Market manipulation at the local salebarns

[Anonymous]

High Plains,

You are exactly correct.

You list real life examples of common business practices used in the purchase and sale of feeder cattle. Unfortunately, the packer blaming segment of our industry would like to impose seperate "socialist marketing" rules for the purchase of fat cattle that would end up applying equally to the purchase of feeder cattle since a distinction will not be made.

In the packer blamer's mindset (according to arguments made in Pickett v. IBP which was the driving force behind the GIPSA rules), if the purchase of feeder cattle were to fall under the same rules the packer blamers would like to impose on the fat cattle industry, if a feeder bought feeder cattle under a forward contract and dropped his/her price for the balance of their needs in the cash market to reflect the purchases they made through forward contracts, this would constitute "market manipulation".

Had the jury's decision in Pickett vs. IBP been allowed to stand, this would have allowed lawyers to have a field day with the words "market manipulation". Is it any wonder why Judge Strom's decision to overturn the jury verdict in Pickett vs. IBP was upheld on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court?

These packer blamers will destroy this industry if they are allowed because they don't seem to understand that there will not be a distinction between the rules that apply to the purchase of fat cattle or feeder cattle. In otherwords, they simply cannot see the consequences of their short sighted decisions.

This lack of foresight is no more obvious than when they insisted on proving that an animal was born, raised, and processed in the US before the beef from those animals could be labeled as "US BEEF" under the Mandatory Country of Origin labeling law. When they found out that this required source verification to enforce, they didn't want source verification to apply to them. So now we have "CAN-MEX-USA" labels to identify non source verified beef because they refused to paticipate in what they demanded of others. Haha!

Now they want to impose this same level of logic to the GIPSA rules.

What's most interesting is that this is all based on the perception that market manipulation is occuring when they can provide no proof of it and neither could countless GIPSA investigations into cases of alleged market manipulation.

God help us if the packer blamers are ever allowed to run this industry.


Good post.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "I "Wrote it down" when you predicted that the Japanese would fall all over themselves to get our non-tested beef, too."

Show me where I ever said, "Japan would fall all over themselves to get our non-tested beef".

Watch this readers .........

Diversion of the question or avoidance of the question, take your pick but you don't hold your breath waiting for Sandhusker to bring a quote to back his position.

My point on bse testing was and still is this, it's stupid to cave to the perception that testing of cattle under 20 months of age is justified when bse prions don't show up in cattle that young with the tests that were available at the time of the debate. You're such a fool to cling to such worthless arguments but that's exactly what I have come to expect from you.

Sandhusker: "A prognosticator you're not."

The "CAN-MEX-USA" beef labels at the local supermarket from your worthless "M"COOL law would strongly suggest otherwise. You haven't played a winning hand yet Sandhusker.


~SH~

In a free market, which you selectively support, it doesn't matter what you think is justified. Is it justified to claim hormone free is superior to non-homone free? According to you, the answer is no - but it's still allowed. Is it justified to claim Angus is superior than other beef? Certainly depends on who you ask. In a free market, you give the customer what they want.

The CAN-MEX-USA label is a continent of origin label, not country of origin label and not what M-COOL proponents wanted. That is what we ended up after your beloved packers waded in to water down the law. If you were either informed or honest, you would know that.

 

[Anonymous]

As expected Sandhusker, you couldn't provide the proof to back your statement. Same-O "factually void" you!

Sandhusker: "In a free market, which you selectively support, it doesn't matter what you think is justified."

In a free market, which you do not advocate based on your "please government, save us from ourselves" positions, you still have to abide by the laws regarding false advertising. BSE testing of cattle under 20 months of age has no validity based on the tests that were available at the time therefore it's deceptive and not allowed.

Sandhusker: "Is it justified to claim hormone free is superior to non-homone free?"

No it's not justified. I haven't seen anyone make that claim. Beef that is labeled as "hormone free" has to be "hormone free" based on a LEGITIMATE TEST. If proper withdrawl times have been adhered to, claiming that hormone free beef is safer than beef that has been given hormones is false advertising and illegal. You got nothing here.

