies that we face today.

Increasing exports and domestic consumption should be viewed as complimentary efforts to move product.

I do not believe that producers feel the need to make a choice between one or the other, but that they recognize both as opportunities and choose to support both initiatives to the best of their ability.

Thank you for your strong past support. We look forward to continuing our relationship with The Western Producer.

– Jim Graham,

President, Canada Beef

Export Federation

Hopper plans?

To the Editor:

In the Feb. 9, 1995, Open Forum, I had expressed concern over the future of the 19,000 hopper car fleet used to haul western grain, made up of 13,000 federal government cars, 2,000 Wheat Board, 2,000 long-term lease and 2,000 provincial cars.

I did receive a letter from Federal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale on May 22, 1995, and from Transport Minister Doug Young on April 4, 1995, both stating no plans for the disposal of the cars were being considered at that time. That is now hard to believe.

Surely a full transportation plan should have been in place and agreed to before the Crow freight rate system and all the related interstructure was destroyed.

The proposed sale of the hopper car fleet of 13,000 cars for a fraction of their value to the railways and then having producers pay $1 per tonne for five years to pay for them, in exchange for a few concessions from the railways, is unbelievable.

The potash companies say owning their own cars gives them a distinct advantage in freight rates and service.

Thanks to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, its President, Directors plus staff for taking the lead in a plan to purchase or in some way have control of the hopper car fleet by producers.

The Canadian Wheat Board, the Canola Growers plus thousands of producers are now backing this move, as it appears the federal government, railways and the major grain companies are not working for grain producers’ interests.

– Ken Pottruff,

Brownlee, Sask.

Farm trucks

To the Editor:

Re “Farmers should pay share of road costs, say truckers:” The above noted article does not fairly convey the content of the speech delivered at Crop Production Week in Saskatoon.

In the speech I said Saskatchewan should have shipper liability legislation to help control overweight shipments.

The point was not definitive to producer products.

I said that farm trucks that are used outside of the intended use provided by the farm plate should pay their fair share.

In reply to Mr. Harrison: Fines are paid by the carrier, and I do not know of a single incident in which a shipper was charged the cost of the fine by a carrier.

The commercial haul period of farm products is not 52 weeks per year. It is greater than true farm use, but not five times greater, and we said that.

– Warren K. Smith,

General Manager,

Sask. Trucking Assoc.,

Regina, Sask.

Need CW(N)B?

To the Editor:

In response to Mr. Fries’s editorial (Jan. 11), would you please print the following proposal for a Canadian Weekly Newspaper Board (CWB)?

It is time in western Canada for orderly marketing in the weekly newspaper business. The practice of each publisher having to get their own subscribers and advertising is an idea that perpetuates competition and personal greed. The large publishers try to flood the market with newspapers by offering incentives to subscriptions, thus driving down the price and the small family-owned operations out of existence so that they can profit at the consumer’s expense. At least one of these publishers is subsidized by a large grain company that has links to eastern Canadian, Cargill and foreign interests.

If a CWB was set up, it could pool the revenue from advertising and subscriptions, give each publisher an initial price per page equal for all, then a final payment six months after year end. This board could be instituted with an act of parliament, have commissioners to govern the board, and have an advisory board elected from the publishers. The board’s mandate would be to look after marketing, with blanket advertising mandatory so no publisher would have an unfair competitive advantage, penalties for operating outside the board and a closed accounting system as no advertiser would want it known how much he paid to advertise.

The only publishers against this idea would be the selfish and disgruntled whose willing editors would defend their self-centeredness but I am sure that there are other editors who favor the concept and will be more human and work for the common good.

– Murray C. McMillan,

Arcola, Sask.

CWB advisors

To the Editor:

In the Jan. 11 issue of the Producer we have a statement by the Wheat Growers Association that the democratically elected advisory committee be disbanded.

This group of agitators, along with Paszkowski, Esquirol, Sawatzky, the Reformers, etc. are looking for every tiny wedge they can find to discredit and put an end to the Canadian Wheat Board. If they are expressing the above view, why did they have their candidates run for advisory board positions? After their candidates took a shellacking in the election, now they see no use for the advisory board.

These guys had a vote on dual marketing in Alberta, and did not have the decency to allow the Wheat Board officials to present their side of the issue.

Since when in a democratic society is a person or group not allowed to present a defence in its operation? Even the Parti Quebecois did not forbid the rest of Canada to take part in the referendum last fall.

When we voted for an advisory committee, only bona fide permit-holding farmers were allowed to vote. Did the same apply in the Alberta plebiscite, or did those that burned their delivery permits, feedlot operators and every Tom, Dick and Harry vote? Sixty-five percent in favor of dual marketing, even for Alberta, looks mighty suspicious.

