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

Cattlemen Consider Eliminating Brand Inspections

VB RANCH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
785
Location
leader minnesota
Cattlemen Consider Eliminating Brand Inspections
12/27/2010 07:26AM The Nebraska Cattlemen have floated a plan to do away with the state's nearly 60-year-old brand-inspection requirement.

Branding, which dates to the 1800s, was started to counter cattle rustling. Brand inspection became state law with the creation of the Nebraska Brand Committee in 1941.

But many ranchers are no longer willing to pay the 75-cent per head fee that's charged for inspection whenever cattle are sold or cross the north-south inspection line in central Nebraska that divides farming and ranching country.

"Why is it that there are only 13 states out of 50 that have cattle that find it necessary to have inspection of some sort?" Melody Benjamin of the Cattlemen's office in Alliance asked the Lincoln Journal Star. "Why are we special? Why is this necessary here?"

The Cattlemen aren't aiming to get rid of branding, Benjamin said, just the inspections. They plan to hold a series of informational and educationa l meetings across the state before deciding whether to approach a state senator about sponsoring a bill to do so.

State Sen. LeRoy Louden, a cattle rancher from Ellsworth, said he wouldn't back a change in state law.

"We're having problems now with cattle being stolen and hauled off," Louden said.

Last year, the Brand Committee matched a brand from among the 34,500 in record books with the hide imprint on some 2,500 head of strays to verify ownership on animals worth an estimated $1.7 million.

Committee investigators have obtained 14 felony convictions in the past five years in matters of livestock fraud and theft. The estimated value of the cattle involved was $25 million.

"Each one of these criminal convictions obtained relied heavily on brand inspection documents that were issued when brand inspections were performed," said Steve Stanec, executive director of the committee. "Without that paper trail, those convictions would be hard to obtain."

Hyannis rancher Destry Brown said he favors branding. "We can't operate in the west part of this country in the big Sandhills without a brand," he said.

And, the brand is worthless unless it's registered and documented, Brown said.

But the Cattlemen's Benjamin said an inspection fee that's charged on one side of a line and not the other is "an inequity." And inspections and fees don't seem necessary in every local transaction.

"If I sell six cows to a neighbor, they have to come out and inspect them before they can move across the fence," she said.
 
Maybe what is needed is a little common sense reform. Make neighborly transactions legal and unless reported stolen a re brand or receipt would suffice the brand inspector when the new owner sells the cows. Don't throw a good system away for a few fixable issues. I like living a a brand inspection jurisdiction. It does deter and catch plenty of skulduggery.
 
I had a so called neighbor, who has since moved to NE, haul 20 yearlings of mine to the sale barn along with some of his. The brand inspector caught what was going on at the barn and I got my stock back. IMO $.75/head inspection fee is a pretty good insurance against theft.


Trust your neighbors, but brand your calves.
 
Triangle Bar said:
I had a so called neighbor, who has since moved to NE, haul 20 yearlings of mine to the sale barn along with some of his. The brand inspector caught what was going on at the barn and I got my stock back. IMO $.75/head inspection fee is a pretty good insurance against theft.


Trust your neighbors, but brand your calves.
i agree with you Trianlge Bar.
 
Triangle Bar said:
I had a so called neighbor, who has since moved to NE, haul 20 yearlings of mine to the sale barn along with some of his. The brand inspector caught what was going on at the barn and I got my stock back. IMO $.75/head inspection fee is a pretty good insurance against theft.


Trust your neighbors, but brand your calves.

I agree!
 
Triangle Bar said:
I had a so called neighbor, who has since moved to NE, haul 20 yearlings of mine to the sale barn along with some of his. The brand inspector caught what was going on at the barn and I got my stock back. IMO $.75/head inspection fee is a pretty good insurance against theft.


Trust your neighbors, but brand your calves.

you just said a mouthful!
 
Last year the Montana Brand Inspectors found 4,385 estrays which were worth over $4 Million (using average value of $930 per head) and were able to return them or get the funds to the rightful owner....

2,169 of these were found during brand inspections at salesring markets- 2,216 of them were found while shipping from an outside scale or off the ranch....

Very very few of these actually involved theft- mostly just oversights....

Darn sure seems worth a 50 cent brand inspection...
 
Oldtimer said:
Last year the Montana Brand Inspectors found 4,385 estrays which were worth over $4 Million (using average value of $930 per head) and were able to return them or get the funds to the rightful owner....