Sandhusker: "Is it justified to claim Angus is superior than other beef? Certainly depends on who you ask."

I have seen no such claim and neither have you. Angus beef is just what it states, ANGUS BEEF. Another baseless argument.

Sandhusker: "In a free market, you give the customer what they want."

Gee, does that apply to narcotics too? How about alcohol to minors?

You give the customer what they want within the guidelines of the laws concerning false claims and false advertisting.

You support deception and I don't.

Sandhusker: "The CAN-MEX-USA label is a continent of origin label, not country of origin label and not what M-COOL proponents wanted. That is what we ended up after your beloved packers waded in to water down the law. If you were either informed or honest, you would know that."

Just as I stated. You packer blamers will always find a way to blame the packers even if this law is a result of your own ignorance which it most definitely is. The "M"COOL law could not be enforced because enforcement required SOURCE VERIFICATION to prove where beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" which you packer blamers insisted on. You shot yourselves in the foot and anyone with any common sense knows you can't prove where an animal was born without a traceback system. Because you didn't want to prove origination after you insisted on proving origination, we have the "CAN-MEX-USA" labels. Source verified branded beef programs are proving origintion right now without the worthless "M"COOL law. "M"COOL is exactly what we can expect from groups like R-CALF that leap before they look.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's so unfortunate that you packer blamers are never held accountable for or have to face the consequences of your short sighted emotionally based decisions. You just blame your way out of it. A cancer on the industry.


~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed: ".... but dont be surprised if the out come mimics the last"

I wouldn't expect anything less than the same outcome. Blamers will never face the consequences of their short sighted emotioanally driven decisions. They just find something or someone else to blame for their lack of foresight. It's never been any different.

I just like to show up occassionally and banter with packer blamers who are clueless as to how the packing industry operates.

R-CALF's dismal 0 & 9 record pretty much defined, as you say, "the outcome" of those previous debates.



~SH~

I bought ribeye a couple days ago $15 lb,last 8 weights i sold brought a dollar a pound...............I call it "packer spread"
Sales barn caint give me anything for my steers because packers dont give the feeders anything.
simple as this, packers control the consumer market and wont pay anything for beef because they manipulate the industry with captive supply.
good luck

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "I bought ribeye a couple days ago $15 lb,last 8 weights i sold brought a dollar a pound...............I call it "packer spread"
Sales barn caint give me anything for my steers because packers dont give the feeders anything.
simple as this, packers control the consumer market and wont pay anything for beef because they manipulate the industry with captive supply."

Hayseed,

You and others who believe like you really need to ask yourselves one simple question. Do you want to believe what you believe despite the facts to the contrary or do you want to know the truth about "packer spread"??

Hmmm?? Seriously!

Your statement above is the classic "apples to oranges" comparison.

Do you honestly believe that you should receive any where close to the same price for an animal on the hoof that is received for the middle meats?? If so, that logic is totally insane.

You are making the same mistake that so many other packer blamers make. They don't search for the facts or the truth behind the issue. They just make a shallow observation and sink their teeth into it as proof of some money making packer conspiracy.

I don't have the time to go back and break down the values of the entire carcass for you like I did here once but stop and think about it. These 8 weights you sold probably finished out at about 1250 lbs. and brought somewhere between 90 cents to $1.00 per pound. Of that 1250 lbs. there is only 781 lbs. of carcass. Do you honestly think you should receive middle meat price for the head, hide, ofal, blood, stomach contents, brains, tongue, liver, heart, lungs, leg bones, neck, etc. etc.???

Now we are not even close to being done. Of that carcass you have hanging, IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, there is only 60% that is meat. 40% is bone and fat which is worth about $.08 per pound.

Of the meat, you have the chucks and rounds which you can go down to your local supermarket and see what that's worth but I can assure you it's less than half of the value of the middle meats. Then you have 50/50 trim that ends up as dogfood unless you can find cheap hamburger to blend with it. Go to the supermarket and value 70/30, 80/20, and 90/10 ground beef. Then you can start to understand that most of the meat from a carcass is not even close to the value of the middle meats. You and other packer blamers should really take the time to value the entire carcass and see what you have before you start deducting processing, transportation, and retail expenses.

