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

Like Jan Said-"We weren't Listening to our Members&quot

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CALF USA Court Case Attacked by State Cattle Groups



(Billings, Mont.) – As a possible hearing date in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looms on the horizon, members of some local cattle-producer organizations from Georgia, to Louisiana, to Colorado and beyond, seem to be experiencing some frustration and confusion as members learn their state associations signed on to a court document that supports the immediate reopening of the Canadian border – but without input from the local level.



The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) have filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the 9th Circuit, which fully supports the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Final Rule that calls for the immediate reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products. A total of 29 cattlemen’s organizations are signatories on the document.



This effort by NCBA and AFBF specifically calls upon the 9th Circuit to vacate the March 2 Preliminary Injunction order issued U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull that prevented USDA’s Final Rule from being implemented until a final hearing, scheduled for July 27 in Billings, Mont.



The NCBA/AFBF amicus brief asks the appellate court to overturn the Preliminary Injunction, and then immediately reopen the Canadian border under USDA’s Final Rule.



James Fudge, R-CALF USA’s director for the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, said most of the county cattle organizations in his territory had no idea that their state associations had signed on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief.



“I don’t think that producers in my area are even aware that their state associations have wholeheartedly endorsed the reopening of the Canadian border under the extremely lenient conditions contained in USDA’s Final Rule,” Fudge said. “Those groups that are aware of what’s going on are upset that they didn’t have a vote in the matter. I believe every cattle producer who’s a member of an organization that gets involved in this court case has a right to vote on whether they get involved, and from what standpoint. After all, all R-CALF members have had an opportunity to vote on this issue.”



Also struggling with this issue is the Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association (LCA).



“Some of us were very upset and voiced our opinion, so there was an emergency board meeting where we asked them to remove LCA’s name (from the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief), and that motion failed, but it was a 13-12 vote,” said Mike Kovac, a past president of LCA.



“There’s a lot of dissention on this issue,” continued Kovac. “We feel like a lot of the local organizations will be upset when they learn there was a resolution passed at our convention in January that opposed reopening the Canadian border until at least two or three things happened first. It’s my opinion that the LCA leadership abandoned the position of our membership in order to gain favor with NCBA.”



There even seems to be some confusion about the purpose of the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief among members of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), another group listed as a signatory to this document.



A CCA letter to its members dated May 2, 2005, says in part: “ . . . To be very clear, CCA is not signing onto this case in support or opposition of any organization. CCA is not in support or opposition of opening the Canadian border. CCA is only speaking to the science relating to BSE . . .”



“Unfortunately, it seems that NCBA and AFBF have not done their part to adequately inform the parties that joined the amicus brief that, indeed, those parties that signed on to the document have thrown their unconditional support to USDA’s Final Rule,” said Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder.



“Our members voted by mail-in ballot to take legal action if the USDA attempted to reopen the Canadian border before adequate safety measures against BSE were put in place, and the tally was overwhelmingly in favor of litigation,” McDonnell said. “And based on the calls we’re now receiving from cattle producers all across the country, it doesn’t appear that the local chapters under the umbrella of each of these 29 state cattlemen’s organizations named on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief ever had an opportunity to vote on the matter.



“The actions by these state cattlemen’s associations represent a very real threat to R-CALF USA’s efforts to ensure that adequate protections are in place to prevent the introduction of BSE from countries where the BSE agent is known to be circulating,” said McDonnell.



“These 29 cattle groups have taken an official stand to help the packers and USDA relax our import standards, and unfortunately, it’s unclear whether the membership of these local organizations supported their state leadership, as it doesn’t appear they were ever consulted on the matter,” McDonnell pointed out. “Why would any groups that claim to support U.S. ranchers also support an action that fails to internationally harmonize such practices and science, which would result in turning the U.S. cattle and beef markets into a dumping ground for products other countries won’t accept?”





NCBA and AFBF Amicus Brief Filed on April 20, 2005 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Amici State Organizations and Individual Cattle Producers



Alabama Cattlemen’s Association

Alaska Farm Bureau

Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association

Colorado Farm Bureau

Florida Cattlemen’s Association

Florida Farm Bureau Federation

Georgia Cattlemen’s Association

Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Illinois Agricultural Association d/b/a Illinois Farm Bureau

Illinois Beef Association

Indiana Beef Cattle Association

Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.

Iowa Cattlemen’s Association

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Kansas Farm Bureau

Kansas Livestock Association

Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association

Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Farm Bureau

Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association

Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.

Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation

New York Farm Bureau, Inc.

North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Ohio Cattlemen’s Association

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association

Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association

South Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Texas Farm Bureau

Utah Cattlemen’s Association

Utah Farm Bureau Federation

Virginia Cattlemen’s Association

Washington Cattle Feeders Association

Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

Bert Brackett, Idaho

Carl Crabtree, Idaho

Cevin Jones, Idaho

Dave Nelson, Idaho

Eric Davis, Idaho

Gene Davis, Idaho

James A. Little, Idaho

Joseph E. Tugaw, Idaho

K. Mark Nelson, California
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
R-CALF USA Court Case Attacked by State Cattle Groups



(Billings, Mont.) – As a possible hearing date in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looms on the horizon, members of some local cattle-producer organizations from Georgia, to Louisiana, to Colorado and beyond, seem to be experiencing some frustration and confusion as members learn their state associations signed on to a court document that supports the immediate reopening of the Canadian border – but without input from the local level.



The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) have filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the 9th Circuit, which fully supports the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Final Rule that calls for the immediate reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products. A total of 29 cattlemen’s organizations are signatories on the document.



This effort by NCBA and AFBF specifically calls upon the 9th Circuit to vacate the March 2 Preliminary Injunction order issued U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull that prevented USDA’s Final Rule from being implemented until a final hearing, scheduled for July 27 in Billings, Mont.



The NCBA/AFBF amicus brief asks the appellate court to overturn the Preliminary Injunction, and then immediately reopen the Canadian border under USDA’s Final Rule.



James Fudge, R-CALF USA’s director for the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, said most of the county cattle organizations in his territory had no idea that their state associations had signed on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief.



“I don’t think that producers in my area are even aware that their state associations have wholeheartedly endorsed the reopening of the Canadian border under the extremely lenient conditions contained in USDA’s Final Rule,” Fudge said. “Those groups that are aware of what’s going on are upset that they didn’t have a vote in the matter. I believe every cattle producer who’s a member of an organization that gets involved in this court case has a right to vote on whether they get involved, and from what standpoint. After all, all R-CALF members have had an opportunity to vote on this issue.”



Also struggling with this issue is the Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association (LCA).



“Some of us were very upset and voiced our opinion, so there was an emergency board meeting where we asked them to remove LCA’s name (from the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief), and that motion failed, but it was a 13-12 vote,” said Mike Kovac, a past president of LCA.



“There’s a lot of dissention on this issue,” continued Kovac. “We feel like a lot of the local organizations will be upset when they learn there was a resolution passed at our convention in January that opposed reopening the Canadian border until at least two or three things happened first. It’s my opinion that the LCA leadership abandoned the position of our membership in order to gain favor with NCBA.”



There even seems to be some confusion about the purpose of the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief among members of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), another group listed as a signatory to this document.



A CCA letter to its members dated May 2, 2005, says in part: “ . . . To be very clear, CCA is not signing onto this case in support or opposition of any organization. CCA is not in support or opposition of opening the Canadian border. CCA is only speaking to the science relating to BSE . . .”



“Unfortunately, it seems that NCBA and AFBF have not done their part to adequately inform the parties that joined the amicus brief that, indeed, those parties that signed on to the document have thrown their unconditional support to USDA’s Final Rule,” said Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder.



“Our members voted by mail-in ballot to take legal action if the USDA attempted to reopen the Canadian border before adequate safety measures against BSE were put in place, and the tally was overwhelmingly in favor of litigation,” McDonnell said. “And based on the calls we’re now receiving from cattle producers all across the country, it doesn’t appear that the local chapters under the umbrella of each of these 29 state cattlemen’s organizations named on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief ever had an opportunity to vote on the matter.



“The actions by these state cattlemen’s associations represent a very real threat to R-CALF USA’s efforts to ensure that adequate protections are in place to prevent the introduction of BSE from countries where the BSE agent is known to be circulating,” said McDonnell.



“These 29 cattle groups have taken an official stand to help the packers and USDA relax our import standards, and unfortunately, it’s unclear whether the membership of these local organizations supported their state leadership, as it doesn’t appear they were ever consulted on the matter,” McDonnell pointed out. “Why would any groups that claim to support U.S. ranchers also support an action that fails to internationally harmonize such practices and science, which would result in turning the U.S. cattle and beef markets into a dumping ground for products other countries won’t accept?”





