What should our groups have done?

[blackjack]

... add me to the group of complainers... the post by rkaiser and kpb hit the nail on the head...

[grassfarmer]

My thinking has changed on this ABP/CCA deal in recent months. Yes, I agree with all the comments rkaiser and kpb make about them but they have acted this way because the majority of producers let them. Last Fall producers should have had 400 members at every meeting, enough to pass every resolution that the majority of "producers" actually want. With that in hand we could have sent a delegation of 1000 to the AGM, even if it was only to stand outside the building and attract media attention to the fact that this group does not always act in it's members interests.
We are lucky to live in a democracy it's a shame that the majority of Canadian beef producers don't appreciate that or are too lazy to act on it.
I'm with you guys that have been active throughout this crisis but my frustration is toward the majority of beef producers who have remained inactive - they are the ones that are to blame for ABP acting the way it does. They are also the ones that are promising to invest in a new producer owned packing plant - not now - but the day it is up and running. That way they don't risk a cent, meanwhile they will be the first to settle for any higher prices achievable by shipping live cattle across the border.

[Willowcreek]

ABP, CCA, NCBA, CFIA, USDA, and the bureaucrats and politicians of both countries are all bought,paid for, and sleeping in the bed of the same people-- The AMI, Cargills, Tysons, and multinational corporations....There will be no change until the producers realize this... Big-C gave Canadians another alternative, but it appears they do not want to change...They want to forever live in the shadow of the US and ride upon the backs of the US producer and the US's continuing trade agreements- which will get even more interesting when Cargil, Tyson, and the boys get there investments in Australia, Central and South America up and running full speed...

[cowman]

So I wonder, for all the people who put up cash for feasability studies etc., if you got good value for your buck?
Or was it just a few more bucks tossed out the window and a sweet job for some snake oil salesman?
Are any of these schemes still going ahead or are they basically garbaged? I thought the plant at Sherwood park was supposed to break ground in March as they stated they had aquired the land, had the financing in place etc.?
So what was the final tally of all this "Canadian expansion"? Well we know Cargill/IBP moved ahead, and definitely Sunterra, and Ed Paull got the Salmon Arm plant up and running...but what others? What happened to the NGC plant at Pincher Creek?
I would suggest that maybe the majority of cattle producers weren't all that wrong to avoid putting their hard earned dollars into new packing ventures? Sort of like...How smart is it to build a general store besides Walmart? Cargill and IBP eat little packers just like Walmart does Mom and Pop stores!

[grassfarmer]

I think you have identified the runners Cowman, apologies if there are any others currently building that i'm unaware of but these are the plants I know about: As I understand it the Ranchers Own (Spruce Grove) was scuppered when Cargill bought out Caravelle(sp?)Foods. This value adding plant was going to be a market for a lot of the OTM beef.
Peace Country Tender Beef in Dawson Creek are short of money / members. The existing members contributed a minimum stake of $600 but they are now being asked to cough up another $1500 each, to add to some Government money to get moving. A tough sell in the current climate.
The Bentley boys, as rkaiser calls them, are at $18 million - they need $30 million to buy Nillsons. A long way off and at the end of the day this changes ownership of a plant rather than create new capacity.
TK ranch (Biggs)have also fallen well short of their $5 million target for a Federal / organic certified plant at Hanna. I hear they are rethinking the proposal and might aim for a smaller plant instead.I really would like to see this one built as they have 10 years experience of selling high end beef and seem great business people.
Cowman, I would suggest that the majority of producers were very wrong not to invest in producer owned plants - it is the only way I can see to break the packer monopoly and give producers a long term chance of controlling their destiny.

[rkaiser]

Gotta correct you on one grassfarmer. Ivan Boles, with the Spruce Grove group came out to a conference I attended last week and dispelled rumors of them folding. Concern over the Better Beef takeover caused one creditor to back down, but that has not stopped their forward movement.

[rkaiser]

rkaiser, my comment about complaining at Zone meetings is a result of attending many of them and hearing complaining about issues that aren't nor should be a priority. Last fall the producer meetings should have been attended by every cattleman and woman that had a ride to the hall. Complaining about no free dinner, and how much it costs ABP to run their office were ticking folks off that came to hear good proactive suggestions.
Randy, I have never referred to you as a complainer, and I know you have put forward positive ideas which unfortunately didn't get the support they should have .
Many or of the resolutions at the meetings I attended should have been on the cutting room floor at first reading because they didn't make much sense. I can recall one that ordered ABP to DIRECT the Provincial Government to do something or other. Most common sense thinkers realize that no one commodity organization can DIRECT the government to do anything.

