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

NCBA vs. R-Calf -True or false?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
ITEM: "What researchers found," said Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, Steve Hailey, "is that 4 out of 10 producers say they've never heard of the checkoff, or know very little about it."

This startling revelation came after the LMA announced they would attempt to gather up the signatures necessary for a referendum on the checkoff. These survey results are now being used as an excuse to spend more money to inform cattlemen about all that the checkoff does for them. There's only one small discrepancy. For years we've been told that 70-72% of all cattlemen approve of the checkoff. Even in a recent press release the Beef Board said, "the research found that 68% of producers approve of the checkoff."

Let's do the math. If 4 out of 10 cattlemen don't know about the checkoff that means if every rancher in the country approved of the checkoff the highest approval rating possible would be 60%. Yet for years we've been told that at least 70% of producers approve of the checkoff. Did a large number of cattleman simultaneously come down with the same case of amnesia afflicting our President?
"I Have No Recollection Of That"

ITEM: "USDA officials reported at last Fridays meeting that the import permit requested for the Australian cattle had been withdrawn, largely as a result of concerns raised by NCBA leadership and members regarding animal health issues."

While NCBA leader's were issuing that release regarding the possible importation of Australian cattle into this country, Clark Willingham, the current NCBA President, was saying something very different, according to the Australian Broadcasting Company: "The President of the U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Clark Willingham says he now believes it may be economically viable for Australia to export live cattle to Mexico for on-sale to feedlots in the United States. Mr. Willingham who is currently in Australia for high level cattle industry talks says that if Australian cattle producers comply with U.S. import regulations, his Association will not oppose attempts to export live cattle to U.S. feedlots via Mexico. The comments are something of a turn around from last week's claims by Mr. Willingham's association that applications to trans-ship Australian cattle through Mexico to the U.S. were an attempt to enter the market through the back door. But after visiting Australia this week, Willingham says he now understands how the trade is possible and he WOULD NOT oppose it." (emphasis ours)

Despite Willingham's comments, the NCBA is now attempting to take full credit for stopping the Australian cattle. A professor at New Mexico State University told the Digest that U.S. influence had nothing to do with it, because the issue never got that far. It was the Mexican government and the Mexican cattlemen who denied the Australian cattle because they were worried about a backlash and did not want to jeopardize their ability to export Mexican cattle to the U.S.
"It's A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

ITEM: "From its inception the checkoff program has focused on five key producer directives: It's fair. Everybody pays. No one gets a free ride." NCBA Fact Sheet

What about the beef packer? They don't pay the dollar per head on the cattle they process, yet so far they are the primary beneficiary of checkoff dollars.
"I May Have Said That. I Don't Remember"

ITEM: Depending on the audience, the NCBA often says that they are in favor of mandatory price reporting.

Senator Bob Kerrey introduced an amendment to the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Bill which, if passed, would move livestock marketing closer to the open, public, competitive, capitalistic markets necessary for producers to receive a fair price for their livestock. In opposition to their published policy position, the NCBA viciously opposed Senator Kerrey's amendment and tried to mount hurried attempts to get the amendment tabled. The NCBA-backed effort to kill Senator Kerrey's amendment was defeated by a tie vote.

But don't take our word. We quote from a two page flyer handed out in Congress by the NCBA prior to the vote on amendments to S.2159, including the amendment dealing with mandatory live cattle reporting and packer concentration: "The amendments are not fair and equitable to beef producers and many of these provisions are counter to our producer's policy," said the NCBA. Further, the flyer said the NCBA was opposing the mandatory price reporting measure "on behalf of over one million beef producers from across the country." It was signed by Chandler Keys, III, VP of Public Policy.

The whole affair prompted this reply from Tom Breitbach, a Montana rancher speaking on behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Councils: "NCBA has consistently lobbied against the wishes of its own members and against the interests of all the other cattle producers it claims to represent, in opposing competitive bidding and mandatory price reporting."
"That Depends On Your Definition of Mandatory"

ITEM: The NCBA countered that they were all in favor of price reporting but not MANDATORY price reporting. The NCBA contends that they don't believe in anything that is mandatory. "Beef producers should work to minimize direct federal involvement in agriculture and beef production," said an NCBA release.

