Gun rules
To the Editor:
I am responding to an article in your March 19 issue, “Gun rules altered again.” I sure wish the people making statements to the public would get their facts right before trying to give out information. … Yes, the registration will start on Oct. 1, 1998, but that does not mean you have to register any firearms then. You have until the year 2003 to have all firearms registered. You do not have to license your firearms.
If you have a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate, you will carry on with that. When it is time to renew it, you will be issued a Firearms Possession Certificate. This will license firearms owners. We suspect you will need this to buy ammunition.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
If you want the printed facts on the new legislation, you should call the Canadian Firearms Centre at 1-800-731-4000. You must, to own firearms, have an FPC on or before Jan. 1, 2001. If your FAC has a longer valid date, you will be back credited on cost of your FPC. To date, the cost of a Possession and Acquisition Certificate will be $60 for five years. If you own restricted or prohibited firearms, you will also have to pay $80 for five years.
We really do not know where this is going. In 1978, the FAC was $10. Maybe the Government wants us to give up ownership of our guns. Then what?
– Mervin Grunow,
Wainwright, Alta.
CCA changes
To the Editor:
Western Producer March 19, Page 1: Ben Thorlakson, CCA President, states that CCA hasn’t moved much – the Government has.
In years past, the CCA were at best used as a mouthpiece by the Meat Packers. In those years, our problem was with the buying practices of the Meat Packers.
Today’s beef marketing is much more competitive and producers can live with it. The Amarillo-Oprah court case seemed to indicate that those few Texas cattlemen were not really in tune with the majority of cattle producers.
Sometimes it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.
– Henry Rempel,
Plumas, Man.
Farm costs
To the Editor:
And the debate re marketing of our grain commodities continues.
Suppose, just suppose, that we gain or settle for a system guaranteeing a $100 increase per acre for our commodity.
What reassurance do we have that the input cost will not immediately increase by $150 due to increased costs from taxes, insurance, fuel, machinery and repair, transportation, demurrage costs, fertilizer, chemicals, power, energy, telephones and the list goes on?
As well, we are experiencing a depletion in land tax base. While attending meetings on the above topics, it was very evident that there were many well-meaning people with well thought out and researched philosophies.
One element was missing – co-operation and interaction. Each person was reaching for straws of survival, either job, financial or political security.
The farmer is going onto his land shortly. Try establishing a line of credit, working capital, without guaranteeing and signing away your possessions and income.
Do you know of anyone that guarantees you returns on your investment?
– Emmanuel Oystreck,
Yorkton, Sask.
Auction flood
To the Editor:
The farming industry as we know it is coming to an end. Every mail brings a flood of auction flyers, unreserved land and machinery, that few farmers want. Who is to buy? If it were not for crop insurance, there would be even fewer farmers on the land. Soon that will be priced beyond feasible protection.
The uncertainty of both price for grain and weather does not enhance the expenditure required to seed. Back in the ’30s, land could be bought from the municipality for taxes owing. Will we see a recurrence of this again?
– H. W. Jackson,
Falher, Alta.
SWP and rail
To the Editor:
Freedoms of speech, of association, and of the press are cornerstones of a functioning democracy. They should not, however, be mistakenly equated with the liberty that some take in spreading half-truths in what appears to be attempts at furthering some political agenda. I refer specifically to some who have seen the often-emotional debate over rail line service in west-central Saskatchewan as an opportunity to smear Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
In one column published in several weekly newspapers, one commentator strayed closely into the realm of libel by suggesting that the Pool is part of a “dishonest, secret agreement” to close elevators on railway branch lines. For the record, no such pact exists and there is no set of facts that would lead a reasonable individual to conclude that one does.
It is appalling that such erroneous and misleading information is being published. This one column was authored by an individual who, during the height of the debate over the future of grain freight subsidies, was a strong advocate of “efficiencies” and stated that Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s support of the Crow Benefit was outdated thinking. This individual’s current position, therefore, smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy.
Perhaps, however, one should not be surprised by such inconsistency. This same agriculture commentator has called for the following: “Why not let the marketplace decide which elevators can be viable?” This free-market advocate then calls for government to impose “rules” and laws on what action private corporations can take with regard to their assets.
This individual once stridently assailed grain companies for their inefficiencies and now is howling because today’s environment resembles what he and others once demanded.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s senior management has been mandated by the Board of Directors to run the business of this co-operative in the best possible manner to ensure its long-term financial viability.
In this era of transportation deregulation – coupled with government’s elimination of historic freight rate subsidies – the grain industry is experiencing unprecedented upheaval. We are witnessing the arrival of massive multinationals while rail companies are squeezing grain companies to maximize efficiencies such as rail car loading time and capacity. Those that comply receive rate incentives that can be passed back to producers.
Producers are making business decisions based on pennies and nickels. That means they are bypassing smaller plants in favor of the larger facilities with the car spots that can deliver a wider range of services. Every business is ultimately consumer-driven.
