Last Fall I was in Louisville, KY at the NAILE walking through the cattle barns
at the livestock pavilion when I ran into an old family friend who was from
Missouri. For the sake of this article, I'll call him Bob.
Bob had held leadership positions in a couple of breed associations and was a well
known seedstock producer.
After exchanging a few pleasantries with my wife Sam and I, he started trembling with
anger and out of nowhere asked why R-CALF was trying to ruin beef demand. I kind of
laughed and said, "Bob, you have got to be kidding me, we are enjoying the highest
retail beef prices in history, so how can you say R-CALF has hurt beef demand?"
He agreed that maybe he was off base then went on to rant that R-CALF was attacking
the safety of U.S. beef. I asked him where he had heard such foolishness and he stated
NCBA and a couple of the monthly 'Beef Enquirer' magazines we all receive for free.
Again, I laughed and said, "Bob are you referring to the Injunction against USDA for
lowering our import standards below internationally accepted and practiced import standards?"
He responded, "Yes."
I told him that he, of all people, should understand that the case was targeted at imports
and not U.S. beef and I would like to see the documents where R-CALF had publicly
attacked U.S. beef. He didn't know of any.
I then asked him if he wasn't more concerned about our chief contracting agent for our
checkoff, NCBA, claiming at that time that this was a North American problem and
there was no difference between Canada and the U.S. with regard to the beef and cattle
industries. I said, "Given the fact they've had three cases of BSE - all out of the same
province - that they've had repeated meat and bone meal contaminations and violations,
and that they still processed downer cattle while the U.S. didn't and a host of other differences,
shouldn't you be more concerned that this association with Canada could
cause harm to the image of the U.S. beef."
He agreed, but came back asking how we could support an expensive program like
COOL and not the national ID?
I explained to Bob that nearly every modern consuming country in the world had some
form of COOL and it was time the U.S. caught up. I asked him how do you expect to
compete in a global market if you can't differentiate your product or how do you expect
U.S. ranchers to capitalize on their check-off investment if they're not allowed to
improve demand transparencies. I explained that if COOL was implemented the way the
law was written and the GAO (investigative arm of Congress) reported USDA could, it
wouldn't cost ranchers a dime.
He said, "I didn't know that."
And I responded that maybe there are groups and media that didn't want him to know
it.
I then explained that the National ID would take the most independent segment of
agriculture (cattle industry) and saddle them with the most burdensome regulations in
the history of agriculture. COOL, at its most burdensome level would only require
knowing where an animal was born and raised, but the National ID would also require
a record on every movement, every animal that an animal is exposed to and where those
cattle were moved to and what cattle they were exposed to and so on...On top of that
they want to NCBA coordinate the privatization.
I said, "What rancher is going to support letting a group such as NCBA that has lobbied
against COOL, opposed investigation into unfair trade practices that may have been
damaging cattle prices, supported reopening imports from Canada on products other
countries had banned etc..."
You could tell he didn't like my remarks but he agreed. continued on page 28
Winter 2005
President, continued from page 6
Bob kept coming back with more
and more questions, to which I
answered with R-CALF's position
and to which, he could not refute the
logic.
He then said, "You've divided the
industry and caused a lot of damage."
I thought to myself someone needed
to deprogram this poor soul. I said,
"Bob, you've just spent the last half
hour ranting and raving about points
that you've now found to be untrue.
You're an intelligent man, don't you
think the U.S. cattle rancher, the
largest segment of the cattle/beef sector,
deserves to have its own national
voice?" I explained, "Those of us in
R-CALF didn't divide the industry, all
we did was give a national voice back
to the cattle producer, which we had
historically and foolishly lost."
Bob wanted to argue and I closed it
down saying, "Bob, you've allowed
yourself to be manipulated in thought
and emotion by some of these other
folks."
I share this with you because it
shows the extremes some groups and
media have gone to in their attempt to
quash the support for R-CALF, but it's
not working!
Nobody said taking control of industry
markets and providing more
rational trade policy would be easy. In
fact, I've found very few things in life
that are truly worthwhile are ever
easy; but they are the certainly the
most rewarding.
So lean forward, stay in there, be
focused, be honest, try to cultivate
both sides of an issue, and be respectful
to those who have differing views.
You may even learn something.
As I step down from president, I
want to thank you for your trust.
Merry Christmas and have a Happy
New Year!
