Regarding the statement “the agriculture community seems incapable of re-prioritizing land use,” priorities by whose standards and by what criteria? Farmers who have invested their lives in becoming sustainable both in their financial as well as their ecological business are incapable of making correct decisions? Correct by whose criteria? And just whose priorities are to take precedence over others’ priorities?

Regarding the statements of the taxpayer’s willingness or unwillingness to fund “incentives for the agricultural landscape,” there is a class of people, to which Matt McIntosh seems to be a party, who have the hubris to think that third parties (themselves) have the authority and competence to pre-empt the decisions and priorities of other people.

In this case, pre-empt the decisions of farmers and taxpayers and to impose undetermined and undefined financial, social, and long term ecological costs and risks on them while bearing none of those costs or risks themselves.

Yes, we need to protect and enhance the environment that we share, but granting the power to impose one group’s priorities on other people, no matter how well intentioned, in order to prevent them from imposing even greater restrictions, is ceding the battle now and in the future to those whose stated objective is to shut down agriculture completely.

The hope that it will appease them by granting them the power to possibly impose even greater restrictions is naive at best. I have far more confidence in a free society’s ability to cope with future environmental problems than in our ability to cope with a government and a parasitic bureaucracy whom we have ceded all of our property rights and civil liberties to, with all of the environmental, economic and social catastrophes that are inherent with that type of government.

A simple perusal of history will give you plenty of examples. Matt McIntosh even references the EU and the onerous regulations that are imposed on the farmers there, imposed by the very enviro-blindered bureaucrats he wants to appease here.

The day that Matt McIntosh or anyone else purchases at my determined price, and assumes ownership of my land, is the time at which they can begin to make decisions of what they will or will not do with it.

Why on earth would you ever want to concede to anyone else the power to dictate what will happen on your land and the power to force taxpayers against their will to pay you to do anything? Power to extract a tax on one person to be paid to another is the same power to force compliance with the regulation.

The ‘payment’ is only the moral rationalization we grant politicians for imposing what we want on others. Accepting such a payment is a capitulation of part, if not all, of our property rights.

Protect our property rights. Do that by taking care of the environment and do not give up your rights and become party to the further extortion of the taxpayer. We want them to feel that they are our allies, not that they are our patron benefactors nor our extortion victims.

I’m sorry, but a pre-emptive surrender of our rights to people who want our demise is not the answer.

Travis Hatch
Sunset House Alta.

The post Letter to the Editor: Don’t surrender on the enviro front appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

I would like to add to this. I am a cattle producer in northern Alberta. We did receive some rain in late August, but too late for our first and often only cut of hay. 

Our area does not qualify for the AgriRecovery program as our county is so large that some areas were less affected. However, having a program based on geographical area simply makes no sense. The program should be available to all producers who are affected by the drought. 

I can provide proof of additional bales I have had to buy, additional supplementary feed, dates of pasture turn out and that I had to pull the cows earlier from pasture. I can show that I have suffered financially from the effects of the drought. 

I have had to buy in over 70 per cent of my feed this year, where normally, I have more than adequate land to feed my cattle. Here are some of my concerns about introducing the target areas approach for compensation and need to see the AgriRecovery response program removing this stipulation to include all regions of Alberta, as the drought conditions are affecting feed prices across the province, regardless of the producer’s geographical location. 

Producers in our province have had a very challenging last few years. I know many producers have been facing a dramatic increase to the cost of production, while fields and forage crops have struggled to recover from the 2021 drought conditions. At the same time, high fertilizer and other commodity prices have made finding alternative ways to manage our hay and forage crops extra challenging. 

The cost to transport feed, finding the feed and buying in feed has been a struggle for several years. Our traditional feed stockpiles have been depleted and this was not the year to be able to replenish them. 

We continue to see producers having to make the tough decision to exit the industry as it is no longer financially feasible to remain. For our producers to have a viable future and livelihood in the industry, more financial support is needed to help us build some reserves and resiliency during drought times. 

Despite some areas getting sufficient and timely rains, this drought still hurts all producers. I live in a grain land area, and am the last cattle ranch left. It is just becoming too hard to maintain the herds when there are disproportionate programs available to crop growers rather than livestock ranchers for risk management. 

