Saranagati

[Guest guest]

Dear Vipramukhya Swami,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

First, I would like to thank you, Bala Krsna das and Hari Lila dasi, for

taking the time to present a report on the situation at Saranagati. By

straightforward communications all rumors are put into proper perspective.

It seems that this is an insurmountable problem with the range cattle, and I

agree with you that the residents of Saranagati have done what they can to

deal with it.

 

Your servant,

Balabhadra das

ISKCON Minister for Cow Protection and Agriculture

 

-

COM: Vipramukhya Swami <Vipramukhya.Swami (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

COM: ISCOWP (Balabhadra Dasa & Chaya Dasi - USA) <ISCOWP (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

Cc: COM: Romapada Swami <Romapada.Swami (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; COM: Canadian Leaders

<Canadian.Leaders (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

Tuesday, November 23, 1999 9:44 PM

Saranagati cow report

 

 

> [Text 2802863 from COM]

>

> Dear Balabhadra Prabhu,

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> I'm here at Saranagati typing the statements of Bala Krsna dasa and Hari

> Lila dasi, two senior members of Saranagati, as they give the following

> verbal cow report. It follows below. Fortunately I'm a fast touch-typist.

>

> I am planning to use this report as a basis for an article on CHAKRA

because

> this has been a controversial topic and I believe the devotee community

> should have the right to hear the Saranagati devotees' side. It does not

> seem that they have been properly heard, even though they have explained

> these details before.

>

> Included as receivers of this report are the GBCs of Canada and the

leaders

> of the Canadian yatra.

>

> Your servant,

> Vipramukhya Swami

>

> Saranagati cow report

> An interview with Bala Krsna dasa and Hari Lila dasi

> Saranagati, British Columbia, Canada

>

> The Saranagati corporation owns one cow. Besides that there are about 20

> cows or oxen owned by individual members of the corporation as

homesteaders

> which do not belong to the corporation.

>

> Bala Krsna dasa reports that all the individual devotees who own their own

> cows are prepared for winter, including the one cow owned by the

Saranagati

> corporation. They have ample salt licks, hay, etc.

>

> The devotees here have made a conscious effort to keep the number of cows

> low because they are aware that in other communities they have too many

cows

> that have not been taken proper care of and a great deal of abuse of cows

> has taken place as a result. Any increase of cows at Saranagati is based

on

> individual devotees being able to make a long term commitment to take care

> of them and is communally discussed before any devotee acquires a new cow,

> bull or oxen. Bala Krsna says devotees at Saranagati are conscientious of

> building the proper infrastructure for cow protection before acquiring

many

> cows.

>

> As for the karmi beef cattle that graze on Saranagati land for about 2

> months a year, Bala Krsna says it is a complicated situation and it takes

a

> little time for people to grasp. He says it is bureaucractic nonsense that

> the devotees here have to deal with. He explains it below.

>

> In British Columbia there is the ALR "Agricultural Land Reserve." In this

> ALR, the idea is any land that is appropriate for agriculture, including

> cattle ranches, has to be protected from subdivision and housing

development

> which would destroy the agricultural development of the land. Saranagati's

> 1700 acres is almost entirely within the ALR boundaries. Not only that,

but

> the Saranagati land is legally divided into 5 sections. Each section, in

the

> view of the government is viewed as a separate farm. These 5 separate

farms,

> even though within ALR land, is not classified as a farm unless there is a

> certain amount of agricultural activity according to the government's

> definition - and in this case this agricultural activity must be going on

> within the boundaries of 5 separate farms. Each farm has to separately

> qualify as a farm by selling commercially viable produce according to a

> strict and narrow government definition. Even if one of those 5 parcels of

> land were to qualify, all of the rest would not qualify. Each of the 5

farms

> at Saranagati has to qualify individually.

>

> Now it so happens that Saranagati is within a cattle-ranching district.

All

> the crown land (government land) is classified as range land. Neighboring

> ranches have leased that land from the government as range land to connect

> with their ranches. They don't own it but they have rights to range their

> beef cattle.

