• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

“We've waited nine years, and we've lost a lot of producers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Callicrate [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:58 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: DRA applauds re-introduction of Captive Supply Reform Act




Dakota Rural Action

Main: PO Box 549, Brookings, SD 57006

Phone: 605-697-5204/Fax: 605-697-6230

Email: [email protected]

WR Field Office: PO Box 296, Newell, SD 57760

Phone: 605-456-1322/Fax: 605-456-1323

Email: [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: April 29, 2005



CONTACT: Shane Kolb, DRA Livestock Team Chair, Meadow, 605-244-7145

Ron Wieseler, DRA Livestock Team Member, Orient, 605-392-2358

Robin EH. Bagley, DRA Organizer, Newell, 605-456-1322



DRA applauds Senators for re-introduction of Captive Supply Reform Act



Dakota Rural Action (DRA) commended Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and co-sponsors Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) today for re-introducing the Captive Supply Reform Act to restore market competition in the livestock industry.



“Meatpackers are acquiring an increasing percentage of the cattle and hogs they slaughter through arrangements known as ‘captive supplies’ – livestock that packers either own themselves, or control through contracts with farmers and ranchers,” said Shane Kolb, DRA's Livestock Team Chair. “We commend Senators Enzi and Johnson for introducing this bill to end the secret livestock contracts that are so deadly to a working, competitive livestock market.”



Four companies control 59 percent of U.S. hog slaughter and 81 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter, according to USDA data. Many family farmers and ranchers contend that this level of concentration allows meatpacking corporations to manipulate the purchase of cattle and hogs to their advantage through what are called “captive supplies.” This manipulative practice by meatpackers costs independent livestock producers over $1 billion every year.



“In the cattle industry, direct ownership by processors amounts to only seven percent, whereas control through contracts is as high as 85 percent,” said Kolb. “If you're going to make any headway reforming market manipulation, the use of captive supplies through forward contracts must be addressed.”



The Captive Supply Reform Act does not prohibit the use of contracts; instead, it would implement two reforms designed to restore open, fair competition to the process of marketing livestock through contracts.



Most contract arrangements for livestock do not contain a negotiated price. Instead, these agreements base the amount livestock producers receive on prices determined after the deal is made – allowing packers to drive down the price in the meantime. The Captive Supply Reform Act would end this practice by requiring contracts and agreements to state a fixed base price. The bill also will require that such contracts be traded in open, public markets (such as an electronic market) to which all buyers and sellers of livestock have access.



The bill is the fruition of years of grassroots movement to restore competition to U.S. livestock markets. Long before it was called the “Captive Supply Reform Act,” the bill was referred to as the “WORC Petition for Rulemaking.” This rule, whose language is now the bill language, was originally presented to USDA for consideration. The petition was presented to then-U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman at Farm Aid in 1996. DRA member Ron Wieseler, Orient, presented the petition to Glickman at the concert on behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) and its state affiliates, including DRA.



“We've waited nine years, and we've lost a lot of producers. Hopefully we can get this passed before we lose more,” said Wieseler. “I applaud all the sponsors for starting the process to restore competition to our markets.”





# # #
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Haymaker, you've been a supporter of the Captive Supply Reform Act for a long time. If this bill limits the number of days packers can own livestock, will you now lead the charge to ensure calves ARE NOT sold to packers at the sale barn?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Beefman said:
Haymaker, you've been a supporter of the Captive Supply Reform Act for a long time. If this bill limits the number of days packers can own livestock, will you now lead the charge to ensure calves ARE NOT sold to packers at the sale barn?


And why would I want to do that,I dont give a Damn who buys em I do care who manipulates the markets..................good luck
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
HAY MAKER said:
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Callicrate [mailto:[email protected]]

“We've waited nine years, and we've lost a lot of producers. Hopefully we can get this passed before we lose more,” said Wieseler. “I applaud all the sponsors for starting the process to restore competition to our markets.”


Response: Did we only begin to lose producers during the past nine years? What was the cause for the loss of producers during the 200 years prior to captive supply? Who or what was to blame when captive supply was not even present? The aforementioned questions point out the extreme shallowness, falsehood and misdirect of the captive supply claims.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike Callicrate lied under oath in the Pickett case Haymaker.

Why would you quote someone who lies under oath?


Hayseed: "I dont give a Damn who buys em I do care who manipulates the markets"

You couldn't even define captive supplies yet you pretend to know what the term means.

If the captive supply packer blamer's reform act passes, packers would not be allowed to bid on your feeder calves.

How does that create competition Hayseed? Explain it!

You talk about so called "market manipulation" yet you or nobody else has been able to prove it because it's just talk. Everyone in any business is out to minimize their input costs and maximize their profits. Somehow, when it comes to packers, this has become known as market manipulation.

Sorry packer blamers!


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Mike Callicrate lied under oath in the Pickett case Haymaker.

Why would you quote someone who lies under oath?
12 jurors believed him,who would you have us believe a cattle man or a known packer advocate?
Hayseed: "I dont give a Damn who buys em I do care who manipulates the markets"

You couldn't even define captive supplies yet you pretend to know what the term means.
I dont pretend to know what it means as you call it I know what it means to the cattle man,LESS PROFIT due to market manipulation
If the captive supply packer blamer's reform act passes, packers would not be allowed to bid on your feeder calves.
Good they need to stick to packing, and let the feeders do the buying
How does that create competition Hayseed? Explain it!
It creates FAIRNESS,competetion will follow,you couldnt even answer the simpliest question about the PICKETT appeal,yet you claim to be an expert LOL..............good luck
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
HAY MAKER said:
~SH~ said:
Mike Callicrate lied under oath in the Pickett case Haymaker.

I dont pretend to know what it means as you call it I know what it means to the cattle man,LESS PROFIT due to market manipulation

REposne: Would you please explain how they manipulate the market in you own words. Just for your information. Dr Taylor, in the Pickett case, could not explain how they supposedly manipulated the market. He just had six theories none of which he tested per court testimony. That is kinda like your anti-captive supply opinion when you cannot even define it. He hoodwinked the jury but not the judge-get it. You have only managed to hoodwink yourself. Have a great day.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
HAY MAKERS DEFINITION OF CAPTIVE SUPPLIES======THEFT BY DECEPTION...............good luck PSWe can go back and forth till the cows come home and the end result will not change the fact packers manipulate the markets and will continue to do so untill we have the CAPTIVE SUPPLY REFORM ACT.
 

TARSman

Active member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Agman,

I sure would like to be able to have some email dialog with you if it's ok with you. I'm traveling, and can't send you an email from this computer since I don't know your email address. So, please send me an email through this site if you can, and I will get back to you. Thanks in advance!

TARSman
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Pickett case was very clear. The judges instructions to the jury was that the jury had to agree that ibp LACKED a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies. Considering the fact that 75% of all captive supply cattle ARE FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE and considering that the plaintiffs themselves addmitted to entering into forward contracts, and considering that the plaintiffs themselves admitted that ibp HAD a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts, why would you still struggle with figuring out why the judge threw the verdict out on it's ass? Must be that sippin' whiskey huh?


"Theft by deception"?

If captive supplies are "theft by deception", WHY WOULD THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE????

You can't answer that question because you don't even understand the issue.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top