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

ICOW formed

Sandhusker

Well-known member
By WENDILYN GRASSESCHI, News-Record Writer
Published: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:36 PM MDT

After four months of cold and gray and seemingly endless snowstorms, spring has finally come to Empire Ranch.

In the feeding pens, dozens of the winter-wooly Herefords jostle with hired hand John Miles for corn cake treats. The sky is blue and a tentative green is showing under the winter grass. For once, the south wind is warm on Judy McCullough’s ranch.

She watches the calves butt and play, but her mind is on a new, statewide cattlemen’s group — she’s the president of Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming, or ICOW.

She is among some 150 ranchers statewide who are looking out on similar scenes and worrying about the future of their enterprises.

That worry, along with a need for change, led them in June to pull away from the 137-year-old Wyoming Stock Growers Association, or WSGA.

“We feel that a lot of people are not being represented in the state of Wyoming by any trade organization, including the Wyoming Stock Growers Association,” she said. “We kept saying maybe we should start our own organization that would be more responsive to the members.

“So we formed our own group,” she said.

Jim Magagna, WSGA vice president, said it’s not surprising that after more than a century, differences have arisen.

“Not every rancher is going to agree with us on everything,” he said. “I believe in many cases we want the same things that ICOW wants, but we use different processes.”

Here are some issues ICOW members have pointed out:

- SPLIT ESTATE/ EMINENT DOMAIN

“We want to protect our private property rights. They want to compromise too much,” McCullough said. “Now don’t get me wrong — I like to drive a car, too. But the oilers (oil industry) need to pay the price of doing business on private property. They should not be able to drive over our property without compensating for the damage.”

Cheyenne area rancher Taylor Haynes said his allegiance to the Wyoming Stock Growers began to wane when split estate and eminent domain issues came up.

“We’d set policy and they’d go the other way,” said Haynes, an ICOW director.

Magagna said it is important to work with the energy industry.

“We decided we had to work in collaboration with the mineral industry, not in strict opposition. We push, they push back. Eventually we find common ground regarding the split estate issue. The same with the eminent domain issue. But ICOW thinks that this is too much accommodation,” he said.

His group worked on legislation last year to strengthen the surface users’ rights. But, he said, ICOW didn’t think the efforts went far enough.

- NATIONAL AFFILIATIONS

McCullough said that when the country’s main meatpacker organization, the National Livestock Packer and Meat Board and the National Cattleman’s Association merged, the new policies began to favor big meat packing corporations.

“Right now, the packers set the price and the producers get what’s left,” she said. “In the old days, there were a lot more bidders for the animals — now, with these giant corporations, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it situation for us.”

Magagna said stock growers must have an affiliation with all important organizations in the industry — including the new National Cattleman and Beef Association — if it wishes to have any influence with them.

“We might not appeal to everyone,” he said. “But if we can get through our concerns to those in industry, or the packers, good.

“We have strongly disagreed with NCBA at times, especially when it comes to marketing our beef. And when that happens, we make our claim clearly,” he said. “But on other issues, such as nutrition and disease, we often agree. And we think it is important to stay closely associated with the organization in order to have a seat at the table,” he said.

“I’d like to see ICOW working more towards marketing our beef for developing markets,” said LJ Turner, a Wright area rancher and ICOW director.

“I sent my daughter down in Berkeley (Calif.) some of our grass-fed beef and she had the vegetarians licking the pot clean,” he said. “We’d like to see a local restaurant market for our beef; get the Wyoming name out. But we don’t have a processing plant in this area and that needs to be a priority, as well.”

ICOW also wants a stronger relationship the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, or R-CALF, McCullough said.

“R-CALF is our best advocate” at the national level, she said.

- ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION

ICOW thinks branding — not tagging — is an adequate means of identifying animals, McCullough said. The National Animal Identification Program is too intrusive and too costly.

“It’s not inexpensive — it’s several dollars a tag,” she said. Branding has “worked for over a century.”

The Wyoming Stock Growers are opposed to a mandatory identification program but would work for a voluntary one, Magagna said.

McCullough leaves the Herefords to their breakfast and heads back to her house.

Splitting from the Wyoming Stock Growers Association still is on her mind.

It’s their job to “protect the little guys, cause the big guys have the money to protect themselves,” she said.

“But they didn’t. So now we are doing it.”
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Good for them taking action.
I wonder why they didn't send the press release out over telegraph cause that worked just like branding and they were doing that a century ago as well.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Good for them taking action.
I wonder why they didn't send the press release out over telegraph cause that worked just like branding and they were doing that a century ago as well.
:lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Good for them taking action.
I wonder why they didn't send the press release out over telegraph cause that worked just like branding and they were doing that a century ago as well.

