Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court

[ocm]

03/28/2006

Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court's Pickett Decision
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

(Billings, Mont.) – Independent cattle producers across the United States were dealt a temporary setback Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) denied plaintiffs in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case the opportunity to appeal a lower court's decision in favor of major meatpackers.

"Recently, 36 cattle-producer groups – including R-CALF – asked the Supreme Court to review this case, and we believe this decision by the Court could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA)," said Randy Stevenson, a Wyoming feedlot operator who co-chairs R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "While R-CALF is disappointed with this development, we're not unprepared.

"The lower court's decision was based on the fact that certain economic justifications allowed Tyson to engage in activities that resulted in price manipulations, and like the Court's faulty Kelo decision a few months ago, the Court's determination not to hear the Pickett appeal confirms the idea that economic justifications trump other legal, ethical and moral standards," Stevenson asserted. "As long as the activity Tyson engaged in was justified by its own rationalizations, it was off the hook."

In the Kelo v New London case, the question was to what extent the government could use its power of eminent domain. The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment grants government the power of eminent domain – provided it pays a fair value for the property taken and the taking is for public use. In the Kelo decision, the Court decided government can take property for the economic benefit of a private entity – a taking based solely on economic justifications that might not benefit the public much at all.

The PSA is a key component of U.S. law that regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry. Just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported the agency has failed to fulfill its duty to enforce PSA regulations, and as a result, the domestic cattle industry has been unprotected while the nation's largest meatpackers have gained a significant and controlling advantage over the pricing of domestic live cattle. This advantage has been gained by the meatpackers' use of increasingly sophisticated cattle procurement techniques that deny cattle producers an honest price for their product.

"A monopoly is the economic equivalent of a dictatorship, and producers cannot live with the monopolization of the U.S. cattle industry," Stevenson emphasized. "A competitive market is the economic equivalent of an election, and the Packers and Stockyards Act is the guardian of an honest and competitive marketplace."

Stevenson said both the executive and judicial branches of government have come up short in response to producer concerns about PSA.

"It's long past time to legislatively address this failure," he continued. "Monday's Court decision has reinvigorated producers around the country, and we will work together to pursue a legislative remedy that will clarify what Congress intended when it passed the Act back in 1921.

"We especially want the Packers and Stockyards Act to be interpreted literally – to mean the same thing it did in 1921," urged Stevenson. "Our industry must aggressively work together to accomplish this effort.

"The Packers and Stockyards Act literally had to be dusted off after years of neglect, and now we must update the Act through Congress," Stevenson explained. "Only then can we expect our industry to be afforded the anti-competitive and unfair business-practices protections Congress wanted us to have, clear back in 1921.

"The U.S. Senate passed a ban on packer ownership during the 2002 Farm Bill discussions, so those folks are already well aware of that need," he said. "Now, through a coordinated effort, producers must work hand-in-hand to convince their representatives in the House."

Several members of Congress recently have expressed serious concerns about USDA's obvious disregard for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA's) almost nonexistent enforcement of PSA regulations and the agency's lackadaisical handling of valid requests for investigations into marketplace violations.

"Producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and R-CALF USA believes those actions are flagrant violations of the law," Stevenson continued.

The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Iowa Beef Producers (IBP), now owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and last month the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to seek a review by the Supreme Court.

"Independent cattle producers need clarification of the PSA regulations to make sure the industry can continue successfully for future generations of ranchers," Stevenson noted. "Cattle producers must have the ability to enforce the rights guaranteed to them under the PSA."

 

[agman]

03/28/2006

Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court's Pickett Decision
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

(Billings, Mont.) – Independent cattle producers across the United States were dealt a temporary setback Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) denied plaintiffs in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case the opportunity to appeal a lower court's decision in favor of major meatpackers.

"Recently, 36 cattle-producer groups – including R-CALF – asked the Supreme Court to review this case, and we believe this decision by the Court could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA)," said Randy Stevenson, a Wyoming feedlot operator who co-chairs R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "While R-CALF is disappointed with this development, we're not unprepared.

"The lower court's decision was based on the fact that certain economic justifications allowed Tyson to engage in activities that resulted in price manipulations, and like the Court's faulty Kelo decision a few months ago, the Court's determination not to hear the Pickett appeal confirms the idea that economic justifications trump other legal, ethical and moral standards," Stevenson asserted. "As long as the activity Tyson engaged in was justified by its own rationalizations, it was off the hook."