One would assume therefore that the NCBA would be against the checkoff since it's mandatory and is a federal program.
"Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure"

ITEM: "Producers do have a right to request and then vote in a nationwide referendum to determine the future of the beef checkoff." So said, Beef Board Chairman Steve Hailey.

But it appears that the NCBA and the Beef Board don't want to give producers a chance to vote. They are going to spend millions of your money to convince you to keep the checkoff intact. In the face of the referendum by the LMA, the NCBA used the previously referred to survey as an excuse to raise the level of spending to inform producers about the checkoff. At its Mid-July meeting the Beef Board Approved a budget amendment for fiscal 1998, to spend $1.935 million for producer communications. This is in addition to $845,00 already allocated to producer communications for FY98. This is up from $600,000 spent in 1997.

"After 12 years, the major beneficiaries of the checkoff have suddenly discovered that communicating with those who pay the bills is important," said the LMA in response. "The fact that this multi-million dollar campaign coincides with LMA's campaign to let producers vote on continuing the checkoff, is just a coincidence, supporters say. At LMA, we are confident that producers will see through this transparent education and information campaign for what it is: an obvious attempt to keep them from ever again voting on the mandatory checkoff."

Incoming NCBA President George Swan said that "none of the dollars can in any way be used to attempt to influence a vote for the checkoff." Do you think they'll spend any of your money to tell you about the failures of the checkoff?
NCBA Hires Political Strategy Firms

ITEM: According to the Livestock Weekly, Merlyn Carlson, an NCBA Checkoff Committee member, said the NCBA hired two political strategy firms to "develop an educational program to combat the petition drive seeking a referendum on the beef checkoff program." Carlson was further reported to have said that the NCBA wanted to hold off on a pro-checkoff campaign but "the consulting firms advised them to move forward now to dissuade producers from signing the petitions in the first place." Smith said that within days of the consultant's report almost $1 million was budgeted by the NCBA to carry out their advice.
"Misinformation Costs Money"

ITEM: "Best estimate, based on the last beef referendum would be about $3 to $4 million." NCBA Fact Sheet as to the cost of a referendum on the beef checkoff.

When someone got around to asking Barry Carpenter, Deputy Administrator of USDA's Ag Marketing Service his response as to what it would cost was, "probably less than than $500,000." And he ought to know considering he'd be in charge of the referendum. When confronted with the slight discrepancy incoming NCBA President, George Swan, said, "the LMA makes matters worse by misinforming producers about various aspects of the checkoff, including how much it will cost to hold a referendum. Correcting misinformation costs money," he said.
"Again, That Depends On Your Definition"

ITEM: The NCBA contends that they are in favor of country of origin labeling.

Well, sort of. Actually what the NCBA is in favor of is "generic labeling of fresh muscle cuts." If the NCBA has their way there will be no labeling of ground beef, which is where most imported beef ends up. The fact is, packers and feeders are opposed to country of origin labeling just as they are mandatory price reporting. The situation was summed up by Jordan Valley, Oregon rancher, Margene Eiguren. "It appears that this is the way NCBA does business. They make it appear as if they stand officially behind an important issue to producers, whom they claim to represent, but their actions reflect who they actually represent. They state over and over that the world is run by those who show up, so we show up, adopt country of origin labeling policy that is critical to the producer, only to have it swept under the rug by a task force consisting of two conference calls and one meeting in Denver, both dominated by packers."
"I Was Never Alone With The Money"

ITEM: In a press packet titled, Myth and Facts, the NCBA denies that the Cattlemen's Beef Board is now a part of the NCBA. "Fact: The CBB is a separate entity. CBB and NCBA are completely separate entities."

If that is the case how come in all their press releases the NCBA says of itself, "The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is the marketing organization and trade organization for America's one million cattle farmers and ranchers?"

The NCBA is certainly supposed to be a separate trade organization but recently they have assumed the marketing role and claim as members the one million ranchers who pay the checkoff. This despite the fact that fewer than 40,000 people have joined the NCBA. And some of them were forced to join.
"The President Has Spoken To That"

ITEM: "NCBA policy does not allow NCBA to recommend one marketing alternative over another."

Now listen to the words of NCBA President Willingham as quoted in Beef Magazine. "Alliances continue to be very important. They're growing because the ones in existence have worked. Alliances are still the best way to get paid for value in cattle. If you sell them through a feedlot or auction barn, you're not going to get full value, especially if you've spent time and money improving your genetics."

It sure sounds like NCBA President Willingham was promoting one method of marketing over another, doesn't it? And he's promoting a method that would increase vertical integration, concentrating the power into fewer and fewer hands, thereby bankrupting much of rural America.
"Yeah, And Hogs Can Fly"

ITEM: "The NCBA will expedite consideration of R-CALF's request for help in filing a petition for import relief against Canada." NCBA Press Release

Don't hold your breath waiting for NCBA to help ranchers rein in imports. These are the same people who continue to push for fast track legislation that would allow more imports. Do you really think the packers who need more numbers and feeders who depend on foreign feeders are ever going to allow THEIR organization to support a petition in favor of import relief? Yeah, and pigs can fly and "that woman" got her job because she could type real fast.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike,its doubtful LMA will give up the fight,I expect shortly we will know their plan,I say lets vote, let the cattle man decide how he wants to spend his money.I got a surprise this morning ,looking at the CATTLEMENS JOURNAL on page two was a full page ad by the beef board.I didnt think much of the ad but I sure did where it was placed,maybe MRJ will give us a sugar coated explaination why the beef board is concerned about R CALFERS..............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
More LMA propoganda!

As if the majority of producers would be against research, promotion, and education of their product? Talk about a "no brainer".

As far as trade, prior to the recent BSE situation we had a $1.3 BILLION dollar trade surplus in beef, live cattle, and beef by product trade.

When is the sky going to fall LMA?

Packers are not the primary beneficiary of the beef checkoff. The producer is. If that wan't true live cattle prices would not trend with boxed beef prices. Only an idiot would ignore that obvious fact. If the packers pay $1 for the beef checkoff, they will just pay $1 less for the cattle. So who has the most incentive to promote beef? Another "no brainer".

As far as the LMA's definition of open, competitive markets, they want to carve their comission dollars off the sale of fat cattle too. That's what that's all about.

Regarding NCBA not representing their members that's another bogus allegation. NCBA simply doesn't represent the conspiracy oriented blaming segment of our industry.

As far as NCBA not wanting to give producers a chance to vote on the checkoff. That is another lie. The checkoff can be brought to a vote by simply gathering a measely 10% of producer signatures. The LMA couldn't get that done even with their fraudulent signatures and petition signing events.

As far as promotion of the checkoff in response to the LMA's petition drive, checkoff proponents had to offset the LMA's lies with truth.

Did anyone see any misuse of checkoff dollars in this article? I didn't think so. More cheap talk from the Livestock Marketing Police.

Funny how the LMA quotes Barry Carpenter regarding the costs of a checkoff vote but doesn't quote Barry Carpenter regarding the implementation and enforcement of their worthless "please government, save us from ourselves" "M"COOL law.

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling is an absolute joke. Exempt 75% of the imports, prohibit the means to enforce it, increased costs to the industry for something consumers haven't asked for, and segregation of imported beef as a novelty item to the benefit of imported beef. REAL BRILLIANCE IN THAT ONE.

NCBA membership doubles the blamer's membership in R-CALF 2 to 1.

Of course the LMA doesn't like alliances. Why would they? Alliances take their commission dollars out of the equation. That one is too obvious!

As far as vertical integration concentrating power into fewer and fewer hands, that's interesting considering who has just taken action against Canadian imports that resulted in increased packer concentration in the U.S. Another blamer's double standard!

The LMA's one way trade picture is laughable. As if you can stop imports and continue to enjoy profitable exports.

Where do these blamers come from?



~SH~
 

the chief

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
midwest
Where do these blamers come from?

I believe they may be former NCBA members who were perhaps tired of NCBA policy and control.

I could be wrong, but that would be a good guess since many of the people on here who joined RCalf were former NCBA members.