28 Winter 2005
Leo McDonnell
at the livestock pavilion when I ran into an old family friend who was from
Missouri. For the sake of this article, I'll call him Bob.
Bob had held leadership positions in a couple of breed associations and was a well
known seedstock producer.
After exchanging a few pleasantries with my wife Sam and I, he started trembling with
anger and out of nowhere asked why R-CALF was trying to ruin beef demand. I kind of
laughed and said, "Bob, you have got to be kidding me, we are enjoying the highest
retail beef prices in history, so how can you say R-CALF has hurt beef demand?"
He agreed that maybe he was off base then went on to rant that R-CALF was attacking
the safety of U.S. beef. I asked him where he had heard such foolishness and he stated
NCBA and a couple of the monthly 'Beef Enquirer' magazines we all receive for free.
Again, I laughed and said, "Bob are you referring to the Injunction against USDA for
lowering our import standards below internationally accepted and practiced import standards?"
He responded, "Yes."
I told him that he, of all people, should understand that the case was targeted at imports
and not U.S. beef and I would like to see the documents where R-CALF had publicly
attacked U.S. beef. He didn't know of any.
I then asked him if he wasn't more concerned about our chief contracting agent for our
checkoff, NCBA, claiming at that time that this was a North American problem and
there was no difference between Canada and the U.S. with regard to the beef and cattle
industries. I said, "Given the fact they've had three cases of BSE - all out of the same
province - that they've had repeated meat and bone meal contaminations and violations,
and that they still processed downer cattle while the U.S. didn't and a host of other differences,
shouldn't you be more concerned that this association with Canada could
cause harm to the image of the U.S. beef."
He agreed, but came back asking how we could support an expensive program like
COOL and not the national ID?
I explained to Bob that nearly every modern consuming country in the world had some
form of COOL and it was time the U.S. caught up. I asked him how do you expect to
compete in a global market if you can't differentiate your product or how do you expect
U.S. ranchers to capitalize on their check-off investment if they're not allowed to
improve demand transparencies. I explained that if COOL was implemented the way the
law was written and the GAO (investigative arm of Congress) reported USDA could, it
wouldn't cost ranchers a dime.
He said, "I didn't know that."
And I responded that maybe there are groups and media that didn't want him to know
it.
I then explained that the National ID would take the most independent segment of
agriculture (cattle industry) and saddle them with the most burdensome regulations in
the history of agriculture. COOL, at its most burdensome level would only require
knowing where an animal was born and raised, but the National ID would also require
a record on every movement, every animal that an animal is exposed to and where those
cattle were moved to and what cattle they were exposed to and so on...On top of that
they want to NCBA coordinate the privatization.
I said, "What rancher is going to support letting a group such as NCBA that has lobbied
against COOL, opposed investigation into unfair trade practices that may have been
damaging cattle prices, supported reopening imports from Canada on products other
countries had banned etc..."
You could tell he didn't like my remarks but he agreed. continued on page 28
Winter 2005
President, continued from page 6
Bob kept coming back with more
and more questions, to which I
answered with R-CALF's position
and to which, he could not refute the
logic.
He then said, "You've divided the
industry and caused a lot of damage."
I thought to myself someone needed
to deprogram this poor soul. I said,
"Bob, you've just spent the last half
hour ranting and raving about points
that you've now found to be untrue.
You're an intelligent man, don't you
think the U.S. cattle rancher, the
largest segment of the cattle/beef sector,
deserves to have its own national
voice?" I explained, "Those of us in
R-CALF didn't divide the industry, all
we did was give a national voice back
to the cattle producer, which we had
historically and foolishly lost."
Bob wanted to argue and I closed it
down saying, "Bob, you've allowed
yourself to be manipulated in thought
and emotion by some of these other
folks."
I share this with you because it
shows the extremes some groups and
media have gone to in their attempt to
quash the support for R-CALF, but it's
not working!
Nobody said taking control of industry
markets and providing more
rational trade policy would be easy. In
fact, I've found very few things in life
that are truly worthwhile are ever
easy; but they are the certainly the
most rewarding.
So lean forward, stay in there, be
focused, be honest, try to cultivate
both sides of an issue, and be respectful
to those who have differing views.
You may even learn something.
As I step down from president, I
want to thank you for your trust.
Merry Christmas and have a Happy
New Year!
28 Winter 2005
Leo McDonnell