In the Kelo v New London case, the question was to what extent the government could use its power of eminent domain. The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment grants government the power of eminent domain – provided it pays a fair value for the property taken and the taking is for public use. In the Kelo decision, the Court decided government can take property for the economic benefit of a private entity – a taking based solely on economic justifications that might not benefit the public much at all.

The PSA is a key component of U.S. law that regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry. Just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported the agency has failed to fulfill its duty to enforce PSA regulations, and as a result, the domestic cattle industry has been unprotected while the nation's largest meatpackers have gained a significant and controlling advantage over the pricing of domestic live cattle. This advantage has been gained by the meatpackers' use of increasingly sophisticated cattle procurement techniques that deny cattle producers an honest price for their product.

"A monopoly is the economic equivalent of a dictatorship, and producers cannot live with the monopolization of the U.S. cattle industry," Stevenson emphasized. "A competitive market is the economic equivalent of an election, and the Packers and Stockyards Act is the guardian of an honest and competitive marketplace."

Stevenson said both the executive and judicial branches of government have come up short in response to producer concerns about PSA.

"It's long past time to legislatively address this failure," he continued. "Monday's Court decision has reinvigorated producers around the country, and we will work together to pursue a legislative remedy that will clarify what Congress intended when it passed the Act back in 1921.

"We especially want the Packers and Stockyards Act to be interpreted literally – to mean the same thing it did in 1921," urged Stevenson. "Our industry must aggressively work together to accomplish this effort.

"The Packers and Stockyards Act literally had to be dusted off after years of neglect, and now we must update the Act through Congress," Stevenson explained. "Only then can we expect our industry to be afforded the anti-competitive and unfair business-practices protections Congress wanted us to have, clear back in 1921.

"The U.S. Senate passed a ban on packer ownership during the 2002 Farm Bill discussions, so those folks are already well aware of that need," he said. "Now, through a coordinated effort, producers must work hand-in-hand to convince their representatives in the House."

Several members of Congress recently have expressed serious concerns about USDA's obvious disregard for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA's) almost nonexistent enforcement of PSA regulations and the agency's lackadaisical handling of valid requests for investigations into marketplace violations.

"Producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and R-CALF USA believes those actions are flagrant violations of the law," Stevenson continued.

The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Iowa Beef Producers (IBP), now owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and last month the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to seek a review by the Supreme Court.

"Independent cattle producers need clarification of the PSA regulations to make sure the industry can continue successfully for future generations of ranchers," Stevenson noted. "Cattle producers must have the ability to enforce the rights guaranteed to them under the PSA."

You only have one major problem. R-Calf and teh OCM do not represent most producers and certainly they are only an extermely small minority when representing actual cattle feeders.

We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?

We have had record prices with record captive supply. Where did the money come from to support those record prices? If I understand Bullard's recent comments he has convinced you and your constituents that producers did not benefit in recent years from demand gains. The gains went to packers and retailers. Need I post his most recent speech? I am certain his loyal followers have his sound-bites memorized.

Following and believing in such a lie, and that is exactly what it is, is the reason your side gets clobbered in the courts. All accusation and no facts-demagoguery will suffice. But as usual when things don't go your way you find someone to blame. You blame the courts now as opposed to addressing your own deficiencies.

 

[ocm]

You only have one major problem. R-Calf and teh OCM do not represent most producers and certainly they are only an extermely small minority when representing actual cattle feeders.

We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?

We have had record prices with record captive supply. Where did the money come from to support those record prices? If I understand Bullard's recent comments he has convinced you and your constituents that producers did not benefit in recent years from demand gains. The gains went to packers and retailers. Need I post his most recent speech? I am certain his loyal followers have his sound-bites memorized.

Following and believing in such a lie, and that is exactly what it is, is the reason your side gets clobbered in the courts. All accusation and no facts-demagoguery will suffice. But as usual when things don't go your way you find someone to blame. You blame the courts now as opposed to addressing your own deficiencies.

You have never denied that the court failed to follow the PSA literally. That's what needs fixed. It's not a huge surprise that ag issues don't come very high on the courts radar screen. Have you seen the OIG report? Think things are not broken? You know better.

If you think the Supreme Court never gets is wrong, then you need to be defending their Kelo decision.

