Friday, October 22, 2010

A Feedlot for Outlook?



The Rural Municipality of Rudy, including the town of Outlook, Saskatchewan, has been considering a new 36,000 head of cattle feedlot, which if it goes through would be the largest in the province. As always, these intensive livestock factory issues divide the community into those who support the proposal (they see the jobs and the increased tax base), and those who do not want the pollution, traffic, smells and so on. The matter was to be decided last night (October 21, 2010) in a vote at a meeting of the R.M., but, just before the meeting began, a petition was presented to the Reeve and councillors, calling for a referendum. In response, council gave its administrator a month to determine if there are enough signatures to force a public vote.

The good people of Outlook and area have a month’s breathing room now, in which they can ask themselves some important questions:

1. Is this really a “Not in my backyard” issue or is this a matter of saying “no, feedlot beef is not good anywhere”? There are other ways to raise beef--and all of them are much healthier for people and ecosystems. This province not that long ago was able to raise beef without intensive feedlot operations and the threats to human health, drinking water, human health and the environment that they pose. Saskatchewan people who think about these things are switching to grass-finished beef either from local producers or from outfits such as Westbridgeford Meats in Tugaske.

2. Is the possibility of 36 jobs (that is what the corporation proposing the feedlot projects) and some tax revenue a fair trade for all that will be lost to the beauty and wellbeing of your land and waterways in the Outlook area? Would you allow a toxic waste dump in your RM simply because it would be good for the economy? [Note: a reader, "localfarm" sent a comment advising me that in fact there will be "no additional tax revenue from this feedlot as it is a family farm & will pay no more tax than what it they are already paying." This reader also pointed out that Saskatchewan taxpayers will be on the hook for this boondoggle. The provincial government is promising to build a primary highway to serve the feedlot and to fund any infrastructure costs the Rural Municipality incurs because of the increased traffic, etc.]

3. Do you want to raise your tax base and create jobs in an industry that needlessly breeds E. Coli (incidence in Saskatchewan feedlots is as high as 57%; E. Coli only happens when you feed cattle grain), that has a strong chance of polluting the drinking water of downstream communities dependant on the M1 canal? [A reader, "localfarm," points out that the proposed feedlot would be 500 metres from the canal and four miles uphill from the South Sask. River.] Take a look at this map provided on the ratepayers' website devoted to this issue:



4. Do you really want to entrust the public commons of air, land and water quality you share as people of the RM of Rudy to a factory-farm owner from Alberta who has come with his proposal simply because he has no more room at home and Saskatchewan has cheaper land and no one really protecting the water? The people who settled the RM of Rudy were farmers, but this man is an industrialist and a businessman.


Standing next to cattle in a photograph doesn’t make you a farmer.

Read more:
story from last night's meeting covered on CBC website.

The excellent website created by the people of Rudy discussing this issue.

October 13, 2010 Regina Leader-Post article on the proposal.

19 comments:

  1. I worked on a feedlot when I had just graduated university (BS - Animal Science). Years later, after a couple of masters and my doctorate I was a practicing professional on the high plains of Kansas. There was (is) a feedlot there that measured 1 mile square...five miles outside of town. Wind out of the wrong direction made the stench unbearable. A colleague in a town 30 miles downstream had to have ALL of their water brought in; nitrate levels caused ALL towns along that watershed to totally abandon their wells. I have seen feedlots from both sides. It's one of the major motivators for us to farm organically today. It's a simple observation, but I firmly hold that most people deal well with problems on a day-to-day basis...but not so well with long-term projections. Feedlots are a blight. No animal should have to live in s**t up to their hocks; no human should have to drink s**t in their water. It's just that simple.

    Craig

    ReplyDelete
  2. I apprecaite your info on this feedlot, there will be no additional tax revenue from this feedlot as it is a family farm & will pay no more tax than what it they are already paying.
    The province of SK should be concerned as the prov gov't is promising to spend tax payer $$ to build a primary highway for this feedlot as well as promising $$ to the RM for their infrustructure- if the feedlot is approved.
    This feedlot is 1200m from 3 seperate families on 3 sides of the feedlot. Provincial recommendations say for a feedlot of greater than 5,000 head there needs to be a distance of 1600m.
    Does Sask Ag & Food who set regulations, issue permits, and monitor ILO's (feedlots) know what they are doing or not?? Because if they know what they are doing their recommendations should be put into practise, if they don't we should be very concerned.
    The feedlot will be less than 4 miles uphill of the South Sask River. It is also less than 500m from the M1 canal that supplies drinking water to many communities including Broderick, Blackstrap Lake & as far away as Lanigan.
    This proposed feedlot is so much in the wrong location that to let it come in will be an absolute devestation to the area in very near years to come!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Craig--thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. (I am always amazed at your breadth of life experience.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "localfarm" thank you for setting the record straight. I think I will revise the posting to reflect those points you made.

