The Rural Voice, 1987-11, Page 23I
fence, expand, and specialize that their
motives and research are suspect."
But Whitmore, while noting that
he has "terrific neighbours," is well
aware of the hostility directed at part-
time farmers from time to time, and
has experienced it personally. "We're
not popular, particularly teacher -
farmers," he says, adding that it seems
to be more acceptable to drive a bus or
be a mechanic if one is working off
the farm. He notes that he tried to
have the annual meetings of the OFA
changed to the weekend in order to
accommodate his work schedule.
The resolution, he says dryly, was
"resoundingly defeated."
"Farmers could do well to emulate
teacher strategy," he adds. "Teachers
were poorly paid in the '50s. They
have organized full-time and part-time
teachers and principals into a very
strong unit with the result that salaries
are very respectable."
Professor T. K. Warley, noting that
the very phrase "part-time farmer" can
have a pejorative connotation, has
suggested that "multiple job -holder"
may be a more neutral designation.
But, he says, "I suspect that the nega-
tive view is less marked than it was."
Murray Clarke, president of the
Grey County Federation of Agri-
culture, agrees that farmers should
stick together. In the Grey federa-
tion's annual report, published in
October, he identified the need "to
correspond with the part-time farmer"
as a priority. "It's becoming more of
a fact all the time that a significant
portion of our food comes from the
part-time farmer and I believe we need
all farmers ... joined together under
one organization, namely the feder-
ation, if we are to achieve price for
product and our just returns for
feeding the people of the world."
Huron federation president Paul
Klopp takes a similar position.
Criticizing part-time farmers is
"hitting good people over the head
rather than getting to the roots of the
problem, low commodity prices and
high interest rates. Some people are
just venting their frustration." And if
part-time farmers not forced to work
off the farm "want to work that much,
that's their business," he says.
It's important in this connection to
recognize that there are many kinds of
part-time farmers: those who have
found it necessary to supplement their
farm income, hobby farmers, and
farmers who hope to farm full-time.
Similarly, attitudes toward part-time
farmers vary according to whether the
off -farm work is related to agriculture,
to whether the farm is near an urban
centre, to whether the part-time nature
of the farming is by choice or neces-
sity, to whether it is the farm operator
who has another job or another family
member.
As Professor Warley noted in a
• erode rural values.
But as Bruce Whitmore notes:
• "We take a lot of pride in our place"
• the price of land went up because the
government and banks made it so easy
to borrow money
• the creation and growth of full-time
operations is hindered by much larger
forces than part-time farming
• he does not intentionally produce at a
loss
• his family pays taxes and contributes
to the community.
These days, the type of "part-time
"We're not popular,
particularly teacher -farmers,"
Whitmore says, adding that
"Farmers could do well to
emulate teacher strategy.
Teachers were poorly paid
in the '50s. They have
organized full-time and part-
time teachers into a very
strong unit ..."
paper delivered to the Ontario Institute
of Agrologists in 1980, reservations
about part-time farmers are directed
particularly at certain categories: tax
dodgers, land speculators, non-profit
hobbyists, operators of mini -farms
interested primarily in rural living, and
"failed" full-time farmers who move
to part-time farming either as a tran-
sitional step in leaving agriculture or
on a continuing basis.
The part-time farmers regarded
more kindly include young men plan-
ning to farm full-time, persistent or
stable part-time farmers in regions
where the agricultural resource base is
weak and there is a tradition of com-
bining farming with forestry, fishing,
or tourism, prairie farmers working off
the farm on a seasonal basis, farmers
whose off -farm work is in the agricul-
tural sector, and "gentlemen farmers"
who operate their farms for profit.
On the negative side, part-time
farmers are said to:
• practise bad husbandry
• increase land prices
• hinder the creation and growth of
full-time operations
• compete unfairly by producing at a
loss
farmer" most negatively viewed is the
land speculator — the absentee owner
and/or tax dodger. Speculators, says
Paul Klopp, "are not really farmers.
Those are the ones we've got to look
at and then complain about."
In the end, the issue of part-time
farming can be examined two ways:
theoretically and practically. In
theoretical terms, the issue really has
to do with a national and international
discussion about how farming and
rural communities will be shaped in
the future.
Tony Fuller, professor of rural
planning and development at the
University of Guelph, remarks that
only in the past 40 years has it been
assumed that farming alone should
support a family. Farm families 50 to
70 years ago were diversified, whether
through selling trees, building roads,
or exchanging labour within the
community. "Multiple job holding
today isn't really that much different,"
he says.
In the future, in fact, it may be
conceded that full-time farming is not
a viable option in terms of supporting
the number of farm families that it has
in the past. "Why," adds Professor
NOVEMBER 1987 21