 

[Econ101]

03/28/2006

Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court's Pickett Decision
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

(Billings, Mont.) – Independent cattle producers across the United States were dealt a temporary setback Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) denied plaintiffs in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case the opportunity to appeal a lower court's decision in favor of major meatpackers.

"Recently, 36 cattle-producer groups – including R-CALF – asked the Supreme Court to review this case, and we believe this decision by the Court could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA)," said Randy Stevenson, a Wyoming feedlot operator who co-chairs R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "While R-CALF is disappointed with this development, we're not unprepared.

"The lower court's decision was based on the fact that certain economic justifications allowed Tyson to engage in activities that resulted in price manipulations, and like the Court's faulty Kelo decision a few months ago, the Court's determination not to hear the Pickett appeal confirms the idea that economic justifications trump other legal, ethical and moral standards," Stevenson asserted. "As long as the activity Tyson engaged in was justified by its own rationalizations, it was off the hook."

In the Kelo v New London case, the question was to what extent the government could use its power of eminent domain. The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment grants government the power of eminent domain – provided it pays a fair value for the property taken and the taking is for public use. In the Kelo decision, the Court decided government can take property for the economic benefit of a private entity – a taking based solely on economic justifications that might not benefit the public much at all.

The PSA is a key component of U.S. law that regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry. Just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported the agency has failed to fulfill its duty to enforce PSA regulations, and as a result, the domestic cattle industry has been unprotected while the nation's largest meatpackers have gained a significant and controlling advantage over the pricing of domestic live cattle. This advantage has been gained by the meatpackers' use of increasingly sophisticated cattle procurement techniques that deny cattle producers an honest price for their product.

"A monopoly is the economic equivalent of a dictatorship, and producers cannot live with the monopolization of the U.S. cattle industry," Stevenson emphasized. "A competitive market is the economic equivalent of an election, and the Packers and Stockyards Act is the guardian of an honest and competitive marketplace."

Stevenson said both the executive and judicial branches of government have come up short in response to producer concerns about PSA.

"It's long past time to legislatively address this failure," he continued. "Monday's Court decision has reinvigorated producers around the country, and we will work together to pursue a legislative remedy that will clarify what Congress intended when it passed the Act back in 1921.

"We especially want the Packers and Stockyards Act to be interpreted literally – to mean the same thing it did in 1921," urged Stevenson. "Our industry must aggressively work together to accomplish this effort.

"The Packers and Stockyards Act literally had to be dusted off after years of neglect, and now we must update the Act through Congress," Stevenson explained. "Only then can we expect our industry to be afforded the anti-competitive and unfair business-practices protections Congress wanted us to have, clear back in 1921.

"The U.S. Senate passed a ban on packer ownership during the 2002 Farm Bill discussions, so those folks are already well aware of that need," he said. "Now, through a coordinated effort, producers must work hand-in-hand to convince their representatives in the House."

Several members of Congress recently have expressed serious concerns about USDA's obvious disregard for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA's) almost nonexistent enforcement of PSA regulations and the agency's lackadaisical handling of valid requests for investigations into marketplace violations.

"Producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and R-CALF USA believes those actions are flagrant violations of the law," Stevenson continued.

The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Iowa Beef Producers (IBP), now owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and last month the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to seek a review by the Supreme Court.

"Independent cattle producers need clarification of the PSA regulations to make sure the industry can continue successfully for future generations of ranchers," Stevenson noted. "Cattle producers must have the ability to enforce the rights guaranteed to them under the PSA."

You only have one major problem. R-Calf and teh OCM do not represent most producers and certainly they are only an extermely small minority when representing actual cattle feeders.

We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?

We have had record prices with record captive supply. Where did the money come from to support those record prices? If I understand Bullard's recent comments he has convinced you and your constituents that producers did not benefit in recent years from demand gains. The gains went to packers and retailers. Need I post his most recent speech? I am certain his loyal followers have his sound-bites memorized.

Following and believing in such a lie, and that is exactly what it is, is the reason your side gets clobbered in the courts. All accusation and no facts-demagoguery will suffice. But as usual when things don't go your way you find someone to blame. You blame the courts now as opposed to addressing your own deficiencies.

