Montana Govenor Wants Independent Inspection of Live Cattle

[farmers_son]

Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer says all Canadian cattle passing through Montana will require an examination by a veterinarian, to determine whether they are younger than 30 months, not pregnant and have the 'CAN' brand. He says his state will impose inspections fees of between $3 and $5 per head on the Canadian cattle going through his state.

Now whether this ever happens or not is not as important as what it says about the politics of international trade in live cattle and the mood of the Montana cattle producer.

Boxed beef from Canada, processed through American owned packers, did not earn nearly so much attention from Governor Schweitzer. Why all the fuss about live cattle?

Obviously Governor Schweitzer feels he can gain political brownie points by grandstanding on live cattle crossing the border. There is a lesson here for Canadian producers who may be inclined to ease up on increasing packing plant capacity on this side of the border. The need for those plants is as great now as it was 2 weeks ago.

Producers on both sides of the border need to refocus their attention and pay more attention to the packers. Canadian producers are no more a source of competition than the producer in the neighbouring state or even across the fence. And one thing that has been made clear as a result of BSE is the fact that Canadian producers are not going away. The Canadian cattle producer is here to stay and so is the U.S. producer. The challenge for producers on both sides of the border is how to get paid a fair price from the packers, not how to drive their neighbour out of business because frankly that is not going to happen.

Montana producers need to realize that by continuing to encourage his states producers to focus on live Canadian cattle instead of dealing with the important issue of packer dominance of the cattle industry Governor Schweitzer is doing Montana producers a disservice. Montana producers need to very carefully consider who ultimately is benefiting from this inspection, and I bet it is the packers.

[madcow]

f_s, you've likely seen this CCA update already,but maybe some of the other producers haven't.Those(U.S.) guys just won't quit,it's either the politicians,producers ,judges or a combo pack.

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: BSE Update


Yesterday the Montana Governor issued a news release in Montana indicating that he would be requiring cattle going into Montana from Canada to be re-inspected for the same things that USDA is currently inspecting for – age, pregnancy, tags and brands. His statement also indicated the Governor’s Office is reviewing applicable statutes regarding the interstate shipment of cattle through Montana. In an AP news story he is quoted as saying that the owners of the cattle will be required to pay for the re-inspection and that he will urge governors in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming to take similar action.



The Federal Government is looking into the issue further.



CCA has had a call from Broadcast News on this issue so additional media coverage can be expected. We are saying that additional attempts to disrupt trade are not unexpected, and further illustrate why our recovery strategy emphasizes taking control of our own destiny through such aspects as increasing slaughter capacity in Canada. Attempts to disrupt trade such as this only encourage us to continue down the road of becoming a stronger competitor in international beef markets.



Cindy McCreath

Communications Manager

Canadian Cattlemen's Association

403-275-8558

fax 403-274-5686

Daily updates on the current situation available at www.info-cca.ca

[farmers_son]

I hadn’t seen that, thanks for that paste.

This kind of open protectionism and political posturing does lend support for increased packing plant capacity in Canada. It serves as a good reminder of why those efforts need to continue.

Any time we see politicians of any stripe take positions that drive down the live price of cattle anywhere in North America we need to question why that is happening. Whether you live in the U.S. or Canada our direct competition is the big packers. If something drives down the live price the big packers are the ones who benefit. When producers loose money, the packers save on their number one input. Whether you are a producer in Montana or Alberta it is in your best interest to see government policies that strengthen the live cattle price in North America. And by default, that takes away from packer profits.

Montana producers need to wake up and smell the coffee. Why is the Montana governor trying to drive down live cattle prices? Why isn’t the Montana Governor taking on the packers if he wants to help Montana cattle producers? Montana voters need to think long and hard on that.

[madcow]

f_s I hope some U.S.producers read your comments.May get them asking some "real" questions asto who has their best interest's at heart.We really are a north american industry and the cow/calf guy has an up-hill battle against packer prices no matter which flag we camp out under.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should pursue packer capacity in Canada as our number 1 priority. I assume that you would agree with me that this needs to be alternate packer capacity - not the monopoly compounding expansions we have seen to date?
Sadly this is not happening - I attended a packing plant proposal update meeting the other night and it is clear they are struggling - like every other proposal they have signed up members but are still well short of enough to get going. They are "only" $2 million short but if each new member brings in a $600 stake they may as well be $200 million short of their target in the current climate.
The mood of producers seems to have changed in the last couple of weeks with many believing the "good old days" are back with an open border and increasing prices.
As producers we really are being stupid by refusing to work together and for a common goal. I sympathise with BIG-C for all the effort and time they put into their cause. I similarily sympathise with these guys trying to build packing plants. All these efforts could have borne fruit and succeeded in their aims if only producers had worked together instead of pursuing their pig headed stubbornness masquerading as "free enterprise thinking and independant Western spirit"
I even sympathise with the ABP/CCA delegates although I have condemned them many times in the last two years.
We are in a mess - perhaps we are in an even bigger mess now than we have been throughout the last two years. Time will tell, but I am frustrated that for all the talk and posturing by producers we have in reality done nothing to help ourselves. If we won't help ourselves why should anyone else?

