DiamondSCattleCo said:
Tam said:
1. Banning even one legal market option because it may effect the price you recieve at the auction market is still limiting other producers option on marketing THEIR CATTLE. I seem to remember you saying your own wife was upset with you as you didn't contract yours.
2. Little smug when it was not established who I actually talked with at CCIA isn't it? :???:
3. IS it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age vertification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules?
4. And Rod the excuse about the website can stop as you have been told for a couple of years now to send your name into the office so you can get your free copy of the Super issue, if you really cared to know you would have done it by now. Not to mention that someone like myself who hasn't received the edition before has no way to verify whether they're being told something truthfully or not. If I've received bad information, how many others received the same bad information?
5. Rod while you were out gathering "business experience" some of us were in the huge business of Agriculture learning it the hard way.
1) Its got NOTHING to do with the prices I receive at the auction market, but rather the overall health of the industry. I won't bother reposting the numbers since you didn't understand the first time, but one unhealthy marketing option lowers auction market pricing and other contract pricing. Its a net depressive effect on the market that affects all producers, even the ones signing the poorly thought out contracts. On the other hand, all you were concerned about was the limiting of YOUR market options. You could care less that the market option was proven damaging in the grain industry in Europe and other overseas markets, and could less that its been extremely damaging to our own Canadian market.
Feeding MBMs to ruminants has not been _conclusively_ proven to cause or spread BSE, however the practice has been banned. Should we not have banned that practice because it would limit some producers on what they feed?
Some feed medications were strongly suspected of ulcerating cattle back in the 80s. It was _suspected_ these ulcers could be cancer causing, so they medications were banned. Should we have allowed their use to continue?
My point is, we have banned or outlawed practices over the years on less information, so why are we not banning one SINGLE damaging marketing option? I was never recommending eliminating all contracts, just one single damaging type of contract.
2) Tam, you didn't talk to a SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, who is the ONLY person qualified to comment on the costs of doing system upgrades. The ONLY one. Your comments, and the comments of the CCIA rep made it clear that no-one in systems was ever contacted.
3) I grow weary of your scare tactics on the 'producers are going to lie about it and destroy the system'. Its a load of crap, and thankfully the Alberta gov't didn't buy into it. Unfortunately, its probably come too late to really help.
4) The super issue comes out, what? Once a year? So I can see what resolutions are passed and thats it? How do I find out whats been happening since the resolution has passed? How about a new producer that never received the super issue before? How about someone who did't know the SSGA existed until they found the website? That website is far more important than a super edition. AND the producers who pay you your $100/yr have the right to know whats happening every step of the way.
5) :roll: I've been in agriculture my entire life, raising and selling livestock, grain, and doing business plans. My education gave me a huge leg up in knowing what was right and what was wrong and how things are done properly. Like I said, I know producers who use opportunity costs on cash profit/loss statements. They've been doing for years and doing it WRONG. Is that the kind of hard fought knowledge you've been gathering?
When speaking to you, I'm reminded of a quote:
"The price of democracy is eternal vigilance"
What it means is that EVERYONE must question the moves of our government, our businesses and our people to ensure that the overall population doesn't get taken advantage of. Your blind faith in Ag Canada, our government and your unwillingness to even listen to others about damaging effects of certain market options plays right into the hands of those who would rather the population be puppets...
Rod
Rod in your previous post you stated it was only one market option you wanted ban Well thanks to the Archives I brought this forward from the original post.
Rod: Outlaw direct selling to feedlots and packers. No contract purchasing. If you want to sell an animal, whether it be a fat or a feeder, good quality or poor, you haul that thing to the sale barn and you take what the market is giving that week. If you want to buy an animal to turn into a steak or to feed out, you head on in to the sale barn (or call your buyer who goes there for you. I wouldn't want the businessmen taking the chance of getting manure on their loafers
Tims Question 1.Are you suggesting that a law should be passed which would ,in effect, make it illegal to sell cattle through any means other than an auction barn??
Rods Answer 1) Yes. And knee jerk reaction (my own at first) says, "Don't restrict me". But I say if cattlemen can't be price makers, then at the very least we need a market that is as free of manipulation as possible. Even if the current market isn't being manipulated, it is much too easy to do so.
Tim's question 2) Would it then be illegal to buy- cattle from your neighbor? - bulls from a breeder?
Rod's answer 2) I considered farm-farm deals. Its definitely a hole in the theory, although most farm-farm deals are at market average pricing, and as such, don't have an influence on the market price anyway. To keep the playing field level, it would have to be considered illegal otherwise it would end up being a loophole.