The risk management strategies available to cattle producers are limited to Western Livestock Price Insurance on our calves, but nothing for our cow herd (that I know about). 

Calf prices look good this fall, but when you must pay such high prices for feed, trucking, parts and other industry costs, the margin left is still too narrow. It cannot cover the added costs of buying in additional feed to maintain the cow herd in a drought year. Even though $150 per cow is just a drop in the ocean, all assistance would be welcome. 

Having equal opportunity to access drought relief for all those affected should be implemented across Alberta. Personally, we have only been able to produce about 30 per cent of our feed needed for this winter, we have reduced our cow herd size and we have had to take animals later to pasture and pulled them sooner this year. 

We have reworked additional fields, attended workshops on how to become more resilient in times of drought, but this dry start of the growing season did not give us time to implement some of these changes. 

I truly hope more producers will contact their associations, the provincial agriculture minister, AFSC, their local MLA and other parties to ensure the AgriRecovery program is available to all producers who need it, and to remove the geographical stipulation. All producers are affected, not only those in specific regions. 

Louise Liebenberg
High Praire, Alberta

The post Letter to the editor: AgriRecovery too limited for cattle sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“This government is making it possible for a multibillion-dollar corporation to charge Alberta taxpayers for injured workers by not making changes to our labour laws,” says Swann. “The Redford Conservatives need to start here and start now with immediate changes to labour legislation surrounding paid farm workers in Alberta.” The Farmworkers Union of Alberta is also calling for legislation, as the JBS case clearly illustrates how badly misused the so-called farm and ranch exemption is. This is the obvious place for the Alberta government to begin the process.

Eric Musekamp

President, Farmworkers Union of Alberta

Bow Island, Alta.

The post Protect JBS Feedlot workers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Charlebois states that the Canadian Dairy Commission’s introduction of Class 3(d) is a sign that supply management is on the way out, however, he misinterpreted this change. We wouldn’t endorse a change that would foster the movement for the demise of supply management. We would, however, ensure that our system evolves and we are continuing to meet the needs of those at the table.

We want to keep the milk made in Canada, consumed in Canada. This helps our local economies, keeps our family owned farms in business — all at a fair price to consumers. Class 3(d) was created to reduce the price of mozzarella for restaurants to promote domestic products being used, rather than lose support to non-standardized cheese products. Dairy farmers don’t set the price of your pizza, the retailers do. We are making a step to promote Canadian dairy products even more, but if those retailers chose to lower their prices is not ours to determine. (Did you see a drop in beef prices when BSE hit? I didn’t either.) This is a clear example of the dairy industry working with organizations like the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association for Canadians.

We don’t claim that our system is perfect. I don’t think any marketing system can state that. However, supply management works for Canada. The cost of milk is comparable to many other countries, including the U.S. and Europe, and doesn’t use taxpayer dollars to bail out our farmers when prices dip. The predictability of the system allows our producers to continuously invest in technology on their farms and produce some of the best quality milk in the world by following some of the strictest regulations.

Mike Southwood

General manager

Alberta Milk

The post Supply management message misinterpreted appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The viewpoints expressed demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the nature of the dispute regarding U.S. mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (COOL). The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) supports the concept of voluntary country of origin labelling and for consumers to have the option of paying for information that they genuinely value. The dispute is over the way in which the U.S. implemented mandatory COOL as it creates discrimination against imported livestock in the U.S. marketplace, thus contravening the U.S.’s trade obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

When the WTO ordered the U.S. to come into compliance, the U.S. responded by introducing an amendment that clearly does not eliminate the discrimination and therefore we believe will not be found to comply with the WTO. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s amendment increases the discriminatory impact on imported cattle, leaving the U.S. in a position of non-compliance with its WTO obligations and Canadian beef producers to shoulder the impact of increased costs.

This is a step in the process, which in our view does not amount to a “win” as the author suggests. We continue to press for the U.S. genuinely to eliminate the discrimination. To suggest as the opinion piece does that Canada roll over and do nothing in response to the U.S.’s blatant disregard for the rules of fair trade that all WTO member countries must abide by is simply absurd and not an option that we could contemplate.