No, Agman, the problem is that the NCBA parades around acting like it represents the average producer then it always picks the packer side of the argumement every time there is an issue with the packer/producer. Unfortunately, the packer side of the argument is also the poultry side of the argument. The Pickett decision was based off of a poultry case and an obvious attempt, and so far successful attempt, at using the courts to legislate from the bench, and gut the PSA to bend over backwards for Tyson Foods. See what a $100,000 donation to the president's innaugeration party gets you?

You know all too well what captive supply is as you help obtain it. This is not a deficiency of rcalf, ocm, or intelligent producers, this is a deficiency in our system of government to take care of the least of those in our our society and enforce the laws that protect them. The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the people. How long do you think this will last? Go read the president's polling numbers. You are part of the reason they are so low. Incompetence and corruption in this government has reached new highs and there are a lot of people beginning to recognize it. Changing Andy Card out isn't going to fix the problem. The issue isn't just the war in Iraq. It is also the war at home on issues like this. The congress needs to stop using policy at the USDA as a deposit slip for political donations.

 

[RobertMac]

The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the people.

You're wrong here...a correct statement would be..."The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the independent cattle producer." What the 'people' see the packers and the Republicans offering them is 'cheap food' through a long standing cheap food policy...vote buying. Our problem is we are the ones paying for the cheap food.

The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

This is true when the supply of cattle exceeds the consumptive demand of consumers. Producers have two options...become packer/distributors or increase consumer consumption by increasing consumers confidence in the safety and healthfulness of our product. CBB, NCBA, and the packers have done a miserable job of doing this second option. The packers don't have a down side WHEN SUPPLY EXCEEDS DEMAND! They simply lower the price they pay for raw product(live cattle) to keep their margins profitable. CBB and NCBA naively believe packers are going to do their best to pay producers a fair, profitable price for their cattle. If R-CALF and OCM want to go after somebody, go after the government agencies that are in charge of enforcing the laws WHEN THERE IS PROOF THAT THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB! That table is set on that one and it's time to apply the pressure on behalf of the 'little man'. If NCBA doesn't support enforcing the laws that protect cattle producers, they are finished.

Option one is the only one where producers can be reasonably sure of maintaining profitability, but good, smart management on the processing/marketing side is a must. Where do you get those people...you steal them from the packers. The exploitive advantage is that, in general, consumer trust producers far more than they trust large corporation. That will allow producers to take advantage of both options. The problem...most producers only care about riding their horse looking at the south end of a north bound cow and only worry about getting the calf following her to the weaning pen. Packers are sure this mindset will remain in place.

 

[Econ101]

Econ wrote:
The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the people.


You're wrong here...a correct statement would be..."The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the independent cattle producer." What the 'people' see the packers and the Republicans offering them is 'cheap food' through a long standing cheap food policy...vote buying. Our problem is we are the ones paying for the cheap food.

The money comes from the hands of the few--those with market power and ability to amass large amounts of capital--at the expense of the many producers. The cheap food policy is the result. On watching Sec. Johanns in his town meetings with FFA students strategically placed, I was totally disgusted with the future he is heralding in for them if they decide to go into agriculture production in the USA.

Probably the worst thing that could happen to cattle produces was the combination of the packer side and the producer side into the NCBA. It has allowed the packers to make all the policy. It was the strategy that was employed in the poultry business also. The integrators or the packers then have the incestuous relationship I spoke of earlier with their own members. They can easily control them with devices like the NCBA poll that Soapweed talked about where they have so many things in common with the average producer. When it comes to the producer/packer, however, the packer will always win. This will continue to happen until other avenues like the one you suggest are the battlefront.

I have seen the USDA use their regulatory power to disadvantage or shut down producer friendly small packers and we are seeing the USDA do the same thing with the Japanese bse policy with Creekstone. Most of the time it has to do with the food inspectors of the plants, not big international policy decisions. They are picking the winners in the industry instead of allowing the markets to work. It is so unamerican.

The USDA is a fraud with the only recourse of political accountability and that aint happening.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

We have had record prices with record captive supply.

We've also had record demand, record world population, an entire countries' cattle market OBLITERATED by BSE, and a Canadian export market closed to much of the free world for years. Do you honestly believe that these influences had no effect on the price of feeders and fed cattle?

Do you honestly believe that the record prices would not have been even HIGHER without the captive supply, while economists the world over have proven that captive supplies = lower prices. It was proven in the grain industry where captive supplies have destroyed the value of commodies.

But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim.