When you look at the middle meats, you are looking at a very small portion of the entire weight of the carcass.

Now let's talk about expense. What does your local locker plant charge you to process a beef animal? DEDUCT THAT from the value of the carcass.

Now you have transportation costs to ship that beef to the supermarket. then you have labor costs in stocking and handling it.

Now guess what? You can price it however you want but if that beef doesn't sell by expiration date, you either sell it or you SMELL IT, period. You are going to have to drop your price until it is sold and that's why you have "featured prices" on beef products that are lower than regular prices. Then if it doesn't sell by expiration date, YOU HAVE TO THROW IT OUT. What's that beef worth now?

You make such a simplistic observation by comparing the price of middle meats (THE MOST VALUABLE SECTION OF A CARCASS) and try to compare that to the value of the entire animal without even considering what that entire carcass is worth and what your expenses will be.

I can guarantee you that your local locker plant cannot come even close to processing that carcass as cheaply as the large packing plants. The more it costs to process that animal THE LESS MONEY THERE IS TO PAY FOR FAT CATTLE all other things being equal. It's that simple. The more the large packers can get for the ofal and hides, the more they can and will pay for fat cattle.

Now if you don't believe me, then invest in a packing plant. Start selling beef. Put your money where your mouth is and find out for yourself how big that "PACKER SPREAD" is.

Captive supplies are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. That means packer owned cattle and forward contract cattle.

Now tell me Hayseed, if captive supplies are having such an affect on the fat cattle market, WHY DO THOSE MARKETS FLUCUATE SO MUCH?? Hmmmm???

How can a market be controlled if it's moving?? Hello? You still there?

Can you explain when "captive supplies" have an effect on the market and when they don't?

The thing you need to understand about "captive supply" is those are cattle that were bought by packers from willing sellers. If you don't like the offer from one packer YOU SELL TO ANOTHER. If you think there is so much money in the packing industry, INVEST IN IT AND FIND OUT THE HARD WAY. Who are you and other packer blamers to tell those who forward contract their cattle that they cannot market their cattle that way? Talk about trampling on individual rights.

I'm sure, just like always, that I'm talking to a wall but maybe somebody out there has the same misconceptions you have and will stop and think about it rather than simply repeating what they hear.

If you break up the large packers into more less efficient packers, it will result in lower cattle prices all other factors being equal. That is an undisputed fact. The less it costs you to process an animal, the more you have available to pay for cattle and if you don't, your competition will.

Packer blaming is nothing but a waste of time and energy when we have a lot bigger problems facing this industry. Currently, I believe the biggest threat to this industry is packer blamers pushing for legislation that will result in lower cattle prices.

NCBA is correct in their realization that this industry needs to stay focused on promoting beef knowing that the price of beef affects the price of cattle rather than filing frivious lawsuits against packers that only serve to make lawyers rich.

0 and 9 in court Hayseed. Nothing more needs to be said.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, " you still have to abide by the laws regarding false advertising"

What is false advertising BSE tested beef as BSE tested beef?

SH, "Beef that is labeled as "hormone free" has to be "hormone free" based on a LEGITIMATE TEST."

So the BSE test is not a LEGITIMATE TEST?

SH, 'Angus beef is just what it states, ANGUS BEEF."

You don't realize why vendors would advertise their products as being Angus beef, calling them the "Angus Burger", "Angus Steak Sandwich", etc....? It hasn't occured to you that they are playing upon a PERCEPTION that Angus is superior? Perceptions are used in marketing all the time. People might buy BSE tested beef under the perception that it is safer (or maybe they don't trust the USDA and would rather be safe than sorry) - and that is no different than people buying Angus beef under the perception that it is better beef - which is a PERCEPTION that the Angus people have spent a lot of time and effort on.

SH, "The "M"COOL law could not be enforced because enforcement required SOURCE VERIFICATION to prove where beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED"

If the animal comes from Mexico, it will have the "M" brand. If it came from Canada, it will have a CAN brand or will come in a sealed van with papers. Anything else is US. What is the problem?

