Are we in a free country still?

[brian99]

Grassfarmer, good to see your letter being published. What should the format for responses from ABP be? A long winded article in Cattlemen makes the most sense I guess.
I knew ABP was becoming a club, I guess Alberta Beef is as well. Is that how you get your picture in that mag, join the club???

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son,
In case you didn't notice the Alberta Beef magazine is still refusing to publish it so I will stand by my accusation that ABP does attempt to censor media that is not favorable to them. Perhaps the tentacles don't reach as far as Winnipeg.
As you say I have no fear of admitting to being an NFU member - shame ABP reps aren't so forthcoming. And no, I'm not attempting to increase the NFU's membership, like much of their membership I'm too damn busy trying to fight for producers interests whether it be against ABP, the AltaLink powerline project or the oilfield waterflood projects.
The ABP of course doesn't have that problem, being funded lavishly by a compulsory producer checkoff - hence my point in the letter about extending "marketing choice" to the beef industry.

I'm pleased that you enjoy a good discussion on free speech. Shame it doesn't extend to answering my questions above, some of which concerned denying other peoples rights to free speech.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer: I always appreciate your posts and your different way of doing some things. I bet I have even changed the way I do some things on my farm as a result of your sharing how you operate. However on this subject we may have to just disagree.

I have written more than a few Letters to the Editor. It has never occurred to me that if a letter did not get published it was because some one or something had intervened and pressured the publisher not to print my letter. I simply thought the letter was not very good or that the person in charge did not find the issue important or interesting.

I read back and found the questions I think you wanted me to answer. I do not share your sense of, for want of a better word, paranoia on these matters. On some points I agree with Big-C as I agree with you. I personally do not support Big-C on the issue of BSE testing although I know some people do.

The packer inquiry was quite a while back. If you recall, between the time that BSE was discovered and live cattle trade resumed with the U.S. the Canadian cattle industry was in a crisis. Everyone, governments, producer groups, individuals were struggling. Producers are still struggling but 2003-2005 was very, very uncertain. I am looking ahead to the future as Rule 2 is published and will soon be implemented. It is easy to go back and point fingers and say this should have been done or that could have been different (and I wish I had done some things different myself) but the reality was we all got through it as best we could. To get through that period was really a remarkable achievement for the entire industry. I do not see much value on rehashing the past.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son,
So that is a YES to backing 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.

YES to backing the ABP stance of supporting the findings of the packer profiteering "inquiry".

NO COMMENT on supporting their stance on not allowing a leader of another farm producer organisation to attend a press conference revealing those results?

OK at least now you have confirmed your stance. You may call it paranoia but do you remember back when Cam Ostercamp first came into the spotlight with "Behind the Veil of Silence" his first article? The place most of us read it first was on the personal website of Lee Gunnerson, of the Alberta Beef magazine. That was until it was hastily removed - rumor has it on the "suggestion" of a senior ABP official. Whether it was on ABP orders or the magazines owners orders we will never know - but there is enough of a stink there to make me suspicious of both of them.

[farmers_son]

Please do not put words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

I do think you are being a bit too suspicious, without cause. I think the fact that you originally were suspicious of the Cattleman not printing your letter because of some evil plot by the ABP backs up that view. Now the Cattleman magazine is OK but Alberta Beef is a puppet. That line of reasoning just does not hold water. You wrote a letter to the editor, some get printed some do not. That is all there is to it and the sky is not falling.

I can say this discussion has convinced me that the ABP should not print defeated resolutions. Someone with an axe to grind could get a resolution moved and seconded then passed at a fall meeting with only a handful voting for it. The resolution would not get passed the AGM but the deed would be still done. Instead of resolutions being intended to move the industry forward resolutions would become propaganda tools used by whatever was the disgruntled group of the day.

Say grassfarmer...have you stopped beating your wife yet? No? Well it is about time you did.

You get the point.

