I remember planting the shelterbelts back when I was kid, dropping the little seedlings into the hole of the tree planter as it was pulled along by the Cub tractor. They arrived in large bundles from the tree nursery at Indian Head. We planted a couple miles of them.
Ritz further elaborated on his agriculture department cuts in a letter in Tuesday's Leader-Post in which he said "farmers run their businesses with a sharp pencil and expect their government to do the same." It is for that reason that the Prairie Shelterbelt Program - formerly known as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (the PFRA, that has provided Saskatchewan farmers with badly needed trees for decades now) - "has met its goal of creating shelter belts across the Prairies," Ritz declared.
Huh? Met its goals? What goals? Who did Ritz talk to when he came to this startling conclusion? Was it today's farmers, who are now rightfully annoyed that a sound and relatively cost-efficient farm support program has just been sacrificed in the name of past Conservative government budget deficits?
Or perhaps Ritz has been talking to that plethora of scientists and climatologists convinced global warming is a myth. Or maybe he's simply assessed historic drought, wind erosion and unpredictable snow cover and moisture levels and concluded that Saskatchewan has been converted to a tropical oasis.
I also remember the piles of trees after they were bulldozed.
More here.
I miss the tumbleweeds. Now all I see are plastic supermarket bags rolling in the wind.
PFRA is going to be cut? Wasn't the PFRA a major dumping ground for patronage appointees? It was Bernie Sonntag's fiefdom for years? Who's been leading it lately?
Rural / Regional development programs were discredited years ago. Harper knew this when he went to NB years ago and muttered how regional transfers are keeping the Atlantic dependent.
Picking winners and providing distorting incentives at the cost of higher taxes just doesn't work. It's time to get rid of all the regional development programs and agencies. Look at the farcical Community Futures programs. One of their luminaries argued last summer that large menononite families are wrecking his communities' economy. They were having 10 kids and then taking them out of school as fast as possible to do what? Work! The inhumanity of it all. 16 year olds working and filing jobs in agriculture and the oil patch that our post secondary fattened youth won't take when they finally graduate at the age of 32. What kind of moron doesn't know the importance of increased population to grow the economy? Oh, I know, a political appointee to a regional/rural development agency.
Go Gerry Go!
"Relatively cost-efficient" is a leftist buzzword for an agency that loses just enough money so as not to make waves on the national radar screen.
The only "goal" that any government bureaucracy has, ultimately, is to perpetuate itself. There are no others. Kudos to Mr. Ritz for taking this action. If only the federal Tories would do the same on dozens of other fronts.
Shut er down, get er dun. I remember a contact I had with them building another dugout. I called my local PFRA guy, who directed me to a Quebec number who directed me to another Quebec number, who directed me to a Toronto number who directed me to an Ottawa number who directed me back to my local office. Did you get that. This was under the Liberals many years ago. I said F8ck It. And build my own dugout. Just had to have a Quebec Teet sucker or two offices full of Teet suckers.
Shelterbelt?
It's like you people live in a different universe or something.
"Twas in the bleak midwinter ....". Gawd Kate, is that what you look out your kitchen window, at?
It was November, and snowing a little.
Dirt poor (or dirt rich - cash poor) farmers do not exist anymore. And private nurseries can provide shelter belt material - and a more diverse choice of options - these days.
The program is no longer required - unless nostalgia is a need.
I'm a bit confused here. If the trees are so badly needed that federal funding is required to plant them, why are some farmers razing their trees? Why was this a federal program? Should it not be a provincial program or a private matter for the individual farmer to act upon?
Kate, re your driving the Farmall cub and having to slip off the seat to depress the clutch, be thankful that you don't have testicles to get crushed against the gearlever when doing so. I still cringe when I see an old International.
Kate,
Do take a look at Quadrant Magazine, Australia.
www.quadrant.org.au
Philippa Martyr (Australia's Kate) has splendid comments, in the online section, on climate, the Spectator's Delingpole and others.
Best,
Paul
Click the link on chemfallow, Al. For the most part, they're obsolete due to better farming methods.
OFF TOPIC.....but there is a poll at CBC about whether Khadr should be allowed to return to Canada. At 12:45 pm MST, the vote is
35.5% Yes
59.29% No
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/04/should-omar-khadr-be-allowed-to-return-to-canada.html
"Shelterbelt?
It's like you people live in a different universe or something.
Posted by: Mississauga Matt at April 18, 2012 1:43 PM "
Indeed, but better than the better known downtown Toronto Garterbelt zone.