 

[HAY MAKER]

SH, " you still have to abide by the laws regarding false advertising"

What is false advertising BSE tested beef as BSE tested beef?

SH, "Beef that is labeled as "hormone free" has to be "hormone free" based on a LEGITIMATE TEST."

So the BSE test is not a LEGITIMATE TEST?

SH, 'Angus beef is just what it states, ANGUS BEEF."

You don't realize why vendors would advertise their products as being Angus beef, calling them the "Angus Burger", "Angus Steak Sandwich", etc....? It hasn't occured to you that they are playing upon a PERCEPTION that Angus is superior? Perceptions are used in marketing all the time. People might buy BSE tested beef under the perception that it is safer (or maybe they don't trust the USDA and would rather be safe than sorry) - and that is no different than people buying Angus beef under the perception that it is better beef - which is a PERCEPTION that the Angus people have spent a lot of time and effort on.

SH, "The "M"COOL law could not be enforced because enforcement required SOURCE VERIFICATION to prove where beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED"

If the animal comes from Mexico, it will have the "M" brand. If it came from Canada, it will have a CAN brand or will come in a sealed van with papers. Anything else is US. What is the problem?

I think the prarie dog trapper dont understand that the goal of the packing industry and retailers is to obtain beef from where it can be produced most cheaply.
So maybe we oughta just retire and let south America,take our market.
I been thinkin bout retirement,maybe go to the bahamas lay on the beach all day gettin massaged by some skimply dressed young lady,then some good whiskey and a ribeye,sleep like a baby all nite then same thang tamorrow
Yup let the the damn packers source that good ole argetina beef,while Im in the bahamas enjoyin life :wink:
good luck and good nite,gotta travel south so yall have a good thanks givin.
good luck

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "What is false advertising BSE tested beef as BSE tested beef?"

We've been over this a thousand times and neither will change their mind so this is a complete waste of time. You believe consumer deception should be legal and I don't.

BSE prions do not show up in cattle under 20 months of age with the tests available at the time so there is no reason to BSE test cattle under 20 months of age, PERIOD. You are not dealing with an "ANGUS" beef perception here, you are dealing with a food safety perception. APPLES AND ORANGES.

Sandhusker: "So the BSE test is not a LEGITIMATE TEST?"

BSE prions do not show up in cattle under 20 months of age with the tests available at the time so there is no reason to BSE test cattle under 20 months of age, PERIOD. The testing of cattle under 20 months of age with the BSE tests that were available at the time would not constitute legitimate testing for BSE.

Sandhusker: "It hasn't occured to you that they are playing upon a PERCEPTION that Angus is superior? Perceptions are used in marketing all the time. People might buy BSE tested beef under the perception that it is safer (or maybe they don't trust the USDA and would rather be safe than sorry) - and that is no different than people buying Angus beef under the perception that it is better beef - which is a PERCEPTION that the Angus people have spent a lot of time and effort on."

Apples to oranges!

There is nothing wrong with selling Angus beef if the beef being sold is angus beef. There is no deception in advertising angus beef if you are selling angus beef.

The difference with bse testing cattle under 20 months of age is that you are deceiving the public about FOOD SAFETY by bse testing cattle under 20 months of age when those tests will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 20 months of age.

You cannot compare a perception of better quality beef to a perception of FOOD SAFETY. If you took this issue to the public, and the public was aware that these tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 20 months of age they would not allow testing and Japan would be no different. You think the Japanese would demand that all beef be tested if they knew that the tests would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 20 months of age? You're a fool if you do.

You wanted to sell a FOOD SAFETY PERCEPTION and you don't deceive consumers when it comes to food safety. That's why it was not allowed.

Sandhusker: "If the animal comes from Mexico, it will have the "M" brand. If it came from Canada, it will have a CAN brand or will come in a sealed van with papers. Anything else is US. What is the problem?"

