Should Ag Minister Berger Change The Way the Checkoff Is Collected?

[ASRG]

Consider this:
A former Alberta Agriculture Minister George Groeneveld made the $3/animal check off on cattle, refundable? His successor Jack Hayden decided a portion of the refundable checkoff ($1) should not be refundable…..but should instead be collected to do the work of the national cattle industry.
Unfortunately neither Ag Minister went far enough with giving producers choice. Allowing the ABP to collect the checkoff and then forcing producers to go through a process to regain their money, created an inefficient system.
Is it time now for the present Ag Minister Evan Berger to change how the refundable checkoff is done? How hard would it be to have a simple question on a livestock manifest?

Do you want a $2 checkoff/animal donated to the Alberta Beef Producers? Yes or no?
This would save a lot of hassle and paperwork for everyone. Those who believe the ABP gives value could donate, those who don’t wouldn’t have to. It would certainly simplify things.

[per]

Feisty this morning ASRG.

[smcgrath76]

Based on current moods, he should stay
out of the public eye until after the
election, but...
It is much easier to say you don't want
to pay checkoff than to claim it back.
The claims process is fairly
complicated, however in order to verify,
satisfy legal requirements and represent
the membership of ABP I understand why
it is that way.
If you give the option to not pay on a
manifest, I believe most people won't.
In other words, there would be a
dramatic drop in funding beyond what ABP
has dealt with in the last year .
There needs to be some way to have
people support their industry, but it
may have to be selecting a group to
direct a checkoff to, rather than
totally opting out.
The only thing I really dislike about
this proposal is that I do not want to
have to get ANOTHER manifest book to
carry in my truck, and we are running
out of room with livestock security
declarations, etc.

[grassfarmer]

Some of us proposed resolutions to that effect before and after the levy change was made ASRG. We were told it couldn't be done under the legislation or the "acts" that govern these checkoff organisations.
You can expect mucho opposition to the suggestion from ABP though as the average complacent rancher that has left his funds with ABP to date might change his tune if it was an easy yes/no decision on the manifest rather than a procedure to go through to reclaim.
Personally I couldn't care less at this stage - I reclaim every cent of mine and if others are too lazy or unmotivated to go through the procedure it's their loss - and ABP's gain. Maybe they deserve each other?

[ASRG]

Grassfarmer: Believe me....I make it a priority to get my refund!
Here is my problem: When the ABP claims to "represent every cattle producer in the province" when clearly that is not the case (they obviously don't represent the cattle feeders who have almost to a man have requested their checkoff back) and further when they snuggle up to the government on these property rights issues.....should they have this little "sweetheart negative billing option"?
I hear Seans option.....and would have no problem with designating my checkoff dollars to the WSGA, but it really bugs me that I have to go through this request a refund within 30 days every six months and wait another 3 or 4 to get refunded, for a group that certainly doesn't represent me and never did!
And please don't trot out the old garbage they saved my butt by fighting the BSE thing or the border thing....I'm already paying for that through my taxes and the checkoff to the CCA!

[Cattleman]

ASRG, that is a very common misunderstanding in industry, and it was interesting to learn. The $1 mandatory check-off does not go to the CCA, it goes to the National Check-off Agency, and that then money goes towards Canada Beef Inc. and Research.

The CCA is funded through check-offs the provinces collect and allocate to the CCA. Therefore, a significant proportion of the funds for legal challenges and lobbying done by the CCA comes from the ABP. With the Alberta check-off being refundable, it does increase uncertainty about funding at the CCA. So if you think the work CCA did on BSE, COOL, and other market access issues is important, withdrawing all your money from ABP does affect the CCA.

[ASRG]

Cattleman: Thanks for telling me that. A long time ago I quit caring about that sort of thing.
It is my belief it is the governments job to do trade (Lord knows they are paid well enough)...and yes I do agree they do a pretty poor job!
At the end of the day I'm more concerned about my bottom line. If cows won't pay the bills I have no problem with getting the plow out! If grain won't work.......I can sell out and invest my dollars, in whatever?
At the end of the day if Canada doesn't work....nothing to stop me from going somewhere else? Isn't that what the globalists preach?
The ABP has never represented my interests. I worked long and hard to get rid of them back in the early nineties. Unfortunately 6.1% of cattle producers supporterd their mandatory checkoff as opposed to the 6% who opposed it? Apathy isn't new.