[grassfarmer]

Whaaaaaaaaaaatttttt?

[rkaiser]

I guess you found old farmer_son's button there grassfarmer. We all loose it at some point and say something utterly ridiculous, but that one farmers_son, takes the cake.

[farmers_son]

I'm sorry...I thought everyone was familiar with the have you stopped beating your wife or have you stopped kicking your dog question. You create a situation where no matter how the question is answered (or the resolution is approved or defeated) you end up guilty. Perhaps a bad analogy. Some resolutions may not warrant the press coverage they might receive if all defeated resolutions where published.

[grassfarmer]

rkaiser, I wasn't so much shocked at the offensive wife beating remark as the rest of the post. The conclusion after all the debate that "defeated resolutions should not be printed". The "Someone with an axe to grind" could be a regular producer with an original or different idea which a few of his fellow producers agreed on enough to get the resolution passed at a Fall producer meeting. "The resolution would not get passed the AGM but the deed would be still done." - THE DEED? - an idea coming from a producer(you know it's dangerous if them producers start coming up with ideas!)
So it's clear from this that resolutions from producers will not be approved unless the ABP dictators, sorry directors, personally approve them first. A democracy in reverse. Not content with this the defeated DEEDS must then be concealed from fellow producers lest they read them and think they were a good idea too.
Your attempts to prove that ABP are not an anti-democratic organisation are failing farmers_son. In my opinion you are just proving my case even further.

[coppertop]

farmers_son, your foolish 'wife beating' commente is unacceptable and certainly clouds all the excellent comments you have made over the time I have read your posts on this site. There is NOTHING funny about abuse, whether it is one's wife or dog that are on the receiving end !!

Grassfarmer made some excellent points in his letter, the membership and producers across the province should be able to read defeated resolutions, and if they are moved at a subsequent zone meeting and passed perhaps they will make it throught a second ABP process.

The key issue here as I see it, is the powers that be at ABP aren't really listening to the rank and file, only their own select few. This is not the way good organizations should operate, but as long as producers are content to sit on their collective rear ends and not take advantage of their right to vote at producer meetings, we will never have any change in direction at ABP.

[farmers_son]

I did say I was sorry. And Grassfarmer has made some good comments which is what made the discussion thought provoking for me.

This will be my last post on this thread. I can do no better to explain my point of view. Grassfarmer is suggesting the ABP should not only publish the passed resolutions but the defeated resolutions as well. On the surface this would seem to be a very reasonable request.

If I may, I will use this example. This is a public forum so I do not want to be too specific but please consider this.

Without going into details, a group of PETA supporters could form a majority at a fall meeting that was not well attended. Acting together, a number of resolutions could be passed perhaps something like this:

"Be it resolved that Alberta cattle producers stop torturing their animals." Now these resolutions would obviously not get passed at the AGM but if Grassfarmer was successful in his quest to have all defeated resolutions published the ABP would be duty bound to publish the fact that Alberta beef producers do not want to stop torturing their animals. No organization is going to put themselves in such a position. Producers sometimes need to be careful what they ask for because they just might get it. Another way to say that is the gods punish us by granting our wishes. There are often unanticipated consequences to what would seem to be, on the surface, very reasonable requests.

I apologize again for using what I thought was a very common example of what is called a loaded question. Please take the time to check out this link as it describes how loaded questions (or in this instance loaded resolutions) can be used to spread misinformation in the press and why any organization would never place itself in the position of having to publish questions or resolutions that were defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions

I try to make a point of being considerate of people’s opinions and never being rude or offensive to anyone. I am very sorry if some readers feel I have fallen short of that goal.

And yes ABP is not perfect but ABP is the industry leader and does a lot of good work too even if it is not appreciated by all.

[WilIow-Kreek]

No problem farmers_son.I have heard that expression lots of times and you explained it well.Ol'coppertop wants to be the language cop but if you read the whole thread there is no need for anyone to get their knickers in a knot.