This is a typical over simplistic look at this issue. That hide brand doesn't have a thing to do with tracing the beef that comes from an animal with an "M" brand or "CAN" brand on it's rib or hip. If you knew anything about beef fabrication and processing you would understand that the system needs to trace every product from that carcass in an enforceable manner NOT JUST THE HIDE. That's the problem with packer blamers like you. You come up with these over simplistic solutions for problems that you don't know anything about.

On this issue you are such a hypocrite. You don't trust USDA and you don't trust the packers yet you suggest an unenforceable traceback method to enforce your stupid law. If you don't have a means to track every beef product from that carcass, there is no way you can enforce that law. You opposed the traceback system so you shot yourself in the foot on the enforcement of your flawed law.

If the USDA could have enforced this law based on your over simplistic solution of a hide brand that doesn't have a thing to do with tracing beef packages to their destination, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO. They couldn't and since you didn't want a tradceback system to enforce it, we have "CAN-MEX-USA" labels. Gooooooooo R-CALF!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "I think the prarie dog trapper dont understand that the goal of the packing industry and retailers is to obtain beef from where it can be produced most cheaply."

Diversion. We were not talking about where cattle are sourced from, we were talking about the value of animals on the hoof vs. the value of middle meats at the store and your perception of the so called "packer spread". I knew you'd have no response to that because the value of the entire carcass shows what a ridiculous comparison it is to compare the value of the entire animal on the hoof to the value of middle meats.

Hope you find some common sense on that beach.


~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed: "I think the prarie dog trapper dont understand that the goal of the packing industry and retailers is to obtain beef from where it can be produced most cheaply."

Diversion.

We were not talking about where cattle are sourced from, we were talking about the value of animals on the hoof

vs. the value of middle meats at the store and your perception of the so called "packer spread". I knew you'd have no response to that because the value of the entire carcass shows what a ridiculous comparison it is to compare the value of the entire animal on the hoof to the value of middle meats.

Hope you find some common sense on that beach.


~SH~

The hell we wer'nt you just aint payin attention,where cattle are sourced determines the value to a great extent.And is every packers dream of Argentina beef.
In 1980, ranchers and farmers got 63 cents out of every dollar consumers spent on beef. That dropped to 60 cents in 1990, to 49 cents in 2000 to 43 cents in 2009.
No telling what it is now, explain that,you claim to be so damned smart,lemme guess Ranchers got lazy and dont work as hard as they did in the eighties and their herd is lesser quality now so not worth as much ?
You damned packer puppets got more angles than a damned tri square
good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "BSE prions do not show up in cattle under 20 months of age ....."


Yeah, yeah, yeah, so the USDA claims. Yet, again you tangent to avoid the question. You made the accusation of false adverstising. Where is the false advertising in selling BSE tested beef as BSE tested beef? There is none. You didn't think that one through.

SH, ""There is no deception in advertising angus beef if you are selling angus beef."

And none was claimed. You're not real fast on the uptake, are you?

SH, "You wanted to sell a FOOD SAFETY PERCEPTION and you don't deceive consumers when it comes to food safety. That's why it was not allowed."

According to you and the USDA, selling hormone free beef is a FOOD SAFETY PERCEPTION, and the last I knew, it was allowed. Hypocricy - double standard.

SH, "...you would understand that the system needs to trace every product from that carcass in an enforceable manner NOT JUST THE HIDE"

And there's just no way for the packers to do that, huh? Just can't be economically done? Simple scheduling will never work.... How stupid do you think people are?

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "In 1980, ranchers and farmers got 63 cents out of every dollar consumers spent on beef. That dropped to 60 cents in 1990, to 49 cents in 2000 to 43 cents in 2009.
No telling what it is now, explain that,you claim to be so damned smart,"

First of all, for the sake of argument, I am going to assume those numbers are accurate. Big assumption on my part considering the source.

I got one simple question, if you think packers and retailers are making so much money off the producer, then why don't you invest in a packing company? When you are so convinced there is all this money to be made, why would you not invest in a packing company? Hmmmm??

Easier to blame isn't it?

Consumers are not willing to pay more for beef when they feel beef is overpriced relative to poultry and pork. You can't argue that so don't even bother. Your friends and family can tell you that much.

