NCBA sold us out....again

[Denny]

The pork boys PAID NCBA $500,000 to roll over or should I say bend over.

 

[leanin' H]

You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

R-CALF ??? What does r-calf have to do with the subject in this post? R-Calf did not waste our checkoff dollars by collaborating with the pork checkoff to re-name cuts of meat and allow our beef names to be used on pork. NCBA did.

Ouch! That must've stung........................

Not at all. :roll: Mytwocents hates the NCBA. Then Denny says that the Pork folks paid NCBA for the changes. So how could our checkoff dollars be used if the pork folks paid NCBA? :???: Nobody knows but lots of folks sure think they do. :roll: I trust the folks paid to represent ranchers instead of folks who claim the sky is falling. I put way more stock in what SH says and respectfully disagree with my2cents.

 

[mytwocents]

R-CALF ??? What does r-calf have to do with the subject in this post? R-Calf did not waste our checkoff dollars by collaborating with the pork checkoff to re-name cuts of meat and allow our beef names to be used on pork. NCBA did.

Ouch! That must've stung........................

Not at all. :roll: Mytwocents hates the NCBA. Then Denny says that the Pork folks paid NCBA for the changes. So how could our checkoff dollars be used if the pork folks paid NCBA? :???: Nobody knows but lots of folks sure think they do. :roll: I trust the folks paid to represent ranchers instead of folks who claim the sky is falling. I put way more stock in what SH says and respectfully disagree with my2cents.

You make a very good point. NOBODY KNOWS. Why is it that nobody knows? Kind of funny how it's so hard to find the actual amount of checkoff dollars spent by an organization that is "supposed" to be so "transparent and accountable" to us ranchers who are funding the checkoff. It should not be this difficult to find out exactly what this cost us.

I heard a few different prices. I heard it cost our checkoff 2-3 hundred thousand. I also heard 2 million. I don't have a clue. And that's dang frustrating that we really don't know for sure.

What's even more frustrating is.....
that it appears that the sky is falling. Oops, false alarm! Must've been one of those UFO's or "black helicopters" that SH talks about that I've never been fortunate enough to see. The lucky b**%**% ... :wink:
Seriously...
What's even more frustrating is that the checkoffs Operating Committee approved a change in policy that will allow contractors (of which NCBA is the primary contractor) to shift checkoff funds around and between tactics under an overall authorization request WITHOUT seeking permission from the Operating Committee or the Cattlemen's Beef Board.

I thought they were supposed to work towards MORE transparency and accountability, not LESS.

If none of you few cattle rancher NCBA members are even the least bit disappointed by this, then Lord help you, since no one else can.

 

[Mike]

The pork boys PAID NCBA $500,000 to roll over or should I say bend over.

I'm reading where it cost the checkoff $2,277,000.00 to roll over?

 

[mytwocents]

The pork boys PAID NCBA $500,000 to roll over or should I say bend over.

If the pork boys did pay NCBA something, then that amount should be taken away from NCBA and put into the beef checkoff fund.

 

[mytwocents]

The pork boys PAID NCBA $500,000 to roll over or should I say bend over.

I'm reading where it cost the checkoff $2,277,000.00 to roll over?

That is ridiculous amount of money to be wasted on stupidity. I bet everyone here can think of many better ways to promote beef – WITHOUT jeopardizing it in the process.

Is there any way to have contractors (NCBA) reimburse the beef checkoff when they are vague and misleading in their authorization requests and don't give full disclosure to the CBB of their true intentions?

 

[mytwocents]

I found this partial article on-line from the Western Ag Reporter. You have to sign in to read the whole article.
ww.westernagreporter.com/index.php

"Second complaint filed by CBB member over common names for pork & beef"
By Leesa Zalesky

Danni Beer, a Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) member representing South Dakota, has filed a complaint with the USDA over the new common names for pork and beef, as well as for the beef checkoff's involvement in the development of the names being used across both species. Beer notes in her letter, "I think it underscores long-term problems with the (Beef) Act & Order that USDA can help to address."

Beer points out in her complaint that she served on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC) in 2011 -- one of the years the BPOC approved funding for an authorization request submitted by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) surrounding the meat cut name change project. That year, says Beer, the BPOC received a book of authorization requests that was 223 pages in length, and in it was an "Attachment A" that requested funding for Retail Education and Meat Case Solutions. "I list this request because it is the only one that ever mentions the URMIS (Unified Retail Meat Identification Standards). Nowhere in this authorization request, or in any of the Retail Authorization Requests, can I find a measurable objective that includes working with the National Pork Board and the meat industry to develop across species a set of common names for retail cuts. As a current CBB member and a former BPOC member, I do not feel that I was appropriately informed about the details of this project and the beef checkoff's role in partnering with the pork checkoff on the project," writes Beer. "If I had known what was actually happening, I would have opposed the expenditure at every opportunity. Unfortunately, this situation exposes recurring problems with the structure and processes and procedures with the beef checkoff."

 

[Anonymous]

My two cents: "I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise."

I could say the same thing about R-CALF considering how many times they had their heads handed to them in court because they didn't have the facts to support their positions.

The real question is, are you just repeating what you hear from the R-CALFers and sale barn jockeys who self annointed themselves as the "voice of the cattlemen" to keep cattle routed through their barns or are your opinions on NCBA based on solid evidence? Those market manipulation conspiracy theories that so many believed and repeated didn't stand up very well against the facts in court. Then again, another conspiracy theory such as "bought off judges" would justify that too wouldn't it?

Until this issue, you haven't really presented anything to support what you want to believe about NCBA. Until this issue.... With this issue, you presented opinions from shoppers that definitely made me take a step back. If that is how the majority of consumers feel about it, then I would like to hear the justifications for it in contrast. Change, for the sake of change, is not always a good policy.

This is why I have not taken a position on the renaming of pork products yet. The comments you posted from consumers has me concerned. The only way I can take a position on this is to hear the Beef Board's position on this in contrast to the consumer opinions you presented. I'm also not going to take a handful of consumer concerns that might have been cherry picked as being the feelings of the majority of consumers. I have seen enough anti-NCBA and anti-checkoff ploys to not trust much of anything coming from NCBA critics.

I get the feeling you think I should already have an opinion on this issue. I'd rather you gave me enough credit for at least wanting to hear both sides of the argument before taking a position.

As far as NCBA being the biggest enemy of the cattlemen, I haven't seen you present a lot of compelling evidence to support that position. Rather, I think you are subject to repeating what you hear also. Kinda like your inability to relate to someone gathering more information before taking a position on this particular issue.

Here's hoping your hay fences are full of good quality hay.

~SH~

 

[mytwocents]

My two cents: "I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise."

I could say the same thing about R-CALF considering how many times they had their heads handed to them in court because they didn't have the facts to support their positions.

The real question is, are you just repeating what you hear from the R-CALFers and sale barn jockeys who self annointed themselves as the "voice of the cattlemen" to keep cattle routed through their barns or are your opinions on NCBA based on solid evidence? Those market manipulation conspiracy theories that so many believed and repeated didn't stand up very well against the facts in court. Then again, another conspiracy theory such as "bought off judges" would justify that too wouldn't it?

Until this issue, you haven't really presented anything to support what you want to believe about NCBA. Until this issue.... With this issue, you presented opinions from shoppers that definitely made me take a step back. If that is how the majority of consumers feel about it, then I would like to hear the justifications for it in contrast. Change, for the sake of change, is not always a good policy.

This is why I have not taken a position on the renaming of pork products yet. The comments you posted from consumers has me concerned. The only way I can take a position on this is to hear the Beef Board's position on this in contrast to the consumer opinions you presented. I'm also not going to take a handful of consumer concerns that might have been cherry picked as being the feelings of the majority of consumers. I have seen enough anti-NCBA and anti-checkoff ploys to not trust much of anything coming from NCBA critics.

I get the feeling you think I should already have an opinion on this issue. I'd rather you gave me enough credit for at least wanting to hear both sides of the argument before taking a position.

As far as NCBA being the biggest enemy of the cattlemen, I haven't seen you present a lot of compelling evidence to support that position. Rather, I think you are subject to repeating what you hear also. Kinda like your inability to relate to someone gathering more information before taking a position on this particular issue.

Here's hoping your hay fences are full of good quality hay.

~SH~

This topic has nothing to do with R-Calf. They have not wasted our checkoff dollars to use against us. NCBA has. (just out of curiosity, what market manipulation are you talking about?) No, I am not repeating what I hear from salesbarn jockeys or r-calfers. However, I'd like to know what you have against salesbarns? They provide a valuable service.

I wasn't aware that I was required to provide "solid evidence" to you of my opinion of NCBA, for your almighty approval. I really don't care if you agree with my beliefs or not. They are mine. I have acquired enough evidence for myself to form my own opinions and I don't need to list "compelling evidence" in a post on a website to justify my beliefs to someone who wouldn't believe anything that went against NCBA anyway.

The comments from consumers were not cherry picked. You can find that out yourself just by googling. And I have seen enough "anti-cattle rancher" antics by the NCBA to not trust anything coming from them or their measly 3% following. As far as anti-checkoff - I wouldn't have an issue with the checkoff if NCBA were not the major contractor of it and if I felt it were managed properly, not "mistakenly misappropriated" to pay for other non-related projects and wasted on nonsense and if it were used to benefit cattle ranchers to promote United States beef – rather then used to help keep the NCBA afloat or used to help promote PORK!

 

[Anonymous]

two cents: "(just out of curiosity, what market manipulation are you talking about?)"

The theory that packers used captive supplies ("cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days") to depress cattle markets.

two cents: "However, I'd like to know what you have against salesbarns? They provide a valuable service."

I have nothing against salebarns and you are correct, they do provide a valuable service. Where did you get the idea that I have anything against salebarns?

What I am against is certain sale barn managers that have annointed themselves the "voice of the cattlemen" and have perpetuated these half baked theories about market manipulation on the radio instead of giving market reports. Instead of talking about factors that really affect cattle prices like boxed beef prices and corn prices, they talk about captive supplies, packer concentration, and imports as if they were the reason for lower cattle markets.

I have nothing against salebarns and have used their services many times over the years.

two cents: "I wasn't aware that I was required to provide "solid evidence" to you of my opinion of NCBA, for your almighty approval. I really don't care if you agree with my beliefs or not. They are mine. I have acquired enough evidence for myself to form my own opinions and I don't need to list "compelling evidence" in a post on a website to justify my beliefs to someone who wouldn't believe anything that went against NCBA anyway".

You aren't required to provide compelling evidence but if you want support from others for your opinion you need to be able to support it yourself.

I don't blindly follow any organization including the NCBA. I make up my own mind on issues through independent research.

You may find this hard to believe but with as little as I know about this particular issue, I have questions and concerns also. I haven't dismissed anyone's opinion on this particular issue. I just dismiss the broad based anti-NCBA rhetoric comments such as "anti-rancher".

two cents: "The comments from consumers were not cherry picked. You can find that out yourself just by googling. And I have seen enough "anti-cattle rancher" antics by the NCBA to not trust anything coming from them or their measly 3% following."

I guess you would have to define "anti cattle rancher antics" because differences of opinion on what factors affect cattle markets is not necessarily "anti cattle rancher".

two cents: "As far as anti-checkoff - I wouldn't have an issue with the checkoff if NCBA were not the major contractor of it and if I felt it were managed properly, not "mistakenly misappropriated" to pay for other non-related projects and wasted on nonsense and if it were used to benefit cattle ranchers to promote United States beef – rather then used to help keep the NCBA afloat or used to help promote PORK!"

The checkoff does not fund the NCBA. You yourself presented an article regarding Danni Beer, who sits on the beef board, who is critical of this decision. What does that tell you about beef board representation?


~SH~

 

[hopalong]

Are not flounder bottom feeders??? sucking up the crap on the bottom??? kinda like our resident,,,, write a blog and believe it to be true ""terry""??