nowhereroad1972
Member
A question for ardent R-CALF members out there.
Did their election even happen this year? I am wondering because Jay Miller had been running for the R-CALF board, but he is listed here as a Director of USCA. Is it easier to just let Bullard pick who he wants as Directors - saves the messy step of throwing they rif-raf out during meetings. Democracy is too darn messy - Dictatorships are much cleaner.
It is very funny to find the link from R-CALF's website to USCA website. All you have to do is go to the links on R-CALF, go to Cattle Producers of Wasghinton and then go to the CPOW links - USCA. I would bet Bullard doesn't know that exists.
I haven't been a member of R-CALF for several years, and I haven't joined USCA yet either. I think they are going to have serious problems in Montana with Dennis McDonald. He is the head of the MT Democrats and both he and Gov. Schweitzer of dead set on burying anyone who doesn't 100% agree with them. There are a lot of folks in this state and others that would agree with the general principles, but rankel under the Democrat yoke.
Jon Wooster, a San Lucas, California cattleman, heads up the newly-formed U.S. Cattlemen's Association, a group assembled from the people who bolted from Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund earlier this year over differences in operating "philosophy."
Those differences split the R-CALF board almost down the middle and resulted in a 5-4 vote to oust president Chuck Kiker of Beaumont, Texas. Kiker, a proponent of a more conciliatory approach to Washington politics, was replaced with Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry. R-CALF co-founder Leo McDonnell and directors Dennis McDonald and Jon Wooster decided to exit with Kiker and resigned from the board. Thirteen committee chairmen and co-chairmen cast their lot with the three gentlemen and tendered their own resignations the next day.
In an interview published by the Capital Press in late April, Wooster explained the philosophical split. "In the last year, we made huge gains in D.C., we felt. But it came to the point that R-CALF didn't want to go that way anymore." Some of the more militant members of the R-CALF board wanted to keep the focus on litigation but others were anxious to start working within the system.
"It's pretty hard to throw stones at someone, then expect him to work with you," Wooster said.
The new group will be clearly focused on the same issues that R-CALF has highlighted from its beginnings: the Farm Bill, country-of-origin labeling, NAIS, international trade, private property and market competition. The difference is the more conciliatory approach that USCA is expected to take.
Jon Wooster
USCA with its management DNA drawn directly from Butte, Montana, can best be described from afar as a "kinder, gentler" R-CALF. Whether it will prove itself to be the more effective organization is still open to furious debate. But that's only my opinion. Let's spend about five minutes with Jon Wooster to see what he thinks.
Q. Jon, let's talk about the makeup of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association. The list of interim directors reads like last year's R-CALF membership directory. You've served for several years as an R-CALF Director; Chase Carter, the Vice President, was formerly a member of R-CALF; Doug Zalesky, R-CALF's Trade Chair, is Director for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; Chuck Kiker, former R-CALF president, is Director for Texas; Dennis McDonald, former director and one of the founders of R-CALF, is Director for Montana and Idaho, and Danni Beer, former COOL Chair from R-CALF is serving in the same capacity for USCA as well as Director for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. You've also announced that Jim Hanna is the Director from Nebraska and Iowa, Allan Sents from Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and Jay Miller from Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. In any competitive business, that would be called a major talent raid. Why have so many R-CALF leaders decided to move on?
A. Thank you. You're correct, USCA is assembling a team of people with integrity, credibility, extensive knowledge and experience with the issues, and they are already hard at work on matters that will directly impact the profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry.
What happened at R-CALF is history. What's important now is to forge ahead representing the interests of cattle producers across this country effectively and efficiently when we have the friendliest Congress in a long, long time. There is much to be done.
Q. The web site (www.uscattlemen.org) pages are mostly empty at this point with "coming soon" being the operative term. Can we try to fill in the blanks? Tell me about the organization. What are its short term goals?
A. The U.S. Cattlemen's Association very carefully and methodically outlined its mission statement and short term goals and we've begun achieving some of those goals right now. Long term goals are coming into focus as we proceed with the adoption of policy on issues the organization will undertake.