The expenses all the way through the process have risen. Wages have risen since 1980 as well as many other expenses.

It doesn't matter how much you cry about how much you think you should be paid for cattle, it's not going to happen unless the consumers are willing to pay more for beef. It's that damn simple. The price of fat cattle is relative to the price of boxed beef and it always has been. The direction of one dictates the direction of the other.

If you want someone to blame legitimately for cattle prices that are lower than you feel they should be, blame the consumer. That's where the blame really lies. Good luck with that.

Hayseed: "lemme guess Ranchers got lazy and dont work as hard as they did in the eighties and their herd is lesser quality now so not worth as much ?"

To the contrary, most herds are of better quality.

Hayseed: "You damned packer puppets got more angles than a damned tri square"

Packer blamers like you are so clueless. "Well ah, gee ah, the price of middle meats if $15 per pound and I'm only getting $1 for my eight weights". As if you should be getting $15 per pound for contents of the stomach, the skull, the bones and the fat. You're a real wizard there Hayseed.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Yet, again you tangent to avoid the question."

I avoided nothing.

Sandhusker: "Where is the false advertising in selling BSE tested beef as BSE tested beef? There is none."

It is deceptive to dupe consumers into believing that bse tested means that those cattle under 20 months are bse free when bse prions will not show up in cattle under 20 months with the tests that were available at that time. There is no legitimate reason to test cattle under 20 months of age.

You support consumer deception and I don't.

Sandhusker: "According to you and the USDA, selling hormone free beef is a FOOD SAFETY PERCEPTION, and the last I knew, it was allowed. Hypocricy - double standard."

Apples and oranges AGAIN. If beef is labeled as hormone free, then it has to be hormone free or it's illegal. In contrast, bse tested means nothing in cattle under 20 months because bse prions are not detectable in cattle under 20 months. One is consumer deception, the other is not.

Sandhusker: "And there's just no way for the packers to do that, huh? Just can't be economically done? Simple scheduling will never work...."

Of course it can be done, with a traceback system you fool. You opposed a traceback system so your flawed law is unenforceable. That is why we have "CAN-MEX-USA" labels. Congratulations, welcome to your ignorace.

You packer blamers should have let the free market operate as it should without government intervention. If consumers want US BEEF, they can buy one of many source verified branded beef products or they can buy generic commodity beef from you so you don't have to source verify. I'll take the extra $40 per head for source verification while you continue to whine about it.

Sandhusker: "How stupid do you think people are"

Most people are a lot smarter than you if you think a brand on a hide has anything to do with tracing the beef under that hide.

The animal comes into the plant. The hide comes off. On this particuar day, this particular packing plant slaughtered 500 head of cattle. 50 head from Canada and 450 from the US. Now you tell me which packages are Canadian and which are US if I decide I don't want to keep them seperate??? How do you keep the packages tied to the country of origin without a traceback system? I can put any country of origin label on any package of beef without a traceback system and you can't prove or disprove anything.

This law has to be enforceable or it's worthless. You insisted on proving where an animal was born until it meant source verification, then you suddenly trusted the packers to keep the foreign beef straight on their good word. Haha. Talk about conflicting arguments. It's packer blamers like you that don't trust the packer yet you trust them to slaughter certain cattle on certain days and keep those packages of beef seperate without an enforceable traceback system. Hahaha! "Well, ah, gee ah today we trust the packers to keep the beef straight BECAUSE IT FITS OUR ARGUMENT".

You're such a hypocrite. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

Here's the shovel Sandhusker, keep digging.


~SH~

 

[hypocritexposer]

I'm surprised at the Conservatives in this thread, advocating more governmental control/intervention.

You know damned well that it screws things up.

More of a bad thing isn't going to fix things.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I'm surprised at the Conservatives in this thread, advocating more governmental control/intervention.

You know damned well that it screws things up.

More of a bad thing isn't going to fix things.

