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

HB 1182/SD Mandatory "Refundable" Check-Off

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Happy

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Good News: House Ag & Nat Resources Committee deferred HB 1182 to the 41st day - Committee voted 8-4 to DEFER! I'm sure proud of those lawmakers who have listened to the cow/calf producers. A BIG THANK YOU to Representatives Deadrick, Brunner, Gassman, Halverson, Hargens, Howie, Jensen and Sigdestad. :cboy:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
another case of 10 gallon hats and 10 once brains prevailing
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why are you happy? I admit the bill had some flaws, but who is going to do the things the national checkoff is doing if we lose that? :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I am a cow/calf producer and was unable to attend and hear any of the testimony, I was wondering what was wrong with the legislation? Please advise?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks Boss. I read it. Now tell me what was the testimony pro and con so I can make an educated decision about the subject?
 

Happy

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Why start another check-off when the National Check-Off has been ruled unconstitutional and Supreme Court now has to rule on it. Why not have a voluntary check-off since proponents of the bill claim it's what "all" producers want and need. Those that want to contribute may do so. :roll:
 

Happy

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Anonymous said:
another case of 10 gallon hats and 10 once brains prevailing

So you are happy with the outcome also, as I assume you're describing yourself not those who worked hard to stop this bill.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Gosh, let me see now, which would be a better investment???

Option #1 - Beef research, promotion, and education knowing, based on common sense knowledge, that any new money into this industry will come from the consumer.

or......(drum roll please)

Option #2 - Funding a dumping case against Canada THAT LOST, funding packer parasite lawsuits thinking that getting more of ibp's $26 per head profits for the Pickett era will allow ibp to pay more for cattle in the future, funding regulating the packing industry by allowing the government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle based on the interpretation that if you willingly forward contract your cattle to a packer you are participating in "market manipulation", funding the promotion of country of origin labeling when 95% of the labeled beef would be "U.S. beef" and consumers aren't even asking for it, and funding lies about the safety of Canadian beef because you are too ignorant to realize that the BSE precautionary measure presidence that is set for 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle) will be applied to 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (U.S. product) in the event that BSE is discovered here again.

GOSH, SUCH A DIFFICULT CHOICE ????????

I do admit that producers who claim to be in the "cattle industry" and not the "beef industry" yet claim to know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef (Country of origin labeling) should not be forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. If they would rather support their packer parasite lawsuits, country of origin labels on commodity beef that mean nothing to consumers, allowing the government to pick and choose who can bid on feeder calves, and fund their lies against the safety of Canadian beef, they should be able to throw their money away while the progressive segment of the industry moves forward. I'm all for further seperation between progressive and regressive.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top