nenmrancher said:
Tex, I would be worried if you or some of the others who post on here where ever appointed to the CBB. Just because of what you have posted on this site I would be leary that you would be nothing more than a mouth piece for RCalf and would do your best to push their agenda and there are others on here that I would be just as leary of coming from the other direction. That is why I said in another post that anyone serving on the CBB, the federation or any checkoff related comittee should have no ties to any state or national organization while they serve on the committee and should only serve a limited term and then not be allowed back on the committee or board for at least 10 years. Thats the only way new leadership will come to be and will allow for younger producers to have a seat at the table. It will also get rid of some crusty old farts that have nothing better to do than fight with each other.
Nemrancher, change of direction takes a little more energy and motivation than just going with the current flow.
I think we are at that point where we need to change direction. I don't think rcalf (which I am not a member of) would moderate as they got the direction changed. I have met quite few rcalf members and they want what is best for cattle producers -- not just what meat packers want. Many times there is divergence in the interests. Sometimes there is synergy. I think meat packers have been able to capitalize on the check off through emphasizing the synergies while having their members push meat packer interests in Washington. There definitely needs to be some real change there.
I think anyone on the CBB or the other boards need to know the difference between meat packer interests and cattle producer interests. Many are just not sophisticated to understand those differences.
When the checkoff is funded by taxing meat packers and then giving control of that tax revenue to cattle producers, the tables would be changed. One has to recognize these differences and just because you are a newbie on the board, doesn't mean you automatically know them.
The big meat packers have huge financial interests in the substitute meats--- pork and chicken. A competent member of the CBB would recognize this as a difference and would be careful to make sure that the checkoff funds were not being wasted or in any way advantaging the meat packers in these other interests. If there was a chicken checkoff and cattle producers had control of those chicken check off dollars the tables would be turned once again.
One can look at the cases and reasons the meat packers would lie to cattle producers about what the GIPSA rules actually mean to them. The NCBA has been less than forthright on this subject and that robs them of their credibility. It is because they are not just cattle producers, but meat packers also (who have interests in the substitutes).
To make sure you understand these issues in the depth required, could you please explain the "harm to competition" GIPSA rule and what it means? What do meat packers say it means and what does GIPSA say it means (hint---look it up in the Code of Federal regulations--GIPSA explained it).
Tex