Ranchers.net Bull Session

SAY nr DO YOU REMBER THAT OLE WOMAN THAT CALLED HERSELF MRJ

A friendly place to talk about the weather, tell jokes and post cowboy poetry.
mrj
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4503
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:19 am
Location: SD

Postby mrj » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:20 pm

OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".

rancher, what "flip-flop"? I never saw anything like that. I saw cattle producers who have studied issues, considered consequences, and taken action they deemed best for our industry.

MRJ

mrj
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4503
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:19 am
Location: SD

Postby mrj » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:23 pm

OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".

rancher, what "flip-flop"? I never saw anything like that. I saw cattle producers who have studied issues, considered consequences, and taken action they deemed best for our industry.

MRJ

Oldtimer

Postby Oldtimer » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:28 pm

MRJ wrote:OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".


MRJ


MRJ- NCBA's continued involvement with the checkoff has left the impression that it is an NCBA project... The way the boards were set up to have certain committees and chairs and makeup dominated by NCBA members leave the impression of impropriety... And any time you are working with a Tax funded (government mandated) operation, if there is that impression than it needs to be changed to remove it- whether it is actually happening or not.....

And in my opinion the USDA would not have thrown out the checkoff revote without the heavy lobbying of NCBA....A lot of the decision was made on grey area USDA policy decisions- on who qualified as a signature vote-- does the husband, does the husband and wife each, does the husband wife and two sons if they all ranch together count as one or four.......

I am not against the checkoff- I think it has done us good...But like any outfit it needs a major overhaul once in awhile to bring it up to the times-NCBA no longer rides the only stud horse..... But this may all be a moot point as its up to the court now.......

User avatar
Hanta Yo
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 3645
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: South Central Montana

Postby Hanta Yo » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:38 pm

MRJ,

I was in San Antonio, too. The Riverwalk was gorgeous! Too bad the weather wasn't so nice.

I am behind you 100% concerning the Beef Check-Off. There are so many things it has done! Myself as a CattleWoman (member of MCW, ANCW) put some of those funds to good use! NCBA has nothing to do with the Check-Off, the CBB does. I've spent some time each year in the Beef Council booth in a trade show and you wouldn't BELIEVE what I get accused of!!That I am getting paid for working the booth and the checkoff $$$ is paying for it!! These people don't listen because they don't want to hear the truth. I donate the day plus MY fuel to drive 1 1/2 hrs to the trade show (1 way) to work the booth. I do it because there are a few people who are misinformed but are WILLING to listen! Keep up the good work..
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.
I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'
-Ronald Reagan

Oldtimer

Postby Oldtimer » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:16 am

Hanta Yo wrote: NCBA has nothing to do with the Check-Off, the CBB does.


But Hanta Yo, will you concede that the CBB is dominated by NCBA members and by their charter has to be? This is what gives the impression of the checkoff being the NCBA's and the air of improper actions and it being NCBA's meal ticket....

I never could get MRJ or any other member to discredit or explain the postings that were on here showing that the charter requires some CBB committees be chaired and co-chaired by NCBA members or requires 3-1 dominance of the committees be NCBA....So the other day I asked an old NCBA member-- he said that it was set up with that dominance and was set up that way with a purpose-- so that some liberal US President couldn't come along and appoint a Liberal Ag Secretary which started appointing Greenies and Peta members to the CBB and using checkoff funds--Leaves NCBA with the greatest vote and say over where the funds can be spent ---Sounds good to me-- except that this has never been made very public or clear to the people of the checkoff (which is everyone that has to pay it) either by CBB or NCBA....It may have been a good idea when it started, but you can't run a multi-million tax dollar operation from behind closed doors.....

User avatar
Hanta Yo
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 3645
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: South Central Montana

Postby Hanta Yo » Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:08 pm

"Behind closed doors"...
OT,

I get tired of R-Calfers, MCA inferring all the BAD things going on "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS". Just like our leftist media, put a little "n-word" of a thought in someone's brain and get them thinking...
I personally wouldn't want an R-Calf person as chair on CBB because our checkoff $$$ are NOT supposed to create policy, nor to SUE!!! PERIOD!Our checkoff $$$$ are to PROMOTE our PRODUCT and EDUCATE the population about our PRODUCT!!! The whole reason behind the original lawsuite against the Beef Check-Off was that Charters applied for a grant from Beef Council to promote their "own" grassfed cattle and were turned down because our Beef Check-Off $$$ aren't supposed to support any NICHE market, just BEEF. Charters got mad so here we are....
LMA has jumped into the lawsuit because they look at it as a way to bring NCBA down as NCBA supports selling on grids ie letting the cattleman have the opportunity to market his own cattle his own way and LMA thinks everything ought to go through the sale ring. That is MY opinion, take it or leave it. BTW, how do you think Pat Goggins got rich? How did Lee Pitts get rich? They own the auction markets, the newspapers, all at OUR expense. DID YOU KNOW...Goggins has in the past sent cattle up to Canada to be fed??? DID YOU KNOW Goggins has in the past purchased feed from Canada???
How is HE helping the US cattleman?? Why is the R-Calf office in PAYS, as you know Goggins owns?? Why does he own both sales yards in Billings when in his "note" in Agri News in the past has indicated him being up in arms about competition? There is no competition in these two sales yards.
Sorry, I couldn't hold back any longer. :!:
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.

