Free Riding Lowers Market Returns 5-20%

[burnt]

Oh Bazinga!

[smcgrath76]

A few thoughts...
I agree in principle that everyone should pay their fair share. I also agree that most producers are in the cattle business, not the
beef business. One of the issues is allocation of resources. Should ABP (or other representative organizations) invest in R&D,
Marketing, Legal Defence, Lobbying, Etc. Once that is decided, there is further question about positions and resources within each of
those areas.
I think that AB has done a reasonable job in the past, but I am not convinced that they represent either my viewpoint or my criteria for
allocation of resources.
Examples: I for one do not believe in the "Canada Beef" concept. I also do not believe that Canadian Beef is superior by virtue of being
Canadian and that we are focusing on marketing in a lot of cases to the detriment of substance (a short term fix). I think we invest too
much in domestic promotion and not enough in export promotion. I think we pay a lot for legal challenges that are not our responsibility
(Government responsibility) and I think we spend a lot of time lobbying positions that may not benefit the industry.
I agree with directional more than refundable checkoff and yes it is hard to stop freeloaders, but it also creates a responsiveness of
organizations that are to serve their members.
I also believe that if there are 2 cowboys in a room there are at least 3 opinions on every subject present as well. I am not sure how
you navigate this when often "industry first" takes a back seat to "me first". And the last thing is that it only takes on belligerent
director or non-responsive staff to create a wave of negativity at ground level. This has bitten ABP and other producer groups numerous
times. ABP has had a hard time changing in the past, partly because agriculture has a hard time. For example when they were reforming
ABP a few years ago they decided to keep the same number of directors as in the past (and associated expenses, travel, etc). At the time
there were more ABP directors than there were MLAs for the entire province. I think in this new era we will have to trim and slim the
organization, add accountability, and direct resources more carefully.
Big challenges if they hope to represent and carry weight on our ranching operation. I do not request a refund on my checkoff and likely
won't, but ABP is not the only group I support and certainly at present not the one that best represents my interests.

[forage]

Free ride is exactly what ABP was getting when we had no choice whether our check off dollars were automatically sent to them , I was so tried of hearing well your a member it is for your good. Let me have the choice, ABP is nothing but a puppet on a string to the Alberta Government. I am a recent new comer to cow/calf industry and I have had a tough road to keep my head above water while ABP spends money like drunken sailers on expensive trips and high end AGMs'. If they had to survive on what they earned they wouldn't last a minute.

[Happytrails]

Some good comments. I have heard it said that organizations will tend, over time, to serve themselves more and their reason for being less. The refundable ABP checkoff has got to help resist that trend. And also inhibit raising the checkoff so much in the future. So refundable is the way to go for me. Too bad ABP can't or won't publicize the names of the refundees tho.

BTW if you want to apply for checkoff refund for your marketings in last half of 2011 you have to do it in January.

PS 5-20% market price reduction???? For letting people keep some of their money??? I don't think so. HT

[grassfarmer]

HT, for someone who has previously indicated their
support for ABP i'm suspicious why you would now
want to see that a list of people requesting refunds
be published. What possible benefit or reason is
there for publication of this information other than
as an intimidation tactic?

[ASRG]

Again the question:
Why can't we designate on the livestock manifest which producer group we want our money to go to?
It is my personal belief the WSGA better represents my interests than the ABP or the CCA. The ABP position on the land grab bills is completely against my interests.....WSGA position reflects my interests.
The ABP refundable checkoff isn't so much about a free ride. It is more about why would you want to donate to an organization that has policies that harm you?

[forage]

I would be all in favor of a check on the manifest. I would also be interested in Numbers that are requesting check funds back. There is a confidentally in giving out a name and I am afraid that only the Board of Directors are privy to this information
and may be using it now and well in the future to discourage people from asking for their refund. I do remember a visit to my fathers ranch by a top dog from ABP requesting he rethink asking for his check off back and to continue supporting ABP. The simple answer he gave was when they stop wasting the money they do receive he would consider it. As if this was ever going to happen within the ABP organization. ABP has screwed me over ever since I started selling 4H steers and couldn't even vote at ABP elections and they continue to do so at every 4H show and sale. Of course on the other they do need the money to send the president D.S. on holiday trips just like others before him.

