Sopuck

“Concerned about the environment? Eat more beef!” by Robert Sopuck, Vice President Policy, Western Canada Delta Waterfowl Foundation It is indeed a pleasure to be here speaking to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. I live just south of Manitoba’s Riding Mountain National Park in a region that is dominated by beef production as part of a mixed agricultural system. We’re also close to a large national park; the only one, I believe, that is completely surrounded by agricultural land; land that is in the hands of hundreds of different landowners, each trying to make their way in a tough world economy; high grain prices notwithstanding. It’s a diverse place where a whole lot of different people with different agendas, demands, and needs are finding a way to “get along.” Throw in a National Park with all of the “baggage” that brings in and, well, let’s just say it’s complex. I don’t have to tell you folks from Alberta what a “blessing,” and a “burden,” national parks can be. On one hand they are great playgrounds for us “locals” but when you have a big chunk of federal land plunked down in your community you are all of a sudden subjected to “rule by far off Ottawa (to a certain extent anyway)” with all that this implies. And like other areas of Canada, Waterton park I believe, we are in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve which brings an international dimension to life in this area. And this is just part of the “public policy sea” that my cattle ranching neighbours have to navigate in; they are affected by all manner of government, market, and industry forces that can often determine whether you will succeed or fail. One good thing about our National Park (and to be fair there are many good things about RMNP) is that there is no shortage of off-farm employment should you and your family need a few bucks to tide you over. The reason why I recited the details of where I live is only to illustrate why it’s important for the cattle industry to be aware of society and the forces, both market and non-market, that are out there; each of which acting alone or in combination able to seriously affect how you do business. Take the TB issue in my area. If it were just a bunch of elk on one side and cattlemen on the other the issue would be easily solved. Get rid of the elk, clean up the TB, and then maybe reintroduce a “clean” herd of elk and re-establish the system. But such was not to be since the wholesale elimination of the elk (not that I am advocating that) would have required the shooting of thousands of the elk inside the Park. And how likely is that given the hue and cry that would have come from all parts of Canada? I think Alberta ranchers are facing a similar issue with brucellosis in bison in Wood Buffalo Park. How likely is that issue to be resolved solely in the cattleman’s favour. In Manitoba we settled on the solution of reducing the elk population by half using managed hunting as the tool. And it worked to a certain extent; we have half as many elk but TB is still there, although at a very low level. The point of this anecdote is that all of us in what I call the “Sustainable Use Community” need to be aware of our place in society and, more importantly, what that larger “outside world” can do FOR us and, more ominously, TO us. Long gone are the days when we can sit in splendid isolation, produce what we want from the land and have our customers, clients actually, buy it; buy it both in actuality and by not questioning what we do. Our problem is that we are vastly outnumbered and there are lots of groups who profit very well by attacking or

challenging us. For example we hunters and ranchers are on the hit list of the Humane Society of the United States, a group with an annual budget of 160 million dollars and, in spite of its name, with an increasing presence in Canada as evidenced by their office in Montreal. Other questions and criticisms come from “the usual suspects” like Greenpeace who say cattle are destroying the rainforests and contributing to global warming not to mention the “inefficiencies” of eating beef as opposed to consuming grain directly. Then there are the “condominium conservationists” who have little knowledge of how the natural world works and strive mightily to eliminate cattle grazing over vast swaths of North America. I used to be one of those “condominium conservationists,” that is until I bought my 480 acres south of Riding Mountain (always was a hunter and angler so I wasn’t all bad) and the local people patiently taught me a thing or 2 about how the world really works. And I came full circle becoming a strong advocate for sustainable use and active management of the landscapes. And that’s where cattle come in. As a conservationist (and my passion for conservation is getting stronger the older I get) I take very strong exception to anti-beef propaganda. Sure, like everything else, beef cattle production can be done in a manner that creates environmental damage but by-and-large there is no better way to both help the land AND produce food than a wellmanaged beef operation. BUT NOBODY OUTSIDE THE INDUSTRY REALLY KNOWS THAT. That’s because the anti-beef, indeed the whole anti-use community, is adept at generating media; media that influences that vast 80% of society, the “un-committeds,” who represent the bulk of our society. These folks don’t really know much about what “we” do on the land but are interested and open to suggestion. And the question for the beef industry is simple. Do you want to tell them about your industry or are you content to have others tell them for you? I know what you want, the former I’m sure, but like a lot of industries out there you are not really working at it. Which is understandable; up to a point anyway. You are busy people working in a multi-billion dollar industry in competition with other foods, beset by government policy and with one eye on a global market that holds great promise and great peril. So communicating with the larger Canadian society, with very long term and uncertain payoffs, gets relegated to the back burner. A case of the “urgent” overwhelming the “important.” But never forget that while you are “sticking to your knitting” the opponents of the beef industry, who have nothing else to do, are busily working to undermine you and indeed all of us in the sustainable use community. I am constantly amazed at how timid “industry” is as a group in terms of communicating with the public or taking on their critics. Why doesn’t industry “tell it like it is?” For goodness sakes, our quality of life, medical care, transportation infrastructure, education system and whatever else you can think of in terms of what makes up a modern society ALL depend on our ability to create wealth and that depends on “industry.” Not to mention all of the direct employment in various sectors of our economy. By the way, in terms of environmental quality the evidence is clear; modern and wealthy industrial societies do the best job of protecting and conserving the environment. And if

