4/4/2008 7:07:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes With R-CALF USA CEO, Bill Bullard
It’s been a few weeks since R-CALF closed out its convention in Omaha. It took that long for a very busy, frequent flying Bill Bullard to clear five minutes on his calendar to answer a few questions about the always interesting, occasionally controversial event.
Attending the convention were the usual collection of cattle ranchers – most of them harboring deep-seated suspicions about the intentions of big government and big packers. They cast a shifty eye at the changing rules governing international trade, real or perceived attacks on property rights and the competitive issues raised by packer consolidation.
When Bullard pulls his people together, there is no end to the issues that crowd the meeting’s agenda. And most of the issues make the membership mad…maybe that’s why R-CALF’s motto is “Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer.” It’s a ‘for sure’ statement: There is a whole lot of fight in this organization.
For those that didn’t make the convention, here is Bill Bullard’s take on the event.
Q. Now that the smoke has cleared from your Convention in Omaha, let’s step back and take a look at what happened. First, tell me about the attendance. Who showed up? How many people crowded into the ballroom?
A. We had more R-CALF USA members at this convention than at any other in the past, with a little over 350 who registered. Over the years, many members requested that we no longer hold our annual convention the same dates as the National Western Stock Show, and several also had requested that we hold the event in a more central location. The Board enthusiastically adopted these recommendations, and the attendance suggests that they were favorably received.
Our convention is attended largely by cattle-owning members – people who are serious about their industry and who directly make purchasing decisions for their operations, and this is what attracted a number of new vendors to our convention. As part of our convention, we co-hosted an informational meeting on trade policies with the Coalition for a Prosperous America. Approximately 350 people attended this event.
Q. This was the second year for your Private Property Rights Committee to host an afternoon seminar before the official convention got underway. What are the key issues that were discussed?
A. Primarily, issues related to water rights of private landowners, imminent domain, as well as information on how to make certain your private property rights are documented properly at the local level, and participating in public comment periods for rulemakings that affect property rights.
Q. Two key PPRC speakers, G. B. Oliver and Danny Martinez, are with the Paragon Foundation. Can you tell me about that organization?
A. Created in 1996 by Tom Linebery, an early leader in the property rights movement and a staunch advocate of ranchers and landowners, the Paragon Foundation provides for education, research and the exchange of ideas in an effort to promote and support Constitutional principles, individual freedoms, private property rights and the continuation of rural customs and culture – all with the intent of celebrating and continuing our Founding Fathers' vision for America.
The Paragon Foundation supports the advancement of the fundamental principals articulated by the founding fathers in both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. A proud American, Tom believed that it was the responsibility of government to protect the rights of fellow Americans, as written in the Constitution. Furthermore, he also believed that it was the responsibility of every American to make sure the government remained true to its purpose.
Tom understood that knowledge was power and he sought to arm fellow landowners with the information and negotiating skills necessary to protect their property. In this same spirit, the Paragon Foundation pledges to work diligently to bring individuals and organizations together in the hopes of developing effective tactics and strategies that will assist in disseminating knowledge and information to those who will best benefit. More information is available at: www.paragonfoundation.org.
Q. The trade show floor had a different look and some new participants created by your new outreach effort that offered booths to organizations with policies similar to R-CALF USA. What groups took advantage of the opportunity and how did they feel about their participation afterwards?
A. Moving the convention to Omaha allowed us a larger space for the trade show, which had more vendors than any other R-CALF USA convention. We offered other organizations with similar goals the opportunity to have a booth and distribute their literature. As far as the official vendors go, many told us it was the first cattle industry convention where participants actually stopped by and thanked the vendors for being part of the event. A few said they actually visited one-on-one with more actual cattle producers than at the other national cattle industry convention.
Q. Saturday’s policy session clarified a lot of questions about last year’s removal of Chuck Kiker as president. For those members who weren’t able to attend, can you give me some of the details?
A. Our convention opened the day after our hearing was held by the U.S. District Court on our request for a preliminary injunction against the USDA’s over 30-month rule (OTM Rule). During that hearing the attorney for USDA read extensively from a letter USDA received in January 2007 from the former R-CALF USA president, and argued that the former president’s letter supported the government’s position.
That very letter, and circumstances surrounding the letter, was the reason the former president was removed from his officer position on the R-CALF USA Board of Directors. The letter was contrary to R-CALF USA’s member policies, was sent without Board approval or knowledge, and it contradicted the position that the majority of the Board had expressed to USDA the day before.
Q. Animal health and welfare were important topics of discussion at the Convention, especially with the discovery of another case of BSE in the Canadian herd, the Hallmark abuse incident and the OTM case all heating up almost at the same time. Would you comment on all three of those issues?
A. We had several BSE experts who made presentations at our convention: our attorneys who represent R-CALF USA and our co-plaintiffs – several consumer groups, a statewide cattle association, and four individual ranchers – in our challenge of the OTM rule; a disease risk assessment expert who has assisted us in our legal challenge; and a BSE researcher who continues to add to the body of scientific knowledge about BSE.