2,169 of these were found during brand inspections at salesring markets- 2,216 of them were found while shipping from an outside scale or off the ranch....

Very very few of these actually involved theft- mostly just oversights....

Darn sure seems worth a 50 cent brand inspection...

It would be well worth it if it cost twice as much. With the prices of cattle where they are the inspection fee is pretty cheap insurance.
 
Here is the e-mail that I just sent off to the Nebraska Cattlemen. This is one of the stupider ideas that has come down the pike in recent times. My membership to this elite organization is even at stake, for whatever that is worth. :roll:

The small cost of brand inspections is a wise investment to counteract missing or stolen livestock. In the past few years, our ranch has recovered five head of livestock that inadvertantly ended up at the Martin Livestock Auction in South Dakota. They would undoubtedly have slid through the cracks if the South Dakota brand inspectors had not been on the stick. Please don't do away with this program. Brand inspection is a necessity, not a luxury. It should be mandatory from coast to coast, and border to border. The Nebraska Cattlemen need to stand up for what is right and keep brand inspections in force.

Sincerely,

Soapweed
 
it amazes me that that there are some areas that don't require brand inspections, eastern SD, where i grew for example. a cow, calf, bull, whatever- can be branded up one side and down the other and that critter can be sold under who evers name you choose. :shock:

brand inspections, at times, can be a pain in the ash...but it is well worth it. IMO
 
I never had a problem with paying the brand inspection fee when selling something,but do have a problem with beef checkoff and how it is being used.
 
MikeMcc said:
I never had a problem with paying the brand inspection fee when selling something,but do have a problem with beef checkoff and how it is being used.

I guess I think of both brand inspections and beef check-off fees as a minor cost of doing business, with both being investments in our best interests. Personally I don't begrudge either expenditure, but do realize that others think differently. That is their right and privilege.
 
Soapweed said:
MikeMcc said:
I never had a problem with paying the brand inspection fee when selling something,but do have a problem with beef checkoff and how it is being used.

I guess I think of both brand inspections and beef check-off fees as a minor cost of doing business, with both being investments in our best interests. Personally I don't begrudge either expenditure, but do realize that others think differently. That is their right and privilege.

I just wish their expenditures and investments would help to protect the industry that is paying it. Not to fill some ones pockets. Yes it is a minor fee per animal, but a major money maker industry wide.

Most of us just got done watching the NFR. Soapweed, did you see a ad promoting beef and paid for by the check off?
 
MikeMcc said:
Soapweed said:
MikeMcc said:
I never had a problem with paying the brand inspection fee when selling something,but do have a problem with beef checkoff and how it is being used.

I guess I think of both brand inspections and beef check-off fees as a minor cost of doing business, with both being investments in our best interests. Personally I don't begrudge either expenditure, but do realize that others think differently. That is their right and privilege.

I just wish their expenditures and investments would help to protect the industry that is paying it. Not to fill some ones pockets. Yes it is a minor fee per animal, but a major money maker industry wide.

Most of us just got done watching the NFR. Soapweed, did you see a ad promoting beef and paid for by the check off?

To be truthful, I only watched about three performances of the NFR. These were recorded ahead of time, so when the advertisements came along, I fast-forwarded through until the rodeo started again. So, no, I didn't see any beef ads. I also didn't see any Wrangler ads, or any other ads either. :wink: Probably Beef ads to rodeo watchers would be singing to the choir anyway. The money would be better spent on ads for other shows.

I do believe the Beef Check-off has done us a lot of good in the past. They have developed new products like the Flat Iron Steak, and have gone to bat for us when ding-a-lings like Oprah and others come out against us. I sure don't begrudge the check-off fees that I pay. However, the Nebraska Cattlemen have opened a whole new can of worms by trying to eliminate brand inspections. They have already been notified that our ranch membership dues were planned to be paid now, before the first of the new year, but with this asinine proposal the dues payment will be "on hold" indefinitely. :roll: :wink:
 
Soapweed said:
MikeMcc said:
Soapweed said:
I guess I think of both brand inspections and beef check-off fees as a minor cost of doing business, with both being investments in our best interests. Personally I don't begrudge either expenditure, but do realize that others think differently. That is their right and privilege.

I just wish their expenditures and investments would help to protect the industry that is paying it. Not to fill some ones pockets. Yes it is a minor fee per animal, but a major money maker industry wide.

Most of us just got done watching the NFR. Soapweed, did you see a ad promoting beef and paid for by the check off?