1

you don’t believe me, just think “Beijing air quality.” So when a sector gets attacked as an environmental villain why don’t they fire right back and talk about the positive contributions they make to the “good life” in Canada. Now opponents of this view call people like me “shills for industry” or “corporate stooges” or whatever insult they can think of without presenting a shred of counterbalancing evidence. As an ecologist I firmly believe that environmental conservation is vital to our health and well-being and that we still have many problems out there to deal with such as the tailings ponds at the Oil-sands, wetland loss in Prairie Canada, groundwater contamination in PEI and on it goes. But only wealthy industrial societies have the wherewithal to tackle such issues. I used to be environmental director at a newsprint mill just at the time when the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations went into effect and we all had to build modern and effective wastewater treatment plants at a cost of about 25 million dollars per mill. Sure we were conscious of the cost but all mills complied and we all ended up with cleaner water. I wonder how many paper plants in “emerging economies” have such sophisticated water treatment technologies.

thought. Haven’t heard from those mayors anymore have we, now? My point is that pro-active communications are far better than reactive communications and furthermore, it’s a lot better playing offense that defense. Now let’s turn to the cattle industry where people still think that an “engineering” solution is the ultimate answer. Don’t get me wrong, adopting and improving “best management practices” is crucial. When you say that you are producing beef in an environmentally sound manner you better have the facts to back it up. So keep doing what you are doing in terms of water protection, biodiversity conservation, and good soil management. But, as I hope you appreciate, just “doing the right thing” is not enough anymore; and only telling the rest of society what it is you are doing is also not enough any more. You must become strategic, effective and smart communicators using messages that not only resonate with “beef industry insiders” but with society at large. As a self-professed “science guy” I am a big fan of research and it’s no different in the communications game. It is crucial that we develop and test a variety of messages to determine which ones work and which ones don’t. A while ago I was part of an effort to develop key messages about hunting to be delivered to the general public. We raised enough money to hire a professional firm and we conducted focus groups with urban non-hunters, one group of women and one group of men. A small group of us got to go to the facility where we watched, behind oneway glass, the responses of the subjects to various questions and statements about hunting. What we discovered was completely at odds with our preconceived ideas about which hunting messages work or don’t work with our audience. We have completely revamped our communications strategies accordingly. In addition to the message testing a number of us underwent “mock” interviews where we were grilled mercilessly by some hard-bitten exmedia “gunslingers.” Tapes were made, played back to us and our performances analyzed. Wow! Talk about being put through the ringer. But it was worth it because we got to see exactly what we did wrong (or right) and how to correct it. Our consultants not only critiqued our responses but we were told how to sit (don’t slouch) and where to look (don’t let your eyes roam around). This may seem like “spin city” tomfoolery but as I said early on the name of the game is winning and if this is what it takes then by God we should do it. For example, we all think that the purpose of an interview is to respond to the interviewers questions. Right? Wrong! The purpose of an interview is to get your messages across to the vast audience that may be listening to you. And not to inadvertently give your opponents’ message. Which naïve people do all the time. When you know what the perceptions of your target market are and the key messages you want to deliver then you will be effective in making your case. In terms of the hunting community, my organization, the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, has developed a day long seminar on how to communicate hunting to the general public. And hunters, as a group don’t have nearly the positive image that you folks do. And in spite of hunters starting from a more negative position as opposed to ranchers I am very pleased with the response to our seminars and we’re in the process of developing hundreds of effective spokespeople for hunting across Canada. And it’s always good to be part of the media, if you can. And for the last 5 years I have been the hunting columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press. And in that column I am using all of the key messages we developed in the focus groups to talk about “the hunting lifestyle” to a wide cross section of Manitobans, many of whom do not hunt. In the case of the cattle industry, you cowboys and cowgirls out there have an image that is second to none. Farmers too. People like you! In