And I am surprised at how goddamn dumb some of you bored wanna be's can be.
The United States Of America is a country of laws all advocating special interest groups wants/needs/ and desires.
There are times when government intervention is needed,if you were a cattleman and or had any sense you would'nt be trying to oversimplfy the packing industry ruining ranching families.
By such stupid remarks,maybe us conservatives should'nt advocate government intervention for terrorism................I think you need to get your ass back over to the political page,this is Cattleman politics which you undoubtedly know nothing about

 

[Faster horses]

I think SH asks some very good queestions that I don't see are
answered satisfactorily And he makes some fruitful statements. I know
of some members here who have changed their attitude after all
the posts he has made throughout the years. What he says, IMO, bears alot of merit. I know of no business the government has
helped. Not one. And I fully understand hypos statement, which really
isn't a statement only a rancher could make. People can OBSERVE and
comment what is going on, without being a rancher per sei.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I think SH asks some very good queestions that I don't see are
answered satisfactorily

And he makes some fruitful statements. I know
of some members here who have changed their attitude after all
the posts he has made throughout the years. What he says, IMO, bears alot of merit. I know of no business the government has
helped. Not one. And I fully understand hypos statement, which really
isn't a statement only a rancher could make. People can OBSERVE and
comment what is going on, without being a rancher per sei.

Well maybe you can post one of his unanswered questions,I sure dont remember one,so be my guest post the question that you did not see answered satisfactorily.
good luck

PS so I guess we play the old "Gee i did'nt see that haymaker" game huh ?
post the question or quit lieing,maybe you and your compadre sh can explain why so many ranchers are going under,good families torn off their land after decades of hard work so some damned multinational fat cat can live like a king.
Every year ranching families are disapperin in the the USA every year the are multiplying in cheap labored countries.
When the rancher loses small town America loses,our way of life is gone forever, so post the question,oughta be easy really all you packer lovers college educated and intelligence against one uneducated hick.

 

[Sandhusker]

I think SH asks some very good queestions that I don't see are
answered satisfactorily And he makes some fruitful statements. I know
of some members here who have changed their attitude after all
the posts he has made throughout the years. What he says, IMO, bears alot of merit. I know of no business the government has
helped. Not one. And I fully understand hypos statement, which really
isn't a statement only a rancher could make. People can OBSERVE and
comment what is going on, without being a rancher per sei.

I know he was instrumental in me joining R-CALF.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I think SH asks some very good queestions that I don't see are
answered satisfactorily And he makes some fruitful statements. I know
of some members here who have changed their attitude after all
the posts he has made throughout the years. What he says, IMO, bears alot of merit. I know of no business the government has
helped. Not one. And I fully understand hypos statement, which really
isn't a statement only a rancher could make. People can OBSERVE and
comment what is going on, without being a rancher per sei.

I know he was instrumental in me joining R-CALF.

sh accuses everyone of being a hipocrite when he is the hipocrite,he donates money to R calf one day and cusses em the next,now that has got to be a hypocrite. :wink:
good luck

 

[mrj]

My, my, looks like someone can't think of anything he's thankful for this year, so has to spout vitriol against others to make himself feel better!!!

There are a HUGE number of reasons for fewer people choosing to stay in 'beef cattle operations'.

And this is NOT news! It has been continuing for generations...certainly since the homestead days when the guy who could not make a living on his little homestead sold out to the neighbor who understood he would have to grow to survive.

A few very quick points: we raise more pounds of beef per cow....or we are out of business;

we can (and darn well better be!) taking care of more cattle per person working the ranch;

more of our kids are getting better educations and finding more interesting jobs than doing the same old thing, even if it is now done with some new ways (by those who remain, anyway);

more women want careers not available in the rural, often remote, small communities common to 'cattle country', therefore, the 'cowboy' takes a job compatible with his sweethearts' career goals;

fewer families want the still grueling long hours required on a ranch.

This could go on far longer than time available to me right now, with company on the way for supper!

And, I'm most thankful for my faith, family willing to go the extra mile to stay in ranching, and my small, but lively area communities, Midland, Philip, and Kadoka, with great medical facilities close by, plus our reasonable proximity to Rapid City with all a good small city has to offer.

mrj