The web site is under construction and we expect it to be fully operational in mid-May. It will be regularly updated so producers can track the issues. The web site will feature several things including pre-recorded interviews that can be easily accessed and downloaded, current and archived press releases, policy statements, bylaws, and meeting minutes. We also intend to offer some interesting surprises via the website, which the media will appreciate and producers will find enlightening.
USCA's mission statement is simple. The purpose of the USCA is to present an effective voice for the United States cattle Industry. USCA is dedicated to, and focused on efforts in Washington, D.C. to further the interests of cattle producers on mandatory country of origin labeling, international trade, market competition, reform of the beef checkoff, animal health, welfare and identification, private property rights and other issues that affect the United States cattle industry.
Q. Looking down the road at long term goals, what does the Association want to accomplish?
A. We want to expand and build upon the valuable relationships the industry has established in Washington, DC in an effort to reform policy so that long-lasting change can be effected. The industry cannot afford to lose the ground gained in the policy arena and that's what USCA is working to preserve and grow. We have tremendous opportunities during this session of Congress and we likely will for some time to come. Consequently, that's where this new organization is focused right now. The people in leadership positions at USCA are seasoned veterans in the policy arena. They know Washington and certainly, Washington knows them.
Q. Not surprisingly, USCA is on record as adamantly opposed to any linkage between mandatory COOL and mandatory Animal ID. Tell me about your position on both issues and your reasoning behind opposing linkage.
A. While COOL started out primarily as a marketing tool to offer consumers a choice and U.S. producers an opportunity, emerging international food safety events clearly demonstrate another dimension for COOL and that is the need for food labeling in America as quickly and effectively as possible. These events have underscored consumer demand for truthful, meaningful labeling. As a result of these events consumers are now expanding their expectations for labeling to include ingredients that are outsourced from other countries with less production regulation. Mandatory country of origin labeling has been mandated by Congress and is nearly ready for implementation. In contrast, animal identification has not been mandated by Congress and is stuck in a quagmire of controversy and overwhelming opposition from within the ranks of those it will impact the most. In this day and age, it is illogical to link the two programs together when resources should be devoted to protecting the national herd from health risks rather than managing the risks we import.
Originally, NAIS was proposed with the single goal of providing an effective animal-health trace back system. Along the way, USDA drifted far from this goal. Privatizing the animal records data base, source verification and other value-based programs were never part of the original plan, and neither was international competitiveness. Under the current proposed plan it's cattle producers who will be saddled with the costs and regulatory burdens. Currently, only about 25 percent of livestock premises nationwide have registered for premises numbers and most of these folks do not support a mandatory national animal identification system. The fact that producers are rejecting the proposed system should come as no surprise.
A national animal identification system should not be used to mitigate liberalized import standards which may result in higher risks to animal health. Threats to cattle health from diseases like brucellosis in wildlife to chronic tuberculosis problems in cattle from Mexico and highly contagious foot and mouth disease remain, and the lack of a mandatory national animal health system should not be used as an excuse to not strengthen policies needed to mitigate these threats.
For any voluntary animal identification system to work, it must be constructed on simplicity, efficiency, compatibility, flexibility and trust. Any sort of animal health trace back system should not limit choices, affect competition or disrupt commerce. The unanswered questions about NAIS will remain until USDA explores ways to better utilize existing systems and relies more on state animal health departments to implement the program so as to let the program mature and earn producers' trust. The U.S. was once a world leader in animal health and food safety. USCA members are not willing to compromise those high standards.
Q. USCA has retained former R-CALF lobbyist Jess Peterson and Big Sky Strategies, a government relations firm started by Peterson and Abra Belke, to represent the association. Bill Hawks, former undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and now a Washington, D.C., consultant, is also part of your team. What will Big Sky and Hawks be doing for the Association?
A. Retaining Washington, DC consultants was one of the first things USCA organizers outlined as an immediate goal, and we've taken that step by hiring Big Sky Strategies, founded by Montana natives Jess Peterson and Abra Belke.
