What should our groups have done?

[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.

[rkaiser]

There was a resolution passed at the Rimbey ABP town hall meeting last spring calling for exactly that emerald. Passed with flying colors at the producer meeting and dumped by the directors even before it could be put in front of the semi annual.

I presented the resolution.

Good Luck

[sagewood]

Some of you people seem to have more knowledge of the inner workings of the ABP convention/delegates than I have, but I have to ask the question...why are ABP or their counterparts in other provinces against building one decent-sized cow slaughter facility somewhere in one of the prairie provinces? Previously, I understood that bulls/cows from the southern part of Ab. (and presumably Sask./Man) went to the slaughter plant in N. Dakota. I have heard that one of the N. Dakota plants was bought, dismantled and moved to Man. Is this plant up and running yet, and when it is, will it slaughter the OTM animals or will it be a steer/heifer UTM plant? I understand that at this time, the plants still have to pick which group they will slaughter in order to avoid 'contamination' from one age group to the other. I agree with all of you who say that we MUST end our focus and reliance both on the American slaughter capacity and their market for our beef. They will never let the border get back to normal from our side--their animals are going to come north for sure, and they will kill their animals first, as was seen in the past with Cargill. Also, the R-CALF boys will take advantage of this and start buying calves at fire sale prices up here, fattening them in their own feedlots and then filling up all the slaughter capacity on this side of the border with their own cattle. Once again, somehow, we need to get more slaughter capacity for the Canadian-owned cattle. I know it is not cheap to get into being a partner in a slaughter plant, but why oh why cannot the very wealthy Ab. government build the plant and then let us pay for it over time on a per animal basis. At least that way the Ab. taxpayer will get their money back, unlike the most recent big payments to Tyson and Cargill that took over $40M of our hard-earned dollars and gave it to their American shareholders. There are lots of us in the business who would support such a plant, but given the economics of this time, just cannot come up with $100,000 to put into a share of a plant. Just to have $100,000 in the bank is no small feat in this time in ag. with the drought just one year behind us and the double whammy of BSE issues for over 2 years. Well that was a long disertation, just to ask one question..

[grassfarmer]

Emrald1, things should happen the way you lay them out in your last scenario but the problem is lack of producer interest. Having a good turnout and passing a sensible resolution at one meeting in a zone is worthless if it is not repeated across the zone and across the province. This has been our downfall and is why the ABP is not seen as democratic. It is up to every producer to get out and demand change.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, The fact that the various producer organizations have done nothing to improve the lot of the average cow-calf producer should not, as you have suggested several times, be laid at the foot of the producer. It is easy to claim, as both you and emerald have, that the impetus for change has to come from the grassroots producers but, in a democracy, this idea is fundamentally flawed.

Consider this, we elect various members of government and various producer group reps to represent us and forward what we all feel, as voters, are in our best interests. These reps, whether they be politicians or producer reps, then are charged with the resonsibility of instituting policies that will be of best advantage to us.

We do not expect our federal or provincial politicians to come back to us with a poll or referendum every time they put forward a policy. We expect them to act in a way that best reflects our interests. That is a valid and correct assumption--otherwise why bother electing anybody--we might just as well have a poll on every issue that comes forward.

Similarly, we also elect various producer reps to forward our interests. In addition we pay a type of tax (check-off) to these groups. So we have a right to expect these reps to act in our best interest. We should not have to "hold their feet to the fire" or call for a poll or attend meetings en masse to make proposals to them. These are our reps, they should be advocates for us, they should be putting forward policies that further our cause without us nagging them constantly.

Emerald you have repeatedly said on this forum that these producer groups need to hear from the grassroots producers and have proposals put forward to them. This, to me, is a complete misunderstanding of how the deomocratic process works. Do we need to continually put forward resolutions to our politicians in Ottawa or Edmonton about specific issues? Or do we expect, as our representatives, that they will do what is in our best interest? If the citizens cannot rely on their reps to act, and will only be content when every issue is taken to a referendum, very, very, few actions will ever be taken.