Examine the economics: Why would the Pool agree to rail service elimination on a line where it handles the vast majority of grain? Why would it write off millions of dollars in capital invested in facilities on those lines?
There are difficult times for communities facing the loss of a grain-handling facility. The issue is wrapped in thick layers of emotion that often conceal some fundamental facts. The truth is that the deterioration of the rural highway infrastructure cannot be blamed entirely on the grain industry.
Road damage is caused by axle loads and the speed of the vehicle. Larger trucks generate less damage than smaller trucks because of less axle load and better distribution of weight. New technology soon to be employed by Saskatchewan Wheat Pool will further reduce road damage by large trucks. The truth is that governments have used transportation as a cash cow and returned little to the system.
The Saskatchewan government annually collects about $400 million in road-related taxes and annually returns $148 million to the province’s road network.
Ottawa’s record is even shoddier: The federal government collects $4 billion in fuel and excise taxes and returns a total of $300 million to Canada’s roads.
There are some holding out hope that government will spend scarce tax dollars on short-line railways. The Pool’s position is clear: Do not waste precious capital on any line that is only a short-term strategy. If a short-line railway can stand on its own, the Pool will examine being a customer on that line. A precedent is in place with OmniTrax which operates from Saskatoon to our concrete plant at White Star, and from North Battleford to Meadow Lake via Shellbrook.
The Pool cannot subsidize any line by continuing to operate inefficient plants: There simply is not enough profit in today’s grain-handling system to even contemplate that.
I invite any inspection of what the Pool has done to continue to accommodate our membership and reinvest dollars in rural Saskatchewan. I will place our record next to that of any organization. Only recently, we have announced our intention to invest tens of millions in livestock operations that will significantly raise grain consumption on the prairies and therefore allow producers to avoid massive freight rates.
Finally, I am left no option but to inform those spreading dark lies about the organization that the Pool will face any critics but it will not idly abide defamation or libel.
– Leroy Larsen,
President, SWP,
Regina, Sask.
Hog loss
To the Editor:
It is a sad issue that Lethbridge lost the hog processing plant. Some environmentalists tend to spread their “manure” and disrespect on people in hopes to save the land. Farmers, on the other hand, spread their manure on the land to produce nutrient rich soil which produces the crops that feed the world.
It doesn’t take me long to figure out which one I prefer to be.
I’m an American hog producer and farmer, producing quality pork and grain which in turn feeds all, environmentalists included. “Warning: Biting the hand that feeds you, could cause starvation.”
– Mary Ann Wolery,
Turner, Mont.
Cargill partner
To the Editor:
Adrian Ewins’ article in the March 26 issue proposes that Cargill has undergone a metamorphosis from feared monster to respected partner. A response to his proposition is that Cargill has not changed but that the perspective of grain producers and the producer organizations that they built and believed in have changed. The change is from a cohesive co-operative view to individualistic posturing and docile alliance with global corporate agriculture.
Cargill is a transnational chameleon, very capable of judging and manipulating producer acceptance of their business operations. They adjust their expanding dominance according to regional and national tolerance levels.
Their world-wide operation enables them to operate new meat processing, fertilizer plants or grain facilities in Western Canada at initial rates that eliminate others. These include those originally owned by the food producers who now ally themselves with Cargill.
The role of Cargill in North American trade negotiations (advisers at both sides of the FTA table) and their support of dissident grain alliances such as the Western Wheat Growers and Barley Growers are significant underpinnings of Cargill’s growing prominence. Many farmers lost sight of their common cause with other producers while their producer owned companies were seduced by the bigger is better myth. Perhaps the advice “if you can’t beat them, join them” also explains the current alliances with a wholly owned private company.
Absorbing competitors is an efficient strategy for global dominance. Cargill’s growth is a negative force against food security for the hungry and equitable food producer livelihoods. Cargill’s strategy of multi-participation, in food systems and all available areas of influence, is consistent with their maximum profit policy. Fortunately for the future of the Prairies, Community Shared Agriculture operations, direct-buy farmers’ markets and producers that are committed to holistic food production offer a positive alternative to the highest-yield-now, immediate-dollars-for-me approach to prairie agriculture.
– Janet Walter,
Red Deer, Alta.
Closed market
To the Editor:
Let’s put aside the argument of whether single-desk selling or open-market selling will put more money in western farmers’ pockets, what the CWB has done in the past or what it should do in the future. Let’s analyze all the effects a closed, regulated, grain marketing and handling type of system does to everyone, some way or another in western Canada.
First we have to look at the Crow Rate subsidy. As it no longer exists, farmers have to look at the least expensive route to an end user. Having regulated freight to a port must be changed to reflect a true basis in western Canada. For example, shipping barley to Biggar, Sask., costs everyone over $50/tonne, no matter where you live in the country.
Farmers cannot afford an expensive, regulated freight system totally controlled by federal government regulations.
Next, add together all the value adding of wheat products on the prairies. Why is it that there are new processing plants being built on the prairies for oats, barley, canola, peas, canaryseed, lentils?
