The Rural Voice, 1990-11, Page 6HANOVER
HOLIDAYS
Featuring Ouinn's International Special Interest Tours
CUBA AGRICULTURAL TOUR
8 Days — Nov. 18 to Nov. 25/90
An all inclusive Agricultural tour
including 2 days on farm visits,
Havana, Varadero and all meals.
Accommodation at Club Tropico's
Villas, special Cuban Night, Italian
Night and Seafood night..
Limited space available.
Cost per person: $849 (suite)
SOUTH PACIFIC
AGRICULTURAL TOUR
'Country Roads of the South Pacific'
New Zealand and Australia — 25 days
Two departures: Jan. 18 to Feb. 11/91
and Feb. 15 to Mar. 11/91
Come Join Us on our
Special Agricultural Tour!!
Tour both islands of New Zealand
including Auckland, Rotorua, Christ-
church and Queenstown. Then fly to
Cairns for 2 nights, see the Great
Barrier Reef . We travel by air to
Brisbane and take in the Gold Coast
and Surfers Paradise. Continue south
to enjoy Sydney, Canberra and 2 nights
with local farm families in theWagga
Wagga area. Our flight home departs
from Melbourne after a sightseeing tour
of this elegant city.
This fully escorted tour includes all
attractions and most meals.
Cost per person $7348.
For further informaiton and a full
intinerary from Hanover Holiday Tours
call:
519-364-4911
1-800-265-5530
or
Your Local Travel Agent
Ask for our new 1991 Brochure!
2 THE RURAL VOICE
FEEDBACK
illfimiij1_
glrah‘ice ■
• •. Illfl�'lllllAllllfllll'
Farmers in mud
of poverty
In response to Grey County
Federation of Agriculture Newsletter,
The Rural Voice, October 1990.
I was disappointed in the lack of
thorough and imaginative thought!
Although Policy 2b) & c) are wonder-
ful, I was disappointed in 1, 2a), 3 &
4.
Policy 1 of encouraging develop-
ment around existing towns etc., does
not promise to necessarily save any
agricultural land and may even eat up
more valuable lands. Continuation of
this idea Leads to eventual metro style
devouring of prime lands ($100,000/
acre offers are tough to resist; ask
OFA director Don Fieldhouse).
Meanwhile "old" downtown cotes
suffer. Consider even Owen Sound
right now!
Policy 2a) is dependent on a land
classification system based on soil
structure which fails to recognize,
among other things, organic matter
percentage, topography, soil structure
below the overburden, or even
climate. These factors can determine
the difference in capability of growing
nothing to specialized vegetable and
fruit crops.
Policy 3 would be fine if someone
can tell me how that second residence
can be guaranteed to remain used in
conjunction with the farm and farm
family for the length of its existence.
On Policy 4 we need not lose too
much sleep over the recognition of
wetlands as the Ministry of Natural
Resources has a type of "protective
custody" on provincially significant
wetlands and six other areas of natural
and scientific interest (Ansi's)
including aggregates. This is like an
unregistered blemish on title to
probably thousands of acres of
"privately owned" lands. The
deliberate omission of our Right to
Own and Use Private Property in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
1982 adds even more strength to Big
Brother's protections.
This gets me straight into Recom-
mendation 2 asking for adopted land
use policies being applied evenly
throughout the county. There is very
little of anything even in Grey County
from the climate to topography to soil
structures. Provincially significant
aggregates will eventually be called
upon and the "protective custody"
cloak of agriculture will then suddenly
become less desirable. As stakehold-
ers we can either start future thinking
now or continue to bury our heads in
the sand and stones.
Municipalities should have at their
disposal all resource inventories that
include agricultural land classifica-
tions of real value for meaningful
future planning at the grassroots.
In Recommendation 4, drawbacks
to types of development should also
be considered in costs. Last winter at
a "subdivision euchre party" I listened
firsthand to complaints about awful
smells from a nearby farm.
Lastly, in your observations when
you state "We cannot support the
claims of some who doubt the future
of agriculture." What farmer today
does not have some degree of "doubt"
deep in his guts? If some degree of
"doubt" in agriculture's future was
your yardstick of whether to accept or
reject claims and opinions why even
"pretend" to have hearings when you
never intended to "hear!" There are
many cases of agricultural bodies out
there who have suffered severe frost
bite. If some small amputations are
not allowed, otherwise healthy bodies
will die! Recent election results in
Grey support what I'm telling you!
In response to a letter Brigid Pyke
conveyed to me that "We will need
thorough consultation on this issue
before any policies on land use are
formulated." Headway cannot be
made on this issue in the absence of
some overall strategy to "save the
farmer."
I agree, reasonable returns will
save farms when socialistic legislated
land protection will only serve to hold