So, the trial judge didn't actually set aside the jury ruling based on poor jury judgement or lack of evidence, but rather by business justifications? Odd how the packer support group on here would have us believe it was lack of evidence, when it was not.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

So, the trial judge didn't actually set aside the jury ruling based on poor jury judgement or lack of evidence, but rather by business justifications? Odd how the packer support group on here would have us believe it was lack of evidence, when it was not.

Rod

Rod- you are correct-- If the Judge had felt there was a lack of evidence he should have issued a summary judgement from the bench and dismissed the case before it went to the jury...

What the Honorable Judge actually did was to legislate from the bench by reinterpreting the law- something all good conservatives have been fighting hard against-- unless it fits their agenda :wink: ......

 

[agman]

03/28/2006

Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court's Pickett Decision
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

(Billings, Mont.) – Independent cattle producers across the United States were dealt a temporary setback Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) denied plaintiffs in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case the opportunity to appeal a lower court's decision in favor of major meatpackers.

"Recently, 36 cattle-producer groups – including R-CALF – asked the Supreme Court to review this case, and we believe this decision by the Court could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA)," said Randy Stevenson, a Wyoming feedlot operator who co-chairs R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "While R-CALF is disappointed with this development, we're not unprepared.

"The lower court's decision was based on the fact that certain economic justifications allowed Tyson to engage in activities that resulted in price manipulations, and like the Court's faulty Kelo decision a few months ago, the Court's determination not to hear the Pickett appeal confirms the idea that economic justifications trump other legal, ethical and moral standards," Stevenson asserted. "As long as the activity Tyson engaged in was justified by its own rationalizations, it was off the hook."

In the Kelo v New London case, the question was to what extent the government could use its power of eminent domain. The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment grants government the power of eminent domain – provided it pays a fair value for the property taken and the taking is for public use. In the Kelo decision, the Court decided government can take property for the economic benefit of a private entity – a taking based solely on economic justifications that might not benefit the public much at all.

The PSA is a key component of U.S. law that regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry. Just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported the agency has failed to fulfill its duty to enforce PSA regulations, and as a result, the domestic cattle industry has been unprotected while the nation's largest meatpackers have gained a significant and controlling advantage over the pricing of domestic live cattle. This advantage has been gained by the meatpackers' use of increasingly sophisticated cattle procurement techniques that deny cattle producers an honest price for their product.

"A monopoly is the economic equivalent of a dictatorship, and producers cannot live with the monopolization of the U.S. cattle industry," Stevenson emphasized. "A competitive market is the economic equivalent of an election, and the Packers and Stockyards Act is the guardian of an honest and competitive marketplace."

Stevenson said both the executive and judicial branches of government have come up short in response to producer concerns about PSA.

"It's long past time to legislatively address this failure," he continued. "Monday's Court decision has reinvigorated producers around the country, and we will work together to pursue a legislative remedy that will clarify what Congress intended when it passed the Act back in 1921.

"We especially want the Packers and Stockyards Act to be interpreted literally – to mean the same thing it did in 1921," urged Stevenson. "Our industry must aggressively work together to accomplish this effort.

"The Packers and Stockyards Act literally had to be dusted off after years of neglect, and now we must update the Act through Congress," Stevenson explained. "Only then can we expect our industry to be afforded the anti-competitive and unfair business-practices protections Congress wanted us to have, clear back in 1921.

"The U.S. Senate passed a ban on packer ownership during the 2002 Farm Bill discussions, so those folks are already well aware of that need," he said. "Now, through a coordinated effort, producers must work hand-in-hand to convince their representatives in the House."

Several members of Congress recently have expressed serious concerns about USDA's obvious disregard for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA's) almost nonexistent enforcement of PSA regulations and the agency's lackadaisical handling of valid requests for investigations into marketplace violations.

"Producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and R-CALF USA believes those actions are flagrant violations of the law," Stevenson continued.

The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Iowa Beef Producers (IBP), now owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and last month the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to seek a review by the Supreme Court.

"Independent cattle producers need clarification of the PSA regulations to make sure the industry can continue successfully for future generations of ranchers," Stevenson noted. "Cattle producers must have the ability to enforce the rights guaranteed to them under the PSA."

You only have one major problem. R-Calf and teh OCM do not represent most producers and certainly they are only an extermely small minority when representing actual cattle feeders.

We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?