Al_in_Ottawa @ 2:40pm
I am sure I can't speak for all people, but in our case, our land is extremely alkaline in parts. Some of those parts were right behind the shelterbelts. Even though we had shelterbelts right there, and the land across the road had them, it didn't seem to affect the land. Until the people that owned the land across the road tore theirs up. Then our trees blocked all the snow, which caused our land to be very wet (especially last year) and unseedable. So ours came up too. We actually have been burning them this week.
I also know that with the newer equipment being so wide, the area between the shelterbelt and the road is just too narrow now. It's too wide for one pass, but too narrow for two. So it is kind of a problem that way too.
I actually miss seeing the trees (ours were still nice and healthy; lots of shelterbelts are full of dead trees), but I hope that it will help us in the end, with regards to being able to seed everything.
And in dryer years they compete with the crop next to them for moisture as well.
Oh and they were nice in winter too, because it kept the road from blowing closed. Especially since our ran north/south, they blocked the west-wind blowing snow. So I'll miss that about them too. But yes, now with continous cropping they are not as needed as they used to be back in the day.
International Cub, so you had one of those new fangled tractors, we had a Farmall A, eh. Plus some Super Cs. They are probably still out there somewhere doing the job.
Kate, right or wrong, I was under the impression that for a time before it became 'evil' the hemp plant was used for soil erosion control. Died off in winter but likely re-seeded itself in summer and grew fast and straight.
Back in the summer of '51, I was fortunate to spend some time in Flaxcombe Sask. It was paradise for a 9 year old boy. A green International pickup and a Farmall. Sloughs and gopher shoots.
I remember vividly.
MM
The first thing Hutterites do, when they buy up land, is knock down he shelterbelts. My ex-father in law always said they're a hatching area for grasshoppers. As an oil-patch guy, I liked them for providing an obvious spot for an access road to a wellsite. They seemed to make negotiations with land owners much simpler. I don't really hunt anymore, but I'm sure deer hunters have an opinion on this.
Ritz further elaborated on his agriculture department cuts in a letter in Tuesday's Leader-Post in which he said "farmers run their businesses with a sharp pencil and expect their government to do the same.
So when are Harper and Wall going to act on the other 99.9% of freeloading farmer welfare programs?
I spent a lot of quality time on a Farmall C, H, M and 400 over the years. My father clamped a 4X4 inch block of wood on the clutch pedal of the Farmall C to make it easier for my foot to reach.
"Kate... be thankful that you don't have testicles..."
I wouldn't know about that, Al_in_Ottawa, she certainly has more cajoles than most metro-sexuals today and is certainly not intimidated by any blogger, politician, lawyer or sniveling leftoid progressive. This prairie rose doesn't have the word "can't" in her vocabulary.
As a northern lad who grew up amid the Boreal Forest I thought those shelter rows were planted to show where grain bins, machinery, old barns or homesteads were located for us photographic types.
When I read the preamble I should have recognized the style as that of none other than the intrepid Murray Mandryk, NDP apologist extraordinaire and wannabe journalist. His insipid articles were one of the main reasons for cancelling my StarPhoenix subscription years ago. Mandryk's articles still appear in one of the free rags that clutter my mailbox each week and his anti-conservative ranting hasn't changed a bit. This man hasn't had a decent night's sleep since the Saskatchewan Party unseated the NDP in 2007 and after the almost total destruction of his beloved socialists in 2011, his nonsensical articles have gotten worse .... much worse.
It's time for this bitter sore loser to pack it in and move to some place more to his liking. North Korea or Somalia come to mind. He could live out his remaining days in complete discomfort, grumbling over the fact that Brad Wall never did secure that NBA franchise for Moose Jaw.
Now, now Biffy. Mandryk actually reminds me of you.... he never met an ag handout he didn't like.
@ foobert One of the coolest tractors we had was the Allis Chalmers G, which we knicknamed "the spider" it was the alternative to the A for row crop planting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allis-Chalmers_Model_G
And of course there were over time, an assortment of larger red or green tractors for the grain operations, but we were mainly a red family due to the closer proximity of the local IH dealer.
We used the PFRA for wind belt trees for our river irrigated veg, crops. They did fill a need at the time.
shelterbelts, with the neighbours helped plant miles of them in south central sask on their and our land. Now continous cropping is being done on these lands and soil erosion is not as much as an issue. Trees are typically in the way because of the much larger equipment as well.
They do however work for deer hunters.