Jess Peterson has an excellent track record in Washington, DC. His knowledge of Washington, his energy and enthusiasm and his ability to network people together are valuable assets for cattle producers. USCA is very pleased to have been able to negotiate a contract arrangement with Jess and Abra and keep them on track working for the cattle industry. Producers are fortunate to have such professionals representing them.
Bill Hawks and Valerie Ragan, AgWorks Solutions, are not officially part of the USCA team yet, but they are willing to work with us as needed and we hope to bring them officially on board in the future. USCA is committed to accurately framing cattle industry issues, and providing the grassroots perspective in a professional, well thought-out, reasonable and logical manner for policy makers.
As cattle producers, we've learned some valuable lessons over time. We must be proactive rather than reactive to problems; we must frame the issues rather than permitting others to frame them for us; and we must interact with lawmakers and federal officials from a solution-oriented perspective.
We have a friendly Congress in session right now that is debating farm policy that will impact every rancher in America. USCA is fortunate to have some of the best consultants in the country helping us shape not only our message, but also to help network the organization into many places and meetings on Capitol Hill that aren't easily accessed.
Q. Do you expect more state organizations to join and what will attract them to USCA?
A. USCA is pleased to have Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas (ICA) and Cattle Producers of Washington (CPOW) on board and engaged. Several other state organizations have been actively participating in USCA board conference calls and we're hopeful that they'll choose to affiliate.
Q. Thousands of cattlemen read cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. Now more than ever it's important to be on the floor of the arena engaged in the process rather than seated in the bleachers as spectators awaiting the outcome. Ranching looks mighty easy when your horse is a desk chair and you're a thousand or more miles away from the corral tucked away in an office on Capitol Hill. Now is the time for the cattle industry to make its case in Washington. USCA is comprised of people who are committed to doing that in a dignified, respectful, solution-oriented manner in which producers can take pride. I hope every cattle producer reading this will make an investment in their future and their children's future by joining USCA. Please visit us at www.uscattlemen.org.
Did their election even happen this year? I am wondering because Jay Miller had been running for the R-CALF board, but he is listed here as a Director of USCA. Is it easier to just let Bullard pick who he wants as Directors - saves the messy step of throwing they rif-raf out during meetings. Democracy is too darn messy - Dictatorships are much cleaner.
It is very funny to find the link from R-CALF's website to USCA website. All you have to do is go to the links on R-CALF, go to Cattle Producers of Wasghinton and then go to the CPOW links - USCA. I would bet Bullard doesn't know that exists.
I haven't been a member of R-CALF for several years, and I haven't joined USCA yet either. I think they are going to have serious problems in Montana with Dennis McDonald. He is the head of the MT Democrats and both he and Gov. Schweitzer of dead set on burying anyone who doesn't 100% agree with them. There are a lot of folks in this state and others that would agree with the general principles, but rankel under the Democrat yoke.
Jon Wooster, a San Lucas, California cattleman, heads up the newly-formed U.S. Cattlemen's Association, a group assembled from the people who bolted from Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund earlier this year over differences in operating "philosophy."
Those differences split the R-CALF board almost down the middle and resulted in a 5-4 vote to oust president Chuck Kiker of Beaumont, Texas. Kiker, a proponent of a more conciliatory approach to Washington politics, was replaced with Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry. R-CALF co-founder Leo McDonnell and directors Dennis McDonald and Jon Wooster decided to exit with Kiker and resigned from the board. Thirteen committee chairmen and co-chairmen cast their lot with the three gentlemen and tendered their own resignations the next day.
In an interview published by the Capital Press in late April, Wooster explained the philosophical split. "In the last year, we made huge gains in D.C., we felt. But it came to the point that R-CALF didn't want to go that way anymore." Some of the more militant members of the R-CALF board wanted to keep the focus on litigation but others were anxious to start working within the system.
"It's pretty hard to throw stones at someone, then expect him to work with you," Wooster said.