Branding doesn't work?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Branding doesn't work?

Not very well, as can be evidenced by the lack of traceback on the Alabama cow.

Besides, how would you do it on a national level? How many ranchers are in the US? 100,000? 200,000? It would be doggoned near impossible to come up with 200,000 unique brands.

Rod
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Good for them taking action.
I wonder why they didn't send the press release out over telegraph cause that worked just like branding and they were doing that a century ago as well.

Branding doesn't work?

The telegraph doesn't work?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
Branding doesn't work?

Not very well, as can be evidenced by the lack of traceback on the Alabama cow.

Besides, how would you do it on a national level? How many ranchers are in the US? 100,000? 200,000? It would be doggoned near impossible to come up with 200,000 unique brands.

Rod

The problem on the Alabama cow was a lack of a brand....
 

don

Well-known member
and once again sandhusker advances his credibility. funny how the rest of the world hasn't recognized the superiority of a brand registry for id and traceback. probably unconstitutional in those countries!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
and once again sandhusker advances his credibility. funny how the rest of the world hasn't recognized the superiority of a brand registry for id and traceback. probably unconstitutional in those countries!

Once again, all I get from you guys are farts and giggles. Explain how brands don't work.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
don said:
and once again sandhusker advances his credibility. funny how the rest of the world hasn't recognized the superiority of a brand registry for id and traceback. probably unconstitutional in those countries!

Once again, all I get from you guys are farts and giggles. Explain how brands don't work.


Sandhusker with each state having it's own brands would be like each state having it's own currency. How would the banking system like that?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
don said:
and once again sandhusker advances his credibility. funny how the rest of the world hasn't recognized the superiority of a brand registry for id and traceback. probably unconstitutional in those countries!

Once again, all I get from you guys are farts and giggles. Explain how brands don't work.


Sandhusker with each state having it's own brands would be like each state having it's own currency. How would the banking system like that?

Do you guys have any idea how things work in brand areas? There are DOCUMENTS that follow the cattle. Those documents identify the cattle by the brand AND TELLS WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You can have cattle with the same brand from every state in your yard (and the odds of that are?) and, as long as they're not in the same pen (how hard is that to avoid?), you can still track them back.

Don't you guys have problems in your own country that could use your attention?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Once again, all I get from you guys are farts and giggles. Explain how brands don't work.


Sandhusker with each state having it's own brands would be like each state having it's own currency. How would the banking system like that?

Do you guys have any idea how things work in brand areas? There are DOCUMENTS that follow the cattle. Those documents identify the cattle by the brand AND TELLS WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You can have cattle with the same brand from every state in your yard (and the odds of that are?) and, as long as they're not in the same pen (how hard is that to avoid?), you can still track them back.

Don't you guys have problems in your own country that could use your attention?



So your telling me that you could have 50 head of steers from 48 states and 2 Canadian provinces with the same brand in your pen and tell us where each one of them came from? :nod:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker with each state having it's own brands would be like each state having it's own currency. How would the banking system like that?

Do you guys have any idea how things work in brand areas? There are DOCUMENTS that follow the cattle. Those documents identify the cattle by the brand AND TELLS WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You can have cattle with the same brand from every state in your yard (and the odds of that are?) and, as long as they're not in the same pen (how hard is that to avoid?), you can still track them back.

Don't you guys have problems in your own country that could use your attention?



So your telling me that you could have 50 head of steers from 48 states and 2 Canadian provinces with the same brand in your pen and tell us where each one of them came from? :nod:

Yep- they do it down here...The minute the cattle are unloaded at the feedlot they are rebranded- tagged or IDed with the feedlots ID system (several are using eye scan now- many are using tags) - all the records for cattle are cross referenced to their ID- and when they go to slaughter they can tell you everything they want to know about those cattle and can send actual signed affidavits and third party verification (brand inspections) with them.....

Tell me what the Mandatory ID Canuckland has done for the Canadian producer in the past 5 years :???:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Do you guys have any idea how things work in brand areas? There are DOCUMENTS that follow the cattle. Those documents identify the cattle by the brand AND TELLS WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You can have cattle with the same brand from every state in your yard (and the odds of that are?) and, as long as they're not in the same pen (how hard is that to avoid?), you can still track them back.

Don't you guys have problems in your own country that could use your attention?



