checkoffs opt out question?

[gustgd]

I am doing a little research on publicly funded research and farmer checkoffs. I have a little theory and wanted to run it by a you folks.

I was thinking about a mandatory checkoff, with a yearly opt out provision.
Caveat is that if you opt out your personal name goes on a list with the amount you chose not to pay into making a better industry.


*options it can be a general research group, or commodity specific.

farmers could determine themselves what they see value in. Research, extension,Varietal release,Value added, agronomy,International trade. add your own........Marketing
I truly believe that it should be voluntary but without the threat of public shaming I see more and more farmers asking for the money back simply because the dollars are becoming quite significant. Yet as the system is now anyone can opt out and still receive all the benefits. (free rider)
If someones house burns down and they opt out, no problem in my eyes. If they think they need a bigger boat, yet still want all the benefits. Lets let everyone have the option of looking them up.
Thoughts please.

[wd9]

Sounds like a great resolution at the AGm of say, ACPC, APG and ABC. Although it may be limited by marketing council rules, but those can be changed too.

Its unlikely the people that opt out of the checkoff care if there name is public because it does not seem to bother them that the rest of the farmers make the industry better and they just leach off of it.

[per]

Refundable check off makes the receiving group think about accountability. If they are squandering or otherwise not using it wisely, refundable check off provides the check and balance. Also there are alternative industry useful groups in many cases that would be the beneficiary of the refund. If an organization is using the check off appropriately they have nothing to worry about. If they publish the names they could also put the phone number as well so an explanation could be forthcoming. It might wake up the caller to possibly do the same.

[checking]

What other predator lists do you have in mind?

Let's see. The big number 1 out there - sexual predator list. The second biggest - opting out of a wheat checkoff.

Couldn't you find something more important to research?

[parsley]

gusty,

Eyeing up other people's money, and extracting it from them by legislation, so that a stealthy group can spend it, with no accountability, is indeed a political philosophy that keeps popping up from both communists and socialists.

Some farmers are indeed opting out of Western Grain checkoffs.

What is the reason? What have the B of D of the Western Grains Foundation determined as the cause of farmer withholding and withdrawal?

Surely the withholdings have been analyzed?

Age?
areas
increasing checkoffs
low farm income

Where is the report? Would you please post it? Pars

[checking]

WGRF doesn't need to worry about checkoff funds. Just make an overcharge freight deal with the railways, and millions will pour in from the largess of farmers. Can't send it back to the rightful owners. That would be just so costly, and just so wrong. Couldn't even petition for a tax credit on it. It would be way to complicated to determine who provided the windfall. If Western Grain isn't receiving their entitlements, I wonder why oh why.

[gustgd]

Thanks WD9 and per although I don't see the benifit of phone numbers. It's the local community who that individual has to face every day.....

Checking, I am doing a presentation on the importance of research and in trying to anticipate questions I always trip up on why don't farmers just do it themselves? or alternatively Why isn't private industry doing it?

I agree that if farmers feel that there is a need for research, those who use it should pay.

But What about free riders?

How do we get money for research, yet give people the option of telling those making decisions why they are unhappy?
Parsley if WGRF has such a list of demographics who opt out. I have not seen it. In fact at the last meeting I asked if such a list could be made.
So far it's been only 5 to 8 percent who opt out. No reasons why.
Some people believe their is a free lunch out there. Yet if that same some one was always in the bathroom when it was time to pay for the round. What would you think of them?

[btjadenlepp]

My guess is that the idea would work to reduce free riders, and it should be straightforwardto implement. Nice one.

[charliep]

Alberta experience for checkoff refunds would match your numbers. Reasons vary from needing the money to disagreeing on policy issues. Should note on number of people and not acres (I think). Don't know what proportion of acres. Slippage from other areas like farm to feedlot sales for feed grains more a factor.

[parsley]

A couple of points:

1. Governments are opting out of research but because they have realized they cannot afford it. Both government debt and deficits are rising, in case you haven't noticed. Yet, you are implying farmers should pick up that funding deficit! What makes you think farmers can afford to pick up what governments' cannot afford? And make it mandatory? You have your nerve, don't you?

2.Most agricultural research dollars are targeted towards novel traits, biotech, mutagenesis, etc. That's my tax dollars. Never ever had a year farming without paying income tax on this farm. So, uh, my dollars have, by large, supposrted conventional agriculture systems that organics does not use, and in fact bypasses. So who do I bitch to about your neverending deduction fairness crap? Or is fairness only an issue when it applies to the point YOU are making?

The farmers will give the Western Grains Foundation the money if they want to. Period. If they don't, give notice to the drones working there to get another job.


You continually want to morally legitimize legislated stealing in the eyes of the farm community, and it becomes a transparent ploy. Pars

[charliep]

Should stay out but from other aspects of my life, sometimes carrots work far better than sticks. Working to show value every day is the best way to keep refunds down.

From experience, having money puts farm organizations at the table for decisions on R&D. Don't like direction of the organization - run for a position on the B of D. Be ready to work.

[charliep]

Just curious what kind of investment (public or checkoff) is being spent on organic farming? As before, I note there is dedicated funding in the US.

[URL="http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/organicagricultureresearchandextensioninitiative.c fm"]USDA organic research funding[/URL]

[parsley]

I don't like the direction some folks are pushing for either.

Nor the "shame, shame, shame" methodology:

"Its unlikely the people that opt out of the checkoff care if there name is public because it does not seem to bother them that the rest of the farmers make the industry better and they just leach off of it."

(Yes, well, I can kind of relate to why some farmers would begin to think a leadership ability course should be mandatory...)

I'd boldly post my name if I apply. Over the years, for any checkoffs, we've never requested a refund. After all, it's been for research.

But upon adding up the checkoffs in all crops over the past year, I'm aghast! And the people scooping in, and managing the money are becoming greedier than ever.

Maybe the CWB can follow suit, (experienced as they are) and deduct a check-off from all canola growers.

After all, the CWB markets all over the world and have argued that organic growers benefitted from CWB marketing, so I'm sure they could make the same argument for a canola check-off pocketed by the CWB, claiming the CWB residually builds markets for canola growers.

Residual benefit could surely be legitimatley deemed mandatory in the eyes of communists, I'm confident.

Charleip, what was the marketing budget of the CWB last year? Do you have it handy? I downloaded their 4MB of disguise, that does not directly list "Marketing Costs for 08-09" (That's too simple for the simple, isn't it?)

I's like to know though, as we could determine a residual percentage from the total "all cwb crops" figure, and send the bill to canol growers, since we are into measuring benefits with green eyes.

Is there absolutely no decency, anymore? Pars

[wd9]

Charlie, what about the guys who just opt out regardless of how much good work is done? Or the ones that are so naive that the accountant applies for the refund without them even knowing and makes the accountant look good cuz he gets a bigger refund?

Some just take their money back and let others pay for and do the work yet enjoy the benefits of the labour and money of others.

A bit more public wouldn't hurt, at least not to those who pay for the benefits the free-loaders take.

[parsley]

I thought the Western Grain's Foundation was in Canada, charliep.

Certainly my income tax money oer the years, was made out to the Receiver General in Canada, which is probably why I am in such a pissy rage today.

And I'm sure "the idea would work to reduce free riders" is a concept a lot of ag consultants who recieve tax dollars for ag projects would be rather surprised that it was a bit of the free riders whose money they applied for. (btw, I am not in any way saying you applied for or recieived any tax money, brenda.)


Spoiled, self centred people who believe the world owes them a tax-dollar enriched living don't like to be reminded whose money it really IS. It's such an embarrassing, er, nuisance, isn't it? Pars