Advertisement 1

OPINION: We must acknowledge fleeing farmers

Farmers’ opinions deserve to be taken into account when it comes to issues of farmland.

Article content

Farmers’ opinions deserve to be taken into account when it comes to issues of farmland.
That seems like a simple statement — even a logical one — but logic often falls flat in politics.
On Sept. 7, we ran a guest column from resident Laura Jackson, a fifth-generation grain farmer in Strathcona County. (We run such columns under the title of “Residents’ Corner” from time to time, and thoroughly enjoy being able to lend such space to important content from our readers.)
While the conversation over farmland preservation only continues to gain traction, not only in Strathcona County but across the country, we should listen to those in the know.
Now, I know Jackson’s opinion does not mirror that of all local farmers. I’ve heard from producers out here who push feverishly for agricultural land preservation, while Jackson notes a different perspective that it’s time to “get out of Dodge.” Both accounts are valid, and we hear little from those such as Jackson, as the loudest voice being heard on issues of farmland urbanization typically comes from those opposing it.
One paragraph from the column, in particular, stood out to me:
“Farmers in the Edmonton region are tired of being told by ‘city folk’ what is best for them. Many of us are migrating to areas where we can buy affordable, disease-free farmland, and the only way most of us can afford to do that is to sell any land we own here at fair market value and get out of Dodge.”
The paragraph caught my attention for two reasons.
1. The portion of farmers being dictated to by “city folk” is an interesting point. Strathcona County, as a specialized municipality, hosts an urban-rural split. Still, rural areas are under-represented in vote tallies, with five urban councillors and three rural, plus a mayor with no rural or agricultural background.
By no stretch of the imagination does that mean council members aren’t doing their best to look at things holistically; however, when you’ve never lived on a farm, it’s tough to speak to issues that directly or solely impact farmers. The mayor is the most fervent in his push for agricultural land preservation, but Rod Frank’s background is in business law.
That doesn’t mean his opinion on agricultural issues should be discounted; rather, it means as much as he researches the various issues (and I know he does do his research), he can never be as entrenched as someone such as Coun. Paul Smith, whose agricultural background — and continued farm work — are an undeniable asset to our municipal council.
Again, this doesn’t discount anything that Frank or any urban council members say, but it is something worth acknowledging.
2. Farmers are leaving for greener pastures — with green, in this case, referring to money.
Jackson’s account of cheaper land with higher profit margins elsewhere actually isn’t a new revelation to us. It’s not the case for all local farmers, and different agricultural practices yield different monetary results, but it’s certainly something worth discussing.
In July, I had the pleasure of moderating a town hall meeting hosted by Frank, with a focus on agricultural land preservation. While I’ve already mentioned this, I feel it’s important to reiterate that I acted as nothing more than a moderator; I did not offer opinions or comment on the opinions of others — it was simply my job to keep the program running as smoothly as possible, and it was a joy to be a part of.
Still, many residents did come up and speak with me before and after the public meeting, and a few expressed similar concerns. One farmer in particular (whose name I won’t print, as he spoke to me in the parking lot) talked about how the maximum return on his agricultural production is only granules above costs of operation.
If this is the case, also knowing the market dictates the cost of goods, it makes sense that some of these farmers are moving on. I’ve also heard from some smaller-operation farmers who have sold their land to large corporations who can maximize profits over the little guys, many of whom are just looking for a way out.
Again, one side of the debate does not minimize the other, but it’s rare that both sides are truly taken into account in this conversation. Agricultural land preservation is undeniably important, but if our farmers are wanting to leave on their own volition because costs and conditions in Strathcona County are causing them to do so, that too is a conversation that must be had.
bproulx@postmedia.com
twitter.com/BP_ShPkNews

Article content
Advertisement 2
Advertisement
Article content
Article content
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

Latest National Stories
    News Near Sherwood Park
      This Week in Flyers