So your telling me that you could have 50 head of steers from 48 states and 2 Canadian provinces with the same brand in your pen and tell us where each one of them came from? :nod:

Yep- they do it down here...The minute the cattle are unloaded at the feedlot they are rebranded- tagged or IDed with the feedlots ID system (several are using eye scan now- many are using tags) - all the records for cattle are cross referenced to their ID- and when they go to slaughter they can tell you everything they want to know about those cattle and can send actual signed affidavits and third party verification (brand inspections) with them.....

Tell me what the Mandatory ID Canuckland has done for the Canadian producer in the past 5 years :???:


That sound like alot of work and expense. We just us a RFID tag from the start.

Our ID system has opened markets we would not have .
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
BMR, "So your telling me that you could have 50 head of steers from 48 states and 2 Canadian provinces with the same brand in your pen and tell us where each one of them came from?"

You're telling me that would ever happen? :lol: :lol: :lol: Here, you missed this from my post, " as long as they're not in the same pen (how hard is that to avoid?)"

How much do you want to bet that nobody has my brand in any state East of the Missouri? (look at how many states that is...) You can toss in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Idaho.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
BMR, "That sound like alot of work and expense. We just us a RFID tag from the start. Our ID system has opened markets we would not have "

Good for you.

I notice it hasn't opened up enough markets to where you could survive without a certain one.....
 

Silver

Well-known member
Brands are great. I believe it should be mandatory to brand. They solve all sorts of problems when our cattle get mixed with our neighbours, they prevent the wrong cattle from getting on the truck in the presence of a brand inspector, etc. etc. But to consider brands the come-all end-all of animal trace back seems to be a bit presumptuous in the extreme. I'd hate to be the guy shaving cows down head to tail trying to decipher brands with my hand dandy brand books from 50 states and 10 provinces. Obviously you have to handle cattle to brand them, so installing an electronic traceback device of one kind or another really isn't a big stretch.
Heck, even us backwards, dumb Canucks found a way to do it, and after our initial feet dragging and belly aching most of us really don't mind at all.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Brands are great. I believe it should be mandatory to brand. They solve all sorts of problems when our cattle get mixed with our neighbours, they prevent the wrong cattle from getting on the truck in the presence of a brand inspector, etc. etc. But to consider brands the come-all end-all of animal trace back seems to be a bit presumptuous in the extreme. I'd hate to be the guy shaving cows down head to tail trying to decipher brands with my hand dandy brand books from 50 states and 10 provinces. Obviously you have to handle cattle to brand them, so installing an electronic traceback device of one kind or another really isn't a big stretch.
Heck, even us backwards, dumb Canucks found a way to do it, and after our initial feet dragging and belly aching most of us really don't mind at all.

Nobody has said brands are the come-all, end-all. We're just saying that it works in brand areas and that there is no reason to force those areas into another method - especially when the proposed change is so full of questions and red flags.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Brands are great. I believe it should be mandatory to brand. They solve all sorts of problems when our cattle get mixed with our neighbours, they prevent the wrong cattle from getting on the truck in the presence of a brand inspector, etc. etc. But to consider brands the come-all end-all of animal trace back seems to be a bit presumptuous in the extreme. I'd hate to be the guy shaving cows down head to tail trying to decipher brands with my hand dandy brand books from 50 states and 10 provinces. Obviously you have to handle cattle to brand them, so installing an electronic traceback device of one kind or another really isn't a big stretch.
Heck, even us backwards, dumb Canucks found a way to do it, and after our initial feet dragging and belly aching most of us really don't mind at all.

Nobody has said brands are the come-all, end-all. We're just saying that it works in brand areas and that there is no reason to force those areas into another method - especially when the proposed change is so full of questions and red flags.


Your quite right. Fear of the unknown is a great reason to do nothing at all. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Problem is your Canuck Mandatory ID is putting the intitial cost of the tags, tagging, readers, and computer systems on the cow/calf man- where down here now that cost is being picked up by those further on down the chain (where I think it should stay as long as you furnish them cattle with permanent ID)...

Interestingly many of the feedlots down here apparently have little trust in the tags as they also brand- with brands corresponding to the ownership of the cattle....Many of the cattle in these feedlots are not owned by the Feedlot-with many being retained ownership or being owned by a Packer or an individual or corporate investor that buys penloads of cattle as an investment/tax loophole...One feedlot I frequent has over 30 different branding irons hanging on the wall of the intake/doctoring shed- one for each corporate entity owning cattle in the lot- and they are a small (5000 head) feeder....
 
Top