Now it looks to me by your comments and answers here it was more than one option it was all but one you wanted ban and if that doesn't say it all this was another comment from you from the same thread
Rod :Besides, I theorize if we have one avenue for marketing our cattle, we could end up with fewer regulations. Multiple marketing avenues would require multiple regulations.
And Another
Tim: Another hypothetical.........
I own a small packing company with a very specific niche market for a very specific type of beef. Econ 101 owns a small feedlot right across the road from my plant and produces exactly the type of cattle that I need.
Because of these efficiencies, I am able to pay Econ a premium of $150/head over what he could get from anyone else.
A law is passed mandating that Econ must now sell his cattle through a sale barn.He now has to load them up,haul them 30 miles and pay the commission. I can now go to the sale and buy Econ's cattle for $0.025/lb. more than market price.
Good for me(except for the dark cutters and the trucking back 30 miles to my plant)........ not so good for Econ. Be careful what you wish for!!
Rod's reply: Tim, you do bring up some valid points and there will always be exceptions.
But do we allow the good of the few to take precendence over the good of the many?
So much for the "which is only ONE of the marketing options" And the two examples you used are ANIMAL HEALTH ISSUES that is a far cry from MARKET HEALTH ISSUES.
2. Your comment was smug and insulting as the identity of the people I talk to at CCIA was never established so all you can do is guess at who it was.
3. Rod you claim you stand for all producers while I on the other hand have proven I could care less about the small producers. To that I replied by asking you 5 simple yes or no questions. Them being
1. Are large producer that only ones that will be expected to trace they cattle's EVERY MOVEMENT (QUARTER TO QUARTER)?
2. Is it only Large Producers that pay Property taxes?
3. Is it only Large Producers that pay PST in Ag goods and services?
4. Is it only the large producers that use imported Ivomec to cut down on input cost?
5. Is it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age verification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules?
And I'll ask two more question, first being
Are there any small producers in Sask that signed up for CAIS?
And the second
Was it just large producers that got shorted on their payments because government didn't top up that program like the other provinces did?
To which I received only another smug comment. So I'm asking you Rod why didn't you answer them? Will the fact that small producers are also effected by these issues taint your comment about me.
And if you stand for all producers then why would you want to ban any lucrative marketing option to any producer? Ban it until you were big enough to take advantage of it that is. Or don't you remember this comment.
My comment: In every other facet of live the bigger you get the more options you have and that is what drives everyone to better themselves.
Rods Reply : So how do I get bigger when I'm blocked from a lucrative marketing option due to my size? I raise all my own feed, and since I can background out calves cheaper than most, I'd be willing to hazard that I can finish them cheaper than most as well.
I'll continue to raise the best backgrounded cattle that I can and expand until I'm big enough to open up all my marketing options. In the meantime, I'll be calling my MLA and MP and informing them of an illegally restricted market.
And this little statement really proves who you stand for
Rod: I find your constant mentioning of 'look to better themselves' a little insulting. Thats why I and other small producers are fighting for equal market opportunities. Quite frankly, I'll put my feeders up against anyones, big or small, because all I've done is better myself year after year. So you're bigger, doesn't mean you're better.
And how were you planning to do that by limiting the large producers marketing options Rod, way to stand up for ALL PRODUCERS.
4. Rod for a Educated Smart Guy you don't seem to have a very good memory as you have been told many times those that pay that $100 get 6 issues of the magazine to keep him up to date on industry issues AND the right to come to two Provincial general meetings and his/her local zone meeting to discuss industry issues. AND the right to make and VOTE ON resolution that are for the betterment of the industry at both levels local and Provincial . Not only that if there is an issue that is of concern , no one is stopping a producers from calling the office, their local Directors, the SSGA Executive or a Committee Chairman to ask questions. If fact mamber are ask to. All the names are in every issue of the magazine and on the website. For that $100 dollars they are being represented by Producers that do cared enough to get involved to protect all Producers Rights not just those that pertain to large ranchers. BTW Since the SSGA have been around for over 90 years, long before the age of Websites. If there is a producer that doesn't know the SSGA exists I doubt a website is the problem. :wink:
5. Rod just for reference how old are you? and how long have you actually been making your living off of 50 cows? I have do doubt your education gave you a leg up as if it hadn't it was a waste of your tuition. But there is another quote that might interest you. It goes like this
Sometimes it's not what you know it is who you know that does the most good
So Rod you keep telling people you are educated and investing when you can . And I'll keep investing my $106/year (GST you know) in an organization that is trying to do something about your property tax and PST bill , and your the own use drug rights Plus Rod just for you I will keep questioning our MLA's on what is going just like I have in the last several times we have met over drinks. :wink: