“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 Cattle-
men’s Association. I live just south of Manitoba’s Riding Mountain Na-
tional 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 dif-
ferent 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 Al-
berta 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 ex-
tent anyway)” with all that this implies. And like other areas of Can-
ada, 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 ranch-
ing 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 fam-
ily need a few bucks to tide you over.
The reason why I recited the details of where I live is only to illus-
trate 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 “Sus-
tainable 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 outnum-
bered and there are lots of groups who profit very well by attacking or
1
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 increas-
ing presence in Canada as evidenced by their office in Montreal. Other
questions and criticisms come from “the usual suspects” like Green-
peace who say cattle are destroying the rainforests and contributing to
global warming not to mention the “inefficiencies” of eating beef as op-
posed 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 propa-
ganda. 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 well-
managed 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 repre-
sent 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 under-
standable; 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 Can-
adian society, with very long term and uncertain payoffs, gets relegated
to the back burner. A case of the “urgent” overwhelming the “import-
ant.” 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 qual-
ity of life, medical care, transportation infrastructure, education sys-
tem 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
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 counterbalan-
cing evidence. As an ecologist I firmly believe that environmental con-
servation 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 contamina-
tion in PEI and on it goes. But only wealthy industrial societies have
the wherewithal to tackle such issues. I used to be environmental dir-
ector at a newsprint mill just at the time when the Pulp and Paper Ef-
fluent Regulations went into effect and we all had to build modern and
effective wastewater treatment plants at a cost of about 25 million dol-
lars 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 treat-
ment technologies.
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 in-
genuity 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 genu-
ine 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 Si-
erra 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 forest-
ry 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 tell-
ing it like it is hoping against hope that they can deal with their strong-
est 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 busi-
ness and off the land.
One executive who went against the grain was an Alberta oil com-
pany president who, after those American big city mayors past a reso-
lution against Alberta oils saying it was “dirty,” said, “Well, we can
re-tool our pipelines system pretty quickly to have all our oil go off-
shore if that’s what they want.” Or words to that effect. Good for him, I
2
thought. Haven’t heard from those mayors anymore have we, now?
My point is that pro-active communications are far better than re-
active communications and furthermore, it’s a lot better playing of-
fense 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 man-
ner 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, effect-
ive 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 one-
way glass, the responses of the subjects to various questions and state-
ments 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 communi-
cations strategies accordingly.
In addition to the message testing a number of us underwent “mock”
interviews where we were grilled mercilessly by some hard-bitten ex-
media “gunslingers.” Tapes were made, played back to us and our per-
formances 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” tom-
foolery 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 re-
spond 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 mak-
ing 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 de-
veloped 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
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 pick-
up 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 indus-
try I actually talked about how important the beef industry is to land-
scape 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 basic-
ally 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 environment-
alists 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 de-
scribed 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
END
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 ef-
fective.
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 farm-
ers to take your rightful place as stewards of the land and, more im-
portantly, 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 en-
vironmental 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 in-
tegrity 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 pub-
lic advocate of merging market based principles and a respect for prop-
erty rights with a renewed commitment to environmental conserva-
tion. 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 Can-
ada - that of environmental stewards who are recognized and compen-
sated for their work in protecting and conserving soil, plant life (in-
cluding 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 ris-
ing 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 cul-
tural contributions of our oldest cultural groups - those who occupy
and make their living from “the land.” What are those unique cultur-
al contributions? A high value placed on independence, an apprecia-
tion 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.”
I think he’s right and as he says:
”From the land, Canada, must come the soul of Canada”