more on the SD brand inspection fiasco

[Liberty Belle]

Here's the latest on the brand inspection fiasco in South Dakota. I greatly respect former Senator Lyndell Peterson for taking a stand on this in defense of the livestock producers in South Dakota. The program wasn't broke and this idiotic move does nothing to improve brand inspection. Again, read the comments following this article in the Rapid City Journal.

Petersen quits brand board over decision
State inspections start July 1
By Steve Miller, Journal staff Saturday, June 21, 2008

Lyndell Petersen, a former longtime state legislator, has resigned from the South Dakota Brand Board over the board's decision earlier this month to take over the brand inspection program from the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association.

Petersen and others also questioned whether the brand board can be ready to take over the brand inspection program when the contract with the Stockgrowers ends Monday, June 30.

However, Gov. Mike Rounds on Friday defended the brand board's decision, and the brand board chairman said the agency should be ready to administer the brand inspection program beginning Tuesday, July 1.

Petersen said this week that the brand board's 3-2 vote to end its contract for brand inspection with the Stockgrowers Association was a "totally incorrect decision, and I didn't want to be any part of it."

Under state law, the brand board is responsible for brand inspection, which is required when cattle and horses are sold or otherwise leave the West River area. The program is aimed at preventing livestock theft and determining ownership of lost or stray animals.

The brand board hired the Stockgrowers Association to administer brand inspection since the 1940s. The association also operated brand inspection on behalf of livestock producers beginning in the 1890s.

Petersen said the brand board based its decision to take over the program on selective recommendations of a consultant's report indicating the state could operate the program more efficiently than the Stockgrowers.

He said the problems between the brand board and the Stockgrowers began in early 2004 when Rounds fired four of the five brand board members. Petersen said Rounds, at the time, cited an investigative report alleging improper conduct on the part of brand inspectors, although no charges were ever filed.

Rounds on Friday said he dismissed the brand board members that year to get them out from under extreme pressure to reverse a vote they had taken to end the contract with the Stockgrowers. A compromise was reached later that year to reinstate the contract with the Stockgrowers, and Rounds appointed new members, including Petersen. Rounds said he greatly respects Petersen, with whom he served in the state Senate.

Petersen said the 2004 dispute came after the Stockgrowers Association dropped its affiliation with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and aligned instead with R-CALF USA, splitting the cattle industry in the state. The South Dakota Cattlemen's Association remained aligned with the NCBA.

Petersen and others have suggested that some people in the cattle industry objected to the Stockgrowers using brand inspection profits to finance some of their political activities.

But Rounds said he doesn't care how contractors spend their money.

"I don't have a problem with the Stockgrowers as an organization," he said.

The governor said he is confident the brand board examined the facts and did its homework before deciding to take over the inspection program.

Under the contract expiring June 30, the Stockgrowers Association receives 8 percent of the total brand inspection fees of 80 cents per head. With about 1.4 million cattle and horses sold each year, the fee could reach more than $100,000.

The brand board offered a 2 percent fee, which the Stockgrowers rejected. The Stockgrowers proposed a 6 percent fee, which the brand board rejected. The board then voted on June 2 to take over the program.

Current chief brand inspector Jim Reed said he didn't think the brand board will be ready to operate the program on July 1. He said the board is facing a steep deadline to hire inspectors and get the documents ready to start inspecting brands on cattle sales.

"They're within six working days now of getting this thing put together," Reed said Friday. "I look for a terrible wreck if they can't supply enough inspectors to get this done."

Reed said the brand board asked him to stay on, but he declined, opting to retire. But he said about 12 of the 15 full-time inspectors probably will go to work for the brand board. He said many of the 130-140 local, part-time inspectors are quitting.

Petersen said the brand board's consultant recommended renewing the contract for one year as it prepared to take over the program.

However, brand board Chairman Mark Kimball of Platte said he believes the brand board will have the program ready on July 1.

"I think for the most part, we're going to be in pretty good shape," Kimball said. "As for anything that goes through a change like this, there will be some hills and valleys."

He said the board is interviewing three current full-time inspectors to replace Reed.

Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or [email protected].

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/06/21/news/local/doc485c5fe70e7e9786026569.txt

 

[John SD]

I sure don't understand the purpose of the fiasco in the first place. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the Stockgrowers were doing an excellent job at a reasonble cost to producers.