We have had record prices with record captive supply. Where did the money come from to support those record prices? If I understand Bullard's recent comments he has convinced you and your constituents that producers did not benefit in recent years from demand gains. The gains went to packers and retailers. Need I post his most recent speech? I am certain his loyal followers have his sound-bites memorized.

Following and believing in such a lie, and that is exactly what it is, is the reason your side gets clobbered in the courts. All accusation and no facts-demagoguery will suffice. But as usual when things don't go your way you find someone to blame. You blame the courts now as opposed to addressing your own deficiencies.

No, Agman, the problem is that the NCBA parades around acting like it represents the average producer then it always picks the packer side of the argumement every time there is an issue with the packer/producer. Unfortunately, the packer side of the argument is also the poultry side of the argument. The Pickett decision was based off of a poultry case and an obvious attempt, and so far successful attempt, at using the courts to legislate from the bench, and gut the PSA to bend over backwards for Tyson Foods. See what a $100,000 donation to the president's innaugeration party gets you?

You know all too well what captive supply is as you help obtain it. This is not a deficiency of rcalf, ocm, or intelligent producers, this is a deficiency in our system of government to take care of the least of those in our our society and enforce the laws that protect them. The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the people. How long do you think this will last? Go read the president's polling numbers. You are part of the reason they are so low. Incompetence and corruption in this government has reached new highs and there are a lot of people beginning to recognize it. Changing Andy Card out isn't going to fix the problem. The issue isn't just the war in Iraq. It is also the war at home on issues like this. The congress needs to stop using policy at the USDA as a deposit slip for political donations.

I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case. Your case is so shallow that all you can resort to is further accusations.

Your further accusations directed at me again demonstrate how little you know and how terribly confused you are. I did not help obtain marketing agreements but I fully recognized the average pricing system was broke and only served to benefit the producers of below average product at the expense of premium product producers. Premium product producers tired of subsidizing producers of below average product as they should have. Did I encourage producers to change the system, yes I did. Will I encourage them today if their cattle types benefit from a marketing agreement. The answer is emphatically, "YES".

The industry paid a dear price in lost beef demand and lost market share under the average pricing sytem which served to lower the overall quality of beef offered to consumers. If you think the movement to marketing agreements did not move this industry toward better product which helped to stem a 19 year decline in beef demand from which ALL producers benefited then you are again highly misinformed. Perhaps even you know so little and remain so gullible as to believe Bullard's erroneous comments.

Your disdain for marketing agreements and how YOU think they are used and abused is the result of several sources of misinformation and misrepresentation. First, as the court clearly and correctly pointed out the term "captive supply" is very misleading. Producers can elect to sell their cattle in any form to anyone up to the time they are committed which is a very brief period. Second, for every animal committed to an agreement the residual supply is reduced by a corresponding number. Total supply is not increased. There is no downward shift in the demand curve. In fact in periods of oversupply a strong argument can be made that marketing agreements help to limit total beef production, thus limiting the negative price impact from increasing supplies. If you think hard and long enough you will understand why the latter is true. Have a good one.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?"

That's a pretty rediculous statement for anybody to make, much less somebody who claims to work in economics. Forward contracting is itself is not a problem maker. The problem comes in when those involved in the contracts have the market power to use those contracts in a manipulation game. The examples you tried sneak by on us have no market power. Comparing a company who controlls 1/3 of the NATIONAL market with a LOCAL entity is a laugher.

 

[ocm]

Agman, "We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?"

That's a pretty rediculous statement for anybody to make, much less somebody who claims to work in economics. Forward contracting is itself is not a problem maker. The problem comes in when those involved in the contracts have the market power to use those contracts in a manipulation game. The examples you tried sneak by on us have no market power. Comparing a company who controlls 1/3 of the NATIONAL market with a LOCAL entity is a laugher.

I have never known of a forward contract for calves or stockers where the contract was UNPRICED. That is where the market power comes in where the base is something influenceable by the buyer. Even Schroeder agreed that marketing agreements provide an improper incentivization.

And agman you said, "I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case."

Kelo was subjected to the same review as Pickett. And THAT was legally absurd, inexcusable and disastrous. Defend IT.

 

[TSR]

The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the people.

You're wrong here...a correct statement would be..."The republican party, as a whole, has decided to go with the money instead of the issues of the independent cattle producer." What the 'people' see the packers and the Republicans offering them is 'cheap food' through a long standing cheap food policy...vote buying. Our problem is we are the ones paying for the cheap food.

