Disband producer groups

[kpb]

farmers_son has brought up an interesting point in another thread. He points out that no Canadian group or government has done anything to open up the border and, in fact, we are at the whims of U.S. packing companies and governments to work on opening the border which would benefit us.
This is totally bizarre to me and also totally true. I think it is simply embarassing how little power any of our beef groups or government agencies have. Now we can't do much about the government it would seem.They operate in their own dimension which is beyond our understanding. But I think the failure of all our assorted beef groups to do anything, and I mean anything, to either work towards opening the border or establishing our own packing plants is diabolical.
I know that some of you know your ABP reps or CCA reps or whatever and think they are outstanding people but I think these organizations are a complete and utter waste of money. If they are powerless or incompetent or lack understanding in this crisis, what use are they? If they're just around so the members get to go to meetings and have little gab fests than I suggest they do it on their own money not mine.
Right here, right now I think all of us should stop paying our check-offs to these clowns and call for the dissolution of all of these groups--would we even notice their leaving (apart from saving money)? I'm not sure how we can do this with auction mart sales but I'm going to look into it and I'm also going to advise good old Myron Thompson, my MP, that these organizations are just old boys clubs that do nothing except work on self promotion.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

kbp, I have argued on here many times that most of these producer groups are inept and lack any ideas of what to do. Government is no better but as you say we can't change them very quick.
Truth is the producer groups are what producers have made them - useless.
Producers have no one to blame but themselves if they now feel the wrong people are running ABP or CCA.
UPA works in Quebec because producers back it - en masse. Yet in Alberta an ABP zone with 5000 members gets 150 to turn up to a meeting. Do we need UPA here instead of ABP? - no, because the vast majority of producers wouldn't support it either. As Horse says "it's like herding cats"

[ivbinconned]

Quebec producers are "motivated" by a BIG property tax rebate (75%)for joining... and to a producer in Saskatchewan, thats a big deal.

Plus the lucrative farm support (Alberta cash)that the upa then strongarms out of their government.

Its the GLUE that binds them together.

[Horse]

The ACC was put in power to look after the welfare cowboys not ot look after the welfare of cowboys and for that they are very sucesful. They have had every ag minister on side partly because we are all forced to be a member we had ago at making the check off volintary but the minister decided a petition was one vote against was all. And the crap goes on
Ask how many delegates recieve revenue from crown lands

[Horse]

ABP isn't the only voice of industry in AB. The Alberta Cattle Feeders have the ear of government as well.

[farmers_son]

I would point out that the UPA has not been successful in opening the border either.

But they have been successful in getting their producers a packing plant.

The Americans closed the border and the Americans will open the border. But as Canadians we can build packing plant capacity so we are not dependent upon shipping live cattle across international borders. If there is a criticism of government or producer groups it is that there has been no progress in this area, even if they claim otherwise.

There is a case before the U.S. courts to stop the mandatory checkoff that their producers pay. I am kind of hoping that case is successful. Why? Because it would give us Canadian producers an advantage. I don't mind paying a checkoff but I do expect results. The CCA and government have a stated goal of increased packing plant capacity. We are still waiting...

[ivbinconned]

horse: I have never seen as much envy and loathing of your fellow man as we hear from you.
You can not build yourself up by pulling other people down.

[BFW]

KPB I think your frustration with producer groups is justified though I'm not sure the total elimination of them is the answer either. For the most part I believe that our organizations are made up of some deep thinking people who genuinely want to work to move the industry ahead however there are others that get involved because its better than driving a school bus though they are the minority in my opinion. I think that the reason that our organizations are ineffective on many issues and have even come to be irrelavant in many peoples minds is the way that they are structured. Take the ABP for example. It operates under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act which is provincial legislation overseen by the Agricultural Marketing Council who in turn report to the ag minister. This legislation in essence gives orgs like ABP the right to collect the checkoff and establishes parameters on how it must operate. Given the fact that the checkoff is mandatory the regulations that govern the ABP are fairly restrictive. The legislation also dictates zoning, how elections are conducted, who is eligible to be a delegate , what money can be spent on etc. The bottom line is I think that all this legislation prevents or at least hinders duly elected people from making decisions that they believe are in the best interest of the industry and as a result leaves many good people feeling that they are wasting their time. I also believe that the mandatory checkoff has created a sense of entitlement within the ABP that is responsible for many people thinking that the ABP is out of touch with producers. The ABP in my opinion views itself as a political organization and certainly we need some sort of liason to government however I believe that its primary role should focus on creating programs and ensuring that policy is created and set that ensures the economic well being and long term sustainability of the industry. Clearly we all have a role to play here and the low turn out at fall meetings proves that only a very low percentage of all producers actually are really engaged on many subjects. Remember, " democracy ensures that you are governed by no better than you deserve."

[intr3est]

had this discussion with Randy one day. Is there not a way to start say a CO-op/producer owned packing Association? Let some of our check off dollars go to a cause that is owned by the producers, willing to work for producers on a problem that will also be the solution! One question I've had all along about packing capacity, is who is monitoring this whole situation, as to not have what has happened in the past. too much capacity, in the wrong geographical area, etc.

[JD4ME]

Good Post BFW

[Horse]

ivbenconed If you can show me the difference betwen the lease holders and thier 100 mill subsidy that I have to compete with and your whining about que and thier handouts I will be glad to stop whining but I see no difference .
The Europeans give subsity to all thier producers and here in alta you have to have a grazing lease to get in on the dole just where is the difference when we are all after the same market, an I truly missing something here.

[ivbinconned]

Horse: you are whineing about the good fortune of your neighbors, I on the other hand (and there is a difference) am whineing about your Alberta government doing nothing about other govenments screwing you and your neighbors. There is a distinction!!

[blackjack]

bfw...you bring up the point where the ABP is overseen by the Agricultural Marketing Council who in return report to the Ag. Minister...who are these people and how to they get their position...thankyou in advance...

[cakadu]

Blackjack - for information on Marketing Council, try cutting and pasting the following link:

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/apmc2626

[farmers_son]

BFW correctly points out the ABP operates under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. The UPA operates under the Farm Producers Act, enacted in 1972, about the same time as the Agricultural Products Marketing Act came into existence in Alberta.

See: http://www.upa.qc.ca/eng/about_us/bit_of_history.asp for a history of the UPA.

See: http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/p-28/20050211/whole.html for the text of the Farm Producers Act.

See: http://www.upa.qc.ca/eng/about_us/overview.asp for an overview of the UPA. The UPA represents all of Quebec’s 44,000 farm producers. The UPA is the sole voice speaking on behalf of all Quebec farmers.

The UPA has always been directed and controlled by farmers. Some 3,500 of them, all democratically elected, assume various functions as directors within the UPA’s structure, which comprises local syndicates and regional federations as well as specialized unions and groups and the confederation.
The General Congress is the UPA’s most representative managing structure. Delegates representing all regional and specialized components meet once a year to decide on the UPA’s general directions and official policies. Every two years, delegates also elect the organization’s leading managers (President General, 1st and 2nd Vice Presidents General).