Abhor roping
I would like to respond to your article in the May 31 Western Producer: “B.C. rodeo eliminates roping events”.
I raise registered Black Angus cattle, and own/operate a meat market. I would like to take my hat off to Shirley Hamblin for speaking up for the calves.
I am with you on this one, Shirley. I also abhor it.
In response to Dirk McCarroll’s remarks, which suggest roping doesn’t harm the calf, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
It’s true that on the range a rancher may need to rope a calf in order to treat an ailment. I have done this, but it’s not on par with repetitious roping, night after night throughout the summer, running a calf down on horseback, jerking it to a sudden stop, slamming it to the ground, tying its legs while the horse keeps the rope tight until the calf’s eyes bulge.
As a businessman and rancher, I am aware of the public reaction to such animal abuse and the damaging effect such abuse can have on the industry.
While it may be true that some roping calves do not exhibit obvious signs of acute stress, this is in part due to their evolution as animals of prey, in whom signs of weakness would, in the wild, lead to death. The evidence of stress does show in the carcass as signs of failure to thrive.
I hope the day comes when people are no longer allowed to abuse animals for their entertainment.
– Jim Urquhart,
Trail, B.C.
Options fiasco
On July 31, 2006, (federal agriculture) minister Chuck Strahl announced, in his words, “an innovative new program to help low income farm families.” …
On April 20, 2007, 110 days after the end of the farm tax year, minister Strahl announces retroactively that “only those who received a payment in the first year of the program will be eligible for year two.”
By the department of agriculture’s own admission, $246 million targeted for low income farm families will be switched to other programs.
Mr. Strahl, by his own admission, on May 1, 2007, at agriculture committee made the following statement: “There were about 15,000 people who qualified for this program. I think it did some good. It filled the gap in a year when we had particularly low farm income.”…
Farm incomes, contrary to some newspaper headlines, continue to decline and more and more auction sales are being scheduled every day.
As far as I know and as far as anyone in the present Conservative government that I’ve spoken with knows … this is an unprecedented act to axe a government program midstream.
In my opinion, even worse than that, they axed it for only a percentage of producers. Those who qualified last year will be eligible to qualify again this year.
That was not at all part of the original announcement of this program. New rules were made up along the way and the program was axed when this government realized that more money was going to be paid out this year.
In typical style, the announcement was made 10 days before the tax deadline – it could have easily been made two months prior – and just when producers were heading to the fields to start spring seeding, leaving them no time to understand what was happening here.
I have spoken with our Conservative MP’s office, both in North Battleford and in Ottawa, on many occasions and to date Mr. Ritz has not called me back.
Mr. Wayne Easter has said that the Conservative government members of the committee, led by the parliamentary secretary, attempted to stall the consideration of this motion by using delaying tactics such as lengthy filibusters, which prevented a vote by the committee from occurring.
Mr. Easter is now calling on government to respond to this report and to respect the will of the majority of members on the committee.
Please pick up the phone and speak with your MP and take a few minutes to phone Mr. Strahl’s office in Ottawa….
I just heard Mr. Strahl on the noon news regarding the Aug. 1 changes to barley deliveries and the CWB. He said “farmers need to know the rules.” We know the rules, Mr. Strahl. You randomly change them to suit your needs.
Let’s see if Mr. Strahl and this Conservative government can step up to the plate and do the right thing.
– Deb Smith,
Kindersley, Sask.
Democracy day
In response to Chuck Strahl’s letter of June 17: (Federal) agriculture minister Chuck Strahl has been attacking farmers and their single desk selling advantage, the Canadian Wheat Board, for 15 months.
He has spent millions of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars without accounting for any of it.
With his recent letter, the minister is now attacking the Friends of the CWB for sticking up for democracy and ensuring that governments follow the law.
In his letter, Chuck Strahl complains about taxpayer dollars being used to defend the farmers’ marketing advantage, the CWB.
How many millions of taxpayer dollars has Strahl spent promoting the anti-CWB position?
How much extra did it cost Canadian taxpayers and farmers when Strahl tampered with the CWB elections last fall?
How much is it costing Canadian taxpayers to defend, in court, Strahl’s draconian “gag order” on the CWB?
How much extra will it cost taxpayers and farmers to settle Adrian Measner’s severance package when Strahl fired him last fall without cause?
How much did it cost taxpayers for a bogus barley plebiscite campaign?
How much did taxpayers pay for Conservative MP ads during that campaign?
How much did taxpayers pay for the advertising blitz that followed the rigged barley plebiscite? Reports are that this advertising alone cost more than $750,000 of taxpayers’ money. Strahl’s office refuses to confirm.
Farmers won’t be taken in by Strahl’s standing-reality-on-its-head spin that the Friends of the CWB favour the grain companies over the farmers.
It was Strahl that appointed the grain companies and their shills to his task force last fall, and it was Strahl that appointed grain company representatives to the CWB board of directors.
It’s the Friends of the CWB that are defending the farmers’ marketing agency and it’s Strahl that is intent on directing billions of dollars away from the farmers to grain companies. Period.
(I’m) looking forward to Farmer Democracy Day when the judge rules.
– Stewart Wells,
President,
National Farmers Union
Swift Current, Sask.
Churchill future
The ag minister does not support the Port of Churchill or producers’ interests.
Recently agriculture minister (Chuck) Strahl has stated, “If Churchill makes sound business sense under a CWB monopoly, there’s no reason to believe it won’t continue to make sense under marketing choice as grain will still need to be moved.”
The statement really shows the minister’s lack of understanding, or his advisors’ lack of concern for the financial well being of producers who use Churchill.
The point the minister/staff miss is, whose business sense will prevail?
Now grain is shipped to Churchill mainly by the CWB because it makes financial business sense for producers. Thus the benefits of a shorter haulage distance and reduced handling costs are returned to producers.
Since there are no main line grain terminals in Churchill, the grain companies miss out on a source of revenue if grain is sent to Churchill.
And yes, grain will have to be moved in a “new marketing choice system” and not to Churchill.
But rather than capture these benefits for producers at Churchill, grain will be moved in the “old marketing choice system” where financial benefits for grain companies and service providers will be maximized and returns to farmers will be … ?
The minister knows full well the CWB will not be viable in a “new marketing choice system” but rather will be reduced to a grain broker.
Churchill may receive some shipments of grain without the CWB’s single desk mandate, but the volumes will be so small that it will not be able to support retaining the rail line and terminal facility.
On this issue the minister has clearly shown he supports producers getting a lower return.
– Kyle Korneychuk,
Pelly, Sask.