Sorry if you disagree. It's only my opinion and you DID ask a question. Or perhaps you didn't want it answered. Oh well! :???:

Have a great day!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
I have read somewhere that packers should or do pay the checkoff on cattle if owned over 10 days. Am I correct, did I remember that correctly?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
I have read somewhere that packers should or do pay the checkoff on cattle if owned over 10 days. Am I correct, did I remember that correctly?

I believe you are Mike... No one has to pay the checkoff if they own the cattle less than 10 days... Many buyers buy cattle up here- take them to SD or Neb and turn around and resell them a few days later- they do not pay the checkoff....Has to be a paperwork nightmare- was it 7 days or 11 days? -- that and the retained ownerships that go out of state-- that when they do sell can designate the money back to home states now....No wonder there are questions about how many slip thru under the radar....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike, who wrote that old article you pasted to attempt to prove your points? How many years ago was Clark Willingham president of NCBA? Why didn't you include the date on that article? Too embarrassing that you had to dig up such dated material in your attempt to discredit NCBA?

I do recall when it was found that grass-roots cattle producers were very ignorant of the Beef Checkoff, probably about ten years or so ago. There was increased attention and effort put into getting information to them, as that is mandated in the law. Apparently, judging by current high approval rating, it worked!

Didn't you know that the members of NCBA are allowed to change their minds on issues when a particular stand become outdated? Every year at the annual meeting we either remove, retain, or update resolutions that are past a certain age.

Yes, Mike, packers, order buyers, and even sale barns do have to pay the checkoff on cattle owned more than ten days. Actually, some packers even pay checkoff on other cattle because they believe the work done with that money is worth donating to. BTW, the cattle producers working out the legislation creating the checkoff determined that they did not want packers paying on ALL cattle because they would easily have control of it due to their numbers.

OT, you get too much enjoyment out of dreaming that large numbers of cattle escape the system and have no checkoff paid. You might be real surprised to know the facts and successes of the surveillance to prevent that from happening. But I won't share it.

Re. wondering where all the blamers come from........easy.....they are the ones who want to believe that the evil packers are out to put the cattle producer out of business because the LMA lackeys have been brainwashing them with that mantra for years. They are led by the guys who, when they couldn't get the majority of NCBA cattle producers to vote their way picked up their marbles, went home, and "educated" producers for a couple of years, then started R-CALF.

Haymaker, I do not want the CBB to put any ads or any money into R-CALF in any way, shape, or form. They are no friend of the Beef Checkoff!
However, there probably are R-CALF members on the CBB. I do KNOW there are LMA?R-CALF members on the SD Beef Industry Council, but do not know for certain about CBB because affiliation status in not in the criteria for that board.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike said:
ITEM: "What researchers found," said Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, Steve Hailey, "is that 4 out of 10 producers say they've never heard of the checkoff, or know very little about it."

This startling revelation came after the LMA announced they would attempt to gather up the signatures necessary for a referendum on the checkoff. These survey results are now being used as an excuse to spend more money to inform cattlemen about all that the checkoff does for them. There's only one small discrepancy. For years we've been told that 70-72% of all cattlemen approve of the checkoff. Even in a recent press release the Beef Board said, "the research found that 68% of producers approve of the checkoff."

{I know this article is out of date, if for no other reason than the most recent January '05 survey found the approval rate at 73%! MRJ}

Let's do the math. If 4 out of 10 cattlemen don't know about the checkoff that means if every rancher in the country approved of the checkoff the highest approval rating possible would be 60%. Yet for years we've been told that at least 70% of producers approve of the checkoff. Did a large number of cattleman simultaneously come down with the same case of amnesia afflicting our President?
"I Have No Recollection Of That"

ITEM: "USDA officials reported at last Fridays meeting that the import permit requested for the Australian cattle had been withdrawn, largely as a result of concerns raised by NCBA leadership and members regarding animal health issues."