An agricultural subsidy being cut! Heaven forbid! Agricultural economics = privatize the profits, subsidize the losses.
I stopped using PFRA trees many years ago. Nurseries provide a better selection and more consistent stock. It's worth spending the money.
Just thought I'd post for those interested; SaskPower offers free trees for shelterbelts now as well; I've been getting some from them for the past few years, and they have had more selection available than the PFRA.
Texas_Canuck, I think you mean cajones, cajoles is a verb. Agreed that Kate has a lot more spine than many men these days. Excuse my ignorance but drought and soil erosion due to wind is not a problem in Ontario and where I live a typical farm has more woodlot than cleared fields. Any field that is allowed to lie fallow will soon revert to woodlot.
Khadr returning to Canada? Since his father was a member of Al Qaeda all along his citizenship oath was a falsehood and therefore null and void. His mother stated 'we are an Al Qaeda family'. Deport the whole lot back to Pakistan. They can live in bin Laden's old house.
Sorry Al, my Spanglish isn't as good now that I'm back in the great white north.
If Khandr is coming back(?) to Canada may I suggest he try the East Coast Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Dartmouth. I hear there's another socially awkward lad that could use a room mate.
she certainly has more cajoles than most
Yeah, but that ain't saying much, given the nanny state coddled "men" around here who don't know their cajones from their cajoles.
Just thought I'd post for those interested; SaskPower offers free trees for shelterbelts now as well; I've been getting some from them for the past few years, and they have had more selection available than the PFRA.
Posted by: Fred
No one better than a conservative to point out the best place to swill at the trough.
So ... does this mean no more free trees from Indian Head?
Hmmmm wonder what the Torycrats think is standing between an arctic wind and their exposed hind quarters except a few scrubby pines and some old poplars and caragana.
The PFRA has served it use. I am a farm boy that grew up Indian Head and we planted many rows of trees on our farm. We have since gotten rid of them. Present day farming practices have made the belts more of a nuisance than a benefit.
Looking at this selfishly, this will hurt the local economy as many of the employees live in the area. Will the town survive? Of course it will, and it will rebound when a private enterprise partners up to keep the "PF" going.
As a taxpayer, I say good riddance. Many locals shake their head at the huge amount of dollars wasted only as a government agency can.
Actually one of the few gov't programs that had a very definite benefit, but has now outlived it usefulness
Joey at 2:47 PM said ...
At 12:45 pm MST, the vote is: 35.5% Yes 59.29% No
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/04/should-omar-khadr-be-allowed-to-return-to-canada.html
There is a poll at CBC about whether Khadr should be allowed to return to Canada.
At the present ... 7:26 PM ... the votes are: 38.18% (1,583 votes) 57.26% (2,374 votes) No
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Best quote: AnnaO722012/04/18 at 12:56 PM ET
"I'm sorry to be so blunt but I really don't see how a person like Khadr can ever be a contributing member of our society. Canada's government seriously needs to send out a message to the rest of the world that there is no room here for Islamic extremists."
113 votes agree and 66 disagree with statement.
So the shelter belts irrigated by the sweat of previous generations of farmers have to go because they are an inconvenience to the land miners. What a bunch of GREEDY BASTARDS. Pardon the invective but, as a child of the dirty thirties I treasure trees and the change they made in the bald prairie.
Not being of the prairies, I do not understand the pros and cons ... can someone explain?
Kate and Kat have it right.
These hedgerows have their place in some instances, but are largely a nuisance with current farming practices.
I would have been a lot happier if Oceans and Fisheries would have been also taken off the backs of rural prairie municipalities.
Shelter belts are great for keeping roads clear and cows alive in winter.
I'm waiting for a post from Kathy Shaidle: "Garter belts, si! Shelter belts, no!"
Robert of Ottawa
Back in the day the shelter belts were planted to prevent wind erosion and to keep the snowpack from blowing away, thus preserving moisture.They were/are aranged in parralell lines beginning near the road allowance.
Modern farming techniques and equipment have made them redundant. The link Kate provided about chem-fallow speaks to using chemicals to kill weeds on land that has not been seeded for a season. In the past it was referred to as summer fallow and the land would be cultivated (tilled) a number of times throughout the summer to kill any invading weeds that were sucking moisture and nutrients from the land. By spraying the land with weed killing chemicals it isn't necessary to disturb the soil, thus avoiding wind erosion and preserving moisture and nutrients.
