[Marcarc]

I always sympathize with farmers, partly because like in any industry in Canada the rules that are imposed on 'the little guy' and those that affect the huge money making endeavours seem to be quite different, and the imposition of those rules is quite different as well. As a 100 acre land owner in New Brunswick I know that I can't simply go in and clearcut, that is against the law even though it's 'my' land. However, Irving and their lawyers make it quite simple to clearcut both their own land and the crown land they lease, and to boot they can get 'forestry awards' for it, as well as deduct the cost of pesticides from their taxes. <br /> <br /> I do see a real problem with the whole issue of private ownership. It really is true that the natives are quite correct in their philosophy. (My opinion). Personally, the ONLY way I see this changing is wresting control away from federal and provincial governments. They are very good at passing the buck. At least at a local level the people involved are accountable. As I've said elsewhere, the 'safest bet', while not ignoring political action, is to buy as much property as collectives, or as nature preserves, co-op farming, etc., there are many groups trying to do this.

[Brent Swain]

Corky Evans ,on a recent CBC program said that every government in Canada , of all political stripes, has joined the war on rural living, and is trying to force people into the cities ,in order to minimise their potential interference with multinational corporate extraction of resources.<br /> Brent

[Marcarc]

Keep in mind that it isn't government getting involved in a war on rural people, it's simply lack of represenation and valued resources. If you happen to be involved in an industry like oil that has an oligopoly then you can set the terms. If you are in a 'market driven' industry with no government protections you are screwed. <br /> <br /> I was at the Agricultural Winter Fair yesterday (AKA 'the killing fields') and got a newspaper called "the working forest", yet immediately I noticed that it wasn't for small lumberers, it was an INDUSTRY magazine. These industries are using the myths of the 'small farmer' and 'small lumberer' to get sympathy, even while their policies are typically the most hazardous. For example in The Working Forest there were two articles on the 'terror of bears' even though one guy attached said they were pretty nonchalant about it (meaning they had food in their tent) and that it was a bad berry season. This was a reforestaton company, and didn't even mention the fact that perhaps bears are more prevalant and hungry because we're wiping out their habitats where they eat!<br /> <br /> Other 'initiatives' included getting the federal government to pay for the whole cost of logging roads, even though small woodlot owners generally wouldn't apply anyway. The other issue was how 'the industry' was taking advantage of technology, in other words, how it was putting lumberers out of work. So the paper was clearly for OWNERS and not for the forestry industry itself, which would be far better off with that native approach to 'holistic foresting' which is labour heavy.<br /> <br /> That being said, I still haven't checked out that group so cant' answer the original question<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[Marcarc]

I checked out their website as well, there does appear to be a 'grassroots' component to it, I noticed a link to 'free flamborough' which is a group against forced amalgamation. Part of the problem seems to be that many protest groups think they need to have a full slate of demands to be taken seriously.<br /> <br /> Many of their demands are simply outragious, for example demanding an 'open border' for cattle. That's just crazy, as it is isn't our decision to make. The usual argument is usually something like 'you aren't doing enough'. However, though they aren't specific, they DO have a point. While we heard about the conservatives blocking legislation that would open up processor's books, we also saw them taking part in one of the reasons the cattle ban is continuing, which is a lawsuit in Montana. <br /> <br /> However, we also have to remember that farmers have to stay on speaking terms with suppliers, distributors, equipment manufacturers, etc., and they also are decreasing in number and so need to band together across various issues. However, Property rights aren't going to protect you any when the bank forecloses. Ironically, calling for property rights seems to be precisely the wrong way to go about it. <br /> <br /> Yet I can well understand their point, government oversights are becoming more and more onerous on small timers, yet more lenient on large corporations. Take Bill C-28 which nobody would call 'onerous', yet lets the Minister of Agriculture permit some products onto store shelves while the regulatory process is going on. People may opppose it, but certainly not farmers, yet any farmer will tell you that its only the largest corporations who have the Minister's ear, certainly not some small farm in Bruce county.

[Brent Swain]

In BC the former NDP government based access to cutting permits on jobs created in the immediate area . No local jobs, no permits. The current Liberal government has abolished this. The result is sawmills closed and the raw logs and the jobs of proccessing them have been exported to the US.US bound log barges are being loaded constantly with BC logs alongside closed BC sawmills.<br /> Brent

[Milton]

Export jobs, create stress, blame the victim, divide and conquer ad infinitum.

[Brent Swain]

When bears got hungry they used to go to the town dump. Now they fenced off the dumps to keep the bears out. Now when they get hungry they go to town.I wonder why we have a bear problem in town. Duhh.<br /> I've heard of some town people with bear problems talking about taking their wire cutters to the dump in the middle of the night and cutting the fence to let the bears back in so they won't come to town.Can you blame them?<br /> Brent

[badsector]

I sympathize with farmers, especially after reading up on the Doha agreement to propose an end to export subsidies, also allow Third World countries such as Brazil unlimited access to our markets. I am wondering why it didn't generate more protests from farmers. Would you guys agree that this agreement is bad for you?<br /> <br /> Regarding protesting though, make sure you don't inconvenience the people whose sympathy you are tryig to earn. During the farmers' protest at Queens Park, traffic to Toronto was practically halted by the farmers and tens of thousands of people, who never hurt them, spent hours sitting in a traffic jam, just trying to get to work. I was one of them and I didn't have any warm feeling for those farmers that day. Later I saw John Tory among the protesters, looking like he was after a cheap political shot. Later a farmer in a baseball cap was yelling at a government official who came out to talk to them and stuff was dripping from his mouth. Guys... this is not a good way to make a point.<br />