I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'

-Ronald Reagan

Oldtimer

Postby Oldtimer » Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:53 pm

Hanta Yo wrote:"Behind closed doors"...
OT,

I get tired of R-Calfers, MCA inferring all the BAD things going on "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS". Just like our leftist media, put a little "n-word" of a thought in someone's brain and get them thinking...
I personally wouldn't want an R-Calf person as chair on CBB because our checkoff $$$ are NOT supposed to create policy, nor to SUE!!! PERIOD!Our checkoff $$$$ are to PROMOTE our PRODUCT and EDUCATE the population about our PRODUCT!!!


Hanta Yo- I know all that about how it came about-- and about how the vote got shot down ( which would have been pro-checkoff and quieted much of the opposition)... You say you don't want R-CALF or any group thats not supposed to use checkoff $$$ to create policy-- but NCBA is a political lobbyist and even this year took a position in national elections--NCBA creates the direction and policy for CBB thru their overweighted membership on the CBB committees-- Is it right for an organization (NCBA) to gain income from tax dollars (thru contracting to run CBB) and then turn around and endorse political candidates and administration decisions, while still controlling which way the checkoff funds should be used and by who?-- getting on pretty shakey ground, no matter what your politics are... I would say the same if it was Farm Bureau or Farmers Union that had done the same or whether it was Rep. or Dem they supported..... Tax dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda--It definitely promotes an illusion of impropriety....And the checkoff is a tax- whichever way you look at it- If you can be imprisoned or fined $100,000's of dollars by the government for not paying it- it is a tax on cattle raisers.......

Like I said, I've been a supporter of the checkoff--altho I lost faith in the NCBA and the direction they began taking in the late 90's.... But because of the administration question and the fact that it appears as tho in some parts of the nation it is very randomly collected if at all, support is rapidly falling-- without a major overhaul it will be gone, if it isn't already.........

User avatar
sw
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:28 pm

Postby sw » Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:22 pm

OK. NCBA did not spend a dollar on GW, they endorsed him. Checkoff dollars are never to be spent on anything but promotion and education. Where do you get the idea that checkoff dollars are promoting a candidate ? the money NCBA may or may not have given to GW is from the membership dues, not from the checkoff as you claim. Get a clue. Have youever applied for a grant from Beef Council or the CBB? I have been involved. The world is run by the people who show up. PERIOD. From my experience the people who are uninformed are those who oppose everything, i.e. change, R_LAFF, LMA, OCM, NPRC, WORC, are all in favor of moving back to the way things used to be with ALL cattle going through the auctions, no retained ownership, Pat Goggins is in charge, how does J and L Livestock have a dispersal every year? My grandmother thinks that Goggins is the best thing that ever happened since sliced bread. She in her 95 years has never figured out that all of his wealth came from real beef producers. The only way to capture real value from your cattle is to retain ownership. DO YOU WANT TO BE A MULTIPYER OR A PRODUCER OF BEEF? That is the real question.

Oldtimer

Postby Oldtimer » Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:49 pm

sw wrote:OK. NCBA did not spend a dollar on GW, they endorsed him. Checkoff dollars are never to be spent on anything but promotion and education. Where do you get the idea that checkoff dollars are promoting a candidate ? the money NCBA may or may not have given to GW is from the membership dues, not from the checkoff as you claim.


How much money did NCBA make in contracting with and administering the CBB and the checkoff? How much of that was actual expenses? Its hard to be reassured when the CBB audit committee is overwhelming made up of and chaired by NCBA members as part of the charter... They need to change the smell that this puts out or the checkoff will be history...

sw- I'm glad you have been happy with retained ownership- I know many others that have too... But I have also seen those that lost their rear... Saw one producer that was missing 600 head by the time they were notified that the owner had went off the deep end and deserted the feedlot... And this was a "CAB approved" long operating reputation lot...Guess who is last in line by law to recoup losses after bill holders, banks, and the government-- the cattle owner.......

Retained ownership is alright if you are in a position to monitor your cattle closely and can afford to take a hit if something drastic happens- I also am of the opinion that you shouldn't put all your ducks in the one pond... The guys I've seen that came out best sold some calves and retained some so that they had some security.........

User avatar
sw
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:28 pm

Postby sw » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:24 pm

OT,
the best way to take advantage of retained ownership is to sell an interest in the cattle, 1/2 works for me, more or less dependent upon the price of calves, the price of fed cattle and the futures. By selling an interest, you are not checking into a "corn motel", the feeders have a reason to try to make money instead of selling corn and yardage. They also try to sell at an advantage, they are at risk also. I was at one of Agman's seminars a few years ago and he put up numbers that showed that if you make $20 /head in the long run every year you will make more money than making $150 on the right market. Play for the long run, ag is not a get rich scheme for the short term. We all need to remember this, ranching is for the long term, this is not short term, R_CALF has forgotten the long term. WE HAVE TO GET BACK THE EXPORT MARKETS. Lest we forget, feds were trading at $116 before the BSE bull and we are now at $88 today, what has the border closure done for us, IT HAS LOST US $28 FROM MY CALCULATIONS.


Return to “Coffee Shop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron