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

I suppose OT will disagree

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
AFF Sentinel: Borrowing Tactics From Hugo

Horrifying is one way to describe what went on the weekend of May 15-16. Even more horrifying is considering what parties shared the philosophy and methodology.

You see, down in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez had quite a weekend. He took over a flour mill run by a Mexican company, then nationalized a bauxite operation owned by an American company, a steel subsidiary run from Luxembourg and a group of transport companies ("Hugo Chavez's Expropriation Binge," Investor's Business Daily, 5/18/10).

Then, he took over a private university and launched new monetary exchange controls - another way of expropriating wealth, as IBD notes.

But the capper was taking over a cattle/oranges/coffee ranch owned by his own former official, a past UN Security Council president. The ranch had been in Diego Arria's family since 1852, but Arria had spoken out against Chavez, so the ranch was taken over. For good photo opportunities, Chavez hauled in 300-400 kids and let them swim in the ranch's pool, ride the horses, tour the house and take souvenirs. Chavez said it was all proof he was "socializing happiness," IBD reported.

The same weekend Chavez took over private property and bused in kids to enjoy the spoils, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) conducted its own raid violating private property rights. The SEIU loaded up 14 busloads of its union members and hauled them to a Maryland suburb, parked in front of a bank attorney's private home and proceeded to storm the lawn like a parade of giant ants. Photos show union members all over the lawn, front walk and stoop, waving their picket signs.

Nina Easton, a Fortune magazine editor and frequent Fox News Sunday guest, had put her two-year- old down for a nap in her house across the street, only to have the kid awaken to screaming chants from hundreds of protestors, Easton told Fox News.. The home's owner, away from home attending a child's Little League game, got a phone call from a terrified teenager left behind at the house.

Asked by a reporter about invading private property and the concept of trespassing, a union member claimed "nobody did anything illegal." He actually tried to justify their actions by explaining that the union had sent letters, e-mails and protested in front of the bank's offices and still Bank of America was having a "negative impact" on Americans nationwide.

Meanwhile, not only were the police careful enough not to show up on the scene until after the protestors had left, Easton later learned the bus motorcade had gotten a police escort to the home. The police explained later that they didn't want to show up during the protest and "incite" something. Like what? Respect for private property? What would happen if this were a ranch or a feedyard? Would Maryland police be afraid to spook the protestors then, too?

What is happening in the United States of America? Congress and this administration is trying to back us into a corner with unimaginable spending that can only be paid for with confiscatory tax rates. Then they are attempting environmental regulations making productive industries nearly uneconomic, planning death tax "reform" to rob more asset value, nationalizing auto and bank companies, demonizing insurance and oil companies and literally laughing at upset voter/citizens. Now out-and-out trespassing on private property by one of the administration's principal allied organizations not only goes practically unnoticed but gets a police escort?

We imagine Obama would gladly expropriate that sunny term, "socializing happiness," from Hugo, except that Obama is not honest enough with himself - nor are his supporters - to call a spade a spade. None of them can bring themselves to use the word "socialist," because, of course, that connotes, well, (squirm), you know, the socialist dictator thing. We like to gloss over the need to stifle the entrepreneurial capitalist types rebelling against the ruling class. That's messy.

Notice that word "reform" that most dictators use has also been applied by the "not-socialist" U.S. leftists to the health care industry, the financial industry, the oil industry, etc. How long until the "food industry" gets "reformed" by the administration? This summer's livestock industry competition "workshops," - code for "we need political cover for `reforming' another industry" - could be our turn in the barrel.

But how much protection from the crises perpetrated by the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, from dozens of government agencies and the taxman can livestock producers and feeders, processors, foodservice and retailers expect if basic private property rights like freedom from trespassing can't even be respected and enforced? If Hugo does it in a dictator's paradise that's horrific enough. There is no way on God's green earth it should be boldly perpetrated in the United States of America. The trends in this country have gone from disturbing to alarming. November second can't come soon enough.

Source: Steve Dittmer, Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I haven't believed a word old Dittmer has said in years....

I expect these Rush type of rants from him/the Packers now that USDA is looking at putting some teeth back into the Packers and Stockyards Act--GIPSA- enforcement of M-COOL- enforcement of the Packers inspections (including increased inspections on imported foods)- and actually making the packers stand behind their tainted products they've been passing out by the zillions of tons (resulting in all how many recalls :???: )....

They can't stand the fact that the Administration/Congress is now looking at making them obey the law- and take responsibility-- something they haven't had to do for 20+ years...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I haven't believed a word old Dittmer has said in years....

I expect these Rush type of rants from him/the Packers now that USDA is looking at putting some teeth back into the Packers and Stockyards Act--GIPSA- enforcement of M-COOL- enforcement of the Packers inspections (including increased inspections on imported foods)- and actually making the packers stand behind their tainted products they've been passing out by the zillions of tons (resulting in all how many recalls :???: )....

They can't stand the fact that the Administration/Congress is now looking at making them obey the law- and take responsibility-- something they haven't had to do for 20+ years...

Did you even read it? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
I haven't believed a word old Dittmer has said in years....

I expect these Rush type of rants from him/the Packers now that USDA is looking at putting some teeth back into the Packers and Stockyards Act--GIPSA- enforcement of M-COOL- enforcement of the Packers inspections (including increased inspections on imported foods)- and actually making the packers stand behind their tainted products they've been passing out by the zillions of tons (resulting in all how many recalls :???: )....

They can't stand the fact that the Administration/Congress is now looking at making them obey the law- and take responsibility-- something they haven't had to do for 20+ years...

Did you even read it? :roll:

Yep-- its shotgun shoot at the barn wall and hope something sticks to discredit the current Administration....Like I said- with Dittmer in the pockets of the Packers/Retailers- this does not surprise me at this time....

Imagine what a rant it would be if they actually propose a Packer Ownership Rule which they are talking of- or continue looking into the percentage allocation of cost/profit that comes off a beef- and why Packers/Retailers now get such a much larger share...Dittmer would make money hand over fist with the howling they would try and put up...
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- its shotgun shoot at the barn wall and hope something sticks to discredit the current Administration....
The truth is all it takes to discredit the current Administration.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Isn't it strange that OT and a few other 'ranchers', (along with some auction markets, and that is another whole story!) want the government to control how the rest of us can market our cattle.....all in the guise of 'protecting us from ourselves'?????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ThePackers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (7 U.S.C. §§ 181-229b; P&SAct) was enacted following the release in 1919 of the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the meatpacking industry.

As the outbreak of World War Ioccurredand the cost of living rose, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the FTC to investigate the industry from the "hoof to the table" to determine whether or not there were any "manipulations, controls, trusts, combinations, or restraints out of harmony with the law or the public interest."

The FTC reportedpackers were manipulating markets, restricting flow of foods, controlling the price of dressed meat, defrauding producersand consumers of foodand crushing competition. The FTC, in fact, recommended governmental ownership of thestockyardsand their related facilities.

The meat packing industry had also became a prime concern of Wilson's Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer. After threatening an antitrust suit, in February 1920 Palmer managed to force the "Big Five"packers (Armour, Cudahy, Morris, Swiftand Wilson) to agree to a consent decree under the Sherman AntitrustActwhich drove thepackers out of all non-meat production, includingstockyards, warehouses, wholesaleand retail meat.

Agitation for legislation to regulate thepackers persisted into the Warren Hardingadministration despite the decree,and Congresspassed thePackers and Stockyards Act on August 15, 1921 as H.R. 6320and the law went into effect in September 1921.

What is funny (and sad) is how hard our cattlemen predecessors- some of which were ancestors of todays present NCBA members - fought so hard to to get this law in place- to prevent manipulationand monopoly control taking place by thepackers (both of which has increased greatly in the past 20-30 years of nonenforcement)--and how some of these same cattlemens descendents have now sold out to thePackers/Retailers/AMI by belonging to organizations like NCBA that have sold their souls to the multinationalpackers and globalism...

And its really funny- your screaming about "socialism" for enforcing Anti trust and Packer manipulation laws that were put in place by "those leaders of evil socialism"- Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Warren G. Harding... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
June 18, 2010 Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]



Group Calls USDA Rulemaking “Bold” and “Absolutely Essential”



Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, D.V.M., called the proposed rule issued today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “a bold and absolutely essential step in ridding the U.S. cattle market of anticompetitive practices.”



USDA’s proposed rule was issued pursuant to provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill that required the agency to promulgate rules to define what actions would constitute undue or unreasonable preference or advantage under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), as well as protect poultry and swine contract growers from unfair and deceptive practices committed by meatpackers.



The proposed rule not only establishes standards for identifying when meatpackers have unlawfully engaged in granting unreasonable preference or advantage to a select group of cattle sellers, but also, it clarifies that a violation of the PSA can be proven without the need to also provide proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of competitive injury.



In recent high-profile class action lawsuits, U.S. cattle producers proved to juries that they were materially injured by unfair and deceptive practices committed by meatpackers in violation of the PSA, resulting in significant jury awards to class members. The jury in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case awarded $1.28 billion to class members within the cattle industry and the jury award in the Herman Schumacher et al. v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. et al. was $9.25 million.



However, both those jury awards were overturned by appellate courts that decided the burden of proof for prohibiting unfair and deceptive meatpacker practices under the PSA was much higher than the juries’ findings of unlawful conduct. The appellate courts essentially decided that conduct prohibited by the PSA was not actionable without additional proof of intent or injury to competition.



“As a result of these overturned jury decisions, the Packers and Stockyards Act was relegated a toothless tiger,” said Thornsberry, adding, “U.S. cattle producers were left without any recourse from the highly concentrated meatpackers’ exercise of monopoly-type power, which enables them to capture profits that should be flowing to independent cattle producers.”



Thornsberry said the inability to enforce the PSA has contributed to the exodus of about 150,000 cattle operations since the mid-1990s, which has, consequently, caused the hollowing out of rural communities all across America.



“This proposed rule corrects the core problem that prevents U.S. cattle farmers and ranchers from obtaining relief from the anticompetitive practices of the highly concentrated meatpackers and will help restore competition to our industry by providing a means to discipline anticompetitive behavior,” asserted Thornsberry.



Other provisions in the proposed rule include a requirement that meatpackers retain written records to justify differential prices offered to livestock sellers, a prohibition to prevent two or more meatpackers from using a single cattle buyer to procure cattle, and a prohibition to prevent meatpackers from trading live cattle among themselves.



“Taken together, the long-awaited provisions in the proposed rule are monumental and represent a genuine effort to reverse the ongoing loss of competition that has ravaged Rural America for well over a decade. While more must be done to reestablish a fully functioning competitive market for independent U.S. cattle producers, this is definitely a positive start,” Thornsberry concluded.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why would any R-Calf member sell on video auction for fall delivery? Isn't that the same as forward contracts?

The key word there is auction- competitive bidding-- no different than when you call up a half dozen buyers and ask for a bid on your calves...

Thats what they are trying to promulgate- and prevent situations like some of your Canadian Corporate entities that have areas where they not only own the auction barns- but the feedlot operations- and all the packing houses-- so you have no competition.....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why would any R-Calf member sell on video auction for fall delivery? Isn't that the same as forward contracts?

The key word there is auction- competitive bidding-- no different than when you call up a half dozen buyers and ask for a bid on your calves...

Thats what they are trying to promulgate- and prevent situations like some of your Canadian Corporate entities that have areas where they not only own the auction barns- but the feedlot operations- and the packing houses.....

Then what's to say that the feeder that forward contracts his cattle hasn't checked around to find the best contract?

It still takes supplies off the market the day in the fall i want to sell my calves. Feeders have forward bought therefore not needing to dig into the market as if they needed to buy all their needs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
USDA proposed rules aim to protect producers from unfair packers

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 6/18/2010


Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has proposed sweeping changes in the way USDA uses its existing authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act that he said would "provide significant new protections for producers against unfair, fraudulent or retaliatory practices.

"Concerns about a lack of fairness and commonsense treatment for livestock and poultry producers have gone unaddressed far too long," said Vilsack in a statement. "This proposed rule will help ensure a level playing field for producers by providing additional protections against unfair practices and addressing new market conditions not covered by existing rules."

The proposed rules, which will be published in the June 22 Federal Register for a 60-day comment period, would provide the following protections for livestock and poultry producers:

Provide further definition to practices that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive, including outlining actions that are retaliatory in nature, efforts that would limit a producer's legal rights or representations that would be fraudulent or misleading.

Additionally, the proposed rule reiterates USDA's position that a producer need not overcome unnecessary obstacles and have to always prove a harm to competition when they have suffered a violation under the Act.


Define undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages.


Establish new protections for producers required to provide expensive capital upgrades to their growing facilities, including protections to ensure producers have the opportunity to recoup 80 percent of the cost of a required capital investment.


Prohibit packers from purchasing, acquiring or receiving livestock from other packers, and communicate prices to competitors.


Enable a fair and equitable process for producers that choose to use arbitration to remedy a dispute. Additionally, clear and conspicuous print in the contract will be required to ensure producers are provided the option to decline the use of arbitration to settle a dispute.


Require that companies paying growers under a tournament system provide the same base pay to growers that raise the same type and kind of poultry, including ensuring that the growers pay cannot go below the base pay amount.


Provide poultry growers with a written notice of a company's intent to suspend the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement at least 90 days prior to the date it intends to suspend the delivery.


Improve market transparency by making sample contracts (except for trade secrets or other confidential information) available on GIPSA's Web site for producers.


Outline protections so that producers can remedy a breach of contract.


Improve competition in markets by limiting exclusive arrangements between packers and dealers.
Workshop feedback

The 2008 farm bill required USDA to carry out specific rulemaking to improve fairness in livestock and poultry marketing. As part of that process, USDA and the Department of Justice held a series of workshops on competition in the meat and poultry industry. Vilsack told reporters on a teleconference that some producers were afraid to participate in the workshops "for fear of retaliation" by the packers they sell to.

He characterized recent court decisions upholding the need for a producer suing a processor for unfair practices to also show harm to the regional market as akin to having to show that the theft of your car impacted all your neighbors.

Asked if USDA was aiming to set price minimums, Vilsack said, "I don't think this is an issue where we are suggesting producers should get a better price or a worse price," but rather to ensure that special deals are not made with certain producers that are not transparent and that others don't have the chance to receive if they meet the same requirements.

On the issue of packer buyers having unfair access to pricing information by representing more than one packer, USDA officials explained that under the new rules, a packer buyer could only buy for one packer.

Vilsack concluded by saying, "There are a number of great companies, and they are treating folks right. They shouldn't be negatively impacted by these rules at all. But it certainly is a message to those who have maybe in the past taken advantage of folks that this is not going to be tolerated."

To comment

USDA will consider comments received by Aug. 23. Comments may be sent via email to [email protected] or sent by mail to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 1643-S, Washington, D.C. 20250-3604.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cattlemen's group says new USDA livestock rules to benefit Nebraska's producers



The Grand Island Independent (NE) - June 28, 2010



New rules from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) are supported by the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska (ICON).



According to ICON officials, the new rule, released Tuesday, will be open for comment until Aug. 23. It will provide new protection for producers against unfair marketing practices that ICON officials feels it is "a long time coming."



"Finally, the Packers and Stockyards Act will have teeth," said ICON Executive Director Destry Brown. "It has been floundering ever since it was created and now GIPSA will have some grounds for enforcing it."



For years, Brown said, there has been concern in the cattle industry about the fairness of marketing practices for livestock and poultry. In 2007, he said, several ag-related organizations pushed Congress to create a directive for market fairness and competition between livestock producers and add it to the 2008 Farm Bill.



During rural tours sponsored by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in 2008, the need for changes in the competitive market in the livestock industry was reiterated. Brown said that at every meeting place across the U.S., farmers and ranchers told their story of how they were faced with increasing expenses while income dwindled when forced to compete with a few large packer concentrations of livestock and poultry.



"This is a way to revitalize rural communities," said ICON President Dave Wright. "Smaller producers will support their hometown businesses and this rule to increase fair competition will definitely be an advantage to small rural communities who right now are dying. The mega-huge producer facilities do not rely on rural businesses but often order from large companies in bigger cities or over the Internet. We have been working to change that, to keep our rural lifestyle alive."



According to Wright, the development of the proposed rules comes from a grassroots effort by farm organizations that see the disadvantages and unfair marketing practices which have left their members helpless.



ICON participated in the rural tours and also invited the new GIPSA administrator, Dudley Butler, to its convention last fall in North Platte, where he gave ICON members a glimmer of hope. Butler has worked hard to carry out his promises, Wright said.



"A victory for the small farmer and rancher, but a huge victory for small and mid-size feedlot operators, which are such an important factor in setting the price of cattle in the country and at the sale barn," said ICON Treasurer Al Davis. "Dudley Butler made promises to ICON when he addressed us at our 2009 convention and he obviously intends to fulfill those promises. I couldn't be happier about this decision and must credit the work of ICON, R-Calf, and USCA, in putting pressure on the USDA to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act."



theindependent.com
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Cattlemen's group says new USDA livestock rules to benefit Nebraska's producers



The Grand Island Independent (NE) - June 28, 2010



New rules from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) are supported by the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska (ICON).



According to ICON officials, the new rule, released Tuesday, will be open for comment until Aug. 23. It will provide new protection for producers against unfair marketing practices that ICON officials feels it is "a long time coming."



"Finally, the Packers and Stockyards Act will have teeth," said ICON Executive Director Destry Brown. "It has been floundering ever since it was created and now GIPSA will have some grounds for enforcing it."



For years, Brown said, there has been concern in the cattle industry about the fairness of marketing practices for livestock and poultry. In 2007, he said, several ag-related organizations pushed Congress to create a directive for market fairness and competition between livestock producers and add it to the 2008 Farm Bill.



During rural tours sponsored by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in 2008, the need for changes in the competitive market in the livestock industry was reiterated. Brown said that at every meeting place across the U.S., farmers and ranchers told their story of how they were faced with increasing expenses while income dwindled when forced to compete with a few large packer concentrations of livestock and poultry.



"This is a way to revitalize rural communities," said ICON President Dave Wright. "Smaller producers will support their hometown businesses and this rule to increase fair competition will definitely be an advantage to small rural communities who right now are dying. The mega-huge producer facilities do not rely on rural businesses but often order from large companies in bigger cities or over the Internet. We have been working to change that, to keep our rural lifestyle alive."



According to Wright, the development of the proposed rules comes from a grassroots effort by farm organizations that see the disadvantages and unfair marketing practices which have left their members helpless.



ICON participated in the rural tours and also invited the new GIPSA administrator, Dudley Butler, to its convention last fall in North Platte, where he gave ICON members a glimmer of hope. Butler has worked hard to carry out his promises, Wright said.



"A victory for the small farmer and rancher, but a huge victory for small and mid-size feedlot operators, which are such an important factor in setting the price of cattle in the country and at the sale barn," said ICON Treasurer Al Davis. "Dudley Butler made promises to ICON when he addressed us at our 2009 convention and he obviously intends to fulfill those promises. I couldn't be happier about this decision and must credit the work of ICON, R-Calf, and USCA, in putting pressure on the USDA to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act."



theindependent.com

Just exactly what are these "TEETH"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA again dancing on the end of the Packers strings and packing their water....

N.C.B.A. wants G.I.P.S.A. rule comment period extended



MeatPoultry.com, July 08, 2010

by Meat&Poultry staff



WASHINGTON – On July 8, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (N.C.B.A.) became the most recent group to request a 120-day extension to the public comment period for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s (G.I.P.S.A.) proposed rule on livestock marketing. Announced June 18, the proposed rule suggests major changes to the way producers can market their cattle.



In a letter sent this morning to J. Dudley Butler, G.I.P.S.A. administrator, N.C.B.A. president Steve Foglesong iterated N.C.B.A.’s concerns with the proposed rule and emphasized the need for more time to thoroughly analyze its potential legal and economic impacts on U.S. cattle producers.



“The Secretary of Agriculture referred to this as one of the most sweeping reforms of the Packers and Stockyards Act,” Foglesong said. “As such, it’s extremely important that we thoroughly understand the rule and both its intended, and unintended, consequences on the U.S. cattle community.”



N.C.B.A. believes the scope of the proposed rule goes well beyond what Congress intended under the 2008 Farm Bill.



“American cattle producers are innovators who have worked hard over the past several years to develop alternative marketing arrangements and marketing alliances to get paid for the value they add to their cattle,” Foglesong said. “Whether intended or not, we believe that this rule jeopardizes these long-standing marketing arrangements that compensate producers for providing higher quality cattle.”



meatpoultry.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
USDA’s proposed rule was issued pursuant to provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill that required the agency to promulgate rules to define what actions would constitute undue or unreasonable preference or advantage under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), as well as protect poultry and swine contract growers from unfair and deceptive practices committed by meatpackers.

The proposed rule not only establishes standards for identifying when meatpackers have unlawfully engaged in granting unreasonable preference or advantage to a select group of cattle sellers, but also, it clarifies that a violation of the PSA can be proven without the need to also provide proof of predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of competitive injury.

I agree it is time that this issue is thoroughly addressed from the standpoint of identifying which cattle procurement methods are truly anti-competitive and consititute a violation of the PSA as the law was originally intended and which practices are simply minimizing financial risk for the feeders through forward contracts and which practices are awarding higher quality cattle through grid pricing. We also need to determine which purchasing practices of the packers are based on the ability to maintain a constant flow of cattle through the packing plants relative to the competition (Tyson vs Cargill vs Smithfield vs JBS vs USPB) just as the feeding segment does.

It is time for an objective review of PSA investigations conducted in recent years that were determined to be baseless allegations and those that actually constituted a violation of the PSA to lay the foundation of the original intent of this law. This review needs to be conducted by an objective committee from the major livestock feeding states that have a basic understanding of livestock procurement practices rather than some jury from Alabama. From this investigation we need to determine once and for all which marketing practices are predatory and anti competitive in nature and which are common and acceptable procurement practices AND ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION.

With that said, I doubt the relentless packer blaming segment of our industry will accept anything short of revamping the current fed cattle marketing system into a socialized marketing system where all cattle are treated the same regardless of their potential carcass merits. Truth be known, I'm sure the LMA would love to have all fat cattle sold through the auction barns so they could carve another profit nitch from the pie which would result in lowering carcass quality (dark cutters) due to additional stress associated with sale barn marketing of fat cattle. Call it price discovery but it is certainly not value based since buyers can't see under the hide and totally unnecessary or fat cattle would still be sold that way.

