Beef Initiative Group Canada-Great BIG C !

[kato]

And so it begins. Let's see how far it can go.

From "Steinbach on-line"

BSE Discussion Paper Receiving National Interest
2004-6-2
By:



An Alberta producers BSE discussion paper has snowballed into a national group. Southern Alberta rancher, Cam Ostercamp says he's received calls from across the country about "Behind The Veil Of Science". His contention is too much emphasis has been put on the U.S. border reopening, and not enough on testing every animal, increased domestic slaughter capacity, and new markets. At a producer meeting last week, Ostercamp says a new goup, Beef Initiative Group Canada was launched and support across the west is growing. Ostercamp says the group hopes to attract producers, processors and consumers.

[whiteface]

My support 100%. My email and my voice seem to go non-stop on these issues. Thanks for being with me guys!

[kato]

Check out

http://www.westernwheel.com/editorialpauls.htm

[kato]

Even better, check out

http://www.westernwheel.com/index.htm

[rsomer]

It is regrettable to see a splinter group like this form. It is born of producers frustration not from any insight into solutions for our crisis. The strength of the industry especially right after May 20 was a unified approach to the BSE crisis. Everyone, politicians, producer groups, CFIA spoke with one voice. This unity helped maintain consumer confidence in our industry at a time when it was most needed.

I believe Canadian producers look to other splinter groups like R-Calf and think that looks pretty good, someone listens to them. We should try that for ourselves. Yet these same producers are ignoring just how destructive to the U.S. and North American beef industry R-Calf really is. Yes R-Calf won a war for their members by getting the injunction on Canadian bone-in beef but they may have lost the battle to keep consumer confidence in beef if a cow of U.S. origin ever tests positive.

It is the same for BIG-C. Frustrated producers lobbying for anything that offers hope without an overarching vision of the industry is not necessarily what is best for the industry and not even what is best for the producers. There is a saying that the gods punish us by granting our wishes. Only if Cam Ostercamp’s wishes come true every Canadian beef producer gets punished just like every American producer stands to get punished if the logical outcome of R-Calf’s lobby efforts to demonstrate that Canadian beef is unsafe comes back to haunt them.

[blackjack]

rsomer... you and your fellow ABP delegates have no one to blame but yourselves that the grassroot rancher is looking for other answers. What are your alternatives if the border does not open this year ? Obviously the politicians and ABP are not coming up with the gut making decisions that are going to be needed for the industry to survive!

[jensend]

rsomer - i think we want a group that has a vision for the future that is concerned with the health of the primary producer. fat prices drop so calf prices fall but the feeder is still okay. beef prices drop so fat prices fall and the cow/calf guy absorbs a lot of the decrease in value. abp and cca seem to be of the opinion that if the feeders and packers are doing fine then the industry is in good shape. cca and abp are operating like ncba and i've said on ranchers.net that the primary reason for r-calf is ncba.

[cakadu]

There are no mistakes - everything happens for a reason - we just have to see what that reason is. We all need answers and solutions and they were needed yesterday. There is no "quick fix" or "magic bullet" for us to set everything straight. I completely understand the frustrations that have been expressed throughout these threads in recent weeks.

As someone who is a pragmatist - and much to some people's chagrin - I am a detail person and use critical thinking when it comes to finding solutions. Brainstorming and playing "what if" are certainly part of the skills that I use when it comes to long-term planning and solutions.

Let's just for a moment run with the idea that you do win out with 100% testing. We'll say that there will even be potential new markets because we have announced that various plants will undergo 100% testing of animals.

Say that with the surveillance we find more cases - which will undoubtedly happen because we are actively looking for it. Playing devil's advocate for a moment and NOT getting into an argument about whether or not I am for or against testing, what if you're wrong about the outcome of 100% testing i.e. it erodes rather than enhances consumer confidence? What then? We're all going on the assumption that finding more cases will keep people happy and feeling safe about their food. What will you do if the exact opposite is true? Now more than ever, supplying the domestic consumer is crucial for us. As is supplying what cuts we are to the US. When undertaking risk management strategies, you have to look at both the good and bad of undertaking a certain path.