[forage]

Grassfarmer you are absolutely correct"complacent rancher that has left his funds with ABP to date might change his tune if it was an easy yes/no decision on the manifest rather than a procedure to go through to reclaim." and that is exactly what ABP relys on. Plus many small producers with 20-50 cows and off farm jobs don't have the time to fill out all BS. The other BS part of this an Act or Regulations can be changed with a stroke of a pen. I started my cow herd up in the last 10 years as a result of my involvement in the female side of 4H.I remember back when I only had 18 cowcalf units and the ABP was holding an election to increase the check off and when I went to vote, my name was on list that I paid check off fees and the ABP rep asked me "just how old are you" and I told him 17. I was politely told to leave that I was to young to vote. Asking where does it state that you have to be 18 as I had been paying into it since I was nine years old. They got damn pissy but I held my ground , they made a call to whoever to get proof of their claim I couldn't vote, quess what there was no such regulation you only had to have paid the check off to be registered. Regardless I was still DENIED the right to vote.The following year ABP revamped the rules and you had to be 18.I also represented 4H to lobby ABP to wave the check off after our steers were sold at achievement day.That was a bad day to negotiate as I had to appear before the same dude from ABP that was at the election table the year before.The simple answer was absolutely not pay and smile. So when the chance came to ask for my refund back I couldn't wait to lick the stamp.

[farmers_son]

I debated whether or not to reply to this thread. Certainly, within the group of people who post here regularly, no ones opinion on the subject would be changed by anything I could say. But based upon ASRG’s posts some people may have a lack of awareness about the check off, why we pay it and what it does, so maybe a response would be helpful.

As recently as November 18, the WTO panel announced Canada’s win on the COOL challenge. I am wondering if it would be appropriate if we had a box on the livestock manifest to the effect do you want to pay the $30 to $100 per head (or more depending upon market forces at the time) that COOL costs us?

Canada’s win at the WTO was not assured. It came because of the considerable resources that CCA was able to expend on the COOL effort. As Cattleman pointed out those resources, those check off dollars, came from the provincial associations such as ABP and other provincial associations like BC Cattlemen’s, Sask Cattlemen’s, Manitoba Beef Producers, Ontario Cattlemen’s and east to the Maritimes. These provincial associations collect check off and forward those dollars to CCA for the national effort. Except for Ontario which continues to have a non refundable check off, the CCA is funded from what is left after the refund requests are paid out.

And the COOL effort continues. Although the WTO has come down on our side, mCOOL is still a reality in the North American marketplace until the U.S. actually changes its legislation. The U.S. may decide to appeal the WTO decision but there is a chance that the U.S. will decide to change its legislation regarding the treatment of Canadian live cattle and possibly beef. Really, the U.S. will have to change its legislation; it is just a matter of when. CCA continues to work in the United States for a positive and timely outcome.

I think ASRG unwittingly hit upon the very reason why we have organizations like the Alberta Beef Producers and its national counterpart, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. To quote ASRG “If cows won't pay the bills I have no problem with getting the plow out! If grain won't work.......I can sell out and invest my dollars, in whatever?
At the end of the day if Canada doesn't work....nothing to stop me from going somewhere else?

To the extent the reason the cows are not paying the bills is as a result of market forces that cannot be changed then I agree. But when our profitability, our competitiveness, is negatively impacted by a RCALF countervail challenge like we saw in 1999, COOL, the fallout from BSE, unfair trade restrictions, tariff and non tariff trade barriers, then I think the proper response is not to get out the plow but stand up and fight for our industry. This is what ABP and CCA do all the time.

And the challenges do not always come from our export markets. We get challenges from people who say eating beef is bad. Or animals for agriculture is immoral ad cruel. We face challenges from our own governments who are constantly being lobbied for more and more legislation and regulations without regard for how agriculture and the cattle producers would be impacted.

How should we respond? I suppose we could do as ASRG suggests and get out the plow. As individuals, without organizations working our behalf, that might be our only option. But for $3 a head we do have another option. We have an option to do something as an industry. We have an option to improve our industry’s competitiveness and to improve the bottom line of every cattle producer in this country.