[MGMT]

Very interesting replies from all. I certainly thought it reasonable to suggest that 5-20% market price reduction was reasonable if the check off dollars were not there to deal with the potential threats to our industry. I am thinking how soon we forget the past challenges and how quickly we become complacent and comfortable.

So if producers have forgotten maybe they need to be reminded more often. We live in the information age, no need to be uninformed. Just Google eating beef is bad for you and see what comes up. Yahoo Answers asked the question is eating beef good or bad for your health. The answer that was rated as the best answer declared beef is bad for your health. Google World Cancer Research Fund and see what comes up. The World Cancer Research Fund has concluded that eating beef causes cancer and recommended no more than 500 grams or 18 ounces beef PER WEEK with no processed meats. And it goes on and on. Is there anyone out there that thinks messaging like that does not impact our market price for cattle? Do you just sit in your easy chair and as an industry do nothing to counter that kind of message? But to counter that message takes dollars. Why should some producers not have to support that effort? Is there any excuse to not pay their fair share that is really valid? I do not think so. If you raise cattle then you share in the benefits of the positive eat beef messaging that is funded by check off and you should not be asking for refunds.

What about international beef trade? It has not been two months since Canada’s success at the WTO regarding COOL yet not one poster here mentioned the COOL win as a benefit they received from their check off dollars. COOL was and still is costing producers cold hard cash on every animal they sell. That battle is not over yet. Granted the price of cattle is higher than in years past but COOL is still costing our industry. How much is hard to say but I have heard numbers in the range of $30 to $100 per head depending upon market demand. Why should producers like Grassfarmer and Forage be able to take their check off dollars back on some trumped up excuse such as Forage’s 4-H calf and not pay check off to support their and our industry? There will always be some excuse won’t there? There is no moral high ground, no logical reason to say someone else has to support the industry effort but they do not have to.

I found it strange no one mentioned the free rider problem as it relates to large producers, in particular feedlots. A refundable check off not only allows these large feedlots to shirk their financial responsibility to pay their fair share but gives them the economic might through potentially huge check off fund requests to extort policies that benefit their interest to the detriment of the typical cow calf producer. No. No concern about that. If and when those mega feedlots leave their $100,000 - $200,000 check off remain they expect something back personally. Instead someone that has 100 head thinks they can somehow use their refundable $200 check off to hold their provincial cattle association’s feet to the fire. What is being held to the fire is the competitiveness of Canada’s cattle industry.

Refundable check offs hurt Canada’s cattle industry.

[forage]

MGMT maybe just maybe the large feeders and feedlot owners feel the same way I do. I know I don't forget the past and I don't have a big easyboy chair like the president of ABP has as he sits and dreams how else he can screw over the cattle producers of the province. If I wanted anymore BS on the free ride I well go out and clean my bull pens.

[grassfarmer]

I do my own consumer education, indeed many
of my beef customers have started eating beef
again since they have access to products like
mine. Some of them quit eating beef because of
the growth hormone issue as well as overuse of
antibiotics in the commodity beef system. Why
should I fund an organization which wants to
force EU beef consumers to eat hormone treated
North American beef?
As for international trade, if the ABP claims that
all the positive things that have occurred in
recent years happened because of them they are
delusional. Sheer fantasy and you are fooling
no-one but yourselves.
As for the large feedlots and their influence on
ABP you seem to have that one back to front
from a cow-calf producer perspective. I used to
be a little uneasy with the extent of voice this
sector had within ABP. Since the levy change was
made they have up and left, taken their money
with them or so you always tell us. From my
point of view that's quite all right, if that money
goes to AB Cattle Feeders instead good luck to
them.
Lets all celebrate the "marketing freedom" we
have now that we have a choice of who to fund
with our checkoff levy.