While NCBA leader's were issuing that release regarding the possible importation of Australian cattle into this country, Clark Willingham, the current NCBA President, was saying something very different, according to the Australian Broadcasting Company: "The President of the U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Clark Willingham says he now believes it may be economically viable for Australia to export live cattle to Mexico for on-sale to feedlots in the United States. Mr. Willingham who is currently in Australia for high level cattle industry talks says that if Australian cattle producers comply with U.S. import regulations, his Association will not oppose attempts to export live cattle to U.S. feedlots via Mexico. The comments are something of a turn around from last week's claims by Mr. Willingham's association that applications to trans-ship Australian cattle through Mexico to the U.S. were an attempt to enter the market through the back door. But after visiting Australia this week, Willingham says he now understands how the trade is possible and he WOULD NOT oppose it." (emphasis ours)

Despite Willingham's comments, the NCBA is now attempting to take full credit for stopping the Australian cattle. A professor at New Mexico State University told the Digest that U.S. influence had nothing to do with it, because the issue never got that far. It was the Mexican government and the Mexican cattlemen who denied the Australian cattle because they were worried about a backlash and did not want to jeopardize their ability to export Mexican cattle to the U.S.
"It's A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

ITEM: "From its inception the checkoff program has focused on five key producer directives: It's fair. Everybody pays. No one gets a free ride." NCBA Fact Sheet

What about the beef packer? They don't pay the dollar per head on the cattle they process, yet so far they are the primary beneficiary of checkoff dollars.

{Only in the minds of conspiracy buffs! Ranchers don't want packers to control the checkoff, so didn't include them in the payment of it except for cattle owned more than ten days. MRJ}


"I May Have Said That. I Don't Remember"

ITEM: Depending on the audience, the NCBA often says that they are in favor of mandatory price reporting.

Senator Bob Kerrey introduced an amendment to the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Bill which, if passed, would move livestock marketing closer to the open, public, competitive, capitalistic markets necessary for producers to receive a fair price for their livestock. In opposition to their published policy position, the NCBA viciously opposed Senator Kerrey's amendment and tried to mount hurried attempts to get the amendment tabled. The NCBA-backed effort to kill Senator Kerrey's amendment was defeated by a tie vote.

But don't take our word. We quote from a two page flyer handed out in Congress by the NCBA prior to the vote on amendments to S.2159, including the amendment dealing with mandatory live cattle reporting and packer concentration: "The amendments are not fair and equitable to beef producers and many of these provisions are counter to our producer's policy," said the NCBA. Further, the flyer said the NCBA was opposing the mandatory price reporting measure "on behalf of over one million beef producers from across the country." It was signed by Chandler Keys, III, VP of Public Policy.

The whole affair prompted this reply from Tom Breitbach, a Montana rancher speaking on behalf of the Western Organization of Resource Councils: "NCBA has consistently lobbied against the wishes of its own members and against the interests of all the other cattle producers it claims to represent, in opposing competitive bidding and mandatory price reporting."
"That Depends On Your Definition of Mandatory"

ITEM: The NCBA countered that they were all in favor of price reporting but not MANDATORY price reporting. The NCBA contends that they don't believe in anything that is mandatory. "Beef producers should work to minimize direct federal involvement in agriculture and beef production," said an NCBA release.

One would assume therefore that the NCBA would be against the checkoff since it's mandatory and is a federal program.
"Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure"

{No coincidence. There are appropriate places for "mandatory" and "voluntary". Everyone benefits from the checkoff programs, so everyone must pay. Not everyone needs or uses price reporting information, and those who use/benefit from the information should pay. Same goes for M-COOL vs V-COOL. MRJ}



ITEM: "Producers do have a right to request and then vote in a nationwide referendum to determine the future of the beef checkoff." So said, Beef Board Chairman Steve Hailey.

But it appears that the NCBA and the Beef Board don't want to give producers a chance to vote. They are going to spend millions of your money to convince you to keep the checkoff intact. In the face of the referendum by the LMA, the NCBA used the previously referred to survey as an excuse to raise the level of spending to inform producers about the checkoff. At its Mid-July meeting the Beef Board Approved a budget amendment for fiscal 1998, to spend $1.935 million for producer communications. This is in addition to $845,00 already allocated to producer communications for FY98. This is up from $600,000 spent in 1997.

{The writer was disingenuous here in refusing to differentiate between NCBA Policy/Dues division and the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA. They are financially separate. The Cattlemens Beef Board would not have been allowed to spend money to influence the vote. MRJ}

"After 12 years, the major beneficiaries of the checkoff have suddenly discovered that communicating with those who pay the bills is important," said the LMA in response. "The fact that this multi-million dollar campaign coincides with LMA's campaign to let producers vote on continuing the checkoff, is just a coincidence, supporters say. At LMA, we are confident that producers will see through this transparent education and information campaign for what it is: an obvious attempt to keep them from ever again voting on the mandatory checkoff."