I frankly have a problem with people like ASRG and Grassfarmer who are playing it both ways. They put their $2 bucks in their pockets but still benefit when Canada wins at the WTO. They still benefit when international tariffs on Canadian beef are lowered or eliminated. They still benefit from producer directed research. They still benefit from reduced regulations. And they still benefit from things they do on the farm without even thinking about it like we can still castrate and dehorn calves ourselves without a vet.

Yes they still benefit but they have $2 bucks in their pockets and I along with tens of thousands of producers like me are funding the industry. I say there should be no refundable check off at all. The check off is an investment in our industry. Everyone benefits and everyone needs to pay their fair share.

[grassfarmer]

I would agree with your last two sentences F_S if the ABP were the only organisation representing producers and their actions were proven to have been beneficial to beef producers.
Fact is they are only one of several organisations representing beef producers, each with different ideas and policies and as such I think producers should be allowed to fund whichever organisations best represents their beliefs.
Rest assured the $2 doesn't stay in my pocket as I contribute considerably more than that to an organisation that more truly represents my opinions.

There is a big gap between what ABP/CCA claims it achieves and what can actually be attributed to its actions. But that's always going to be a grey area. I would suggest there are many actions that have been taken by ABP since 2003 that have been directly counterproductive to beef producers interests. The solid backing they gave to every packer bailout and funding package, their failure to lobby Government to assist producers establish their own slaughter capacity at a time when this might have broken the packer stranglehold. There are too many negative consequences brought about by ABPs actions for me to ever support them - their policy of appeasement of the AB Governments Land Bills is just the latest.

As someone else commented international trade negotiations are the role of Government not cowboys. I believe that the role of beef producer organisations is to lobby the Government domestically to get them to act on our behalf - this flying around the world duplicating the role of government ministers is trying to reinvent the wheel. This is particularly so when an organisation funded by feedlots and cow/calf producers is going on "missions to Asia to open a new market" - a market which will be filled by beef from Cargill and XL Foods. Producers sell live cattle so why should they fund the trade negotiations that will benefit the shippers of frozen beef - other than the illusionary "trickle down effect"?

I think that if there is a compulsory beef checkoff the funds should be used exclusively for generic beef promotion and the education component(of consumers, schools etc)that accompanies it. Even that is tenuous given what I just wrote about producers not selling the actual beef.
As long as ABP wants to pretend it is a global player in international politics, and to suck up to the Government funding it regardless of what principles it has to prostitute to do that I will not be funding it.

[ASRG]

Grassfarmer pretty well said it all? I have no problem leaving my checkoff with a group that actually might do something for my benifit....instead of doing everything in their power to hurt me.
Do you think I take that mighty $2 and just live it up? That $2 and a whole lot more go into an organization that promotes my private property interests.....not Cargills or Nilson Brothers!
How much of my mandatory check off went into fighting the government on their disgraceful behavior on the BSE law suit? Can you say ZERO dollars! They were too busy down on their knees worshipping the government!
I would actually have no problem paying a mandatory checkoff........to get rid of the ABP.....once and for all!

[parsley]

farmers_son,

"Oh, he has a loaded half-ton and I don't.".
"He gets welfare and I don't."
"Her Tommy's got a better hockey stick than my
boys got."
"Saskfarmer got a bigger agri-invest payment than
me."

Every time you hear any JOHN DOE bitching
about not getting his fair share of somebody else's
earnings in the name of equality, rack it up as the
mind of a socialist.

If you scheme to have somebody else's earnings
automatically deducted to support your scheme,
you think like a communist.

Learn to ask your neighbor for his money instead
of taking it and then telling him to apply in writing
for a refund. In the name of fairness

Q: What kind of thieves are we raising?
A: Slippery ones with no sense of what real
fairness is. Pars

[ASRG]

How hard would it be to have a simple checkoff box on the livestock manifest:

"Do you wish to have $2 deducted per animal to go to the ABP?"
Yes or No.
If the ABP provides value people would support it. If people are concerned some people weren't paying their fair share for promoting or protecting the industry, the question could be:

"Which organization do you wish your $2 checkoff fund to go to?"
-ABP
-Western Stockgrowers
-NFU
-Alberta cattle feeders

We would then see which organization actually provides value? I would suggest if this option was available ABP funding would drop dramatically and that would be a good thing as they might actually start to work for the producers.