Furthermore, with the application of new technologies I see no limit to the kinds of environmental improvements that are possible in our modern societies. And that’s because there’s no limit to human ingenuity just as long as the right incentives are in place. When industry gets “attacked” by the critics their first reaction is to be defensive and try and figure out how to deal with the people and groups who are attacking them. In other words they want to appease the critics. And look, we’ve all been critics of industry from time to time but I do think that those in this room are honestly seeking genuine environmental improvement while at the same time preserving our standard of living. I know I am. But the kinds of critics who tend to get all of the press are a different breed of cat. And I’m referring to the Sierra Clubs, Greenpeacers, and that whole crew of “post-modernists” who have yet to define the end points of their arguments but they sure as hell want to take us there. And we should note that Greenpeace has an anti-beef campaign going right now which I will refer to later on. In terms of appeasing the critics, the forest industry, of which I was a part, has got to be the worst. We’ve all heard about the forestry wars especially in BC. The usual scenario is that the opponents of a forestry development or company picket the operations, blockade the roads and then end up spooking the provincial government into beginning a process that removes land from the company’s license for some kind of preservation status. Issue solved, right? Wrong. The critics thank all concerned for this victory, move the goalposts and say “ok, let’s begin the game again.” So no matter how much land the forest industry gives up or how many workers are thrown out of work the critics will never stop. I once saw a forestry executive interviewed on a business show and when asked why they gave up all this land he said, “Well, maybe when there is a future boycott of Canadian forest products in Europe of the U.S. that our company won’t be targeted.” Yeah right. And on it goes right across all industries. Timid executives not telling it like it is hoping against hope that they can deal with their strongest critics. Of course they think the game is all about improving their environmental performance, i.e. there’s an “engineering” solution. What they don’t know is that the critics simply want them out of business and off the land. One executive who went against the grain was an Alberta oil company president who, after those American big city mayors past a resolution against Alberta oils saying it was “dirty,” said, “Well, we can re-tool our pipelines system pretty quickly to have all our oil go offshore if that’s what they want.” Or words to that effect. Good for him, I

