Are we in a free country still?

[jensend]

abp and the boys know that the correct strategy is just to be quiet and wait it out. they've done it for years now and it's worked real well for their masters. i can't believe that i'm still disappointed at how they do things.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son,
I still value free speech and part of that is having free press, not press that is controlled by Government, big business or private interest groups. The fact that Alberta Beef Magazine has a regular "grazing" feature written by someone from DowAgro Science is a good example. This is blatant advertising masquerading as unbiased advice and information.
I like Grainnews because they have at least remained impartial and print the thoughts of alternative thinkers like Cristoph Weder - people who really care about seeing ag producers making a successful living from the land without abusing the environment. Stockmangrassfarmer is also a model publication with regard to honest editorial and content.

I would disagree with your comment that I am talking about two issues - The fact that I think ABP should publish it's defeated resolutions is linked to the issue of editorial policy because as you say "that policy seems to be determined by the almighty buck." I would contest that ABP is using some of our levy bucks to buy control over what is written about them in the publications in question.

Yes I am proud to support the NFU - an organisation totally unlike the ABP. If I bring a matter of concern to the NFU it is taken up by them and they will lobby on my behalf. That is how a producer representative group should work. That is the basis of democracy.
If I raise a matter of concern to ABP at a Fall producer meeting by way of a resolution I have to fight tooth and nail for them to accept that I have a valid concern. If I'm lucky they may approve it but only for it to be dumped at the next round - the AGM. ABP should exist to represent it's members interests, not to follow an agenda set by a small numbers of controlling people that runs contrary to the wishes of the members.
Take the BIG-C initiative for example. In 2003 western producers came out in droves to support Ostercamp and Co - certainly far more people attended those rallies than have attended ABP fall meetings over several years combined. It was clearly the wish of western producers to support the aims of BIG_C yet to this day ABP leadership has fought a hard battle to absolutely deny the wishes of producers that they(ABP), as our accepted representatives, lobby Government to back the aims of the BIG-C group. Where is the democracy in that?

The most amazing thing I have ever seen in farm politics was the press conference announcement of the "investigation" results of the inquiry into packer profiteering back in 03 (or was it 04?) Now I don't think any western producer, even you farmers_son, would agree that there was no wrong done by the packers post BSE. The investigation was a joke, with the parameters of investigation carefully set so that the Alberta Government got the result it wanted. To have Shirley Mclellan sit there smugly and assert that nothing wrong had occurred was only topped by the spectacle of Arno Doerkson sitting beside her backing her up. How could ABP be taken seriously as a producer organisation after this travesty? It is clear that they were on the opposite side to producers interests. Of course, as I've mentioned before, the travesty of justice that occurred that day was topped off by an NFU leader being removed from the room by security on Shirley's request before he even spoke a word - again supported by Doerksen.
Time to wake up beef producers!! there was a farm leader that day prepared to stand up for your interests in front of the assembled media. He was silenced and we all stood by and let it happen. Shame on us!

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Farmers_Son,

I'm not actually looking for a rubber stamp at the AGM, but I do wonder how resolutions passed at a regional, producer level somehow don't make it through the AGM?

What I would envision for a Canadian producer organization is an umbrella organization with no individual voting, just the regions. As resolutions are passed at each region, they would be filtered to the other regions for member votes. At the AGM, those regions vote as their members have requested.

Each cow/calf producer, backgrounder, and feeder get one vote at their regional level, and no more than one vote. No votes would be given to non-producers, and no votes for any director or SIG.

Pure, outright, unadulterated democracy needs to come back to the CCA.

Rod

[bombay_43]

Just as an add on note to your post Diamond;

How many beef producers are aware that each and every 4-h member that raises just one beef, is also allowed to vote in ABP elections? In doing so, we are now having someone, who most certainly does not live off of cattle farming, and in many cases are acreage “dwellers”, dictating where our industry is going. By these same ABP rules, two partners, who’s sole income is from beef, carry only one ABP vote, if their cattle are all sold in the business’s name.

Go figure, why we have no say!

[grassfarmer]

Bombay, As long as only 2 or 3% of eligible producers choose to attend and vote at ABP meetings you can't really complain if a few 4H kids are eligible to vote, I doubt any of them would be interested in attending anyway. This whole organisation could be turned around in two years if 80% of beef producers attended the meetings and voted for change - the answer is in producers hands.

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, many 4-H members are already in college, and those that are taking Agricultural Marketing as part of their courses already have an idea of what ABP is about, and may very well excercise the opportunity to vote.

I know of two such young people in one family close to my home that have cattle, pay checkoff and are keenly interested in the politics of the beef industry. I doubt that they are alone in their concerns.

Apathy among producers has resulted in what ABP has become, and as long as that continues things won't likely change, so I for one, will be pleased to see some young people get involved in the process, perhaps they can haul a few of their parents along to the meetings.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer: You said “I still value free speech and part of that is having free press, not press that is controlled by Government, big business or private interest groups.”

While that may be an ideal, the term “free speech” only refers to a press that is not controlled by government. We operate in a free enterprise economy and the press is privately owned, most often with a profit motive. Magazines and newspapers have two sources of revenue, subscriptions and advertising and it would seem that if the paper wants to make money the editorial policy of the paper must pay attention to the sensibilities of both groups. I am sure if you advertised your cattle in a magazine that ran an article denigrating Luing cattle you would not be a happy camper and most likely you would not advertise in that magazine again. Would that make you against free speech, no. It is just free enterprise and you would just be looking after your interests.

We are fortunate to have Agri-ville as it is a true example of free speech.

It is good you have found a fit in the NFU. However I suspect the NFU might not lobby for my interests as I might look for more free enterprise solutions. Different strokes for different folks.

[coppertop]

Excellent comments farmers_son. The newspaper associations usually have a policy on letters to the editor, with regard to content, potential for libel suits etc.
If a publication prints a letter or article that results in legal action due to allegations of inflammatory content, the publication is on the hook as well because they chose to print the item. Sometimes only a few words or even a word in an article or letter will result in it not being printed.

[grassfarmer]

Coppertop, perhaps you could highlight the parts of my letter that you thought caused it not to be printed because of possible legal action?

Farmers_son, perhaps you would like to comment on the main part of my last post?
Do you back the ABP stance on not allowing any discussion or support being given to the BIG_C group despite this being the apparent wish of western producers?

Did you support the ABP stance of supporting the findings of the packer profiteering "inquiry"?

Did you support their stance on not allowing a leader of another farm producer organisation to attend a press conference revealing those results?

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, in my experience in dealing with the media, and having taken several media courses associated with a previous position I held I suspect that the following statement would have raised some concern.

" In truth I suspect the ABP were more interested in concealing the list of defeated resolutions from beef producers'.

I am certainly not for one minute being critical of your letter grassfarmer, I think it contains many statements that are valuable and certainly thought provoking. The reference to possible concealing of evidence from producers may have been the reason it wasn't printed. Perhaps it could have been worded somewhat like this " It is puzzling that ABP chose not to publish defeated resolutions when doing so would have assured the membership that the affairs of ABP are conducted with transparency".