JB and anyone interested.

[mrj]

I checked with the Federation division of NCBA and learned that for the failed referendum petitions, a person signing as a cattle producer had to be able to show that they had sold at least one head of cattle and paid the beef checkoff in the previous year and a half. A cattle producer who was a member of a corporation had only the one corporate vote, no matter how large the corporation was.

MRJ

 

[Jinglebob]

MRJ
Funny, that you would think I was wanting to bring it to a referendum. :lol:

Tho' I guess to get some changes made, that might be the most appropriate way to go about it. I doubt that they will get it done. Seem to be too many who are satisfied or as someone put it on another thread, "it's only a dollar per head". And that is right. I think it has helped. I just wish we could do more. Maybe we ought to start a new one to be used for lobbying and such. Kind'a like r-calf was started for, but look at the uproar they have caused!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

MRJ
Funny, that you would think I was wanting to bring it to a referendum. :lol:

Tho' I guess to get some changes made, that might be the most appropriate way to go about it. I doubt that they will get it done. Seem to be too many who are satisfied or as someone put it on another thread, "it's only a dollar per head". And that is right. I think it has helped. I just wish we could do more. Maybe we ought to start a new one to be used for lobbying and such. Kind'a like r-calf was started for, but look at the uproar they have caused!

I don't think R-CALF's checkoff was for lobbying it was for litigation. What a waste :!:

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "I don't think R-CALF's checkoff was for lobbying it was for litigation. What a waste"

Seems to me it would only be a waste if they possibly lost a case.... :wink:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR, "I don't think R-CALF's checkoff was for lobbying it was for litigation. What a waste"

Seems to me it would only be a waste if they possibly lost a case.... :wink:

they did the dumping case in 98 and the pickett case which they supported.
The supreme court challenge of the checkoff.

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "they did the dumping case in 98 and the pickett case which they supported. The supreme court challenge of the checkoff."

They won the dumping case - just couldn't prove a figure on damages.

Not a dime of R-CALF money went to the Picket case.

R-CALF has not taken a stance either way on the checkoff.

 

[Cal]

Will the checkoff be a measly dollar per head in all perpetuity, or what will it take to increase that amount?

 

[mrj]

MRJ
Funny, that you would think I was wanting to bring it to a referendum. :lol:

Tho' I guess to get some changes made, that might be the most appropriate way to go about it. I doubt that they will get it done. Seem to be too many who are satisfied or as someone put it on another thread, "it's only a dollar per head". And that is right. I think it has helped. I just wish we could do more.

{Maybe I got the wrong guy, thinking it was you who wondered who qualifies to vote, not necessarily wanting a referendum.

There are other ways to make changes. What would you change, other than the lobbying thing? Or what "more" would you like to see done? MRJ}

Maybe we ought to start a new one to be used for lobbying and such. Kind'a like r-calf was started for, but look at the uproar they have caused!

{I believe I'm correct in saying that a legislated, mandatory checkoff such as the Beef Checkoff CANNOT legally be used for lobbying. Period. I also believe that even a Political Action Committee such as the one that NCBA members have must be set up legally and conform to laws regulating such activities. You cannot simply go to a sale barn and say hold out 25 cents per head on cattle unless the owner tells you not to, and the XYZ organization will work to do thus and so. OCM tried that and were informed that it was not legal. I'm telling this from memory, and am open to correction if someone can show me how it is not accurate.}

MRJ