|
| Author |
Message |
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
It's sad and disgusting when people doing little that is positive for the cattle industry thrive on painting those who disagree with you as "drinking the Koolaid"!
When thousands and thousands of cattle producers choose to join NCBA and work to benefit ALL cattle producers, even your sorry.....self, it may be self satisfying to call those with whom you choose not to agreesilly names, but it sure doesn't do anything to benefit anyone.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tommy
Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 755
Location: South East Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
mj...it may be self satisfying to call those with whom you choose not to agreesilly names, but it sure doesn't do anything to benefit anyone.
Where is the name calling mj??
| Quote: |
Tommy...Keep drinking the kool aid MJ.
One of the main reasons I want seperation is that people like you will believe anything NCBA says. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, your quote qualifies!
You persist is denigrating me for presenting factual information re. the Beef Checkoff, yet you present no verifiable rebuttal.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tommy
Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 755
Location: South East Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
MJ, you like to set yourself up as the victim so others will take your side or feel pity for you. I did not denegrate you, I did not call you a name. That is not my style. I brought facts and laid it all out, yet you continue to believe otherwise.
There is no need for us to keep this up if you are not willing to open your eyes to what has happened and is going on. And I know you won't.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
To the contrary, Tommy, my life doesn't leave time for being a "victim"!
Yet again, you whine when you have no counterpoint when I present facts to counter your beliefs, which fall short of fact.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| MRJ to Tex: "To hear you tell it, you are smarter, wiser, and more all-knowing than all the packers, all NCBA leaders, and all the researchers except the few with whom you agree". |
Fear not MRJ for the following quote should leave no doubt that such is not the case....
| Quote: |
| Tex: "WHERE IS THE BEEF DEMAND" |
Near record high cattle prices driven primarily by current foreign and domestic demand for beef and Tex doesn't even realize it. Such an ambassador for the cattle / beef industry (rolls eyes).
As far as NCBA and CBB, I find this issue parallels with the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association running the brand board. I had no problems with the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association running the brand board and I still believe that would serve producers best providing that brand fees and the brand program were kept totally seperate and at arms length from any political R-CALF agenda.
With that said, in order to protect the integrity of the beef checkoff program, I think it's imperative that in the future that beef checkoff dollars be kept at arms length from any NCBA political agenda. I say that as a proponent of the beef checkoff and as an NCBA member (think my membership is current?).
If it has not already been done, I propose that a committee be established to determine what perceptual "conflict of interest" problems could be avoided. I nominate Tommy to head up this committee since he usually just likes to complain about what someone else isn't doing. So Tommy, gonna step up to the plate or continue to throw rocks from the sidelines?
Whatever means there is of assuring that the two are kept seperate, I think it needs to be re-evaluated and strengthened to assure that checkoff dollars are not even creating a perception of supporting political issues that divide the industry.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SH, my only problem with that is the "perception" of a "conflict of interest" because too many people already believe what they want to: that NCBA must be guilty, no matter what they are shown.
I'm not really against it, as much as just really weary of appeasing so many "perceptions' that prove absolutely false if investigated, about the entire beef industry, and agriculture in general with the consumers, and even people engaged in agriculture.
I wish I could better articlate just how the current firewall works. It is my understanding that it has NEVER been breached, and that both sides in this situation agree on that point.
It is apparent that the real reason for this fight is that some groups just do not want anyone who does not support their narrow views to have anything to do with the checkoff.
Unfortunately, it would disenfranchise an awful lot of cattle producers, the members of NCBA, from being able to work to protect their interests in Washington, DC, and force us to support issues favored by R-CALF, NFU, and others.
The fact remains that NCBA is the larges cattle producer organization. I belong to Farm Bureau as well, but know that the farming interests of that organization often get the upper hand over my interests in the political arena.
The simple reason other groups do not get checkoff contracts is that there is no money in it for them, just as there is not for NCBA, though very few people admit that.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
MRJ: "I wish I could better articlate just how the current firewall works. It is my understanding that it has NEVER been breached, and that both sides in this situation agree on that point.
It is apparent that the real reason for this fight is that some groups just do not want anyone who does not support their narrow views to have anything to do with the checkoff.
Unfortunately, it would disenfranchise an awful lot of cattle producers, the members of NCBA, from being able to work to protect their interests in Washington, DC, and force us to support issues favored by R-CALF, NFU, and others." |
I think you have done an excellent job of explaining how the beef checkoff works and you've done it repeatedly and to those who refuse to face facts.