Our industry reps ran for office, presumably, because they wanted to be leaders, not followers. It is not too much to ask that they assume a leadership role, not one of following. They ran for office of their own free will but with the assumption of power comes also responsibility. I submit to you, grassfarmer, that these reps have not acted as leaders in our current crisis and have not submitted any constructive proposal to add to the domestic slaughter capacity in this country which is widely regarded by observers both in the industry and ourside, as our main problem.

Adding slaughter plants is not an obscure concept--it's one that is generally accepted as a way out of our mess by most observers. So why is it that these producer reps are not only strangely silent on this issue but, as rkaiser has pointed out, actively oppose even the consideration of such a plan. Does this indicate leadership to anyone?

Emerald, you have challenged the grassroots producers to come up with proposals that will work their way through the bureaucracy of the producer groups. rkaiser has repreatedly told you of his frustrated efforts to do just that and the opposition of the status quo to any new ideas. But shouldn't the producer groups themselves be the ones who lead, who come up with the new ideas, who take the proposals back to the members?

grassfarmer, do you think as individual citizens we should be drawing up health care policy, or trading practices or international affairs? No, we elect people that we think will devote their efforts to furthering our best interest in these areas. The same should be the case with our producer group reps who were also elected to further our best interests.

I think that blaming the grassroots producer for the fact that our producer groups have done zip to help us control our future plays right into the hands of these groups. They were elected by us, they have a responsibility to represent us and our interests. Their lack of leadership and initiative is the real problem here, not inaction on the part of the grassroots producers.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

I stand by what I said kbp. You said "Consider this, we elect various members of government and various producer group reps to represent us and forward what we all feel, as voters, are in our best interests."
Problem is the majority of producers DO NOT elect anyone to ABP because they can't be bothered to attend the meetings. If the 5% that show up are either dyed in the wool ABP supporters or clowns bitching about the lack of a free meal producers are the ones to blame when the organisation doesn't represent the producers views. I don't like the current ABP leadership any more than you do kbp but lazy producers are to blame for it being a lame duck organisation.

[grassfarmer]

if producer groups take the lead and push their own agenda they will be accused of not listening to producers !
Who is the ultimate winner or loser when industry groups lobby government ? I view it as the producer, and if the producer wants things done a specific way then they need to get up off their collective butts and ensure that the group that represents their interests is doing their bidding.
As far as formulating resolutions goes, for the one that passed in Rimbey regarding Big C to get anywhere up the line it needed support of every zone in the province. That is where in my opinion producers aren't showing support for each other's initiatives. I have presented resolutions at zone meetings, done my homework well ahead of time and ensured I had producer support prior to presenting the resolution. I then went to my ABP delegate and made damn sure they knew that the producers of this zone EXECTED them to support the resolution at the AGM. I contacted several of the ABP executive to discuss the intent of the resolution and then indicated that I wanted a minute on the AGM agenda to speak to the resolution when it was to be voted upon. The ABP resolutions committee decided to break the resultion into two parts, one of which I spoke to, the other was spoken to by our Agricultural Fieldman. We had no problem with the entire process, but then we took the initiative, and didn't wait for someone else to do so.
kgb, your comment about the public having to assist government in forumlating resolutions, is interesting. Government polls the public on numerous issues prior to implementing legislation and base much of what the legislation contains on the feedback they receive.When 10% of the public take time to respond then the views of that 10% will likely be considered public opinion.
Municipal councils go to public hearing on any issue that requires a by-law, so there is continual opportunity for public input. As grassfarmer says, the number of people that really take an interest in what is going on within organizations and governments whose decisions affect their livelihood is dissappointing.
I have served in public office for many years and unfortunately most of the public have the same opinion you seen to have, they feel that they elected their representative to make decisions, however, when the decision isn't what THEY expect they sure know how to B---!