Canada’s continuing detection of BSE cases born years after its 1997 feed ban demonstrate that the measures Canada relied on to prevent the recycling of BSE infectivity in Canada were inadequate, and should not be relied on to protect the U.S. herd and U.S. consumers.
In our ongoing challenge of the OTM Rule, we produced evidence showing that USDA knew that some packers were illegally slaughtering downer cows before the Hallmark incident came to light. The agency ignored our request to strengthen the enforcement of our BSE protections before further relaxing our import restrictions for higher-risk OTM cattle and beef from Canada. The Hallmark incident should be a wake-up call to our industry, to Congress, and to the public for the fact that the USDA is jeopardizing the solid reputation of the U.S. cattle industry because of its inadequate and cavalier response to legitimate disease concerns.
USDA is defending its OTM Rule with indefensible arguments. For example: USDA claims we must first relax our import restrictions, thus giving away more access to our markets in order to convince our export customers to relax their import restrictions against us. The states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have now demonstrated this fallacy by having to take aggressive action on their own to force Mexico to accept our live cattle despite the fact that we’ve been allowing unlimited numbers of Mexican cattle into the United States.
USDA also claims that the new cases of BSE detected in Canada are not epidemiologically significant, even though it was these new cases that caused Canada to recently enact significant regulations to strengthen its country’s feed ban.
Q. Thousands of people read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. The U.S. cattle industry is the last frontier for our nation’s meatpackers. It’s the only major livestock sector not predominantly controlled from birth to plate by the meatpackers themselves. Unless U.S. cattle producers want to trade their current independence for a production contract (as is the case in the poultry and hog industries), then immediate steps must be taken to reform the rules of the marketplace so that widely dispersed, independent cattle producers are put on a level playing field with the highly concentrated meatpackers when marketing their cattle.
The Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a livestock title that includes some of these needed reforms, including the prohibition on packer ownership of livestock – which is critical given the even further concentration that would occur if JBS-Brazil is allowed to combine the 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest U.S. packers into a single, foreign-owned firm.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/bi_content.asp?ContentId=210822
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
Sunday, March 16, 2008
MAD COW DISEASE terminology UK c-BSE (typical), atypical BSE H or L, and or
Italian L-BASE
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/03/mad-cow-disease-terminology-uk-c-bse.html
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/
SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html
TSS
Jolley: Five Minutes With R-CALF USA CEO, Bill Bullard
It’s been a few weeks since R-CALF closed out its convention in Omaha. It took that long for a very busy, frequent flying Bill Bullard to clear five minutes on his calendar to answer a few questions about the always interesting, occasionally controversial event.
Attending the convention were the usual collection of cattle ranchers – most of them harboring deep-seated suspicions about the intentions of big government and big packers. They cast a shifty eye at the changing rules governing international trade, real or perceived attacks on property rights and the competitive issues raised by packer consolidation.
When Bullard pulls his people together, there is no end to the issues that crowd the meeting’s agenda. And most of the issues make the membership mad…maybe that’s why R-CALF’s motto is “Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer.” It’s a ‘for sure’ statement: There is a whole lot of fight in this organization.
For those that didn’t make the convention, here is Bill Bullard’s take on the event.
Q. Now that the smoke has cleared from your Convention in Omaha, let’s step back and take a look at what happened. First, tell me about the attendance. Who showed up? How many people crowded into the ballroom?
A. We had more R-CALF USA members at this convention than at any other in the past, with a little over 350 who registered. Over the years, many members requested that we no longer hold our annual convention the same dates as the National Western Stock Show, and several also had requested that we hold the event in a more central location. The Board enthusiastically adopted these recommendations, and the attendance suggests that they were favorably received.
Our convention is attended largely by cattle-owning members – people who are serious about their industry and who directly make purchasing decisions for their operations, and this is what attracted a number of new vendors to our convention. As part of our convention, we co-hosted an informational meeting on trade policies with the Coalition for a Prosperous America. Approximately 350 people attended this event.
Q. This was the second year for your Private Property Rights Committee to host an afternoon seminar before the official convention got underway. What are the key issues that were discussed?
A. Primarily, issues related to water rights of private landowners, imminent domain, as well as information on how to make certain your private property rights are documented properly at the local level, and participating in public comment periods for rulemakings that affect property rights.
Q. Two key PPRC speakers, G. B. Oliver and Danny Martinez, are with the Paragon Foundation. Can you tell me about that organization?
A. Created in 1996 by Tom Linebery, an early leader in the property rights movement and a staunch advocate of ranchers and landowners, the Paragon Foundation provides for education, research and the exchange of ideas in an effort to promote and support Constitutional principles, individual freedoms, private property rights and the continuation of rural customs and culture – all with the intent of celebrating and continuing our Founding Fathers' vision for America.