If they haven't already, perhaps both beef checkoff critics and proponents need to meet at the table to re-evaluate the current checkoff firewalls to assure that beef checkoff dollars are not being spent to support any political agenda and the firewalls are working as they should. Just as the SDSGA should have assured everyone that brand fees were not being spent to support R-CALF's agenda but rather were being spent solely on the brand program as they should. I use that as an example of how I would see this issue if the opposite situation were true.
Let me give you an example of a potetial "perceptual conflict of interest" situation as I see it. If a double duty trip was being made to Washington DC which included both beef promotion and lobbying against the GIPSA rules and this trip were paid for by checkoff dollars, I believe this would constitute a "conflict of interest" much like if brand fees were paying to promote the GIPSA rules. NCBA lobbyists should not receive any beef checkoff dollars when promoting political agendas (not saying they are). If this situation were an accurate example, this trip should be paid for by NCBA dues and the checkoff work should be voluntary to avoid any potential "conflict of interest". That's just how I see it in order to protect the integrity of the beef checkoff. Not saying that this "conflict" situation is happening because I don't know. Just saying this is how I believe the firewall rules should be set up if they are not already set up that way.
I have personally found myself in potential "conflict of interest" situations with my former job and learned that how I saw things was not neccessarily how others saw them and I tried to learn from it.
I realize that some fools would suggest that beef promotion and research only benefits the packers out of one side of their mouth then support "M"COOL out of the other side of their mouth as if one benefitted packers and the other benefitted producers. There is nothing that can be done for that level of ignorance but the majority of producers have a better level of understanding than that.
I know how difficult it is to see hard working honest folks working for the best interests of beef promotion, research, and education under a constant microscope of suspicion but I also know how "perception" (suspicion) becomes "reality". Being right is not always the same as being seen as being right. If that was not the case, R-CALF would not still have the following they have with a 0 & 9 loss record in court and such a blatant disregard for the factors that truly affect cattle prices.
I agree with you that the fight is driven primarily by those who do not want NCBA to have anything to do with the beef checkoff even with rock solid firewalls in place much the same way some did not like the SDSGA running the brand program. Perception becomes reality. The only way to overcome that is for all the cards to be laid on the table for public scrutiny. Perhaps as important as having a rock solid firewalls is the ability to assure the masses of the integrity of those firewalls.
I'm sorry but I did not understand your final statement above MRJ. What would disenfranchise NCBA members from being able to protect their interests in Washington DC and force them to support issues favored by R-CALF and others??
Beef promotion, research, and education would still occur as would lobbying against "socialistic cattle marketing ventures" through empty GIPSA rules. The two would just be kept at arms length from eachother. NCBA would still fight for their interests in Washington and fight against R-CALF's "BSE fear mongering" to stop imports, GIPSA rules that would socialize the cattle markets, Packer blaming legislation that would add expense to beef processing and fabrication and result in lower cattle prices, etc. etc. Those lobbying efforts would be paid for by membership dues.
When everyone is paying in to a program, they all deserve a voice in how those funds are being spent. I believe it's more important to protect the integrity of the beef checkoff with audits and critical reviews than to see it die a slow death based on perceptions that are not addressed.
It's unfortunate that the world operates as it does and that some producers are forced to benefit from beef research, promotion, and education against their will. It's just as unfortunate that some producers that oppose foreign trade are forced to receive higher prices for their cattle than they would if there was no trade. Bottom line, that's how it is.
With that said, I have not been privy to all the facts on how the beef checkoff currently operates so my views on this topic should be viewed accordingly.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, as happens too often, these days, I try to hurry and the post suffers! And thanks, too, for your comments, SH.
That line should have read: '....it would disenfranchise an awful lot of cattle producers, all the members of NCBA, from being able to work to rotect their interests in Washington, DC, and force us to support issues favored by R-CALF, NFU, and others, IF the decision was made to sacrifice the Policy division of NCBA in order to continue the excellent work NCBA staff and volunteer members do for the beef checkoff contracts.'
The point being that it is the work of NCBA that has been a very large part of the success of the Beef Checkoff.
Anyone questionning what the checkoff has accomplished should check the series of articles detailing the history at www.beefboard.org.
A secondary point is that despite the attempts of some to paint NCBA membership as small and unimportant, it is the largest nationwide dues paying organization of cattle producers we have.
I guess 'tex' needs an explanation of the difference between "demand" and "consumption" of beef. All we produce and import gets consumed someplace. Demand factors in the price people will pay for the beef they consume. That may be oversimplistic, but they are not the same thing! We are truly blessed that so many people are willing to pay the prices it costs to get beef onto the consumers' plate these days.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