NCBA and AFBF Amicus Brief Filed on April 20, 2005 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Amici State Organizations and Individual Cattle Producers



Alabama Cattlemen’s Association

Alaska Farm Bureau

Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association

Colorado Farm Bureau

Florida Cattlemen’s Association

Florida Farm Bureau Federation

Georgia Cattlemen’s Association

Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Illinois Agricultural Association d/b/a Illinois Farm Bureau

Illinois Beef Association

Indiana Beef Cattle Association

Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.

Iowa Cattlemen’s Association

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Kansas Farm Bureau

Kansas Livestock Association

Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association

Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Farm Bureau

Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association

Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.

Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation

New York Farm Bureau, Inc.

North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Ohio Cattlemen’s Association

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association

Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association

South Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Texas Farm Bureau

Utah Cattlemen’s Association

Utah Farm Bureau Federation

Virginia Cattlemen’s Association

Washington Cattle Feeders Association

Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

Bert Brackett, Idaho

Carl Crabtree, Idaho

Cevin Jones, Idaho

Dave Nelson, Idaho

Eric Davis, Idaho

Gene Davis, Idaho

James A. Little, Idaho

Joseph E. Tugaw, Idaho

K. Mark Nelson, California

OT, it is the responsibility of members in a member directed organization such as NCBA and the affiliated state organizations and their county groups to know what is going on.

The magazine and newspapers of NCBA and the state organizations communicate to the producer members what is going on, but if those members choose not to read, visit with their state and local leaders and in general keep in tough and make their ideas known, please explain to us how it is the fault of leadership when a member who has been asleep at the wheel, so to speak, suddenly wakes up and doesn't like what is going on? Or, more likely, is fed a line by someone like yourself that may or may not be accurate about what is going on.

MRJ
 

the chief

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
midwest
Why is it that the Cattlemen organizations from states CLOSEST to the border are not listed:
MONTANA
IDAHO
SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA

ETC. ETC. ETC.

I mean, those are the states most closely affected by this whole deal and THEY do NOT seem to support opening the border.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Chief: "Why is it that the Cattlemen organizations from states CLOSEST to the border are not listed:
MONTANA
IDAHO
SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA

ETC. ETC. ETC.

I mean, those are the states most closely affected by this whole deal and THEY do NOT seem to support opening the border."



Probably because the LMA and R-CULT, with their stronghold in the northern states, have been successful in brainwashing people into believing that the closing of the Canadian border and using BSE "fear mongering" to accomplish it, is primarily responsible for current cattle prices.

Ask them why fat cattle prices continued to rally after Canadian boxed beef was allowed back in (roughly 50% of normal Canadian imports) and they look at you with a blank look as if to say, "well Leo, Johnny, and Herman didn't tell us that".



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
R-CALF USA Court Case Attacked by State Cattle Groups



(Billings, Mont.) – As a possible hearing date in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looms on the horizon, members of some local cattle-producer organizations from Georgia, to Louisiana, to Colorado and beyond, seem to be experiencing some frustration and confusion as members learn their state associations signed on to a court document that supports the immediate reopening of the Canadian border – but without input from the local level.



The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) have filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the 9th Circuit, which fully supports the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Final Rule that calls for the immediate reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle and additional beef products. A total of 29 cattlemen’s organizations are signatories on the document.



This effort by NCBA and AFBF specifically calls upon the 9th Circuit to vacate the March 2 Preliminary Injunction order issued U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull that prevented USDA’s Final Rule from being implemented until a final hearing, scheduled for July 27 in Billings, Mont.



The NCBA/AFBF amicus brief asks the appellate court to overturn the Preliminary Injunction, and then immediately reopen the Canadian border under USDA’s Final Rule.



James Fudge, R-CALF USA’s director for the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, said most of the county cattle organizations in his territory had no idea that their state associations had signed on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief.



“I don’t think that producers in my area are even aware that their state associations have wholeheartedly endorsed the reopening of the Canadian border under the extremely lenient conditions contained in USDA’s Final Rule,” Fudge said. “Those groups that are aware of what’s going on are upset that they didn’t have a vote in the matter. I believe every cattle producer who’s a member of an organization that gets involved in this court case has a right to vote on whether they get involved, and from what standpoint. After all, all R-CALF members have had an opportunity to vote on this issue.”



Also struggling with this issue is the Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association (LCA).



“Some of us were very upset and voiced our opinion, so there was an emergency board meeting where we asked them to remove LCA’s name (from the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief), and that motion failed, but it was a 13-12 vote,” said Mike Kovac, a past president of LCA.



“There’s a lot of dissention on this issue,” continued Kovac. “We feel like a lot of the local organizations will be upset when they learn there was a resolution passed at our convention in January that opposed reopening the Canadian border until at least two or three things happened first. It’s my opinion that the LCA leadership abandoned the position of our membership in order to gain favor with NCBA.”



There even seems to be some confusion about the purpose of the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief among members of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), another group listed as a signatory to this document.



A CCA letter to its members dated May 2, 2005, says in part: “ . . . To be very clear, CCA is not signing onto this case in support or opposition of any organization. CCA is not in support or opposition of opening the Canadian border. CCA is only speaking to the science relating to BSE . . .”



“Unfortunately, it seems that NCBA and AFBF have not done their part to adequately inform the parties that joined the amicus brief that, indeed, those parties that signed on to the document have thrown their unconditional support to USDA’s Final Rule,” said Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder.



“Our members voted by mail-in ballot to take legal action if the USDA attempted to reopen the Canadian border before adequate safety measures against BSE were put in place, and the tally was overwhelmingly in favor of litigation,” McDonnell said. “And based on the calls we’re now receiving from cattle producers all across the country, it doesn’t appear that the local chapters under the umbrella of each of these 29 state cattlemen’s organizations named on the NCBA/AFBF amicus brief ever had an opportunity to vote on the matter.



“The actions by these state cattlemen’s associations represent a very real threat to R-CALF USA’s efforts to ensure that adequate protections are in place to prevent the introduction of BSE from countries where the BSE agent is known to be circulating,” said McDonnell.



“These 29 cattle groups have taken an official stand to help the packers and USDA relax our import standards, and unfortunately, it’s unclear whether the membership of these local organizations supported their state leadership, as it doesn’t appear they were ever consulted on the matter,” McDonnell pointed out. “Why would any groups that claim to support U.S. ranchers also support an action that fails to internationally harmonize such practices and science, which would result in turning the U.S. cattle and beef markets into a dumping ground for products other countries won’t accept?”





NCBA and AFBF Amicus Brief Filed on April 20, 2005 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Amici State Organizations and Individual Cattle Producers



Alabama Cattlemen’s Association

Alaska Farm Bureau

Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association

Colorado Farm Bureau

Florida Cattlemen’s Association

Florida Farm Bureau Federation

Georgia Cattlemen’s Association

Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Illinois Agricultural Association d/b/a Illinois Farm Bureau

Illinois Beef Association

Indiana Beef Cattle Association

Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.

Iowa Cattlemen’s Association

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Kansas Farm Bureau

Kansas Livestock Association

Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association

Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Cattlemen’s Association

Michigan Farm Bureau

Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association

Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Cattlemen’s Association

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.

Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation

New York Farm Bureau, Inc.

North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Ohio Cattlemen’s Association

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association

Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association

South Carolina Cattlemen’s Association

Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association

Texas Cattle Feeders Association

Texas Farm Bureau

Utah Cattlemen’s Association

Utah Farm Bureau Federation

Virginia Cattlemen’s Association

Washington Cattle Feeders Association

Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

Bert Brackett, Idaho

Carl Crabtree, Idaho

Cevin Jones, Idaho

Dave Nelson, Idaho

Eric Davis, Idaho

Gene Davis, Idaho

James A. Little, Idaho

Joseph E. Tugaw, Idaho

K. Mark Nelson, California

OT, it is the responsibility of members in a member directed organization such as NCBA and the affiliated state organizations and their county groups to know what is going on.

The magazine and newspapers of NCBA and the state organizations communicate to the producer members what is going on, but if those members choose not to read, visit with their state and local leaders and in general keep in tough and make their ideas known, please explain to us how it is the fault of leadership when a member who has been asleep at the wheel, so to speak, suddenly wakes up and doesn't like what is going on? Or, more likely, is fed a line by someone like yourself that may or may not be accurate about what is going on.

MRJ

Has NCBA been sending out weekly notifications to keep up with the flipflop policy of late :???: --Looks to me like it wouldn't do any good contacting your county or state organizations for guidance as they are the ones complaining about not knowing where NCBA is coming from.....But I'm sure the packers and USDA have told the boys at the top which direction they have to take. :wink: ...
 

Latest posts

Top