The argument from the CWB is that 80 percent of wheat has to be exported because of the global market. But maybe the real reason that there is no new industries started in the wheat business is because the government wants it that way.
The way in which our regulated system is set up is to keep the flow of raw product (wheat) flowing through the pipeline. The only parties attached to this pipeline that are guaranteed to make money each year are the railroad, elevator companies, terminals, and all CWB employees.
Interesting enough, these parties would prefer the system we have because the system wards off competition.
If we had a market-driven system with direct competition for our products like all other commodities western farmers grow, than farmers could choose where, when and at what price your product could be moved.
What is the federal government agenda in keeping the CWB? They claim western farmers need this regulated system to “protect them from the cruel global market.” It’s an interesting statement, but why only western farmers?
Why does the government only want to “protect” the western wheat farmer, why doesn’t the government “protect” the housing industry or the automobile industry? Why just western Canadian farmers?
… I’m sick and tired of the CWB and the government telling us what is good for the West without a shred of evidence or proof, and in the meantime, spending millions of dollars telling us that the government protects. Protects whom?
– Alex Herle,
Neilburg, Sask.
NFU irrelevant
To the Editor:
Whenever I see an article that has the National Farmers Union or its representatives quoted in it, I know it to be irrelevant and skip it … You produce a good paper except for the over-emphasis on the NFU.
If the coverage given to the NFU and the number of members it represents is compared to the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the members it represents, then at any one time three quarters of all articles should mention the WCWGA and not the NFU.
Is the NFU that irrelevant and out of touch with reality that they can’t stand on their own two feet of ideas and instead have to be subsidized (articles in mind) for its message to get out? A message of why we support and reward the marketing slaggard while punishing the hard-working farmer out to take his responsibility to market his product.
Or another is, why we want the federal government to continue and increase its powers to confiscate wheat and oilseeds and pulses, instead of furthering private ownership and property rights.
If the NFU hopes to increase its memberships and influence, maybe it and its representatives should keep quiet so that the rest of us farmers wouldn’t know what fools they make of themselves and the rest of us every time they open their mouths.
– Kyle Lickiss,
Taber, Alta.
Three myths
To the Editor:
We have to get bigger!
We can’t raise pigs on one site anymore!
We have to become integrated with feed companies.
Ladies and Gentlemen, these are just some of the myths which are being consistently and shamelessly shoved down our collective throat as small and medium sized hog producers. Today I’d like to challenge some of these myths.
The first big fib that I would like to dismiss is that you have to get bigger in order to survive. What baloney!
Being bigger is not necessarily better. While economies of scale can provide some advantages, the most critical issue, whether you are a large or small producer, is that of effective and efficient management. Remaining successful in the next millennium will depend more on how successfully you manage your agribusiness rather than the size of your business.
Most of you at some point in your life tried out for a hockey team. Some of you made it, a few of you didn’t. The reason that some of you made it was you had a good shot, or you could skate well or you could handle the puck well. Unfortunately some of you didn’t make it because your hockey skills needed to improve.
Raising pigs is like trying out for a hockey team. Each year we have to become better and better operators in order to succeed. Each year we have to learn new skills in order to thrive.
I would suggest each farming operation subscribe to relevant hog industry publications. It is the most cost-effective way to get simple little ideas that could save your hog operation thousands of dollars a year.
In addition, attend seminars and courses that will improve your business management skills in general and your swine management skills in particular. Perhaps most importantly, ask questions of other successful independent producers.
The second nose-stretcher is that we can’t raise pigs on single-site operations. I say that’s a bunch of hogwash.
Three-site production does not eliminate disease. For example, two of the biggest disease challenges facing producers today, Strep and PRRS, are not eliminated by three-site early weaning systems.
I will be more than willing to debate anyone on the stated economic and health superiority of three-site production. The biggest asset any operation can have is a good manager who loves his work. It’s you that can make the critical difference.
The third whopper that I would like to dismiss is that you have to be integrated with feed companies in order to survive.
Feed companies can be an excellent source of information and can work with producers to help them with their nutritional needs. The difficulties arise when feed companies promoting this myth encourage producers to sign contracts in which they supply the producer with pigs but also force the producer to buy their feed and breeding stock. The feed company has ensured itself a profit with the sale of feed while that producer takes all of the risks.
The producer is forced to do business with only that feed company thereafter. That is a win-lose situation. You are forced to buy their breeding stock! You are forced to buy their feed! You are forced to sign long-term contracts. Whose farm is it anyway?
And what’s next? Your first-born child? Arranged marriages? Most people who are investing in these mega hog operations are being promised quick and easy ways to make some money.
You and I both know that there is no quick and easy way to make money. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
You make money by working hard. You make money by constantly educating yourself and improving your management skills and knowledge.
Let us all put the myths aside and move confidently forward as family farmers into the next millennium.
– Carl Dornn,
President, Creative Feeds Inc.,
Winnipeg, Man.