Do you guys think that if the Wheat Board is done away with, the States will allow you to keep on bootlegging grain across the border? They grow more grain in the state of Kansas than all three prairie provinces put together. Wake up fellas, because once you have accomplished the goal America strives for, they’ll close the border to your contraband grain faster than a cat can bat an eye. …

If the Wheat Board is done away with, my broker will try to market my grain in competition with my neighbor’s broker and the lowest bid will sell the grain. Our brokers will make a windfall and we will get the chaff.

The four cents a bushel that the board charges to sell our grain will be gone for all time.

In every instance throughout the years, the Wheat Board has served us faithfully and well, and heaven forbid the day we regret having our heads in the sand, and letting those soap-box orators lull us into passiveness.

– Mike Brischuk,

Swan River, Man.

Producer view

To the Editor:

I am bringing this viewpoint to you as a producer of cereals and oil seeds that is not overly interested in getting the top price for my product but a good average fair price. At present a lot of information being fed to us is emotional and tends to stretch the truth.

I listen to the CWB tell us they have marketing experts to be on top of the market.

I listen to them through the initial prices that the board sets as this is to me the lowest price the CWB sees them marketing grain with possible improvements if markets improve.

When the continental barley market opened the CWB was offering at our point $1.25 initial payment for malt barley. As a rule we hold malt barley till Christmas before we usually get shipments, with it finishing in about seeding time or later.

The continental market offered us $2.25 a bushel direct from the combine. The final price that we received from the CWB for that malt barley did come close to but not quite to $2.25/bu yet we have the CWB advisor for our area, Art Macklin, and others telling us that the continental market dropped the price of malt barley $40/tonne.

I’m sorry, but by the numbers I’ve seen I don’t believe it. …

The CWB makes a case that if they were marketing canola they could get us a better price. It is always easy to look back and say you could have got a better price. The question is, how many of the canola markets would have been developed under a board primarily disposed towards selling wheat and at what prices would they have made the sales?

For us, canola is very important as we can move most of it in the fall to pay our input costs.

Under the CWB, going by wheat and barley records this would not happen.

In theory the CWB should be able to get us the best possible average price because they do not need to make a profit, it all goes to us the farmers and their overhead should be lower with the government backing they get. With their advantages in not having to get profits and the government backing to keep costs down they should easily be able to outperform the competition in exporting our grain in a dual market.

I can see in a dual market that the CWB could have trouble sourcing grain at times. This could be alleviated by us as producers signing a contract at the end of seeding as to what percentage of our grain we intend to market to them. In the fall we could then offer the CWB the grain under contract but if they refuse to accept it we should be free to market it elsewhere. Farmers that don’t honor their contracts could possibly be fined or penalized by not being allowed to partake in the pooled price for a period of years.

The CWB has made a claim that under a dual system the companies would keep the best grain for themselves.

Nobody that I’m aware of is advocating the removal of the Canadian Grain Commission, which sets the grading standards. If a company buys CWRS #1 14.5 for the CWB, then that is what it had better deliver and we have the CGC an impartial body to give the final grade on the grain.

The CWB claims that without a monopoly they could not extract the highest average price from the market that they do. Perhaps with a dual market our customers would be happier with the choice they have, have more faith in the price and our better customers may be willing to buy more thus keeping our average returns up. This could also lead to more uses of our product.

In 1990, I was in Holland talking to a small miller in the north who utilized American wheat. Why not Canadian wheat? It was not available and was too expensive, yet he was paying $640/tonne for American wheat and $880/tonne for organic wheat. The American wheat looked to be about a CWRS #3 yet I was only getting $112/tonne for CWRS #1 wheat. Maybe we need more than one organization searching out and supplying these markets.

In conclusion, I feel we can have a dual market and that if the CWB bureaucracy wasn’t so afraid of it, they could find ways to operate effectively under this system for those farmers that like price pooling.

It also would give us as producers concrete evidence whether the bureaucrats are as good as they claim to be at marketing our grain.

– John Simpson,

Ft. Vermilion, Alta.

Support board

To the Editor:

… The Farmers for Justice have shown their true colors. Their goal is to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

Gary Neumaun, a Gladstone-area farmer, described dual marketing as having both a wife and a mistress at the same time. It’s a hell of a deal but it won’t work.

In 1993 the federal Conservative government allowed dual marketing. Grain Traders could export Canadian barley into the United States. The price for malt barley dropped from $159 per tonne to approximately $110 per tonne.

Western Canadian farmers need the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board denotes economic justice for grain producers.

Instead of Farmers for Justice, let’s have Justice for Farmers, a strong and healthy Canadian Wheat Board.

– Wayne Sotas,

Solsgirth, Man.