    Much appreciated,

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trevor, thank-you so much for your blog and the comments you made. Just wanted to let you know that the first link (www.rudyratepayers.ca) isn't working. However the second link at the bottom will take you to the Rudy website. Just thought you should know.

    Thanks again,
    Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for letting me know about the broken link. I fixed it just now. You are doing important work.

    ReplyDelete
  7. just a couple points. the location of the feedlot is good slope is excellent soil is not sandy and there is no major shallow aquafier in area.farmers installed water pipeline from lake deifinbaker for good water.m1 canal is lined to keep water in not out.Stoer creek is where one of the people oppossed to the feedlot winters his cattle guess it is ok for him

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comment. In response, I would say that while farmers may have a pipeline from upstream in the river providing them with water, human beings are not the only creatures that require water. I'm not sure exactly what point you are making about the lining of the M1 canal,which I have heard is in very poor shape, but there are a lot of people who depend on either M1 or the South Sask. River for drinking water and they are udnerstandably worried about the prospect of a feedlot near their water conveyance. As for the local farmer who winters his cattle in a creek, that kind of abuse of riparian areas is far too common and should be regulated, but scale matters here. There is an order of magnitude difference between 50 or 100 head of cattle wintering in a creek and 6,000 to 36,000 feedlot cattle year round in one concentrated area.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Trevor for fixing that link. If you don't mind, I would like to put a link to your blog on the Rudy Ratepayers website (wanted your permission first).

    In regards to the lining of the M1 canal, it is in pitiful condition. Pictures of the M1 canal are available at http://www.rudyratepayers.ca/maps_dw.html.

    Thanks again for your support, Trevor.

    Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  10. No need to ask for permission--I didn't have the courtesy to ask you for yours when I posted the link to your site. Best of luck with this and keep me in the loop if there is anything else I can do to help.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Will do, Trevor. And no worries about posting our link on your blog. I figure the more exposure about this issue the better! We want people to be informed about all the facts and concerns; not just in the Outlook area but all areas which will be affected by this ILO.

    Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trevor,

    Just to let you know that Outlook town council voted last night to bring in the feedlot. Needless to say there are quite a few angry people around here. I don't think people are ready to give up though.

    Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Trevor, I am a livestock and grain producer in the RM of Rudy. Our farm is 12 miles straight north of the proposed Namaka Farms site. I am disappointed that you have chosen to advocate the inaccurate and misleading information put forward by the Rudy Ratepayers Group.

    The Rudy Ratepayers Group does not represent the majority of residents in the RM of Rudy and I believe it is headed up by a land speculator from BC who only resides here for a short time during the growing season.

    The beef industry is very market sensitive and thus is very much affected by economics of scale. I know this personally, as we finished our own calves for market back in the 80's when the Provincial Beef Stabilization Program was operating. When that program was discontinued, so was our finishing operation and at about that time, Intercon Packers in Saskatoon stopped slaughtering cattle. That is the kind of economic activity we don't want to see. If you can convince the consumers of this great country, and the world for that matter, to pay considerably more for poorer quality beef, then you will see a change in the beef industry.

    As far as M1 Canal is concerned, water leaks out of that thing, not into it.

    The 36 full-time permanent jobs expected to be created, while being very welcome, are a small part of the economic activity that will spin off of this development. Nothing has been said in regards to the construction or the feed and calves that will be sourced locally. Anyone who thinks that Namaka Farms won't source it's calves and feed locally as much as possible, is out of touch with reality and knows nothing about the beef cattle business.

    Of the four residents in close proximity to the site, that are opposed to the development, two are acreages which are not agricultural producers and contribute very little to the tax base of the RM. I was told all of the residents in the immediate area of the site have been visited personally by members of the Thiessen family, to address their concerns.

    I hope these comments bring to light some of the reasons why most of the grain and livestock producers in the RM of Rudy are not opposed to this development.

    Sincerely, Murray Kasper, Outlook

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you, Murray, for taking the time to bring out into the open some of the common economic arguments. Your arguments were made with care and they deserve a careful response. I will post a complete response in the next day or two as a new posting on this important issue.

