Madness

[grassfarmer]

The madness continues from what I saw on TV of the CCA meeting in Calgary today. Is the latest plan by Laycroft the end result of lots of months of thinking and planning? Basically appeal to Government to pay producers hundreds of millions of dollars to feed cattle and keep them off the market until extra packing plant capacity comes on line. As the capacity is coming from the existing packer cartel this will mean that they can make even more money a year or eighteen months from now. Lakeside will be able to steal and process 5000 a day instead of 4000 a day. How can the "leaders" of our industry not see that without doing something to ensure competition prices paid to producers will not increase.
If they set about legally establishing a fair price for the cattle being currently being slaughtered we could be in a lot better shape by Christmas.

[ALICIA]

If they don't soon do something then I will not matter how much money they pay the producer, cows can't eat money and where is all the feed going to come from if the numbers of cattle keep going up.

[ALICIA]

Can't you see Cargil and Tyson rubbing their hands together grassfarmer. Not only what you have said to be true, but tell me how many Canadian feeder cattle can be "held back" without going over the wieght range for discounts.

If they are not, these good old business minded boys will simply kill their own cattle til these set aside steers even get bigger.

Don't have much confidence in this CCA initiative. Wonder how much producer influence in these CCA alternative ideas?

[ALICIA]

Cattle producers have got to organize themselves and form a very vocal lobby group to let government know what exactly they need to get through this fall.
I have heard complaining from one end of the province to the other in my travels but have yet to see any action on the ground as far as a strong one voice lobby group. If cattle producers aren't happy with what their own umbrella group are proposing, then they should come up with alternative suggestions ASAP.

[cakadu]

What if only the established groups are considered to be the "voice" of the industry? How do you see working around that?

I agree that something has to be done and from what I saw on the news and grassfarmers' interpretation - it is more than just a little frightening to hear that this is what these organizations are proposing after 15 months of the border being closed to everything except boxed, boneless beef.

What is even more madness is that the other ruminant species i.e. sheep seem to be pretty much voiceless in this. The news (or lack thereof)coming from the sheep groups is appalling.

If we are told we need to work through the existing groups, how do we get ahead?

[grassfarmer]

Cakadu, One vague though occured to me as I was walkinag around the cows this morning regarding the ABP. What would happen if we can motivate primary producers to attend their fall producer meetings IN NUMBERS and try and move a vote of no confidence or refuse to elect delegates to represent us? Would that then stop the ABP from being the accepted voice of producers?

[kato]

I was reading the Manitoba Co-operator yesterday, and the views of the MCPA are not the same as the CCA. I know that our representatives are at the CCA meetings right now putting their views out. Hopefully more will do the same.

Our people were also at the NCBA meetings and let the people there know what we thought of this whole thing. When they informed the Americans that we were willing to test for export, and were considering removing SRM's from all ages of cattle, the Americans were quite worried that we were going to gain a competitive advantage over them. According to the article, the Canadian response to this was "Tough". Now that's the kind of people we need representing us!

It's crunch time everybody. We've all got to step up and get involved if we are going to get through this.

We DO have leverage in negotiations with the Americans and Japanese. What we need is people representing us who are willing to use it. If the ones we have now aren't willing to work for us, then it's up to us to find someone who is.

[cswilson]

Lets all take ten of our oldest cows gather them along Number 1 highway and start driving them to Ottawa-think of the media attention-I'm sure we can organize the cowboys to do it-see if Paul wants them.

[magpie]

Let’s take laycroft appeal for money, organize a pooling of funds across the provinces and build our plant. Probably won’t amount to much individually but collectively might make something.

[magpie]

Let’s take laycroft appeal for money, organize a pooling of funds across the provinces and build our plant. Probably won’t amount to much individually but collectively might make something.