Why mess with something that works? IMO, you can't add another layer of government involvement to anything and make it better.

At Ft Pierre recently I signed a petition the Stockgrowers were ciruculating to stop this. I don't know if the petitions were even considered. :???:

 

[Doug Thorson]

There you go again, using logic and the government in the same thought again!

 

[Liberty Belle]

Our latest issue of Cattle Weekly had this letter to the editor from Lyndell Peterson. He offers some insight into the background of the Brand Board debacle that most of us weren't aware of.

Dear Editor:

When the smell of burning grass drifts in, what does a rancher do? Dumb question. He knows instinctively what to do. In minutes the word is spread and a force of volunteers and equipment is on the move to head off a disaster.

After the fire is out and the fire fighters gather to take stock of the damage they find their group included cattle buyers, auction market owners, bankers, truckers and housewives. When the non-ranchers asked why they are there the answer - in unison - would be "because we're stockholders".

There is another smell moving in over the livestock industry and it deserves the same attention given the smell of burning grass. It's time to mount up.

If you say you don't smell anything, sniff again. The smell in South Dakota intensified back when Governor Rounds fired four of the five Brand Board members on the strength of a so-called investigative report on brand inspection. No charges were ever filed yet the report was made public. How often have you seen an investigative report publicized before charges are filed? This action took place some time after the South Dakota Stockgrowers dropped their affiliation with the NCBA and joined the R-Calf alliance. Coincidence? You decide. (I never did figure out why the Governor didn't fire all five Brand Board members.)

There are lots of dots that might be connected and if they were it might lead one to believe that what is happening to the brand inspection program is part of a long term goal. Some of the dots - Animal ID, Premises Registration, Beef Check Off - all rooted in federal and state agencies that deliver the influence of business interests that benefit through the mechanisms of government.

To make sure you know what is happening to brand inspection - in case you weren't aware. The brand inspection program is being converted into a government program to be managed from Pierre. This is being done on the basis of selectively extracted recommendations from a consultant report. The premise is than the "state" can run the program at the same cost and achieve greater efficiency and more effective law enforcement results. Producers pay the costs now and producers will pay the costs later.

Stakeholders, the tools you have to deal with this "smell" exist because we live in a democracy. The tools are useless unless you pick them up and use them. It's yours to decide - it's your line in the sand to draw - it's your backfire to light.

Lyndell Petersen
14895 Lower Spring Creek Rd.
Hermosa, SD 57744
605-342-5595

 

[SJ]

Thanks for posting Lyndell's letter it is so true and his last remark says it all.

"Stakeholders, the tools you have to deal with this "smell" exist because we live in a democracy. The tools are useless unless you pick them up and use them. It's yours to decide - it's your line in the sand to draw - it's your backfire to light. "

Susan Clarkson

 

[jack mcculloh]

RESULTS AMONG CATTLEMEN FROM WEB SITE POLL – 2007-

Would you benefit if all brand inspection was dropped in South Dakota?
Yes 0% No 100%

Should ownership verification to prevent fraud be required at all auction markets in South Dakota?
Yes 91% No 9%

Would you favor Ownership verification at markets be combined with the SD Animal Industry Board ?
Yes 54% No 36% No Answer 10%


Does brand verification assure your bankers interests on mortgaged livestock?
Yes 82% No 0% No Answer 18%

 

[SJ]

In life your word and integrity is the only worth you can take with you, all the rest is material.

When you take a hot iron brand and replace it with a tag for identification it looks as though all common sense is gone or there is a pot of gold at the ends of the dots.

This has a smell all right; it has the stench of the root of all evil "money".

 

[SJ]

S.D. Stockgrowers Done with Brand Inspection Contract


As of today, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association (SDSGA) will no longer oversee the brand inspection program for the state of South Dakota. The S.D. Brand Board chose not to renew the contract with the Stockgrowers, and will take over brand inspection duties as of tomorrow, says SDSGA Vice President Kenny Fox, Belvidere, S.D.