[kpb]

grassfarmer, I think your reasoning is correct but your conclusions are not. The reason that the domestic plants were not able to attract funding are quite plain. These plants are not attractive economically on a long-term basis against the multi's that have already established themselves here.

You cannot expect venture capitalists or farmers or ranchers to put dollars into enterprises that have a high risk profile over the next 10 years. The fact that many of these ventures were not able to attract funding is not indicative of apathy on the part of the ranchers but, rather, indicates the indisputable fact that these are very risky enterprises with a high chance of failure and loss of capital.

Having said that, we have always had the means of fighting the multi's in our grasp and that would be through our producer groups or, failing that, through government-sponsored programs. Unlike grassfarmer, I feel absolutely livid that the producer groups in this country have been terrible failures in our BSE crisis.

Consider this, our producer groups already have the means to be legitimite competitors to the multi's on the domesitic scene. They have the support of their producers, almost unlimited funding and high community and consumer profile. Most important they are supposed to be the collective voice of all producers and, as such, could provide unified competition to the multi's.

That they have come up with no concrete proposal to fight our biggest enemy--the multi-national packers--is a tragedy that I feel may eventually cost us our industry. Grassfarmer, I don't think you can expect individual farmers to invest in plants that have a high risk of failure because of the ongoing competition from the multi's. But if our producer groups could use a portion of our check-off to build a couple of big plants that would be able to compete head-to-head with the multi's and have the deep pockets to win a long war I believe that would go a long way to ensuring a good future for the cattle business.

Our producer groups have failed us over the past two years and continue to fail us through a lack of vision and indecision. They already have the means to help solve our problems but refuse to use them.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

I agree with most of that kbp, I have said many times that these plants are short of attracting venture capital because of the risk of predatory practises by the current packer monopoly. When I suggest that the Government needs to tackle this I, or the NFU, are ridiculed because we are socialists and such drastic things aren't needed here in the junior "land of the free" where free enterprise must always be allowed to prevail. Well you can't have it both ways - you either go out of business the way we are or you do something to tackle the problem.
As far as our industry organisations are concerned they have mostly been deplorable - but "they" are "us". If we are appalled at how they have conducted themselves we should be appalled at our own conduct. "They" won't build plants unless we want and persuade them to. Thus far we haven't even begun to speak with a concerted voice as to what we want. Twenty producers turning up at a Fall producer meeting is disgraceful and just won't cut it. People put a very low value on democracy in Canada.

[cakadu]

Not being directly involved in the cattle industry, I do not know how much is spent by the various groups i.e. ABP, CCA etc. in terms of a marketing budget on an annual basis. Would any of you happen to have even a rough idea of what is spent? What if some of that money was spent to look at building a plant or starting up something from a producer or grass roots perspective?

I know this week Minister Horner announced an additional $16 million to go to various projects and I believe $3 million of that was earmarked for new markets etc. While that may not be enough for a plant, that money could be used as a sizeable step towards something more positive for Albertans and for the beef industry as a whole because the value could and would be captured here.

I wonder what it will eventually be used to pay for? Any thoughts?

[cowman]

I suspect Switzer is just blowing smoke for the rednecks? Sort of how Ralph does it?
The fact is it is not necessary to ship cattle through Montana at all to get them to the big packing plants in Washington.
The reason more Canadian plants weren't built is the simple fact that they wouldn't have been able to cut it? We had an established packing business here pre-Cargill and they couldn't cut it...how are a bunch of Johnny come latelies going to?
With the Cargill/IBP expansions and an open border there just isn't enough cattle for any new packers...simple fact?
If there isn't enough money raising cattle in this scenario, then the answer is right there? Quit. No one is holding a gun to anybodies head here and forcing them to raise cattle?

[rkaiser]

Sorry cowman, cutting the mus turd is not the same now as it was back then. Cargil came in with new technology, and size. That was their advantage. We have/had the opportuntiy to do the same. How would things have looked if Canada would have played the trump card right off the bat. Told the world, "we will test for BSE if you desire". I beleive, and always have beleived, that this would have given incentive to investment money and we could have built the plants that would have shut the doors on the antiquated crap out at Brooks, and certainly the $hit hole that Neilsens are trying to sell the boys from Bently.