COOL discrimination has cost Canadian cattle producers around $640 million in losses per year since being implemented in late 2008. Those costs are set to rise under the new amendment to an estimated $90 to $100 per head compared with the current $25 to $40 per head cost. This cost is unacceptable to the producers that the CCA represents. At CCA’s urging and our full support, the Governments of Canada and Mexico have taken initial steps to respond to the U.S. non-compliance by threatening the imposition of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products.

Furthermore, the CCA is working closely with allies in the U.S. to achieve a resolution that genuinely eliminates the discrimination caused by COOL.

The CCA’s position remains that the only outcome that would bring the U.S. into compliance with the WTO is to amend the COOL legislation to allow either a single mandatory label for all meat produced in the U.S. or to allow for voluntary labelling. The latter approach could be patterned on Canada’s voluntary Product of Canada labeling requirements to provide consumers with origin information without creating trade discrimination.

Martin Unrau

President, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

The post WTO actions must be continued appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

As the purpose of the article was to examine breed numbers over the last decade I should add that Luing registrations have shown a healthy increase in that time period, with approximately twice the annual registrations compared to the decade earlier. Tough conditions in the beef sector have been good for the Luing as their feed efficiency, maternal strength and meat quality has been recognized by a growing number of commercial cattle producers.

Iain Aitken

Secretary,

Canadian Luing Cattle Association

The post Luing cattle on the rise appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

I recently read the May 7 paper and felt that I should send you a comment. (yes, we have been busy farming and are quite behind in our reading this summer). The photo with the article on air emissions around confined feeding operations caught my eye. In the photo, the cattle pictured are in very crowded pens, with no feed or water.

As a rancher, I know that the photo is an overhead view of an auction market, and the cattle are only in those pens for a few minutes. To the general public, it looks like that is how cattle live in all CFOs. I realize that most of your readers are farmers and ranchers, but I’m sure there are also some urban readers. I know that there are many more urban residents starting to take notice of where their food comes from and are making what they think are knowledgeable decisions based on the “facts” they know.

I hope that this photo out of context did not discourage anyone from buying beef, thinking that the animals lived in these conditions. Everyone who is involved in agriculture has a responsibility to inform others how things are on our farms and the media also has to help with responsible journalism.

Renee Laughlin

Youngstown

The post Letters — for 2012-09-10 00:00:00 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Most gun owners in Canada believe that once the long-gun registry is revoked by C-19, everything will return to normal to pre-C-68 days. How wrong it is to think this way.

Killing the long-gun registry has really not changed much in terms of controlling the people who own and use firearms in a peaceful manner. There are an estimated 396,000 possession licences which will expire between now and May of 2013. There’s over 300,000 already expired.

These 396,000 firearm owners will become criminals in the eyes of the law as written in C-68. Let’s remember that C-68 has not been repealed in its entirety, a promise that Harper made over and over again before he became the PM.

In other words, if you own a long gun (registered or unregistered), you must prove that you also have a valid possession licence (PAL or POL), or you have broken the law and could face a fine or jail time for illegal possession of a weapon.

The long gun no longer needs to be registered, but you, the firearm user must be registered.

In Canada, firearm owners are seen as potential criminals and therefore all must be registered, so that the police know where all these potential criminals live. The Harper government will not waive the licence fee as it has in the past. Because of budget shortfall, the Harper government wants to start collecting the $80 fee starting this September estimated to be over $20 million. Some provinces continue to keep backdoor registry information on lawful long-gun owners despite calls from the feds to stop this activity.

This mandatory possession licence will impact the purchase of ammunition, firearms, hunting licences, transportation, storage, etc. So what has changed? Lawful firearm owners continue to be treated worse than criminals.

In my opinion, all firearms laws should be removed from the criminal code. Please call your MP and let him or her know how you feel about this matter.

Inky Mark

Dauphin, Man.

The post Gun registry is gone, gun owners registry isn’t appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In the piece entitled “CGC guarantees Canadian grain quality worldwide,” the quote, “You have a disciplined system for putting grain into the market and you don’t have to deal as often with bad outcomes,” was attributed to Mr. Elwin Hermanson rather than Mr. Toews.

The CGC certainly did not intend any disrespect to Mr. Toews and we in fact agree with his comment.

Rémi Gosselin

Manager, Corporate Information Services. Canadian Grain Commission

The post Letters — for 2012-06-04 00:00:00 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.