"The Brand Board has not contacted us to tell us who they have hired as inspectors. Livestock owners should contact the Brand Board in order to line up a brand inspector or call the Governor's office for any questions or concerns they might have," he said. Fox said the phone number to the Brand Board office is: 605-773-3324 and the phone number to the Governor's office is: 605-773-3212.



SDSGA President Larry Nelson said the Stockgrowers are grateful to Jim Reed who has dedicated 16 years to the cattle industry as South Dakota's Chief Brand Inspector, and spent many more years as a full time brand inspector in various towns. They also appreciate Brand Inspection Administrative Assistant Cathy Banning who has spent 18 years overseeing the office. "I don't know of a more conscientious and diligent pair than those two. They work like a well-oiled machine…recording and filing brand inspection data, managing brand inspectors across the state and finding rightful owners for livestock holds. I credit those two individuals greatly for the success this brand inspection program has enjoyed these past sixteen plus years. They are the type of people that often go unnoticed because they do their jobs so efficiently and quietly. They will leave some large shoes to fill."



Additionally, Nelson said the Stockgrowers appreciate all of the other brand inspectors who have served the industry. "This program would not have been successful without the full time inspectors or the many, many local and part time inspectors and shippers' agents. Many of these folks were basically donating their time and resources in an effort to make sure that the brand inspection program worked."



Former Brand Board member Lyndell Peterson, Hermosa, S.D., is another individual who deserves recognition, says Nelson. "Lyndell recently resigned from the Brand Board because he didn't agree with their takeover of the inspection program. But he has spent the last three years or more trying to ensure that the Brand Board will carry out their legal responsibilities in a sensible manner. He has always been an ally to the cattle industry, but as a member of the Brand Board he went above and beyond in an effort to bring a common sense point of view to their meetings."



Fox said that the other brand board members stated that they didn't agree with the Stockgrowers' politics, and didn't like the fact that the Stockgrowers were spending their profit from the brand inspection program to further their political agenda. "They might not have agreed with our stance on political issues, but that was a poor reason to not renew the contract. We were entitled to use our profits in any way we chose. We earned that money honestly, carrying out a contract that both sides agreed to." Besides that, Fox said that the Stockgrowers are the largest cattle organization in the state, which indicates that their political positions are widely supported. "We stand strong on important issues for independent producers – I don't believe there are very many ranchers or farmers in South Dakota who disagree with our politics." Fox said a handful of the issues they've worked on recently include: Country of Origin Labeling, property rights – helping with a lawsuit against state because the state would not carry out their duties of controlling prairie dogs, also standing up for property owners on the non-meandering lakes issue that affected Northeastern South Dakota; opposing the eminent domain law (SB 174); opposing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS); continually fighting to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle after Canada's BSE problem was exposed; helping inform people of the hunting lockout; and supporting open fields legislation.



"Our political agenda will not change and the Stockgrowers will not slow down our efforts to better the cattle industry. With our without the brand inspection contract, we will represent producers on local, state and national cattle industry issues just the same as always," said Fox.



Signatures gathered across the state indicate very strong support for the Stockgrowers' continued administration of the brand inspection program, said Fox. "Over 1,200 brand owners signed their names in favor of the Stockgrowers, while just 2 brand owners said they would prefer that the Stockgrowers didn't run the program." Those are some pretty strong statistics. And they aren't just Stockgrower members – they are brand owners across the state.



Fox also mentioned that the Brand Board, after publicly scolding the Stockgrowers and their inspectors, is now planning to operate the brand inspection program using most of the same inspectors and will be basing their budget on the Stockgrowers' old budget. "How ironic that the inspectors who, a few years ago were accused by the state of all sorts of wrongdoing are now mostly the same inspectors who the state asked to work for them. We defended our inspectors from day one, as we believed they were doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, plus we had always reprimanded any of our employees who had intentionally done anything wrong," said Fox. "And another major complaint we've heard from this brand board is that we didn't budget our income and expenses appropriately, but now that they will be running the program, they are using our budget as a basis for the coming year's finances. It just proves how baseless their complaints, accusations and implications have been all along."



"I hope that producers who have problems or concerns will contact the state Brand Board, the governor's office or their legislators and tell them what they believe is the problem, and how they'd like to see it fixed. We as producers are the owners and financiers of this program, and it is our responsibility, as an industry, to ensure that it remains successful," Fox said.