I could not agree with kpb more on his thoughts.

The majority did speak to ABP grassfarmer, the problem was, leadership for, what ever reason, did not listen.

Big C went to ABP one last time, about a month ago, with hopes once again. We talked of finacial support for a study, and possibly a consensus from producers. But mostly we talked of simple endorsement and support in our ongoing struggle with the federal government for a bridge financed loan.

We simply got a letter saying that ABP would not give us money for a study. A small part of our request but a very clear answer on where the board of directors of ABP stand.

Slap yourselves on the back boys, the border is open, Cargil is poised to take over 50% of the packing industry in Canada, and business is back to normal. I only hope that the packing initiatives begun over the last year, with little help from ABP/CCA, continue and cause at least a bit of competition for the market. Good on anyone who grabbed hold. Good on anyone who is taking part in post slaughter activity. And shame on those who simply saw the only way out as pre BSE status quo.

[Willowcreek]

In all the releases I have seen in Montana, they say that the cattle to be tested are those that are "destined" for the State of Montana- which will be few since Montana has no slaughter houses and few major feedlots... That said Montana already has laws requiring brand inspections and health inspections on all cattle coming into the state, moving within the state, and changing ownership- and further requirements on cattle coming from TB or Brucellosis areas (Texas and Wyoming are 2 I can think of)...There is also a growing statewide outcry to put restrictions on South Dakota cows because of their vibrio-lepto outbreak.. Since many of these laws and inspections are already required it probably would not be illegal to require additional inspections from a BSE higher risk country- especially with the track record of ineptness USDA has shown to date.....

I agree that much of this is just blow by the governor who is looking for more confrontations with the Bush administration- He's been on CNN 3 times in the 200 days since being elected. Nothing he would like more than to get more TV coverage of the issue and himself...

And from what I can see Canadian producers are smiling like a pig in sh**- going back to the status quo of before...They will be backslapping their ABP and CCA rep and again riding on the backs of US producers- while doing nothing to to have an industry of their own...

It is too bad no-one in the world, outside Canada, even knows that Canada produces good beef- It all has to pass thru the US and get the USDA stamp in order to be marketed.......

[rkaiser]

It's tough Willow creek, cause I agree with some of the things you say.

However "Higher risk country" Where the hell do you come up with this kind of crap. Just beacause Canada tests more of the cattle that are more likey to show signs of BSE, they found a couple more.

Give it a break Willow Creek. Don't try to mix your scientific mind with your protectionist one, your' playing with fire that might start that whiskey a burning.

Don't forget as well that producers in Canada do not sell beef. We surrender it on the hook to your very own American packers. The same American packers who your dear Rcalf assisted in profitting profusely in Canada to the point of expansion and an even larger market share.

Try to blame the Canadian producer for the one, you old fart.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: You are exactly right, the Canadian cattle could go through Washington to the Excel (Cargill) plant instead of the E.A. Miller plant in Hyrum, Utah. The E.A. Miller plant is one of Swift’s top ten U.S. packing plants and typically cattle going through Montana go to the Utah plant. Starting to get the picture… Now who do you think gave the most support to the Montana Governor’s election campaign, Cargill or Swift? These U.S. politicians are catering to the big packers, not the producers, by their protectionist actions. And the Montana cattleman is cheering as U.S. politicians promote policies that will see further packer concentration in their country. Producers on both sides of the border had better get a clear picture of just who the enemy is. Look in the dictionary under packing plants.

[Willowcreek]

Cowman- I doubt whether Cargill, or Tyson or Swift put a dime into the Governors election-they were pouring all their money into getting his competitor, Bob Brown who was pro big business all the way, elected.... But the common people who can't see why importing cheaper Canadian beef by the multinational corporations is legal, but importing cheaper Canadian or Mexican pharmaecuticals by the common person is illegal...

His nonconnection to big business and special interest groups money is what is being listed as the reason he is being touted as a possible Presidential candidate around DC now...

[Willowcreek]

Kaiser--"However "Higher risk country" Where the hell do you come up with this kind of crap. Just beacause Canada tests more of the cattle that are more likey to show signs of BSE, they found a couple more.

Give it a break Willow Creek. Don't try to mix your scientific mind with your protectionist one, your' playing with fire that might start that whiskey a burning." I have to keep that in there because nothings been proven yet!!!!

But I have to give you and Cam credit for being some of the only Canadians that actually see the whole picture IMO...

My question has always been- who pays for and how much does this Ted Haney fellow get paid? Looks like a big waste of someones money when everything is marketed thru the states as US product anyway on the backs of the US taxpayer who pays the USDA and US commerce Department to do all the trade negotiating!!