[grassfarmer]

Cakadu, I sympathise with the sheep producers in this - this is one area where we don't seem to have followed the British model. There was never any problem with sheep there - it was a cattle problem. No export bans and at the hight of the BSE troubles it was the sheep half of our enterprises that kept many of us going. Indeed 1996 the worst beef year saw record high prices for sheep as beef consumers switched to lamb. The French did come up with some ridiculous rule later that lambs had to be certified under a certain age before they could be exported bone-in but I think they have dropped it now, it was purely a trade protection issue. Whether Scrapie had anything to do with the original outbreaks of BSE is debateable but certainly there is no cross species transmission so no reason why sheep shouldn't be exportable.
I know from a relative that works in Gov. in the NWT that the rules stopping hunters taking the heads of their kills home was pretty quickly dropped last year - of course most of the hunters were Americans - funny how that's different to beef or sheep!

[cakadu]

I'm curious to know what it is like to get people to come forward to become delegates/board members for organizations like the ABP? I don't have any experience with it obviously, being in the sheep business, but it seems to me that I get a booklet every year in my mail box with potential/returning candidates.

I think RP has his nomination papers in already - or at least is in the process of doing it - so maybe what it will take is more new people to come forward to become representatives. Not necessarily new to the cattle business, but new to being involved and committed to bringing new ideas to the table.

I'm sure that there is a certain percentage every year that are replaced, so what would happen if every year for the next several years, you brought in people dedicated to making a positive change? The unknown, of course, is how easy it would be to effect change once on the inside.

As far as the sheep link goes with respect to BSE, you're quite right grassfarmer, there hasn't been a study that conclusively links sheep to BSE. There is absolutely no basis for the border to be closed to lambs.

Many sheep producers were caught with heavy lambs - they like them up to 160 lbs in the U.S. - that they couldn't sell here because our markets go for that 110-120 lbs.

That is the problem that we livestock producers have - we are dealing with a perishable product that can go past it's prime and be worth far less. Once it is processed and frozen, then we are dealing with an even shorter time frame because of the shelf life of frozen meat.

[cowman]

There are new people always coming into ABP, but also there are a lot of old boys who seem to have been there forever. Which is okay because they are the guys who are interested enough to put in the effort?
The whole thing about the ABP was basically it was imposed upon us whether we wanted it or not! Well actually it was almost total apathy on the part of beef producers!
About ten years ago we got a vote on whether the checkoff should remain mandatory and about 12% of eligible voters bothered to vote! Slightly more than 6% of eligible voters decided to keep the checkoff.
If the checkoff was voluntary I guess we would soon learn just how much the ABP was really supported?
I will readily admit I have never supported the ABP. Quite frankly I think they have looked out more for their "special friends" than for the overall industry! They seem to always support the packers,feedlots and big public land leaseholders, than they do the small cow/calf guy?
I sometimes see our situation up here as quite similar to the USA? NCBA is the "official"voice of the beef industry there, sort of like CCA/ABP is here? And R-calf is the voice of the cow/calf guy? Will BIG C be our R-CALF?
When your official cattle organizations seem to be doing everything to help to get rid of you maybe it is time to replace them with another group,that will look out for your interests?

[cakadu]

Cowman, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with having long-term members in any organization, indeed it is necessary for continuity, there still needs to eventually be a turnover because things can get very stale or entrenched if you don't.

That is why many organizations generally have a rule as to how long you can serve the organization i.e. serving 2 x 3 year terms and then you move on. Even if an organization is being very well served by certain individuals, there still needs to be a turnover. The hallmark of a true leader is to bring up other leaders, so succession is critical.

One of the problems with maintaining the status quo is that you perceive your needs are being met, while in reality that isn't always the case.

[cowman]

Linda: The actual problem is the majority of cattle producers just don't care? Or am I wrong?
When 12% bother to vote on what was in reality whether there would be an ABP or not, I would suggest it really doesn't matter?
How many people do they get out to their meetings or delegate elections? Would it be in the neighborhood of 1% of producers?
I never supported the ABP/ACC and I worked pretty hard to get rid of them...time and money! Have no interest in any kind of organization that "forces" me to pay for their policies of unfair competition.If there was an R-CALF in Canada I'd be joining that!