Incoming NCBA President George Swan said that "none of the dollars can in any way be used to attempt to influence a vote for the checkoff." Do you think they'll spend any of your money to tell you about the failures of the checkoff?
NCBA Hires Political Strategy Firms

{Swan was correct. CBB could not spend money for that, but NCBA Policy/Dues division could. The most disgusting aspect of this is that LMA/WORC could and DID spend money to lie about the beef checkoff to convince cattle producers to vote against the beef checkoff and CBB was not allowed to correct the mis-information. MRJ}

ITEM: According to the Livestock Weekly, Merlyn Carlson, an NCBA Checkoff Committee member, said the NCBA hired two political strategy firms to "develop an educational program to combat the petition drive seeking a referendum on the beef checkoff program." Carlson was further reported to have said that the NCBA wanted to hold off on a pro-checkoff campaign but "the consulting firms advised them to move forward now to dissuade producers from signing the petitions in the first place." Smith said that within days of the consultant's report almost $1 million was budgeted by the NCBA to carry out their advice.
"Misinformation Costs Money"

{Correction is welcome if anyone can prove me wrong, but I strongly believe that the NCBA POLICY/DUES division had every right to use their own, NOT checkoff money, to educate producers to counter the lies they were being told by the promoters of the petitions. Of course it was much later that it came out that LMA decided they "had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA" in the words of Herman Schumacher, LMA leader. MRJ}



ITEM: "Best estimate, based on the last beef referendum would be about $3 to $4 million." NCBA Fact Sheet as to the cost of a referendum on the beef checkoff.

When someone got around to asking Barry Carpenter, Deputy Administrator of USDA's Ag Marketing Service his response as to what it would cost was, "probably less than than $500,000." And he ought to know considering he'd be in charge of the referendum. When confronted with the slight discrepancy incoming NCBA President, George Swan, said, "the LMA makes matters worse by misinforming producers about various aspects of the checkoff, including how much it will cost to hold a referendum. Correcting misinformation costs money," he said.
"Again, That Depends On Your Definition"

ITEM: The NCBA contends that they are in favor of country of origin labeling.

Well, sort of. Actually what the NCBA is in favor of is "generic labeling of fresh muscle cuts." If the NCBA has their way there will be no labeling of ground beef, which is where most imported beef ends up. The fact is, packers and feeders are opposed to country of origin labeling just as they are mandatory price reporting. The situation was summed up by Jordan Valley, Oregon rancher, Margene Eiguren. "It appears that this is the way NCBA does business. They make it appear as if they stand officially behind an important issue to producers, whom they claim to represent, but their actions reflect who they actually represent. They state over and over that the world is run by those who show up, so we show up, adopt country of origin labeling policy that is critical to the producer, only to have it swept under the rug by a task force consisting of two conference calls and one meeting in Denver, both dominated by packers."
"I Was Never Alone With The Money"

ITEM: In a press packet titled, Myth and Facts, the NCBA denies that the Cattlemen's Beef Board is now a part of the NCBA. "Fact: The CBB is a separate entity. CBB and NCBA are completely separate entities."

{Look up the law creating the Beef Checkoff and check it out. The author has it wrong here. MRJ}

If that is the case how come in all their press releases the NCBA says of itself, "The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is the marketing organization and trade organization for America's one million cattle farmers and ranchers?"

The NCBA is certainly supposed to be a separate trade organization but recently they have assumed the marketing role and claim as members the one million ranchers who pay the checkoff. This despite the fact that fewer than 40,000 people have joined the NCBA. And some of them were forced to join.
"The President Has Spoken To That"

ITEM: "NCBA policy does not allow NCBA to recommend one marketing alternative over another."

Now listen to the words of NCBA President Willingham as quoted in Beef Magazine. "Alliances continue to be very important. They're growing because the ones in existence have worked. Alliances are still the best way to get paid for value in cattle. If you sell them through a feedlot or auction barn, you're not going to get full value, especially if you've spent time and money improving your genetics."

