DIFFERING VIEWS
Kevin Hursh shows his colours in his column (WP Jan. 15) about those who question the safety of GMOs, calling these people scientifically illiterate or hopelessly dogmatic, and their views as nonsense.
We practise conventional farming but have many concerns with genetic modification. At this time, when the Stephen Harper government is muzzling scientists, many of us are wary of the often-cited scientific evidence. Science is always changing and evolving.
In 1916, Einstein predicted gravity waves but the findings were only confirmed and accepted in 1933. Even today, evidence is mounting to verify his theories and predictions.
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?
Just because someone has a different view that is not scientifically confirmed, Hursh doesn’t have to demonize them.
He may be the one who is scientifically illiterate and hopelessly dogmatic.
Frank Orosz,
Creston, B.C.
MANURE CONTAMINATION
Re: Manitoba may budge on hog manure rules (WP Jan. 29).
Agriculture minister (Ron) Kostyshyn needs to be reminded of what Manitoba’s Conservation and Water Stewardship minister, Gord Mackintosh, said in his letter to the Brandon Sun June 24, 2014, concerning this matter before he makes some rash promises. Note: It also addresses odour control.
“We are not prepared to weaken the Save Lake Winnipeg Act and allow unrestricted provincewide hog production in Manitoba at the expense of the environment.
“Any pilot project proposal coming forward from the hog industry to the province must demonstrate zero negative impact on water quality and include effective odour control measures.”
Furthermore, building additional earthen storage structures (lagoons) as proposed by Manitoba pork would contribute to even more gas emissions than the province could undertake in accordance with the targets set in legislation of the Kyoto protocol.
Storage of excess manure in such a manner will also result in even more leaching and present even more dangers of pollution to contaminate the water table.
Appropriately, such storage is categorized and recognized as hazardous waste.
John Fefchak,
Virden, Man.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Merle Harth’s letter of Jan. 29 prompts me to present another perspective on the issue of marketing grain through the CWB. I have to say that I love my marketing freedom.
It is now not compulsory to deal with an agency that continually moved the goal posts and changed the rules. One can now establish a delivery period and a price and get paid the full amount immediately upon delivery. A great concept.
Pool return outlooks, initial payments, adjustment payments and final payments which carried on for the better part of two years are thankfully a thing of the past.
Even the more recent fixed price contracts were still not competitive with the private grain companies.
I greatly value the freedom to market my wheat in the same manner that I have marketed my canola and barley since 1974 without infringing on the rights of others.
The CWB is still available to market your grains and oilseeds if you are so inclined. And that is the most important point. You have the absolute freedom to choose.
Glen Sawyer,
Acme, Alta.
TIME FOR CHANGES
The Saskatchewan Green Party is urging landowners to each write a letter to premier Brad Wall to de-mand the new Saskatchewan Sur-face Rights and Acquisition Act be tabled during the spring sitting of the legislature.
The revised act was supposed to be brought forward in the legislature last fall.
In addition to acting on the demands of landowners, the new act should include the following changes:
- Open an Advocacy Office for farmers, ranchers and other private landowners when negotiating with energy companies over surface rights.
- Drilling must be a minimum distance away from occupied dwellings, at a distance to be mutually agreed to by the energy company, the landowner or landowners, and the people living in the dwelling.
- The lessee of the surface rights must assume liability for any damage caused by any activity on land owned by farmers, ranchers or other private landowners.
- Decisions made by the Arbitration Board under the Saskatchewan Surface Rights and Acquisition Act will be non-binding.
- A Fair Compensation Board that is separate from the Arbitration Board would be established under the Saskatchewan Surface Rights and Acquisition Act, to ensure that farmers, ranchers and other private landowners are compensated for any damage on their property that is caused by the lessee of the surface rights.
It is time that the province start representing private citizens and not just giving everything to the resource companies.
Victor Lau,
Regina, Sask.
WRONG IN EVERY WAY
Former CWB director Jeff Nielsen (Walking the Plank, WP Jan. 8) is using the purchase of two laker grain ships to divert attention from the billions of dollars taken from western grain farmers since Ottawa killed the farmer-controlled CWB.
Is Nielsen trying to protect agriculture minister Gerry Ritz because an agricultural economist from the University of Saskatchewan predicted that the farmers’ share of grain sales will fall from the 90 percent returned by the single desk CWB to perhaps as low as 20 percent as grain companies consolidate and continue to take more?
The CWB had a long history of using farmers’ money to purchase assets that would actually make farmers extra money.
This goes back to 1946 when they purchased an office building and up to the recent past when they purchased computers and rail hopper cars.
As Bill Toews, another former CWB director pointed out, the payback on the laker grain ships was under four years, which is a pretty good investment by anyone’s standards.
At the time, Ritz had promised farmers a vote on destroying the wheat board and it was not unreasonable to expect Ottawa would honour one of the most basic of the commandments: “thou shalt not steal.”
But the agriculture minister was not telling the truth about giving farmers a vote on destroying the wheat board. Instead, Ottawa seized all the wheat board property farmers had bought and paid for.
Does Nielsen really think this is okay? Perhaps he should look up “precedent” sometime.
Who would have thought Ottawa would stoop as low as it has to destroy so many Canadian farm institutions? Most farmers know that what Ritz and the Harper Conservatives have done is wrong in every way that matters.
Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