The Paragon Foundation supports the advancement of the fundamental principals articulated by the founding fathers in both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. A proud American, Tom believed that it was the responsibility of government to protect the rights of fellow Americans, as written in the Constitution. Furthermore, he also believed that it was the responsibility of every American to make sure the government remained true to its purpose.
Tom understood that knowledge was power and he sought to arm fellow landowners with the information and negotiating skills necessary to protect their property. In this same spirit, the Paragon Foundation pledges to work diligently to bring individuals and organizations together in the hopes of developing effective tactics and strategies that will assist in disseminating knowledge and information to those who will best benefit. More information is available at: www.paragonfoundation.org.
Q. The trade show floor had a different look and some new participants created by your new outreach effort that offered booths to organizations with policies similar to R-CALF USA. What groups took advantage of the opportunity and how did they feel about their participation afterwards?
A. Moving the convention to Omaha allowed us a larger space for the trade show, which had more vendors than any other R-CALF USA convention. We offered other organizations with similar goals the opportunity to have a booth and distribute their literature. As far as the official vendors go, many told us it was the first cattle industry convention where participants actually stopped by and thanked the vendors for being part of the event. A few said they actually visited one-on-one with more actual cattle producers than at the other national cattle industry convention.
Q. Saturday’s policy session clarified a lot of questions about last year’s removal of Chuck Kiker as president. For those members who weren’t able to attend, can you give me some of the details?
A. Our convention opened the day after our hearing was held by the U.S. District Court on our request for a preliminary injunction against the USDA’s over 30-month rule (OTM Rule). During that hearing the attorney for USDA read extensively from a letter USDA received in January 2007 from the former R-CALF USA president, and argued that the former president’s letter supported the government’s position.
That very letter, and circumstances surrounding the letter, was the reason the former president was removed from his officer position on the R-CALF USA Board of Directors. The letter was contrary to R-CALF USA’s member policies, was sent without Board approval or knowledge, and it contradicted the position that the majority of the Board had expressed to USDA the day before.
Q. Animal health and welfare were important topics of discussion at the Convention, especially with the discovery of another case of BSE in the Canadian herd, the Hallmark abuse incident and the OTM case all heating up almost at the same time. Would you comment on all three of those issues?
A. We had several BSE experts who made presentations at our convention: our attorneys who represent R-CALF USA and our co-plaintiffs – several consumer groups, a statewide cattle association, and four individual ranchers – in our challenge of the OTM rule; a disease risk assessment expert who has assisted us in our legal challenge; and a BSE researcher who continues to add to the body of scientific knowledge about BSE.
Canada’s continuing detection of BSE cases born years after its 1997 feed ban demonstrate that the measures Canada relied on to prevent the recycling of BSE infectivity in Canada were inadequate, and should not be relied on to protect the U.S. herd and U.S. consumers.
In our ongoing challenge of the OTM Rule, we produced evidence showing that USDA knew that some packers were illegally slaughtering downer cows before the Hallmark incident came to light. The agency ignored our request to strengthen the enforcement of our BSE protections before further relaxing our import restrictions for higher-risk OTM cattle and beef from Canada. The Hallmark incident should be a wake-up call to our industry, to Congress, and to the public for the fact that the USDA is jeopardizing the solid reputation of the U.S. cattle industry because of its inadequate and cavalier response to legitimate disease concerns.
USDA is defending its OTM Rule with indefensible arguments. For example: USDA claims we must first relax our import restrictions, thus giving away more access to our markets in order to convince our export customers to relax their import restrictions against us. The states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have now demonstrated this fallacy by having to take aggressive action on their own to force Mexico to accept our live cattle despite the fact that we’ve been allowing unlimited numbers of Mexican cattle into the United States.
USDA also claims that the new cases of BSE detected in Canada are not epidemiologically significant, even though it was these new cases that caused Canada to recently enact significant regulations to strengthen its country’s feed ban.
Q. Thousands of people read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. The U.S. cattle industry is the last frontier for our nation’s meatpackers. It’s the only major livestock sector not predominantly controlled from birth to plate by the meatpackers themselves. Unless U.S. cattle producers want to trade their current independence for a production contract (as is the case in the poultry and hog industries), then immediate steps must be taken to reform the rules of the marketplace so that widely dispersed, independent cattle producers are put on a level playing field with the highly concentrated meatpackers when marketing their cattle.
The Senate version of the 2007 Farm Bill contains a livestock title that includes some of these needed reforms, including the prohibition on packer ownership of livestock – which is critical given the even further concentration that would occur if JBS-Brazil is allowed to combine the 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest U.S. packers into a single, foreign-owned firm.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/bi_content.asp?ContentId=210822
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS
http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html
Sunday, March 16, 2008
MAD COW DISEASE terminology UK c-BSE (typical), atypical BSE H or L, and or
Italian L-BASE
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/03/mad-cow-disease-terminology-uk-c-bse.html
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/
SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS
http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html
TSS