It sure sounds like NCBA President Willingham was promoting one method of marketing over another, doesn't it? And he's promoting a method that would increase vertical integration, concentrating the power into fewer and fewer hands, thereby bankrupting much of rural America.
"Yeah, And Hogs Can Fly"

ITEM: "The NCBA will expedite consideration of R-CALF's request for help in filing a petition for import relief against Canada." NCBA Press Release

Don't hold your breath waiting for NCBA to help ranchers rein in imports. These are the same people who continue to push for fast track legislation that would allow more imports. Do you really think the packers who need more numbers and feeders who depend on foreign feeders are ever going to allow THEIR organization to support a petition in favor of import relief? Yeah, and pigs can fly and "that woman" got her job because she could type real fast.

{Mike, it is very difficult to answer some of your points because they do not make sense in that you do not say who did the writing or when it was written. It looks like parts were taken from different years and scrambled to try to make a point, especially in the last point. So, are you going to tell us those important details? MRJ}
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
the chief said:
Where do these blamers come from?

I believe they may be former NCBA members who were perhaps tired of NCBA policy and control.

I could be wrong, but that would be a good guess since many of the people on here who joined RCalf were former NCBA members.

Sorry if you disagree. It's only my opinion and you DID ask a question. Or perhaps you didn't want it answered. Oh well! :???:

Response...If you thought for just a minute Chief you would realize that the total of R-Calf and NCBA would far exceed the total members ever recorded by the NCBA. So how could MANY R-Calf members actually have been former members of the NCBA? I quess, not very MANY, especially when R-Calf's membership has many business people from main street who joined for $50. Many people will pay that much at lest one time to watch two piss ants parade around a pole. Sorry chief, you are amongst the many R-Calf members who have been sold a bill-of-goods from R-Calf.
 

the chief

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
385
Reaction score
0
Location
midwest
Thank you agman, but can you do the math on this:

ITEM: "What researchers found," said Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, Steve Hailey, "is that 4 out of 10 producers say they've never heard of the checkoff, or know very little about it." :shock:

Evidently, there are a lot of producers out there who are NOT NCBA members. I know there are several on this site who have expressed their position of leaving NCBA for RCalf. Some have Dual membership.

Sorry if I offended your beloved group. I know loyalty is a good thing. But you must remember that there are MANY NCBA members in the upper north that do NOT agree with NCBA on the border issue.

And I have never paid $50 to watch two pissants. Now three pissants, and you may have a deal. :wink:

Anyway, you have a good day, what's left of it.
Thank you Veterans for helping America stay independent. (Sorry if that word offends some :wink: )
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
the chief said:
Thank you agman, but can you do the math on this:

ITEM: "What researchers found," said Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, Steve Hailey, "is that 4 out of 10 producers say they've never heard of the checkoff, or know very little about it." :shock:

Evidently, there are a lot of producers out there who are NOT NCBA members. I know there are several on this site who have expressed their position of leaving NCBA for RCalf. Some have Dual membership.

Sorry if I offended your beloved group. I know loyalty is a good thing. But you must remember that there are MANY NCBA members in the upper north that do NOT agree with NCBA on the border issue.

And I have never paid $50 to watch two pissants. Now three pissants, and you may have a deal. :wink:

Anyway, you have a good day, what's left of it.
Thank you Veterans for helping America stay independent. (Sorry if that word offends some :wink: )

Chief, I thank all Veterans for helping America stay FREE.......free to disagree with differing opinions, methods of doing business, philosophies of cattle organizations.......you name it.

"Independent" conjures up some unpleasantness......"I can do whatever I want and you can't stop me!" type of "independence" serves no one well, IMO. "In your face" independence helps no cause, IMO.

Now, chief, can you tell us when that statement was made by Steve Hailey"? I served on the SD Beef Council many years ago, and we made a decision to spend less money for producer information so that we could spend more on research, consumer education and other programs of the Beef checkoff. We soon came to realize that was a mistake because some producers were not inclined to find out for themselves what was being done with their money and they became ripe targets for mischief makers who wanted to cause trouble for NCBA by spreading mis-information about what was being done with the Checkoff money.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top