The new group will be clearly focused on the same issues that R-CALF has highlighted from its beginnings: the Farm Bill, country-of-origin labeling, NAIS, international trade, private property and market competition. The difference is the more conciliatory approach that USCA is expected to take.
Jon Wooster
USCA with its management DNA drawn directly from Butte, Montana, can best be described from afar as a "kinder, gentler" R-CALF. Whether it will prove itself to be the more effective organization is still open to furious debate. But that's only my opinion. Let's spend about five minutes with Jon Wooster to see what he thinks.
Q. Jon, let's talk about the makeup of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association. The list of interim directors reads like last year's R-CALF membership directory. You've served for several years as an R-CALF Director; Chase Carter, the Vice President, was formerly a member of R-CALF; Doug Zalesky, R-CALF's Trade Chair, is Director for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming; Chuck Kiker, former R-CALF president, is Director for Texas; Dennis McDonald, former director and one of the founders of R-CALF, is Director for Montana and Idaho, and Danni Beer, former COOL Chair from R-CALF is serving in the same capacity for USCA as well as Director for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. You've also announced that Jim Hanna is the Director from Nebraska and Iowa, Allan Sents from Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and Jay Miller from Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. In any competitive business, that would be called a major talent raid. Why have so many R-CALF leaders decided to move on?
A. Thank you. You're correct, USCA is assembling a team of people with integrity, credibility, extensive knowledge and experience with the issues, and they are already hard at work on matters that will directly impact the profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry.
What happened at R-CALF is history. What's important now is to forge ahead representing the interests of cattle producers across this country effectively and efficiently when we have the friendliest Congress in a long, long time. There is much to be done.
Q. The web site (www.uscattlemen.org) pages are mostly empty at this point with "coming soon" being the operative term. Can we try to fill in the blanks? Tell me about the organization. What are its short term goals?
A. The U.S. Cattlemen's Association very carefully and methodically outlined its mission statement and short term goals and we've begun achieving some of those goals right now. Long term goals are coming into focus as we proceed with the adoption of policy on issues the organization will undertake.
The web site is under construction and we expect it to be fully operational in mid-May. It will be regularly updated so producers can track the issues. The web site will feature several things including pre-recorded interviews that can be easily accessed and downloaded, current and archived press releases, policy statements, bylaws, and meeting minutes. We also intend to offer some interesting surprises via the website, which the media will appreciate and producers will find enlightening.
USCA's mission statement is simple. The purpose of the USCA is to present an effective voice for the United States cattle Industry. USCA is dedicated to, and focused on efforts in Washington, D.C. to further the interests of cattle producers on mandatory country of origin labeling, international trade, market competition, reform of the beef checkoff, animal health, welfare and identification, private property rights and other issues that affect the United States cattle industry.
Q. Looking down the road at long term goals, what does the Association want to accomplish?
A. We want to expand and build upon the valuable relationships the industry has established in Washington, DC in an effort to reform policy so that long-lasting change can be effected. The industry cannot afford to lose the ground gained in the policy arena and that's what USCA is working to preserve and grow. We have tremendous opportunities during this session of Congress and we likely will for some time to come. Consequently, that's where this new organization is focused right now. The people in leadership positions at USCA are seasoned veterans in the policy arena. They know Washington and certainly, Washington knows them.
Q. Not surprisingly, USCA is on record as adamantly opposed to any linkage between mandatory COOL and mandatory Animal ID. Tell me about your position on both issues and your reasoning behind opposing linkage.
A. While COOL started out primarily as a marketing tool to offer consumers a choice and U.S. producers an opportunity, emerging international food safety events clearly demonstrate another dimension for COOL and that is the need for food labeling in America as quickly and effectively as possible. These events have underscored consumer demand for truthful, meaningful labeling. As a result of these events consumers are now expanding their expectations for labeling to include ingredients that are outsourced from other countries with less production regulation. Mandatory country of origin labeling has been mandated by Congress and is nearly ready for implementation. In contrast, animal identification has not been mandated by Congress and is stuck in a quagmire of controversy and overwhelming opposition from within the ranks of those it will impact the most. In this day and age, it is illogical to link the two programs together when resources should be devoted to protecting the national herd from health risks rather than managing the risks we import.
