ABP Resolution

[grassfarmer]

Sean, I agree with your poor attitude comments. Your post raises 3 questions in my mind.

1. Wouldn't your farm business advisory service assessment proposal be harder to sell to producers than the ALMS and would you make it mandatory?

2. Can I opt out of paying the ABP levy
as I am totally opposed to their policies and feel in your new free market, no assistance scenario this should be my choice?

3. Yes a cow herd reduction is happening, no doubt about it and it looks set to continue. However are you confident that this herd size reduction will result in increased profitability for producers? I am not and I think the guys citing this as the solution are being rather naive. We could go to 2 million fed cattle produced each year and as long as we have only 2 packers they will take a million each without bidding against each other and leave producers no better off than they are today. Imports will be pulled in from cheap overseas sources to maintain the low producer price. This is common practice in Europe.

[grassfarmer]

Per, You missed out one part on your ship analogy "....meanwhile down in the hold Captain Butters is assuring the passengers that all is well...the Titanic is unsinkable"

[smcgrath76]

1. Damn sure would be difficult, but it would also have a lot of value. I would not make it mandatory. You can't teach a stick to fetch a dog, so if a producer is not interested why waste the time and effort on it. No legislation required. Tie it to payouts if you want.
2. I don't oppose opting out, as long as you also opt out of generic advertising, etc. This is the same argument that downed the tomatoe board, etc. (LOL - they might write you a check so you will leave them alone)
3. I don't think a cow herd reduction will restore profitability (may hurt it for a lot of producers). I think it is a symptom rather than a solution, but it may expand the door to opportunity in the context of broader cooperation, different attitude, etc.

[Kathy]

A few things came out of the BigStone ABP meeting.

We passed resolutions asking ABP to NOT support ALMS and the Animal Health Act.

We passed a resolution asking ABP to not support "premise ID numbers".

We passed a resolution asking for ABP to determine the legality of ALL Canadian Cattle producers being automatically inlcuded in the BSE Class Action suite (without their written consent).

We passed a resolution asking for sections 12 and 13 of the AgiStability "Declaration of Applicant" be removed.

And a couple others were passed.
Go prepared, and the resolutions might just get passed. Whether they mean anything is the burning question that has dogged the ABP's credibility for years.

As for the guest speakers from ALMS:

The answer to a question about giving them our "capacity" for premise ID was answered thus,

"That's so the CFIA will know how big a pit to dig." (thats for YOUR cattle).

The same BS was used as an excuse for Minister Groenveld's unforgivable comment, to cooperate or "exit the industry" (Answer: he didn't mean to say it that way.) Right, that's why it was in the news release too.

Main message from ALMS was, Alberta beef producers are small potatoes on the 'global meat scale' and we can't become big players in the global market place without government control/management.

On rancher asked for Minister Groenveld to either apologize or resign because of "exit the industry" comment. This got a round of applause.

I'm quite happy to stay a Canadian player ONLY. Once they start digging the pits for our cattle due to some Animal Health issue, our border is going to slap shut anyways - and we will be right back to 2003.

Wisconsin has an ALMS type system with premise ID - they also require certain Mandatory Vaccinations. The Amish are leaving Wisconsin by the droves to settle where these premise and animal ID restrictions haven't been put into place. One Amish community is now being taken to court because: the mandatory vaccines can only be administered by a licensed veterinarian, and that vet cannot vaccinate an untagged animal from a farm without a premise ID. Thus the Amish farm is violating the law requiring their animals be vaccinated.


The Amish consider RFID tags the 'mark of the beast' - and based on the way things are going down - I agree.

http://www.familyfarmdefenders.org/pmwiki.php/NationalAnimalIdentificationSystem/NationalAnimalIdentificationSystem

Link to people defending Amish and the family farm in the USA.

[grassfarmer]

Sean I agree with you with the following stipulations.
1. Don't bother with the farm financial assessment idea - it's available now for those that want it. The majority don't so unless you will force them to do it why bother with the issue at all? Unnecessary.

2. I want to opt out. I never use the generic advertising that I pay for through ABP to sell my beef so I will happily opt out of both that and paying levy. The calves I sell to commodity markets I should not be paying advertising on anyway, I don't sell the beef off them, even the feedlots don't so why the hell are we paying for it? The packers sell the beef and they do not pass on adequate prices to the producers of the stock so why are we paying their advertising bills?

3. You agree with me that a cow herd reduction will not necessarily restore profitability. This one worries me a bit as many of the optimists I speak to who are sticking with their cows are doing so in the belief that reduced numbers will be their salvation.

[grassfarmer]

Well done Kathy,
I don't think the resolutions about ABP not supporting ALMS or Premisis ID will go anywhere - pity though because it would mean the ABP was again intent on committing political suicide. Truth is ABP have backtracked so fast on this to save their political skins they don't know their @#% from their elbows.

The lack of success in getting resolutions passed in my zone was not down to unpreparedness on my part,I can assure you of that.
Most of the attendees need to get a bit better informed - many are very much under the impression that it is a "them and us" situation but seem unclear on who the "them" are. Time and again producers moaned about the hardships they are facing now with low prices, high inputs, BSE testing and blame it on ALMS! They are also confused on what is caused by (or is the the responsibility) of ABP or Provincial or Federal Governments!
The same producers who moaned about packer control and profiteering at the start of the meeting voted against resolutions to introduce laws to enforce bans on packer ownership of cattle a few hours later. Go figure.

Re the capacity question on the premisis ID, I think this is a very valid question and having followed the F M disaster in the UK pretty closely is something that is needed so that disease containment can be planned for. A bit tough on the Government getting sued because they didn't take adequate steps to prevent BSE spread and at the same time getting bitched at by producers for trying to forward plan for potentially bigger disasters.

I guess you have oil activity in your area Kathy? Do you refuse to divulge how many people live in your house when the oil companies do their emergency planning checkups every year or two so they can protect your family in case of an emergency?

[Kathy]

grassfarmer, the government already knows how many cattle I have - I don't need to be voluntarily applying for a "unique premise identification number". The government can issue me one. It is the voluntary act of complying that is going to get the producer into a whole mess of trouble.

As for emergency plans by oil companies; we don't have any regions close by involving sour gas, which is the most common reason for an evacuation plan. As for the efficacy of these plans, I have heard from residents in many regions facing the sour gas problems, and the plans are a joke. They are the ellusion of doing something. In fact, they say they are all sitting ducks waiting for the next leak to whipe them out.

The Surface Rights guys had a family from the foothills come to discuss their situation. They have been gassed several times, with just enough to knock them down but not kill them. They have taken the oil companies to court, and lost. They lost because the government wouldn't accept their medical information without them releasing it to the public. At the court hearings, the gov. stated the folks didn't submit their medical records. In fact, they did but requested they be kept confidential (ie: not open to public scrutiny - but available only to the Court), apparently the Gov. waited until after the hearing to inform them that they only needed to file a request form that would have fixed the problem. That's called misleading and misinforming the public, to obtain a given result. Dirty pool.

Long story short - our gov. screwed them, the oil companies tried to kill them, and cooperating with your own planned destruction is suicide.

ALMS will lead to the destruction of many producers, who will be blind sided by the powers of this Animal Health Act (the tool for ALMS).

Once again, why pay the ranchers to "voluntarily comply" when they plan on making the whole deal mandatory by law anyways. This is because the laws are going to be empowered via regulations, and regulations can be changed at the drop of a hat. What you think you're agreeing to today, will change tomorrow and you will have no recourse because you voluntarily signed up. Kind of like the military.