2

fact you have an image that any corporation would pay millions for but you don’t even know it. What does the public think when they hear the word “rancher” or “cowboy?” Well, the words that spring to mind are “honest,” “hard-working,” “independent,” “polite,” and “kind” are just a few. In fact the cowboy/rancher is one of the most enduring icons in North America yet I see very little evidence that your industry uses this vast reservoir of goodwill to your advantage. Others, however, are quick to appropriate your image. All you have to do is look at pickup truck ads and who do you see selling trucks. Cowboys, ranchers, and farmers. Don’t think for a minute that the automobile companies haven’t focus-tested those ads. They have and in this overwhelmingly urban land of ours it’s rural icons that are used to sell trucks. Think about that one. I view that fact that Canadian beef consumption increased during the BSE crisis as very significant. You have an enormous reservoir of goodwill out there and you should use it. In terms of the cattle industry then I’d recommend that you start a message development and message testing research program on the topics of animal welfare and the environment and then find those spokespeople who can best deliver YOUR message. Train them in interview techniques and have them ready to respond when issues arise. And then get out there and communicate. With all of that said, I think the real reason I was asked to speak was the column I wrote presenting a view of the beef industry that the public does not often hear. It was entitled “Eat Beef if you Care About Environmental Conservation,” and appeared in the National Post, Winnipeg Free Press (my column), Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post, and the Calgary Herald. It was also in the Island Tides, an alternative paper in BC. And it spawned a nationally televised radio interview with my buddy Charles Adler. Not bad for 800 words. But why did that piece hit such a nerve? Well the timing was good in that Greenpeace had just released their viciously anti-beef study and was getting lots of play so editors thought that a counterpoint was in order. The piece was also “edgy” in that not only did I defend the beef industry I actually talked about how important the beef industry is to landscape conservation. The usual “industry” reaction would have been to defend what you are doing and leave it at that but in this case I thought it was important to go on offense and leave with a message that basically said, “without the beef industry conservation has a dismal future.” And the fact that I am not a cattle producer but a biologist lent the piece an air of credibility. And I had my admirers and detractors: January 11, 2008 Please congratulate Robert Sopuck for his great article appearing in to-days National Post. It’s too bad more of the so called environmentalists don’t share his views. E-mail from Gerry Kaumeyer February 21, 2008 Cattle ranching is spreading like a virus across the planet, gobbling up our precious, ecologically diverse and carbon dioxide absorbing forests. It is no exaggeration to say that the expansion of ranching is a crisis that must be stopped, if life on Earth as we know it is to continue. Richard Brunt, Victoria I also took a few swipes at those holier than thou tofu eaters and described how bad a vegetarian diet was for the land and by extension the planet as in “go ahead and eat your damn tofu but don’t think you’re helping the planet; in fact you are hurting it.” No one’s done that before in a column. Just good old boys having fun there. More importantly the catalyst for the piece was my sharp-tailed grouse hunting trip to T4 Ranches in SE Saskatchewan, home to Lloyd and Jean Thompson and their kids and grandkids. This was not a hard

piece to write given how wonderfully I was hosted by the Thompsons plus the grand tour of the ranch that Lloyd took me on; in fact it just about wrote itself. I think it’s important for the beef industry to talk about the people who raise beef; the ranchers and their families using all of the communications skills at your disposal. People are what people are interested in so I wove in the narrative of the Thompson family into the narrative of the land and the wildlife that live there with them. You need to do this more often; its very effective. I’d like to leave you with a couple of thoughts that illustrate the point about how the “rest of society” is asking you ranchers and farmers to take your rightful place as stewards of the land and, more importantly, as the repository of an important set of values. Calgary Herald – January, 2007 Let’s Nurture our Rural Roots” by Roger Gibbins – Canada West “ ..the agrarian countryside has become the proverbial canary in the mineshaft from climate change as well as a whole host of other environmental challenges including water shortages and water quality.” he continues “ Traditional forms of agriculture may not keep people on the land and if the land stewards leave, we are all in trouble. If the ecological integrity of the land suffers, if our natural capital is eroded, we will all suffer in the long run if not before.” And as many of you know Preston Manning has become a very public advocate of merging market based principles and a respect for property rights with a renewed commitment to environmental conservation. Mr. Manning, a recent recipient of the Order of Canada, wrote in the Globe and Mail on July 29th of this year that Canada needs an “agrarian movement and that” “Canadians of ‘the land’ need to find their voice Public policy should recognize our green collar workers.” He went on to say: “As Canada and the world become more environmentally conscious, a vitally important role is emerging for those who occupy rural Canada - that of environmental stewards who are recognized and compensated for their work in protecting and conserving soil, plant life (including forests), watersheds, and wildlife. How to compensate those involved in conserving and providing ecological goods and services and to penalize (perhaps by taxing) those whose practices damage the environment is a policy challenge that urgently needs to be addressed - a challenge made even more onerous by growing concern over the rising price of food in the global marketplace.” Mr. Manning talked about the role of agrarian Canada within the multicultural fabric of this country: “If Canada is serious about becoming a model multicultural society, it is also high time that we recognized and valued more highly the cultural contributions of our oldest cultural groups - those who occupy and make their living from “the land.” What are those unique cultural contributions? A high value placed on independence, an appreciation of natural equality (the equality that nature, not man, imposes), and that neighbourliness still found in rural Canada but conspicuously absent in much of urban Canada. This is the non-economic aspect of agriculture, a dimension that has been consistently underappreciated by academics and public policy makers.”

END

I think he’s right and as he says: ”From the land, Canada, must come the soul of Canada”