The other factor Kate mentioned is the sheer size of the equipment. When the shelter belts were planted the tractors/cultivators/seeders were much smaller. If you have 100ft between shelter belt rows things work out with a 25ft seeder. Not so much with a 60ft seeder,overlap when seeding kinda defeats the purpose.
As well Kate also mentioned that the trees themselves compete with the crop for moisture in dry years.
Modern farming is about precision and effiency and the shelter belts often hinder that goal.
I can understand why folks like Zog who were children in the dirty thirties (as my Dad was) decry the razing of shelter belts for nostalgic reasons but the fact is they are redundant.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Robert-
When the land was first settled in the early 1900's, the prairie was broken by plow, disk and harrow. At that time, there was no chemical weed control, so farmers of the day took pride in continual tillage to keep the fields black. Common belief was that practice was required for proper seedbed preparation.
Enter the dirty thirties. Hot. No rain. Constant winds. Before long the land was a dustbowl with drifting soil, rolling tumbleweeds, hardly any green vegetation.
Solution- tree planting to provide shelterbelts for the farmyards, and windbreaks for the bare (mostly southern) fields. Catch snow, mitigate winds and soil drifting. Remember, as the land was homesteaded, there were families living on almost every 2nd quarter section (ie 320 acres).
Back then, machinery width ranged from 6 feet to perhaps 16 feet, so manouverability wasn't really an issue.
Fast forward to the eighties when zero tillage was introduced. It was proven that crops could be planted into previous year's crop stubble/residue with no detrimental effects- actually beneficial in that the seedlings would be thriving in their own protected micro-climate. No tillage = no soil drying out, standing stubble = snow catch soaks into the ground for crop usage. And chemical weed control was the thing.
Since then, we've been on a technology rocket. Precision seeding/fertilizing/chemicaling, GPS guidance systems, computerized everything! Seeding units over 80 ft, sprayers 130 ft +. The shelterbelts planted 70 years ago are becoming more of a nuisance than a need. It's not uncommon for today's farmer to be running 3 mile laser straight seedrows and farming ten, twenty or 50,000 acres. If he wants tree seedlings, he can find them elsewhere.
But maybe you should ask clueless phil. He seems to know all matters ag!
And while I was composing mine, I see synchrodox has posted a great comment.
Nice to see the government staying current with the latest technology eh?
Tax cut now, please.
syncrodox and snagglepuss did a great job of clarifying the shelter-belt era.
BTW, shelter-belts too close to roads during the winter are bad as the snow drifts tend to accumulate on the roads. On the other hand if planted 150 feet from the road's center line, they do cut down on drifting snow obscuring the visibility of drivers.
I didn't include the gps advancements or the standing stubble micro-climate aspects but we are of the same mind here snagglepus. So I rate your comment higher.
I used to watch Prarie Farm Reports and read The Western Producer, when I worked in the oilpatch, for fun.
I miss the farm but it wasn't a viable option for me. Also I was an asshole and fought my Dad...hard.
Which leads me to a theory I've held for a long time. The further removed from the actual production of food a person is directly correlates to the likelyhood that they are a leftist/leech.
Just thought I'd post for those interested; SaskPower offers free trees for shelterbelts now as well; I've been getting some from them for the past few years, and they have had more selection available than the PFRA.
Posted by: Fred
No one better than a conservative to point out the best place to swill at the trough.
Posted by: phil at April 18, 2012 7:53 PM
Not sure what phil's problem is, but the point I was trying to make was that even for those who still might want trees (and that would seem to be the minority of those who have posted), there is already another company (SaskPower, through their Shand greenhouse) who provides the service the PFRA has supplied, and in my opinion does a better job of it as well. Thus, no matter how you look at it eliminating the PFRA Shelterbelt Program makes a lot of sense.
@WalterF 10:45pm
So true on both points. We don't have beef cows (as you know, I am sure :D) but I did appreciate the roads being driveable in winter before the west trees got ripped out. Since ours were on the east side, they didn't really help stop the snow for the roads. They did stop enough snow to make skidooing behind them most excellent.
I doubt we would have taken ours out if the others had stayed. They weren't really in our way. Plus when you are out on the field, looking at the shelterbelts lets you know how close to the nearest driveway you are. It's going to be harder to tell now, haha.
That's all you got Ibby? Nothing about how the defunding of the PFRA will spell the end of food production on the praries? Not a word about how the dust storms from Alberta Clippers will cause asthma in poor immigrant kids in Toronto? The best you can come up with is a snotty transexual reference that screams intolerance?
Why do you even bother? Being.