checkoffs opt out question?

[parsley]

And just so you recall and understand what IS, not what you would like it to be:

All farmers own their own "house" You can't order anyone to get out of the farming house.

You see, Dave, you don't OWN all farming 'houses'. Pars

[dave4441]

Never said iwned all farming houses. My point is that there is a larger iindustry of primary producers that must invest to move forward. Your problem Parsley is that you take the organic industry, which is basically a small cottage industry that has had reasonable sucess, and apply those pratices to large scale conventional agriculture. Does not work.

You analogy makes no sense.

[dave4441]

All farmers own their own "house" You can't order anyone to get out of the farming house.

I assume you state above because i believe that everyone has to pay to play and i agree. I do not feel i can order anyone out of any house, blah, blah, blah. Just for the record i believe in free choice, but sometimes you rules to help guide people. THat is why there are laws in our country, for the better good of all. There is a weatlth of good work being done by alot of organizations. Have to want to know where those funds are being spent and what it is doing.

[parsley]

Dave, you seem worried about selling into a cheap lentil market.

You say your goal is to "be ahead of the curve with transportation, breeding, science, nutrition."

Hmm. Does that mean increasing production? Won't that LOWER the price of lentils yet still more?

Science? Nutrition?
The premium market is "GM free and Identity preserved". That's where the top-plus price is. These shoppers are NOT buying exactly what you are trying your hardest to grow.

So I guess I stand back and wonder why you are not happy selling into a flooded basement priced market.

But I agree that improved transportation and strict breeding programs can improve a farmers' bottom line. Pars

[parsley]

Lots of farmers own mineral rights, myself included. Lots of farmers own land, myself included.

You want me to pay a research levy on my grain production, but you will not say if the same research levy should be applied to my oil production

I'll let the analogy stand. It speaks for itself.

Good planning, planning with a broad view requires the principles the planning is based upon to be sound and will hold up to comparison.

You seem yet unable to defend your position, Dave.

And from the sounds of your paternalistic attitude, my observation is that even some of your principles need rehauling. Pars

[dave4441]

The oil company that does not want to invest in it's future does not. Ones that do want to, do invest and likely reap rewards in both share value and profit. In ag, we are all to small to move forward, must do it collectively for the common good.

Bottom line Parsley is that you think that the grower organizations should pass a hat around after harvest hope to run a breeding program or fund agronomic research. It will not work.

Yes, I worry about low prices and selling into a declining market. I think things are downright scary for the next year or two. I will maximize my production, keep my costs as low as possible and at the same time try to increase the value of what I produce. A lot of businesses do this, but in ag we talk about lowering production to increase price. Great theory, but try and sell it to a banker. Let's all grow one lb of flax next year on each farm and we will all be rich. Problem is someone will always take advantage of the situation To hope otherwise is futile.

Purpose of this thread is how do you prevent those, that opt out of a levy, from benifiting from the work. It is a valid question. We are way off on a tangent that is going nowhere fast.

[gustgd]

Thanks for trying to help Dave and thanks for not changing the Brad Pitt reference. I would have gone more with a ``School of rock Jack Black but who knows about Parsley`s tastes.

Checking I am not speaking for the WGRF or the Wheatgrowers on this topic only me. I was trying to create discussion and bring about a solution to something that WILL be discussed in the future.

If some out there think that they want everything discussed in back rooms with little to no input and then Ì`ll let you know what was decided.

Checking keep speaking like you are and then see how many times your input is sought. no wonder you don`t use your real name.

[checking]

I can see that you are floating a trial balloon of your beliefs for your presentation. I, however, would hope you're capable of hanging your personal opinion hat on the rack outside the door, before you enter the meeting room. Few are capable of doing this. Farmers are giving you good advise on this, but if you only want to hear what supports your position, then you might just as well decide it in your backroom meeting.

I also believe I told you that I left the WGRF with my checkoff only to find that that wasn't enough for it. Their insatiable appetite (good fortune - bad for the producer owner of it) gave it an additional six times my checkoff. You then believe I require a good shaming! I believe it should be the other way around.

I could give a rat's ass if you believe that I'm hiding my name, or that you decided to go public with yours on this forum. Choice always trumps mandatory. The fact is that I could visit post city, and could walk past you on the street, and not recognize the Brad Pitt twin!

[parsley]

7 Thoughts:

#1 Dave, When it comes to grain, you want a levy in place, and you ask:
"Who pays for the research with out a levy?"

#2 But when it comes to oil, you're willing to provide oilcompanies with choice:
"The oil company that does not want to invest in it's future does not. Ones that do want to, do " (Dave, ya got mineral rights? LOL)

That's what I call an inconsistent philosophy, because what is good for oil should be good for agriculture! I can only hope you are not a decision maker in agriculture, of any kind.

#3 Dave,I believe you're wrong when you say,"Purpose of this thread is how do you prevent those that opt out of a levy, from benifiting from the work."

I see a larger issue, the PURPOSE is really about choice, and Gusty sent out the initial trial balloon:

"was thinking about a mandatory checkoff, with a yearly opt out provision. "

That's what it is all about. Choice for checkoffs or no choice.

#4. Both of you well understand that Western Grains Board wants to slide from voluntary to mandatory. But it seems so, er, "greedy", doesn't it?

That's Wheat Board mentality. That is socialist mentality. Gusty doesn't want to admit it, and I don't blame him, but it is. (And gusty, I regret to say, Brad Pitt simply doesn't do it for me at all, and I didn't say he did if you reread)

#5. And Dave you've indicated you indeed have full blown socialist tendencies that likes to be the one to MAKE the rules:
a) "In ag, we are all to small to move forward, must do it collectively for the common good."
b) "but sometimes you rules to help guide people"

Yes, well. Whose rules, Dave? Yours? LOL

#6 Dave, I'll be interested to read which ones of the 42,000 or so Saskatchewan farmers with an average of 1600 acres in Saskatchewan (according to Sask Ag) are on your list of schnookies who need herding around and need their lives planned for them by the Central Committee of Planners.

(Are you also willing to publish your list of "larger iindustry of primary producers that must invest to move forward" I'd like to compare it to the list of larger producers undergoing debt review.)

Could someone recommend that Dave could serve loyally on the Central Committee who planned the Flax Council of Canada in backrooms. (See the flax thread)

#6. gusty, I'm disappointed in you:

"If some out there think that they want everything discussed in back rooms with little to no input and then Ì`ll let you know what was decided."

Not smart. But, that being said, thanks for posting an issue coming up that should be discussed by everyone;

'Do you want mandatory checkoff or not?'

You deserve better feedback than you have received on this thread.

#7 gusty, Everyone has a right to their opinion. checking is a farmer and he has a vested interest in farming. "Checking keep speaking like you are and then see how many times your input is sought." I presume you only speak to people who parrot your thoughts. That is folly for a young man. Make sure you SERVE on a board, that's what you are there for, isn't it, you're supposed to be serving your fellow farmers, are you not? Don't lose your way. My best, Pars

[gustgd]

If you have a problem with WGRF getting railway overages take it up with Ritz, if it happens again the same legislation is still in place.

As far as giving back the wheat and barley portion, it might have been done just call the CWB then ask what was paid?

It's my understanding that all the other commodities and feed market that made it administratively difficult.
You throw in class action ambulance chasers and you get the result that came down.

Your going to have to refresh me on the post city reference I'm drawing a blank?

Parsley the back room comment was meant that if some farmers DO NOT want to discuss policy. Repeat DO NOT want to be bothered, they just like production. As far as being disappointed, when you and checking give a workable example of how to collect research money.
I'm listening.