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

CHECKOFF REVISION

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Montana Cattlemen's Association

Press Release



Release Date: November 15, 2005

Contact person: John Lockie

Executive Director

(406) 628-2230

Email: [email protected]





CHECKOFF REVISION



Montana Cattlemen's Association and R-CALF USA held their 4th Annual Cattlemen's Day in Billings on November 11 & 12. Members of both organizations came to Cattlemen's Day with the checkoff program on their minds. There has been much talk around the country on the need to re-evaluate the checkoff, particularly in view of the recent Supreme Court decision declaring the checkoff to be "government speech".



Dennis McDonald, chairman of the MCA checkoff committee, submitted a sweeping proposal designed to make the checkoff work for grassroots family producers. It was emphasized that the proposal was NOT intended to kill the program, but rather an effort to reform the program to make it more responsive to U.S. cattle producers.



The checkoff proposal was adopted by the membership present at the MCA meeting and will now be forwarded to full membership for final approval. The resolution calls for the following reforms:



1. Check-off dollars be used to promote only USA beef from cattle born, raised, and processed in the United States of America.

2. A periodic vote on the check-off program (every five years).

3. Prohibit any one cattle organization from serving as the "prime contractor" for the program, but allow all cattle organizations to participate in approved projects on a case-by-case basis.

4. Reform the National Beef Board to reflect proportional representation from all national cattle organizations.

5. Allow for check-off expenditures to protect USA beef and cattle from unfair trade practices and to protect the U.S. cattle herd from import practices which threaten cattle herd health and beef consumers.

6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities.

7. Provide that 70% of all funds collected remain in the state where collected, and 30% to the National Beef Board.

8. Provide an exemption for producers contributing equal or greater funds into a private sector self- help effort.



Brett DeBruycker, President of MCA, notes that he is pleased that MCA is poised to lead a national effort on the checkoff. He points out that Montana's Farmers Union, South Dakota Stockgrowers, and Northern Plains Resource Council have already passed similar policy. Cattle organizations from North Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado and Washington were also in attendance and plan to consider similar policy. DeBruycker expresses optimism that the cattle industry will support reform of the checkoff program and will be unified when the industry meets again at the R-CALF USA convention in Denver on January 18, 2006.



###
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
I will have to say Haymaker, this proposal made my jaw drop! The article states that the intention is not to kill the check off. This proposal would destroy it!

5. “Allow for check-off expenditures to protect USA beef and cattle from unfair trade practices and to protect the U.S. cattle herd from import practices which threaten cattle herd health and beef consumers”

The check off is used to promote beef and not to make political statements! NCBA & R-Calf can make the statements. :shock:

6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities. :shock:

Am I reading this right? All the bitching about check off supporting packers and now they want to force them to do this? :shock:

I can go down the line and look at most of these and am shocked at these proposals! I hope someone is kidding me! I am leaving for most of the day or this would be 5 pages long! :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I'm a fairly staunch R-CALF member and I'm kind of looking at this and going "ehhhhhhh, I'm not so sure......"
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
5. Allow for check-off expenditures to protect USA beef and cattle from unfair trade practices and to protect the U.S. cattle herd from import practices which threaten cattle herd health and beef consumers.


Looks to me like the lawyers will be better fed then before. :cowboy:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I'm a fairly staunch R-CALF member and I'm kind of looking at this and going "ehhhhhhh, I'm not so sure......"

I agree- I think the boys went a little far in trying to show their displeasure to the current system...But I could definitely support 1 thru 4....7 would be fine except some states don't even have a Beef Board-and 8 would be a can of worms as to who qualifies as a private sector self-help provider....I'm sure its meant for groups like OCM, but would leave a lot of openings if not spelled out to certain groups....
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Do #6 and #8 contradict one another? Or am I not understanding their proposals?

6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities.



8. Provide an exemption for producers contributing equal or greater funds into a private sector self- help effort.

And yes, I probably have no right to comment on your checkoff system .... just thinking out loud.
 

pknoeber

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
SW KS
3. Prohibit any one cattle organization from serving as the "prime contractor" for the program, but allow all cattle organizations to participate in approved projects on a case-by-case basis.

Sounds like a great way to guarantee that administrators and lawyers would garner the bulk of the money fighting over who get's the most.

4. Reform the National Beef Board to reflect proportional representation from all national cattle organizations.

See comment above.

6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities.

Wow, & I thought they viewed them as the enemies. What happened to all that packer-is-the-devil attitude?

7. Provide that 70% of all funds collected remain in the state where collected, and 30% to the National Beef Board.

Guess NE, TX & KS will be living in the land of plenty then. Or at least they should w/ the packing plants buying in those states but I'm not sure how/where that fee is collected.

8. Provide an exemption for producers contributing equal or greater funds into a private sector self- help effort.

Nothing like sending fragmented signals from the producers to the consumers of a commodity product.

Phil
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
Do #6 and #8 contradict one another? Or am I not understanding their proposals?

6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities.



8. Provide an exemption for producers contributing equal or greater funds into a private sector self- help effort.

And yes, I probably have no right to comment on your checkoff system .... just thinking out loud.

Not sure SSAP- but the more I read it, the more I think they are about the same...Allow an individual to spend money promoting his own branded beef and be used as a writeoff against his checkoff payments...That was kind of one of the issues in the original lawsuit- the producer wanted his money to go to fund his branded beef and not used to promote generic beef which competed against him....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
I'm a fairly staunch R-CALF member and I'm kind of looking at this and going "ehhhhhhh, I'm not so sure......"