Right now we are convinced that by 100% testing, that will guarantee more meat sales, markets, consumer confidence what have you. What if you're wrong?

Who is going to pay for the testing? Will it be yet another cost downloaded onto the producer, who cannot take much more of anything being demanded of him/her?

Providing some of these answers may not be easy and yes, I'm probably going to get slammed for being negative or against or whatever; point being I'm not. I don't know what to think about it because I don't have enough answers to questions. What would some solutions be?

[kato]

I agree that 100% testing is not necessary. By itself it won't save the world.

But... partial testing can do a lot of harm too. Then the consumer wonders "what slipped through undetected?".

I guess the next positive, if one ever shows up, will tell the tale. I just hope we have the financial wherewithall to survive it.

I think the main reason for this group's development is that we have been patiently waiting for over a year now, while being told to be quiet and behave, and that the border will soon open thanks to the good will of our trading partners.

It hasn't happened, and doesn't look any more likely to happen than it did a year ago.

How long do we carry on like this?

We just can't sit back and do nothing.

When you are bargaining, you put out an initial request. The other negotiators put out their offer. You both meet in the middle. We can't just start low, we have to start with the max, and then see what happens.

Besides, "BSE test" are the only two words we can use that anyone south of the border will ever pay attention to, and getting some attention, and hopefully some action is what this is all about.

We can't just go on this way.

[kato]

Besides, I guess time will tell if this is a "splinter group", or if this bigger than that.

Most "splinter" groups develop because those who are supposed to be representing those involved are not percieved as doing their jobs.

Perhaps our organizations should be actually talking and listening a little better to those they are supposed to be representing.

[pandiana]

In my opinion, this group is exactly what is needed. Many can fiddle while Rome burns, but I cannot. We have seen what R-calf has been able to do with their lobbying efforts, rightly or wrongly. The little guy is being heard.

We absolutely must keep this issue in front of the public in order to maintain their support especially during the election. We need every sector that has been hurt by BSE to stand up for action. Are you feeling invisible? I am. For the first time today a politician (Harper) acknowledged the BSE issue but offered nothing new other than he would make a better job of getting payouts to farmers??

I do believe that we have had very good support from the media. Yes, as someone said, they do like the sensational aspects. But lets face it! This is becoming very sensational from my perspective and methinks it will get a lot worse soon. Let's hope we're not too late.

I do have some concerns. I sincerely hope that we can work towards what we have in common and appreciate our differences in an open debate.

It seems to me that there is a general concensus that we need more Canadian killing capacity before anything else can be done including testing or new markets. Let's put our efforts toward this. Cargill and Tyson have clearly stated they will not entertain 100% testing so we must build our own facility in order to have that option. Wouldn't a government investment in our industry be more palatable to taxpayers than more handouts that are so diluted as to serve little purpose other than to buy a couple of months groceries or pay utilities? I remember one of my professors in reference referring to government grants asking, "What would be a better investment... 1000 individual entrepreneurs getting $10.00 or one entrepreneur receiving $10,000?"

[kato]

Exactly.

If these new plants were not stopped from testing if they wished, then they would just be that much more likely to succeed.

What's more damaging, legislating mandatory testing, or legislating against voluntary testing?

Currently we legislate against testing. I can't see as how that's done us any good in the last year.

In a business climate where small companies were not allowed to use any means available to them to secure markets, they will be doomed to failure.

We need a tool to get out from under the thumb of the big corporations, and the ability to pursue markets not currently open to us is a real good place to start.

We'd probably be better off not to bring in mandatory testing. That way the big boys can keep doing what they are doing, and we can get on to business without them. If/when the States gets their first native born case, we'll be ready. If/when they manage to blame it on Canada, then we'll really be ready.

Let's not sit back and wait for the hammer to fall.