Of the resolutions that came out of the meetings I attended I would say that 25% of them were workable, well thought through resolutions that ABP should have supported.
Attentance at the ABP annual meeting where the resolutions are voted upon should be part of the follow up for anyone proposing a resolution at a producer meeting. I have spoken to resolutions that I had brought forward at our Zone, at the ABP AGM. It should be the right of every producer to be available at the AGM to provide clarification of their resolution if they wish.
This fall I hope that each of you continue to put forward resolutions that are well thought out, and that you encourage your neighbours and colleagues in the industry to attend the meetings to support your resolutions. Once resolutions pass at the zone level the mover should follow them up and keep in contact with the ABP resolutions committee to learn when they will be debated by the delegates.

[grassfarmer]

I share some of your frustrations emrald1 - I also heard the one complaining of no free lunch! Reality is though cattle producers are of all abilities and many viewpoints. What seems important to one producer might not be to his neighbour. Also most producers are not amateur politicians gifted in the art of wording resolutions. I would put myself it that category. Still the producer that speaks at a Fall producer meeting, however silly his proposal, is worth 100 producers that stay home. The danger of condemning people for making poor resolutions is that it disuades them from attending meetings in future. In an ideal world we would get very high attendance by producers with enough articulate members to move sensible resolutions and the average producer could back the ones that made sense to him. How we get to that point is beyond my current imagination.

[grassfarmer]

grassfarmer,believe me there are many politicians who aren't articulate when it comes to developing or speaking to resolutions. I get frustrated when there are many people who express concern about an organization, and don't take the initiative to have a discussion with their counterparts and present a united front on specific issues when they have the opportunity. I am sure that you are perfectly able to be a spokesperson for such a group of producers, and taking that step at a meeting this fall, and ensuring that whatever 'heat' a specific group wishes to put on ABP, is kept on until results ensue would be a very positive step.

I am not an ABP advocate, and hopefully no-one is under the impression that I am, changes can be made to any organization if enough people back the same issue. When ABP looks at the resolutions, they categorize them and then go through them to see which ones should receive priority. It is unfortunate that there isn't a process where resolutions endorsed at one zone meeting can be carried forward to the next meeting in the same zone and so on, and if the resolution receives an overwhelming vote of support throughout one particular zone it obviously should get the support of the ABP whose who !!

This process is similar to how resolutions are forwarded to the AAMD C Executive. First they are passed by one municipal council, then they are supported at a Zone of AAMD C ( which is usually comprised of 13-14 municipalities) then the resolution goes to the convention floor.

[cowman]

The thing that was really frustrating, in my opinion, was the cavalier attitude ABP had towards BIG C, which I would consider a real grassroots movement? Just sort of dismissed them as a bunch of kooks or something?
I believe Ostercamp had thought this thing through pretty thoroughly and I believe he pretty well had a solution? I didn't agree entirely with the concept of one big cow plant, but still it was the best solution available?
I wonder what would have happened if the ABP had let actual producers decide if they wanted to explore the possibility of a producer funded cow plant? Maybe put out a questionaire/plebicite sort of thing to everybody who sold cattle? If the majority of the producers saw value in the concept, then how could the various governments refuse to let it happen? Instead of letting the producers decide, the powers that be just dismissed BIG C as a bunch of radicals who knew nothing?
Now I will admit I never joined BIG C, as I was exitting the cow business, but the boy is a member.

[cowman]

One more thing...Hopefully the group in Bently won't come up with enough money to buy that dog XL! That whole outfit should have gone down a long time ago? The plant at Calgary was a loser back in the eighties when the Alberta government poured more than $40 million dollars into it! Of all the Canadian Packers that went down after Cargill came to town, that one should have been the first to go? Instead the Alberta government gave it away to Nillsons while eating the $40 million! The plant at Moose Jaw was a modern CP plant that was every bit as good as anything Cargill built, but the Calgary plant was a relic that should have been bulldozed!

[cowman]

Perhaps a resolution should be put forward this fall at a Zone meeting requiring ABP to poll producers on the benefits of Big C . If there is a hall full of producers at the zone meeting where it is put forward and a similar resolution is brought forward at each zone meeting, then followed through it should get results. Even with the border open the Big C concept should still have merit.