To be truthful, I only watched about three performances of the NFR. These were recorded ahead of time, so when the advertisements came along, I fast-forwarded through until the rodeo started again. So, no, I didn't see any beef ads. I also didn't see any Wrangler ads, or any other ads either. :wink: Probably Beef ads to rodeo watchers would be singing to the choir anyway. The money would be better spent on ads for other shows.

I do believe the Beef Check-off has done us a lot of good in the past. They have developed new products like the Flat Iron Steak, and have gone to bat for us when ding-a-lings like Oprah and others come out against us. I sure don't begrudge the check-off fees that I pay. However, the Nebraska Cattlemen have opened a whole new can of worms by trying to eliminate brand inspections. They have already been notified that our ranch membership dues were planned to be paid now, before the first of the new year, but with this asinine proposal the dues payment will be "on hold" indefinitely. :roll: :wink:

I also believe when the checkoff was first started that it did do a lot for the industry, but it seems that for the last few years that the ads have been few and far between.

Maybe checkoff should be voluntary????

I also believe that brand inspection should be nation wide, it keeps everyone honest and watching out for their neighbors cattle.
 
I also wonder why only 13 of 50 states have brand inspectors?? More states than that have cattle. Brand inspection fees are a good and minor investment. I also view the check off as a good and minor investment, The beef board has done much to promote beef. Ads are a small portion of their activity. They have worked closely with retail outlets to promote beef sales, promoted new cuts, quickly prepared recipies, and I have seen a good many ads promoting beef. They try to target the urban population with ads; why preach to the choir?
 
I firmly believe that both brand inspection and the Beef Check-off are good investments, that give ranchers more benefits than what they cost. However, if one of these investments was allowed to stay and the other was dispensed with, I would prefer that brand inspections stayed and the check-off be done away with. This deal is a complete bewilderment, but it is saving me some membership dues until the dust settles and things get back to normal. :roll: :wink:
 
VB RANCH said:
Cattlemen Consider Eliminating Brand Inspections
12/27/2010 07:26AM The Nebraska Cattlemen have floated a plan to do away with the state's nearly 60-year-old brand-inspection requirement.
Branding, which dates to the 1800s, was started to counter cattle rustling. Brand inspection became state law with the creation of the Nebraska Brand Committee in 1941.

But many ranchers are no longer willing to pay the 75-cent per head fee that's charged for inspection whenever cattle are sold or cross the north-south inspection line in central Nebraska that divides farming and ranching country.

"Why is it that there are only 13 states out of 50 that have cattle that find it necessary to have inspection of some sort?" Melody Benjamin of the Cattlemen's office in Alliance asked the Lincoln Journal Star. "Why are we special? Why is this necessary here?"

The Cattlemen aren't aiming to get rid of branding, Benjamin said, just the inspections. They plan to hold a series of informational and educationa l meetings across the state before deciding whether to approach a state senator about sponsoring a bill to do so.

State Sen. LeRoy Louden, a cattle rancher from Ellsworth, said he wouldn't back a change in state law.

"We're having problems now with cattle being stolen and hauled off," Louden said.

Last year, the Brand Committee matched a brand from among the 34,500 in record books with the hide imprint on some 2,500 head of strays to verify ownership on animals worth an estimated $1.7 million.

Committee investigators have obtained 14 felony convictions in the past five years in matters of livestock fraud and theft. The estimated value of the cattle involved was $25 million.

"Each one of these criminal convictions obtained relied heavily on brand inspection documents that were issued when brand inspections were performed," said Steve Stanec, executive director of the committee. "Without that paper trail, those convictions would be hard to obtain."

Hyannis rancher Destry Brown said he favors branding. "We can't operate in the west part of this country in the big Sandhills without a brand," he said.

And, the brand is worthless unless it's registered and documented, Brown said.

But the Cattlemen's Benjamin said an inspection fee that's charged on one side of a line and not the other is "an inequity." And inspections and fees don't seem necessary in every local transaction.

"If I sell six cows to a neighbor, they have to come out and inspect them before they can move across the fence," she said.

It seems there is error in the math of this article. Looks like if the brand inspection requirement came about in 1941, it would have been around for nearly 70 years instead of the nearly 60 years that is mentioned. :roll: I think we need to keep this worthwhile program in place. It has definitely served a useful function in the past and will continue to do so if some bungling bureaucrat doesn't mess it up.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top