>

> These cattle are ranging in our area and they naturally wander on to our

> private land. It's been impossible so far to fence them out. It is not the

> duty of the ranchers to fence them out, it is our responsibility to fence

> them if it were possible. Every year the devotees attempt to fence off the

> entrance to the valley, but the big karmi bulls just break right through

the

> fences. (It is important to note that beef cattle are a little different

> than dairy cows in their ability to break fences. They are strong,

> determined animals.)

>

> These animals eat the devotees hay and create many other problems, and to

> date devotees have been unable to get them out because they break through

> the fences.

>

> They are not taking money for beef cattle grazing on Saranagati land. The

> neighboring rancher, who they have friendly relationship with, has agreed

to

> sign a paper stating his beef cattle are allowed to graze here (which is

> untrue - they can't stop them from grazing here and they are grazing

whether

> devotees want it or not, so it's not a question that they are "allowed" to

> graze on Saranagati land). This silly letter satisfies the tax man to

> qualify the farm as a farm, and they save thousands of dollars a year and

> keep Saranagati from being lost to the government in high taxes. Bala

Krsna

> says it is only beaurocratic nonsense and a meaningless signature. They

> can't keep the cattle out anyway.

>

> The important point to understand is that there is no agreement to allow

> these animals to graze on Saranagati land. Neither the devotees nor the

> cooperative rancher who is friendly with devotees can get the animals off

> Saranagati land when they want to crash through. So it's not an agreement

to

> allow them to graze, it is the reality that they are grazing. The letter

> signed by the rancher is only his offer to help the devotees get a tax

break

> as a friendly gesture on his part. The letter has no meaning except that

it

> convinces the tax man to charge less in taxes.

>

> To qualify for farm status for these 5 farms in order to get the tax break

> that farm status brings, is otherwise almost impossible. Saranagati pays

> about $10,000 a year in taxes to the government. All the devotees who live

> here live very simply. Hardly anyone who lives here has a lot of money.

> Devotees are trying to live off the land. Without the farm status the

taxes

> would be about $18,000 a year. It's not a question of having the money.

> Devotees here don't have money. They pay the government as much as they

can

> pay, but they don't have the extra money to pay the government if there

were

> no farm status. The farm might well be lost because they could not pay the

> high government bills.

>

> It isn't a situation they feel they can change.

>

> Even if they could build a huge stone wall, it would have to be 15 miles

> long (5 miles on each side up and down and allowing for some zig zagging).

> And if that could be done, which isn't practical, it would mean paying

> hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years in increased taxes as a

> penalty from the government for not meeting their narrow definition of ALR

> land. But even if they could pay the taxes and keep the cows out, it is

not

> a possibility to build such a structure, so why should they have both the

> cows and the taxes.

>

> In answer to the argument, "Why don't you take the $10,000 you get as a

tax

> break each year for building a fence," Bala Krsna says this does not solve

> the problem. First of all, they don't get any money and they don't have

any

> money to set aside. They are poor. Also, even if they could somehow build

an

> impenetrable wall, Hari Krsna dasi's idea would cost the devotees hundreds

> of thousands of dollars over the years in increased taxes. Finally, it

isn't

> possible to build an impenetrable wall 15 miles in length here and

therefore

> they would still have the karmi beef cattle because they just come in

> anyway. It does not solve the problem. The animals break whatever fences

> they put up or just find a way to walk around them.

>

> Devotees here are deeply offended because they feel other devotees don't

> recognize that there are mature, senior devotees who would never think of

> harming cows. They feel Hari Krsna dasi especially is making offences to

> them and they take strong objection to her public messages. They are angry

> with her specifically.

>

> One long time solution might be to try to qualify for commercial farm

status

> by growing commercial food, but this is not in line with their goals for

> self-sufficiency by each devotee growing enough produce to live off the

> land. Unfortunately the government of Canada does not recognize

> self-sufficiency as land qualifying for farm status.

>

> Saranagati devotees say they are not hurting the cows. These karmi beef

> cattle come on to their land and they can't keep them out because of the

> immensity of the Saranagati project. All the devotees are trying to do is

> live within the means that they have and the government is trying to

charge

> them huge amounts for living a self-sufficient life style.

>

> That is the end of the report.

>

> My conclusion, in taking this interview, is that the devotees at

Saranagati

> are doing the best that they can do under the circumstances.

>