This is an outstanding commentary by Michael. Obviously a lot of careful thought went into it. I won’t touch on all his points but I will say that I strongly agree with his overall idea. It will be a grave error to abandon our land-based principles in favour of ‘quick fix’ ideas to prop up wineries that - as most of us suspect- are not economically sustainable. That would be pressing our foot on the accelerator in a race to the bottom.
I don’t know why, but with land-based wineries the LCRB abandoned its long history of moderation in liquor licensing. Instead they lowered the entry bar, and then left it entirely up to the open market to decide how many wineries there should be. That predictably led to a proliferation of small wineries and labels. Today the consumer is overwhelmed by the number of BC wines. Can you imagine going into a grocery store and having 300+ choices of milk?
But back to that point about the LCRB letting the market decide how many wineries there should be. Whether it was the right decision or wrong, what will compound the difficulties is to now disregard the market principle and instead take unwise steps to prop up failing wineries.
Let’s be clear: it was always going to come to this. BC chose the path of a wide open market for wineries. That means that a significant number of enterprises will fail when economic forces turn against them, as they have now. That’s the nature of the open market. The weak will fail while the strong survive. You can’t have an open market without that reality, and trying to avoid it is throwing scarce resources at a losing proposition.
Lest I sound harsh or uncaring, I’d like to state straight up that I don’t know if my land-based winery will survive. Our industry has gone through five devastating years in a row, and I don’t see any bright lights on the horizon. But I’ve always been in this for the long haul, which requires working through the inevitable bad times wisely. I’m not in favour of ill-considered quick fixes, of which importing US grapes is top of the list. We need to work through this, smartly and like professionals, accepting that some will fall by the wayside while others come out stronger. That’s how we will build a long term viable industry.
We need to take another step in terms of growing up as an industry. There is still a lot of amateur qualities at both wineries and vineyards. It's also concerning that so many wineries are in such rough shape after all these good years.
In 1976/77 as an Agriculture Grad. student at UBC, we were tasked by Dr. George Eaton with selecting potential Vinifera varietals to replace Labrusca grapes being pulled up. Given long-term climate conditions, we recommended just a few hardy grapes, concerned specifically about outlier weather events. Over the years, as growing conditions improved, many new varietals were tested and introduced, but growers have known the peril all along. Part of the solution now is to field inspect vines, track their production for a few years as they recover, and replant as necessary those that have proven to be robust. Yes, the bubble has burst, but that is not the end for home-grown Okanagan wine production. VQA labelling should not be applied to any import grapes or wine.
That's a really interesting history. I think one of the gaps was a lack of virus and other testing until about a decade-ish ago. But no one really expected this cold either - even with climate change.
It does appear there will be a thinning of the herd. To avoid the worst of what current circumstances have on offer, businesses directly and indirectly involved in the BC wine industry will have to make some hard choices and decide what their priorities look like. Given the investment, it would be unwise to gut the VQA program. On the other hand, sourcing grapes from other jurisdictions (temporarily) for the purpose of creating product for cash flow, and branding it distinctly different than your more known moniker, wouldn't be the end of the world. Care should be taken to keep these source streams separate from the VQA product. But, in truth, I can't imagine any current BC producers sullying their pristine image by cutting in inferior (or superior) wines. Or is the suggestion that human nature may intervene and appeal to more base instincts?
Given some of what we all hear in the industry, obviously this is often the case.
I also think much of what we'll see from Washington will be of superior quality. Our farming quality has stagnated the last decade. And that itself will be interesting.
This is an outstanding commentary by Michael. Obviously a lot of careful thought went into it. I won’t touch on all his points but I will say that I strongly agree with his overall idea. It will be a grave error to abandon our land-based principles in favour of ‘quick fix’ ideas to prop up wineries that - as most of us suspect- are not economically sustainable. That would be pressing our foot on the accelerator in a race to the bottom.
I don’t know why, but with land-based wineries the LCRB abandoned its long history of moderation in liquor licensing. Instead they lowered the entry bar, and then left it entirely up to the open market to decide how many wineries there should be. That predictably led to a proliferation of small wineries and labels. Today the consumer is overwhelmed by the number of BC wines. Can you imagine going into a grocery store and having 300+ choices of milk?
But back to that point about the LCRB letting the market decide how many wineries there should be. Whether it was the right decision or wrong, what will compound the difficulties is to now disregard the market principle and instead take unwise steps to prop up failing wineries.
Let’s be clear: it was always going to come to this. BC chose the path of a wide open market for wineries. That means that a significant number of enterprises will fail when economic forces turn against them, as they have now. That’s the nature of the open market. The weak will fail while the strong survive. You can’t have an open market without that reality, and trying to avoid it is throwing scarce resources at a losing proposition.
Lest I sound harsh or uncaring, I’d like to state straight up that I don’t know if my land-based winery will survive. Our industry has gone through five devastating years in a row, and I don’t see any bright lights on the horizon. But I’ve always been in this for the long haul, which requires working through the inevitable bad times wisely. I’m not in favour of ill-considered quick fixes, of which importing US grapes is top of the list. We need to work through this, smartly and like professionals, accepting that some will fall by the wayside while others come out stronger. That’s how we will build a long term viable industry.
Richard Roskell
Marichel Vineyard and Winery
We need to take another step in terms of growing up as an industry. There is still a lot of amateur qualities at both wineries and vineyards. It's also concerning that so many wineries are in such rough shape after all these good years.
In 1976/77 as an Agriculture Grad. student at UBC, we were tasked by Dr. George Eaton with selecting potential Vinifera varietals to replace Labrusca grapes being pulled up. Given long-term climate conditions, we recommended just a few hardy grapes, concerned specifically about outlier weather events. Over the years, as growing conditions improved, many new varietals were tested and introduced, but growers have known the peril all along. Part of the solution now is to field inspect vines, track their production for a few years as they recover, and replant as necessary those that have proven to be robust. Yes, the bubble has burst, but that is not the end for home-grown Okanagan wine production. VQA labelling should not be applied to any import grapes or wine.
That's a really interesting history. I think one of the gaps was a lack of virus and other testing until about a decade-ish ago. But no one really expected this cold either - even with climate change.
It does appear there will be a thinning of the herd. To avoid the worst of what current circumstances have on offer, businesses directly and indirectly involved in the BC wine industry will have to make some hard choices and decide what their priorities look like. Given the investment, it would be unwise to gut the VQA program. On the other hand, sourcing grapes from other jurisdictions (temporarily) for the purpose of creating product for cash flow, and branding it distinctly different than your more known moniker, wouldn't be the end of the world. Care should be taken to keep these source streams separate from the VQA product. But, in truth, I can't imagine any current BC producers sullying their pristine image by cutting in inferior (or superior) wines. Or is the suggestion that human nature may intervene and appeal to more base instincts?
Given some of what we all hear in the industry, obviously this is often the case.
I also think much of what we'll see from Washington will be of superior quality. Our farming quality has stagnated the last decade. And that itself will be interesting.