I was brought up with the mindset that 'you' are the community, IF the community needs to get something done, then get off your rear and help get it done. If somebody needs to speak out on an issue, find out what the issue is, what the ramifications of it are, and get your facts straight and then speak out, but make sure you are representing the wishes of the majority before you do. In other words stand for something and don't always 'let george do it'.

[rkaiser]

Oh my Goodness emerald, don't say "George". Look at what that did to the good old USA.

I agree that resolutions need to be passed at numerous meetings to get the attention of the board of directors of ABP.

Guess it's time for BIG C to formulate a well thought out resolution and start recruting folks like yourself, that seem to like the idea, but have not brought it up in their own zone.

Ther was a group of us last fall who pushed like hell, and had a number of resolutions passed in different zones concerning research into alternative theories concerning BSE. One was passed in three zones, defeated. However one of the others was only passed in one zone and was carried at the annual meeting.

"Be it resolved ABP request the U of A center for Prion and Protein Disease Research include and determine the validity of Mark Purdey's theory on BSE and CWD."

Is it truely up to producers to organise to bring forward positive direction emerald? Thought that was the reason for ABP in the first place.

I'm siding with kpb on this one guys.

[kpb]

emerald, your comments about the municipal governments really only serve to make my point. When we elect people to represent us, whether in government or in industry groups, those people are supposed to represent us and make decisions on our behalf.

You know this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Our government is based upon direct representation, not polling on every issue. This is Political Science 101 and I'm amazed that you say you have served in municipal office and did not know this. If we are to go to a system that requires the common citizens of this country to initiate and push every issue, as you seem to favor, then why have representatives at all?

Both you and grassfarmer have made the point that a very low percentage of people attend producer group meetings, vote, etc. This may be disappointing but it is irrelevant in this discussion. The fact is that the ABP reps were voted in by a majority of those who voted and so have the responsibility to represent the best interests and put forward the best policies for all producers.

The lack of voter interest also occurs at municipal elections. In the last Calgary election, only about a quarter of the people voted. And Calgary badly needs a new traffic plan. Do you expect every Calgary citizen to sit down and draw a new traffic control system for the city or do you expect these aldermen, albeit with in some cases less than 25% of the voters voting for them, to carry out their responsibilities and fix the roads? No reasonable person expects the citizens to solve problems that they elected politicians to address.

Finally, your comments about people complaining about the producer groups if they actually did something they didn't like or complaining that if the groups actually led the way instead of following they were not listening to producers are typical. They are typical of an apologist for a bunch of producer groups who have taken our money, been duly elected and done nothing to help resolve the biggest crisis we have ever faced.

To blame the average producer when the producer groups that were elected by those producers did absolutely nothing, in fact got in the way of positive discussion, is reprehensible. These groups are charged with the duty of representing our best interests---that is not happening.

kpb

[farmers_son]

Nominations are open for ABP delegate. Why not consider running as delegate this fall. See: http://www.albertabeef.org/news.asp?newsindex=286

Nominations are open for Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) delegate and cattle feeder council delegate positions. Elections will be held at over 35 fall producer meetings hosted throughout the province in late October and early November.

"We’d like to encourage producers to put their names forward and help provide leadership to the industry during this difficult time," says Millie Boake, a pure bred and commercial cow/calf producer from Rocky Mountain House and chair of the ABP producer liaison committee.

"I think it’s very important that producers actively work to address the challenges before the industry," adds Boake. "We need new people with new ideas so we can meet these challenges and help lead the industry to better days."

Nominations are open to any producer who has during the current, or immediately preceding year, sold cattle in his or her name and has paid a check-off fee to ABP, or to another person on behalf of ABP.

All nominations must be received, faxed or post marked before 12 midnight, August 31st. Nomination forms are available from the ABP office (403) 275-4400, or from the ABP website www.albertabeef.org.