Originally, NAIS was proposed with the single goal of providing an effective animal-health trace back system. Along the way, USDA drifted far from this goal. Privatizing the animal records data base, source verification and other value-based programs were never part of the original plan, and neither was international competitiveness. Under the current proposed plan it's cattle producers who will be saddled with the costs and regulatory burdens. Currently, only about 25 percent of livestock premises nationwide have registered for premises numbers and most of these folks do not support a mandatory national animal identification system. The fact that producers are rejecting the proposed system should come as no surprise.
A national animal identification system should not be used to mitigate liberalized import standards which may result in higher risks to animal health. Threats to cattle health from diseases like brucellosis in wildlife to chronic tuberculosis problems in cattle from Mexico and highly contagious foot and mouth disease remain, and the lack of a mandatory national animal health system should not be used as an excuse to not strengthen policies needed to mitigate these threats.
For any voluntary animal identification system to work, it must be constructed on simplicity, efficiency, compatibility, flexibility and trust. Any sort of animal health trace back system should not limit choices, affect competition or disrupt commerce. The unanswered questions about NAIS will remain until USDA explores ways to better utilize existing systems and relies more on state animal health departments to implement the program so as to let the program mature and earn producers' trust. The U.S. was once a world leader in animal health and food safety. USCA members are not willing to compromise those high standards.
Q. USCA has retained former R-CALF lobbyist Jess Peterson and Big Sky Strategies, a government relations firm started by Peterson and Abra Belke, to represent the association. Bill Hawks, former undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and now a Washington, D.C., consultant, is also part of your team. What will Big Sky and Hawks be doing for the Association?
A. Retaining Washington, DC consultants was one of the first things USCA organizers outlined as an immediate goal, and we've taken that step by hiring Big Sky Strategies, founded by Montana natives Jess Peterson and Abra Belke.
Jess Peterson has an excellent track record in Washington, DC. His knowledge of Washington, his energy and enthusiasm and his ability to network people together are valuable assets for cattle producers. USCA is very pleased to have been able to negotiate a contract arrangement with Jess and Abra and keep them on track working for the cattle industry. Producers are fortunate to have such professionals representing them.
Bill Hawks and Valerie Ragan, AgWorks Solutions, are not officially part of the USCA team yet, but they are willing to work with us as needed and we hope to bring them officially on board in the future. USCA is committed to accurately framing cattle industry issues, and providing the grassroots perspective in a professional, well thought-out, reasonable and logical manner for policy makers.
As cattle producers, we've learned some valuable lessons over time. We must be proactive rather than reactive to problems; we must frame the issues rather than permitting others to frame them for us; and we must interact with lawmakers and federal officials from a solution-oriented perspective.
We have a friendly Congress in session right now that is debating farm policy that will impact every rancher in America. USCA is fortunate to have some of the best consultants in the country helping us shape not only our message, but also to help network the organization into many places and meetings on Capitol Hill that aren't easily accessed.
Q. Do you expect more state organizations to join and what will attract them to USCA?
A. USCA is pleased to have Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas (ICA) and Cattle Producers of Washington (CPOW) on board and engaged. Several other state organizations have been actively participating in USCA board conference calls and we're hopeful that they'll choose to affiliate.
Q. Thousands of cattlemen read cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. Now more than ever it's important to be on the floor of the arena engaged in the process rather than seated in the bleachers as spectators awaiting the outcome. Ranching looks mighty easy when your horse is a desk chair and you're a thousand or more miles away from the corral tucked away in an office on Capitol Hill. Now is the time for the cattle industry to make its case in Washington. USCA is comprised of people who are committed to doing that in a dignified, respectful, solution-oriented manner in which producers can take pride. I hope every cattle producer reading this will make an investment in their future and their children's future by joining USCA. Please visit us at www.uscattlemen.org.