    I appreciate your remarks,

    Trevor

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello Trevor,

    Just wanted to let you know that your blog site is now linked to rudyratepayers.ca

    Thought I'd let you know.

    Warmly,
    Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for making that link. Please let me know if there are any interesting developments in the story.

    You can email me directly at trevor.herriot@sasktel.sk.ca

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'll try again to respond to Murray Kasper since the last time I tried to post, it never appeared.

    I first would like to respond to Mr. Kasper's comment, "...the inaccurate and misleading information put forward by the Rudy Ratepayers Group."

    If Mr. Kasper is referring to the www.rudyratepayers.ca website, I can assure him and everyone reading this that the information given is accurate and there are references for that information.

    Now, it was said at the Oct 20th council meeting (funny enough by a person advocating the feedlot) that expert opinions can be found on both sides of the issue. So depending on which side of the issue you stand, you will support some information over the rest.

    While I respect the ideas, information and (most) of the opinions which come from advocates for the feedlot, I have chosen to stand against it because history has shown that this country's government doesn't always have our health concerns in its best interests. Many times health and people are sacrificed in the name of progress and economic prosperity. I am not 'anti-feedlot' but 'pro-healthy, clean drinking water.'

    But enough of that rave. The second point I would like to address which Mr. Kasper made is "The Rudy Ratepayers Group does not represent the majority of residents in the RM of Rudy and I believe it is headed up by a land speculator from BC who only resides here for a short time during the growing season."

    I can also assure Mr. Kasper that the individual who approached me about the website lives 1200 meters away from the proposed site and lives here year round and is not from nor lives in B.C.

    While I would agree that not all the residents of the RM make up the group 'Rudy Ratepayers' there are a fair number who do and this was shown at the June meeting at the Civic Center when those who support the Rudy Ratepayers stood up when the question was asked.

    If you do read, at any time, any information on www.rudyratepayers.ca which you feel is not backed by a valid source, please feel free to contact me at fiveonboard@hotmail.com. I will bring it to the attention of the Rudy Ratepayers and they will look into your concern and change any errors should they occur.

    Please note that I am the website designer. I work for the Rudy Ratepayers and while I do add content (and make sure I have valid references for such content) the content itself comes from the Rudy Ratepayers...this is their site.

    Thank-you.
    Julie Simpson; Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'll try again to respond to Murray Kasper since the last time I tried to post, it never appeared.

    I first would like to respond to Mr. Kasper's comment, "...the inaccurate and misleading information put forward by the Rudy Ratepayers Group."

    If Mr. Kasper is referring to the www.rudyratepayers.ca website, I can assure him and everyone reading this that the information given is accurate and there are references for that information.

    Now, it was said at the Oct 20th council meeting (funny enough by a person advocating the feedlot) that expert opinions can be found on both sides of the issue. So depending on which side of the issue you stand, you will support some information over the rest.

    While I respect the ideas, information and (most) of the opinions which come from advocates for the feedlot, I have chosen to stand against it because history has shown that this country's government doesn't always have our health concerns in its best interests. Many times health and people are sacrificed in the name of progress and economic prosperity. I am not 'anti-feedlot' but 'pro-healthy, clean drinking water.'... (to be continued on next post)

    ReplyDelete
  19. The second point I would like to address which Mr. Kasper made is "The Rudy Ratepayers Group does not represent the majority of residents in the RM of Rudy and I believe it is headed up by a land speculator from BC who only resides here for a short time during the growing season."

    I can also assure Mr. Kasper that the individual who approached me about the website lives 1200 meters away from the proposed site and lives here year round and is not from nor lives in B.C.

    While I would agree that not all the residents of the RM make up the group 'Rudy Ratepayers' there are a fair number who do and this was shown at the June meeting at the Civic Center when those who support the Rudy Ratepayers stood up when the question was asked.

    If you do read, at any time, any information on www.rudyratepayers.ca which you feel is not backed by a valid source, please feel free to contact me at fiveonboard@hotmail.com. I will bring it to the attention of the Rudy Ratepayers and they will look into your concern and change any errors should they occur.

    Please note that I am the website designer. I work for the Rudy Ratepayers and while I do add content (and make sure I have valid references for such content) the content itself comes from the Rudy Ratepayers...this is their site.

    Thank-you.
    Julie Simpson; Designer of www.rudyratepayers.ca

    ReplyDelete

Share this post

Get widget