Letters to the editor

Revitalize Sask.

I have to congratulate the Saskatchewan government for their idiotic

plan to revitalize rural Saskatchewan as they have truly outdone

themselves on this one.

I envy our western neighbours because B.C. has Gordon Campbell, Alberta

has Ralph Klein, and we here in this province have a premier who acts

more like a replacement for Mr. Dress Up than he does a leader for this

embattled province.

I have nothing against Mr. Calvert personally but as a premier he just

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

doesn’t cut it. The NDP here in Saskatchewan have suggested our rural

people should pursue areas such as game farming and processing plants

and the ever popular agri-tourism industry.

If this government had a shred of gray matter they would surely know

that this province’s game industry is in trouble with disease problems

that have completely shut down the lucrative Asian markets.

The potential for processing plants is extremely limited because this

government has made the potential marketplace so limited because

companies are weary of doing business here in Saskatchewan.

The agri-tourism market is the real winner though. It sounds like the

making of a new crown corporation. After all, it’s been a couple of

weeks since they created the last one so they are due.

I guess farmers and ranchers could turn their places into old

MacDonald’s farm, complete with clowns and balloons and hope someone

would show up and pay or perhaps we could promote Saskatchewan as a big

plantation, and bring big city folks in to see how peasants work the

land.

I would say to those in B.C. and Alberta if you ever have an urge to

elect a socialist government, please wait until the urge passes.

In the meantime, if our government wants to revitalize rural

Saskatchewan, call an election.

– Gordon J. Anthony,

Moose Jaw, Sask.

Democratic?

Early in December a public meeting was held in the town of Watson,

Sask. The purpose of the meeting, called by the Lakeside Pork

Development Committee, was to inform people in the community about a

proposal to set up a 5,000 sow factory farm, which would be operated by

Big Sky Pork Inc.

The meeting featured Florian Possberg and Ernie Patrick of Big Sky Pork

and Ken McKnight of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Mr. Possberg,

complete with overheads and coloured graphs, presented a smooth and

glowing picture of this type of an industrial hog production factory.

Mr. Patrick spoke about the value of hog manure and its application to

land adjacent to the barns.

Following the presentations, the chairman of the meeting held up a card

with the word “Questions?” on it. He then informed meeting participants

that questions could be answered by people at the four tables at the

back of the room. These were being chaired by Saskatchewan Agriculture

and Food, Pork Central, Big Sky Pork and the Lakeside Pork Development

Committee. No open discussion was allowed.

Talk about divide and conquer. People who wanted to ask questions then

got a pretty good idea of what is meant by “back room” boys. Apparently

the promoters did not want to risk people hearing about the concerns of

others present – people who wanted to share their experiences regarding

air and water pollution, water shortages, and the construction of these

intensive livestock operations being constructed too near existing farm

homes, dugouts and wells.

In 50 years of attending many farm meetings, some of which were quite

controversial, the Watson meeting was the most undemocratic and

frustrating meeting I have ever attended….

– Leo Kurtenbach,

Cudworth, Sask.

Sell high

It’s been a while since I wrote last. Since then I’ve sold the farm and

put my money into stocks and mutuals.

Boy, it sure is a lot better than farming, as it doesn’t eat me out of

house and home and will not perish. And the added flexibility sure

comes in handy when the market is down.

Anyway, it has shown me a new way of farming. Forget what those chicken

feed seminars tell you. If you have to scrounge that much to make a

dollar, it probably isn’t worth it.

You own a commodity and you should treat it that way. Why do you always

wait until you have overproduced and get into trouble before you cut

back on your cattle, sheep, sows?

Fix a price in your mind that is acceptable to you and when the price

gets to that level, sell some of your cattle, sheep, sows.

It’s better to make good money while prices are high. You save on

labour, wear and tear on your operation and you never experience those

up and down cycles any longer. Keep the ball in your court.

Unfortunately it won’t work on crops, but there is an organization

already trying to manipulate the world output in crops and I think

that’s your best bet. Do it for yourselves as, if you succeed, you will

put all those corporate farms in jeopardy and they will turn against

crop farmers because they like the cheap grain and built their

operations around that fact.

I could show you more ways of making lots of money, a lot more than

those chicken feed seminars will, but I’ll keep it short and sweet and

maybe you’ll find some insight of your own.

So basically sell high and hold back (until) the pigs, lambs, calves,

etc., get to a price where you like it. Simple stock market rules, and

that’s what you essentially are.

– Rudi Vogel,

Lacombe, Alta.

Metered hunts?

I read with great interest the article on page 70 of the Jan. 24 issue

of The Western Producer where Lorne Scott wants to cooperate with

farmers on setting aside land for habitat.

I am willing to co-operate with these people like Saskatchewan Wildlife

Federation if they would co-operate with me.

I would like to see the government change the law that, through

outfitters, the American white-tailed deer hunters can hunt on

agricultural land.

This way the farmer can get a little revenue for trespassing and also

some spinoff to hotels, cafes, etc. would be good.

The local hunter can still hunt on wildlife land and the forest or pay

the farmer to trespass, something like paying the parking meter in the

city for the privilege to shop in city.

If such a law was passed, I would set aside some habitat land costing

no one. If land is set aside for habitat and the government paid us,

the bureaucracy to run this program would cost more than the farmer

would get.

When I talked with Lorne Scott on this matter, the impression I got was

he and the wildlife federation opposed white-tailed deer hunting by

Americans on agricultural land.

I think this is a one-way co-operation in their favour, but if

something isn’t done I think you’ll see a lot more “No Trespassing”

signs go up.

Also more bulldozers knocking out these small bluffs and draining

sloughs…

I think it is time that landowners have a little say as to who is

trespassing on their land.

– Warren Iverson,

Glaslyn, Sask.

Reporting error

In her letter of Jan. 30, (Open Forum) Lynda Swanson raises some

important questions about the Canadian Wheat Board’s financial

operations.

The CWB borrows for several reasons, including the need to pay farmers

for their grain and the ability to finance the credit requirements of

some foreign buyers.

The borrowing reported in the Government of Canada’s Public Accounts

reflects the numerous repayments and re-borrowings of funds required to

meet the CWB’s short-term cash needs as well as the supporting

short-term investment activity.

Thus, if the CWB borrowed $10 million on a 30-day term 12 times a year,

it would show up as $120 million in the Public Accounts. However, the

debt itself would never exceed $10 million at any one time.

Any financial benefits that accrue to the CWB from financing credit

sales to customers are passed on to farmers. In 2000-01, the CWB made

about $75 million in interest earnings that went directly into the pool

accounts.

Ms. Swanson’s letter references a reporting error in the Government of

Canada Public Accounts. The actual activity for the year 1997-98 was

$48 billion, an amount completely consistent with the CWB’s average

annual requirements.

The discrepancy in the Public Accounts was strictly a reporting error.

Therefore, the figures do not reflect an increase in borrowing or of

operating costs. The CWB has taken appropriate steps to ensure that the

information that is reported in the future clearly presents the results

of borrowing activities alone.

The CWB is keenly committed to making sure that our financial

operations are reported accurately. Every year the CWB is rigorously

audited by outside organizations such as Deloitte and Touche LLP, as

well as our internal audits. This year, the CWB invited the Office of

the Auditor General of Canada to examine our financial operations and

we expect its report in a few weeks.

– Greg S. Arason,

President and CEO,

The Canadian Wheat Board,

Winnipeg, Man.