The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.

This is true when the supply of cattle exceeds the consumptive demand of consumers. Producers have two options...become packer/distributors or increase consumer consumption by increasing consumers confidence in the safety and healthfulness of our product. CBB, NCBA, and the packers have done a miserable job of doing this second option. The packers don't have a down side WHEN SUPPLY EXCEEDS DEMAND! They simply lower the price they pay for raw product(live cattle) to keep their margins profitable. CBB and NCBA naively believe packers are going to do their best to pay producers a fair, profitable price for their cattle. If R-CALF and OCM want to go after somebody, go after the government agencies that are in charge of enforcing the laws WHEN THERE IS PROOF THAT THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB! That table is set on that one and it's time to apply the pressure on behalf of the 'little man'. If NCBA doesn't support enforcing the laws that protect cattle producers, they are finished.

Option one is the only one where producers can be reasonably sure of maintaining profitability, but good, smart management on the processing/marketing side is a must. Where do you get those people...you steal them from the packers. The exploitive advantage is that, in general, consumer trust producers far more than they trust large corporation. That will allow producers to take advantage of both options. The problem...most producers only care about riding their horse looking at the south end of a north bound cow and only worry about getting the calf following her to the weaning pen. Packers are sure this mindset will remain in place.

I don't know,Robert Mac, I kinda think Econ may have it right. Remember when the oil execs claimed that they didn't meet with any gov. officials when our country's energy policy was being formulated? Then later they admitted to having met with V. Pres. Cheney while he was helping to write those energy policies of the US. That in itself was a punishable offense-lying to a government committee but what has become of it? NOTHING, besides higher than ever energy prices and all time record profits for the oil companies. Wonder what else has gone on we DON'T know about?

 

[agman]

Agman, "We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?"

That's a pretty rediculous statement for anybody to make, much less somebody who claims to work in economics. Forward contracting is itself is not a problem maker. The problem comes in when those involved in the contracts have the market power to use those contracts in a manipulation game. The examples you tried sneak by on us have no market power. Comparing a company who controlls 1/3 of the NATIONAL market with a LOCAL entity is a laugher.

I have never known of a forward contract for calves or stockers where the contract was UNPRICED. That is where the market power comes in where the base is something influenceable by the buyer. Even Schroeder agreed that marketing agreements provide an improper incentivization.

And agman you said, "I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case."
IT.

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

The Pickett case is different from the case you reference. ALL the judges were not wrong in the Pickett case. ALL of them have much more legal expertise than you, I or anyone on this forum. I will trust their UNAMIOUS decision.

I was intrigued by your comments regarding what your described as a brilliantly orchestrated Amicus Brief. I cautioned you at that time the it was no better written than the previous briefs by the same people. I was particularly interested in the commonality of authors.

If I learned one thing from this case it was the comparison of case law as cited by your side as opposed to the defense. In all due respect, your side appeared truly elementary relative to the depth of analysis and interpretation of case law cited by the defense. The contrast was revealing and striking. Perhaps you can learn from that as I did.

 

[Anonymous]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

 

[agman]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in most cases.

 

[Sandhusker]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in msot cases.

How about an example or two?

 

[Anonymous]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in msot cases.

Sorry but I've set and watched many a contract done up- some as much as 6-7 months before delivery- The price, slide and shrink are right there on it...Never saw anyone here that would sign anything without a price on it-- Must do things different down there in your Penthouse country :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in most cases.

I guess you get away with what you can, huh, Agman?

 

[ocm]

Agman, "We would not want to qualify forward contracted calves or stockers as captive supply would we? How many decades has that practice been going on? Nor would forward contracted feed needs be considered price manipulation-or is it?"

That's a pretty rediculous statement for anybody to make, much less somebody who claims to work in economics. Forward contracting is itself is not a problem maker. The problem comes in when those involved in the contracts have the market power to use those contracts in a manipulation game. The examples you tried sneak by on us have no market power. Comparing a company who controlls 1/3 of the NATIONAL market with a LOCAL entity is a laugher.

I have never known of a forward contract for calves or stockers where the contract was UNPRICED. That is where the market power comes in where the base is something influenceable by the buyer. Even Schroeder agreed that marketing agreements provide an improper incentivization.