The feeders that actually sell fat cattle need to enter the debate with the R-CALF market manipulation conspiracy theorists and let these two entities debate which marketing practices constitute a violation of the PSA and which are nothing more than common marketing practices to award higher quality cattle and minimize financial risk. If the R-CALF conspiracy theorists finally come to the realization that the feeding sector of our industry does not need R-CALF to save them from themselves, then we might be able to move forward on this issue but I won't hold my breath. Blamers bent on blame will not stop until they have totally destroyed the current system of marketing fat cattle.


In recent high-profile class action lawsuits, U.S. cattle producers proved to juries that they were materially injured by unfair and deceptive practices committed by meatpackers in violation of the PSA, resulting in significant jury awards to class members. The jury in the Pickett v Tyson Fresh Meats case awarded $1.28 billion to class members within the cattle industry and the jury award in the Herman Schumacher et al. v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. et al. was $9.25 million.

However, both those jury awards were overturned by appellate courts that decided the burden of proof for prohibiting unfair and deceptive meatpacker practices under the PSA was much higher than the juries’ findings of unlawful conduct. The appellate courts essentially decided that conduct prohibited by the PSA was not actionable without additional proof of intent or injury to competition.

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect purchases that were made through grid pricing and other forward contracts cannot be considered market manipulation when there is other packers to sell to under numerous marketing arrangements. That is why the Alabama's verdict was overturned and the appeals court decision upheld by the Supreme court. How can anyone claim market manipulation when they are willing sellers?

If the packer blaming segment of our industry has their way, they will breakup the larger more efficient packers and replace them with the smaller less efficient packers that the larger packers replaced. This short sighted emotionally driven decision will result in producers receiving less money for their fat cattle due to the inefficiencies of the smaller packers. That's what will happen if the packer blamers have their way.

At some point, this industry needs to hold these blame driven consiracy theorists responsible for the consequences of their stupid decisions that negatively impact the entire industry.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Where was NCBA when USDA, Vilsack, and J Dudley Butler held all the hearings and listening sessions on these PSA/GIPSA rules...Its my understanding these rules were developed from the majority consensus of the folks testifying during these sessions...

Now they want more time??? They and their bedpartners AMI? Just another stalling tactic- and again NCBA supports the large conglomerate Packers/Feeders (that are becoming one and the same) and to hell with the average producers....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT,

If NCBA representatives were aware of any effort by the packer blaming segment of our industry to socialize fat cattle marketing, I'm sure they were there to oppose it. At least I hope they were.

Don't misunderstand my intent here. I want to attempt to bury this issue once and for all with YET ANOTHER thorough investigation into fed cattle procurement methods to determine what constitutes a PSA violation so I don't have to continue to listen to your baseless market manipulation conspiracy theories.

No matter how badly you want to believe that PSA violations are occuring, you have to prove it. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVE IT. When you hear packer blamers repeatedly saying, "we need to enforce the PSA" it implies that it's not being enforced now yet you couldn't prove a PSA violation has been committed if your life depended on it. It's what you want to believe and it's what others around you believe but our judicial system is still based on the presumption of innocense which is a foreign concept to most packer blamers. Large corporations are not exempt from the "presumption of innocense" concept simply because you want them to be guilty.

I don't know about you but I'm sure glad our judicial system doesn't convict men simply because some conspiracy theorist believes they are guilty.

In your world, anyone who questions a PSA violation is "in bed with the packers/AMI, etc etc" but yet you cannot produce a stitch of evidence to support what you want to believe. Why is that? How much credibility does that give you OT?

I'm tired of arrogant R-CALF trying to save the cattle feeding industry from themselves by dictating to them how they can and cannot market fat cattle.

Don't you think it's a little strange that the majority of the feeding sector of our industry, THAT ARE ACTUALLY SELLING FAT CATTLE, does not support the ideas of the packer blaming conspiracy theorists in the cow/calf segment of the industry?????

R-CALF's arrogance knows no bounds. Heck, they are not even beyond lawsuits against the original founder of the organization.


~SH~
 
Top