 

[jack mcculloh]

SAY SOMETHING TO BE HEARD!


This is part of a project that deals with Brand recording and Brand Inspection. The research is to find a system in South Dakota that is efficient, performs as economically as possible and fills the needs of livestock identification and theft prevention.
RESULTS FROM WEB SITE POLL - 2007
Are truck and trailer traffic checks important in livestock theft prevention?
Yes 91% No 9%
Should ownership inspection be optional West River?
Yes -8% No 91% No answer 1%
Would you favor Ownership verification at markets be combined with the SD Animal Industry Board (who handles Health Inspection) for administration?
Yes 54% No 36% No Answer 10%
When you sell directly off the ranch, do you have trouble getting a brand Inspection?
Yes 0% No 73% Sometimes 27%
Would your neighbors object if cattle sold off your pastures were not brand Inspected?
Yes 64% No 36%
Have your livestock when selling at the auction ever sold before inspection and been yarded back for inspection?
Yes 9% No 27% No Answer 64%
Approximately how many times a year do you have livestock ownership inspected?
5 or less 45% 5 to 12 27% 12 to 24 18% No Answer 10%

 

[Liberty Belle]

The Brand Board's new inspection program is tanking even faster than we figured it would.

Read this: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/07/03/news/local/doc486c4ce39e6b0053611239.txt

 

[Doug Thorson]

What did you expect from the state government. They can't even run a state fair without a sea of red ink. :roll:

My opinion is this is just another way to keep the "buddy system" of state government going and keep a bunch of the "good ole boys" on the state payroll not to mention trying to muzzle the Stockgrowers. Animal ID is all about closing up sale barns so we don't get together over coffee and come up with ideas to keep the profits out of the big boys hands. If the sale barns are closed then vertical integration can happen and welcome to serfdom.

 

[Larrry]

You know what it will end SNAFU. These guys could screw up anything.
Oh, Doug I saw your pic in the TLN newspaper a couple weeks ago.

 

[jack mcculloh]

In 2005 the SD Brand Board contracted with a consultant to study the financial results of brand inspection. The Brand Board modeled the investigation after a committee set up by the legislature in 1984.
The first Brand Fee Audit committee was made up of the SD Secretary of Agriculture, Marvis Hogan, the State Auditor General, Maurice Christensen and Bob Gadd, Executive Director of the Brand Board. The committee was dissolved when Christensen told the Legislature the committee found no problems and had no recommendations other than dissolve the committee. The 1988 legislature did.
In 2005 the Brand Board again asked consultants to look at the audited financial statements of the Stock growers to determine if the Stock growers were operating in an efficient manner.
The consulting committee submitted four recommendations. They were:
*A trust account should be set up for the fees to be deposited into.
*There should be a cap set for the expenses of the program.
*An independent time study should be conducted annually for the Stock grower's personnel involved in the program to determine the allocation percentage for the individual salaries.
*The consultants suggested the details of the SDSGA operating expenses might be a more legitimate basis for negotiating a new inspection fee from time to time rather than the on going allocation of expenses of the contract.
The outgoing Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, told the legislature he can not accept the transfer of $600,000 and used for the Stock growers general purposes since 1985.
Gabriel said, as sponsor of the amendments in the 1984 session (HB1325) when he was in leadership of the Legislature-
"Maybe its time to go back and clean those laws up and do a better job than I did."
A private research group is asking cattlemen what they want in changes to the Brand law.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Chase Adams, from the Chasin' Ag show over KBHB Radio, posted this on another blog that brings up some good points:

I have to agree with the majority of the previous comments on this issue. The brand inspection program may not always have been perfectly run by the Stockgrowers, I have no doubt over the years there have been good managers and likely some not so good. But the fact remains that it is a producer program and specifically a West River producer program and the Stockgrowers have done an excellent job of providing the service without state funding maintaining accountability to the producers. That is something I can't see the brand board, an appointed good old boys club, keeping up. My question is are the tax payers of this state going to accept funding the inspection or are the producers going to accept an increase in the inspection fees? One of both of those will be inevitable under this scheme. Lets face it, we're not Wyoming, we don't have their tax base, our brand program must work as it has worked, not based on any other state's program simply for its own sake.
Chase Adams | Jul 3, 2008