And agman you said, "I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case."
IT.

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

The Pickett case is different from the case you reference. ALL the judges were not wrong in the Pickett case. ALL of them have much more legal expertise than you, I or anyone on this forum. I will trust their UNAMIOUS decision.

I was intrigued by your comments regarding what your described as a brilliantly orchestrated Amicus Brief. I cautioned you at that time the it was no better written than the previous briefs by the same people. I was particularly interested in the commonality of authors.

If I learned one thing from this case it was the comparison of case law as cited by your side as opposed to the defense. In all due respect, your side appeared truly elementary relative to the depth of analysis and interpretation of case law cited by the defense. The contrast was revealing and striking. Perhaps you can learn from that as I did.

Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing again. The "difference" in cases doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you said you will trust the judges. If you trust the judges because they are experts then you trust the judges because they are experts, not because the case is different.

If YOU determine the case is different, then you are judging the judges, just like I am. Only you're pretending not to.

The Tyson side CONSISTENTLY confused precedents on 202(a) with their arguments on 202(e). They tried to make the precedents on 202(a) apply to 202(e). That is where the 11th was different than any other circuit. NO OTHER CIRCUIT ever applied the weighting principle to 202(e), only 202(a).

It is only a simple matter of understanding plain English--something judges frequently disregard. My particular background (not law) gives me sufficient background for analysis of the meanings of sentences, paragraphs, contexts, etc. I had seven years training in such matters as well as years of experience. This case was not determined on the plain language of the law. To accuse me of not understanding it is to say that I can't read the legalese dialect of English. I can, as well as other dialects.

You obviously missed the subtley of Tyson's sleight of hand in confusing sections 202(a) and (e). They were good at confusing the two. When you understand the distinction between the two sections you can better understand the apparent conflicts between the plaintiffs and the defendents briefs.

TYSON NEVER SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESSED SECTION 202(E). Now, which section was this case brought to trial under?

 

[agman]

I have never known of a forward contract for calves or stockers where the contract was UNPRICED. That is where the market power comes in where the base is something influenceable by the buyer. Even Schroeder agreed that marketing agreements provide an improper incentivization.

And agman you said, "I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case."
IT.

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

The Pickett case is different from the case you reference. ALL the judges were not wrong in the Pickett case. ALL of them have much more legal expertise than you, I or anyone on this forum. I will trust their UNAMIOUS decision.

I was intrigued by your comments regarding what your described as a brilliantly orchestrated Amicus Brief. I cautioned you at that time the it was no better written than the previous briefs by the same people. I was particularly interested in the commonality of authors.

If I learned one thing from this case it was the comparison of case law as cited by your side as opposed to the defense. In all due respect, your side appeared truly elementary relative to the depth of analysis and interpretation of case law cited by the defense. The contrast was revealing and striking. Perhaps you can learn from that as I did.

Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing again. The "difference" in cases doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you said you will trust the judges. If you trust the judges because they are experts then you trust the judges because they are experts, not because the case is different.

If YOU determine the case is different, then you are judging the judges, just like I am. Only you're pretending not to.

The Tyson side CONSISTENTLY confused precedents on 202(a) with their arguments on 202(e). They tried to make the precedents on 202(a) apply to 202(e). That is where the 11th was different than any other circuit. NO OTHER CIRCUIT ever applied the weighting principle to 202(e), only 202(a).

It is only a simple matter of understanding plain English--something judges frequently disregard. My particular background (not law) gives me sufficient background for analysis of the meanings of sentences, paragraphs, contexts, etc. I had seven years training in such matters as well as years of experience. This case was not determined on the plain language of the law. To accuse me of not understanding it is to say that I can't read the legalese dialect of English. I can, as well as other dialects.

You obviously missed the subtley of Tyson's sleight of hand in confusing sections 202(a) and (e). They were good at confusing the two. When you understand the distinction between the two sections you can better understand the apparent conflicts between the plaintiffs and the defendents briefs.

TYSON NEVER SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESSED SECTION 202(E). Now, which section was this case brought to trial under?

Pardon me, but where did I say I did not trust the judges? I just said they are two different cases. Confusing the issue again are you? When you know as much about ALL the case law involved then I will pay attention to your venison. Until then it is your personal version versus the interpretation of ALL the judges who reviewed the case. I am to believe they are ALL ignorant of the law and you know it all. Give me a break.