I agree- I think the boys went a little far in trying to show their displeasure to the current system...But I could definitely support 1 thru 4....7 would be fine except some states don't even have a Beef Board-and 8 would be a can of worms as to who qualifies as a private sector self-help provider....I'm sure its meant for groups like OCM, but would leave a lot of openings if not spelled out to certain groups....

I'm with you; 1-4 make sense, 5 & 6 are too wide open, I don't understand the reasoning behind 7, 8 I think would cause too many problems on paperwork and what would qualify. Also, think the guys pushing #8 would settle if #1 was passed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1. Check-off dollars be used to promote only USA beef from cattle born, raised, and processed in the United States of America.

First, in order to prove which cattle were born, raised, and processed in the U.S. you need a valid traceback system. The R-CULT hypocrites are against a traceback system and prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL making it unenforceable.

Secondly, if you are going to differentiate your product, you need to differentiate it from more than a measly 5%. SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE.


2. A periodic vote on the check-off program (every five years).

A vote can be taken now. All it requires is a meager 10% of producer signatures. The Livestock Marketing Police couldn't get this done even with 1/3 of the signatures being fraudulent.


3. Prohibit any one cattle organization from serving as the "prime contractor" for the program, but allow all cattle organizations to participate in approved projects on a case-by-case basis.

Any cattle organization can come up with projects for beef promotion, research and education that would qualify under checkoff guidelines.


4. Reform the National Beef Board to reflect proportional representation from all national cattle organizations.

Any cattle organization can be represented on the beef board now.


5. Allow for check-off expenditures to protect USA beef and cattle from unfair trade practices and to protect the U.S. cattle herd from import practices which threaten cattle herd health and beef consumers.

Absolutely ridiculous. Who defines "unfair trade practice"? The lying organization that uses BSE "fear mongering" to stop Canadian imports? Give me a break! Checkoff dollars need to be spent on beef research promotion and education as well as setting a few dollars aside to educate ignorant R-CULTers as to what factors truly affect cattle markets so they know where our priorities should be placed, ON THE CONSUMER.


6. Allow check-off expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities.

Another ridiculous recomendation. How could you pick one branded beef program over another?


7. Provide that 70% of all funds collected remain in the state where collected, and 30% to the National Beef Board.

Any state can determine now what percent of their share would be sent to the National Beef Board.


8. Provide an exemption for producers contributing equal or greater funds into a private sector self- help effort.

Whatever the hell a "private sector self-help effort" is.


How much more obvious can the problem be? The problem is R-CULT's ignorance on how the checkoff is conducted. This is exactly what I have come to expect from this backwards organization that "CLAIMS" to represent the grass roots producer.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "How much more obvious can the problem be? The problem is R-CULT's ignorance on how the checkoff is conducted. This is exactly what I have come to expect from this backwards organization that "CLAIMS" to represent the grass roots producer."

I think Macon needs to ban you until you have taken and passed a reading comprehension course. This was presented to and will be voted on by MCA, not R-CALF.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
I'm a fairly staunch R-CALF member and I'm kind of looking at this and going "ehhhhhhh, I'm not so sure......"

Maybe Sandhusker needs the same test! :)
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker, isn't MCA a major affiliate of R-CALF, and did R-CALF leaders oppose those points? I think we can safely assume these points, with possible "adjustments" after hearing comments, will be voted in at the annual R-CALF convention.

The major thing to learn from this is that ignorance of the Beef Checkoff is still a serious problem. Or possibly the term could be "ignoring" the facts of the Beef Checkoff to serve their agenda. It just seems unbelievable that all those people truly do not know:

1. Importers must pay checkoff on imported cattle and beef.......so how can they legally be excluded from promotion?

2. Means of a vote were included in the checkoff law to prevent the "politicking" that would waste time and money on an un-necessary election when few people have a problem with the checkoff. Ten percent of producers would certainly sign the petitions if there were real problems with the checkoff! And there would be no need for "win a pair of boots" enticements to sign!

3. Do those who "crafted" this point plan to include the words "contracts will be on a cost recovery only basis, with minute scrutiny to assure compliance with this rule"?

4.Do those "crafting" this point KNOW the current representation of national cattle organizations on the CBB and the state Beef Councils? I do believe they all are represented. For that matter, do they know there is no such body as a "National Beef Board"? Maybe they mean the Cattlemens' Beef Board, who knows???

5, Do those "crafting" this point know that lobbying with Checkoff money is forbidden?

6. One of the reasons for the mandatory checkoff was to PREVENT the largest feeders from witholding their money from the voluntary checkoff and using it to promote ONLY their own beef.

7. Fifty-fifty split seems fair to me! Some states have far more cattle than population to eat our beef. Some state beef councils can, and do, use our "extra" money to gain more influence on the national level in decisions re. checkoff spending.

8. Some R-CALF promoters have complained that NCBA is a "big operators", or a "rich mans" outfit........hmmnnnn, maybe this could be a good thing for NCBA......the "in lieu of checkoff" funds channeled right to the Policy/Dues payer division of NCBA.......might be a deal here!

Of course, MCA has the right to present whatever proposal they wish, no matter how silly it may look to anyone.

MRJ
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Don't make me come up there, Murgen.

Hell, come on up, it's snowing tonight, thinking of building a new igloo. The old one is getting run down, renovations are always welcome!

I might even be able to tour you around and show you some good cattle!

That's the problem with this site, we can't sit back, share a bottle and hash things out. I'm sure we could share a bottle if you came up!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "I'm a fairly staunch R-CALF member and I'm kind of looking at this and going "ehhhhhhh, I'm not so sure......"

Sandman: "This was presented to and will be voted on by MCA, not R-CALF."


That didn't take long! Already trying to distance yourself from it huh?

John Lockie?
Dennis McDonald?

Sounds like R-CULT/OCM to me!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top