Ashamed of some of my fellow Ontario beef producers

[Aaron]

I'm on my local cattlemen's association board of directors. Got my list of resolutions that are to go to the provincial beef producers lobby body for review and support. It includes all motions made across the province, by local associations, regarding beef production. Among the list, four jurisdictions have made resolutions for funding of perimeter fencing for cattle. WTF??? When did a normal part of day-to-day ranch life become such a huge financial burden? Talk about a bunch of welfare producers.

 

[Nesikep]

Oh, here it's no better.. but on a different front.. Center pivot irrigation systems 50% paid for by the gov't, 50% from the producer, so the producer pads his expense account on machine time to install, etc and bumps it up to 75%, then sells the ranch for double the money and pockets it!

 

[greybeard]

I'm on my local cattlemen's association board of directors. Got my list of resolutions that are to go to the provincial beef producers lobby body for review and support. It includes all motions made across the province, by local associations, regarding beef production. Among the list, four jurisdictions have made resolutions for funding of perimeter fencing for cattle. WTF??? When did a normal part of day-to-day ranch life become such a huge financial burden? Talk about a bunch of welfare producers.

So, who is paying for this perimeter fencing--the beef producers or the tax payers?

 

[Nesikep]

I'm going out on a limb and saying taxpayers.

What's especially embarrassing is that times are good now and anyone should be able to afford to do that... If it was the BSE days where you had to sell a cow to buy 1 roll of barbed wire it would have been a different story.

 

[Aaron]

I'm going out on a limb and saying taxpayers.

What's especially embarrassing is that times are good now and anyone should be able to afford to do that... If it was the BSE days where you had to sell a cow to buy 1 roll of barbed wire it would have been a different story.

Yes, hypothetically (because it would have to be lobbied for and approved/funded by an otherwise bankrupt provincial government) the taxpayers would be footing the bill for fencing. Even in the BSE days, I would not have supported such ideas. Using taxpayers to further their own personal production and ultimately, finances, is just disgusting.

Here's the actual resolutions:


14-11 FENCING ASSISTANCE

Frontenac

Moved by: Dave Perry Seconded by: Orie Cumpson

WHEREAS, BFO and the Ontario Beef Industry stakeholders realize that there is a shortage of beef animals in Ontario, and

WHEREAS, those involved in the Beef Industry realize that to maintain the current infrastructure we need to increase the cow/calf numbers,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby all levels of government to obtain funding that would enable producers to fence marginal land that would be suitable for pasturing Beef animals and thereby allowing producers to raise a larger number of beef animals.

Sub-Resolution(s)

Grenville

Moved by: Kim Sytsma Seconded by: Kim Weedmark

WHEREAS, expansion of the Ontario beef herd is in part impeded by lack of fences in many areas of Ontario, and WHEREAS, there are already in place fencing grants under Growing Forward programs, but these programs do not include perimeter fencing as well as being insufficiently funded,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby the Ontario Government, the Federal Government as well as Growing Forward program administration to include perimeter fencing as well as increase the level of financial contributions.

Stormont

Moved by: Terry Brownwell Seconded by: Jamie Clark WHEREAS, Ontario is in need of an expanding beef industry,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO develop a program to help with the costs of perimeter fencing.

Lennox and Addington

Moved by: Brian Windover Seconded by: Peter VanOrder

WHEREAS, the Ontario beef herd has declined significantly in the last decade to levels that may not support industry infrastructure resulting in lost jobs. We need to stimulate the growth of the Ontario beef herd, and WHEREAS, there is a lot of idle land that can be brought back into production to support beef grazing and stimulate the re-growth of the Ontario beef herd,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT BFO lobby the appropriate government agencies to work towards the development of a program that will support and aid the significant financial investment required to bring marginal land back into production.

 

[JWBrahman]

Nobody owes anybody else a living in cattle. The govt. bought most of the fence lines, water lines, and water tanks for the Gardiner Angus franchise next to me. There are a lot of moochers around here who call themselves cattlemen.

 

[inyati13]

Aaron,

This is old hat in the States. Farmers/livestock producers are "sacred". Anyone who has spent time in the western states has seen the effort by the government to subsidize the cattle producer. From grazing to watering and everything in between.

The US tax code contains special allowances for agriculture that other businesses do not enjoy. I am not judging. I use the cost share program. My perimeter fence is the result of cost share. I think it fits the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Didn't Rome's largesse and corruption lead to its downfall?

 

[lavacarancher]

Please don't take this the wrong way. I agree it's not the government's responsibility to fund this project. Even though the decree does not specifically state this, could it mean that the gov't is willing to allow producers to use land that belongs to the gov't and have the gov't help fence the land in order to get beef production up? Actually, if one was to read and interpret this as written it is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. (Well, not really, since we have Obama) I don't understand how fencing will increase production. I think there's something else going on here under the table.

The use of the term "marginal" land spooks me a little. If you say the land around a piece of property is the margin of the land then "marginal" would mean one thing. If you use the word as meaning land that has limited production capability then it means something completely different. Allowing producers to use land (and fence it) that here-to-fore was not in production because it has not been improved for grazing or forage then that's a different matter. Showing off one's skill to try to write something completely in legalese is the downfall of all of us. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm so tired of PC statements.

 

[Aaron]

Please don't take this the wrong way. I agree it's not the government's responsibility to fund this project. Even though the decree does not specifically state this, could it mean that the gov't is willing to allow producers to use land that belongs to the gov't and have the gov't help fence the land in order to get beef production up? Actually, if one was to read and interpret this as written it is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. (Well, not really, since we have Obama) I don't understand how fencing will increase production. I think there's something else going on here under the table.

The use of the term "marginal" land spooks me a little. If you say the land around a piece of property is the margin of the land then "marginal" would mean one thing. If you use the word as meaning land that has limited production capability then it means something completely different. Allowing producers to use land (and fence it) that here-to-fore was not in production because it has not been improved for grazing or forage then that's a different matter. Showing off one's skill to try to write something completely in legalese is the downfall of all of us. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm so tired of PC statements.

It is in reference to private land, and 'marginal' here means land not suitable to crop production - bush and rock land. Just an attempt to get something for nothing.

I support funding when it's in regards to meeting regulations that government has set on producers, on behalf of the general public (manure regulations, etc.), but not for projects that are part of the day-to-day operation. Be no different from me asking for a new line-up of haying equipment so I can boost my production.

 

[Nesikep]

I think some form of price guarantees would be just as effective... If people are growing their herds, or buying herds now, they're really going out on a limb.. With an insurance type of system you don't guarantee a payout, but survivability if there's a serious crash in prices.

A lot of old timers are looking at these high prices as the ideal time to cash in, THAT is where the problem comes from... And that no one can afford to buy a ranch AND cows at current prices, so no one does.