• 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's Honesty Deficit

Sandhusker

Well-known member
by Terry A. Stevenson & J. Randall Stevenson
December 10, 2007

With a last minute timing that looks like it was designed to prevent honest answers from having a chance, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and some of its affiliates attacked some of the market reform amendments to the 2007 Farm Bill. Fortunately, the discussion and vote on the Farm Bill was delayed so that there is now an opportunity to carefully examine the outrageous statements made regarding those potential market reforms. Some of the statements made about the proposed market reforms are pure fabrications.


The Captive Supply Reform Act
The NCBA says:
"--Vote No on the 'Captive Supply Reform Act': In related news, NCBA is working to communicate with Senators about the negative impacts of legislation dealing with Captive Supply which could be added to the Senate Farm Bill next week. This provision, being championed by Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), would outlaw the ability for cattle producers to engage in confidential, one-on-one business deals with prospective buyers. Instead, cattle producers would have to conduct all of their business in open markets with competitors and neighbors looking on, watching, and engaging in the process. The bidding process would also be required to include at least one blind bid. In addition, forward contracts would be prohibited for more than 40 head of cattle and prohibited from using a basis pricing mechanism." --Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns, November 1, 2007

The Truth:
NCBA's fabrication has invoked outright panic in the hearts of some producers because they thought that any time they bought or sold cattle out in the country the provisions of the Captive Supply Reform Act would apply. Nothing could be more misleading. The Captive Supply Reform Act proposes changes to Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Section 202 only applies to packers and live poultry dealers and the purchase of livestock by them, not the purchase of livestock by other producers. The Captive Supply Reform Act adds an eighth prohibition for packers to a list of seven already in the Packers and Stockyards Act. The section introducing the list of prohibitions says, "It shall be unlawful for a packer …to:" Then follows the list of prohibitions for packers. None of those items are prohibited for producers.

The Prohibition of Packer Ownership of Cattle
The NCBA says:
"This amendment hurts the entrepreneurial spirit of cattle ranchers by inhibiting their participation in marketing alliances which can add value to their cattle." --Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns, November 1, 2007

The Truth:
NCBA's fabrication misleads producers into thinking packers owning livestock enhances "entrepreneurship" of producers. The Prohibition of packer ownership of cattle contains several exclusions. It does not apply to cattle within seven days of slaughter. It does not apply to co-ops. It does not apply to packers not required to report prices (because they are too small). It does not apply to packers that own only one processing plant. With these exclusions, only the biggest packers are affected, and producers can continue owning and selling cattle. There is no danger that the prohibition of packer ownership of cattle would negatively affect such value-added situations.

The Agriculture Competition Task Force
The NCBA says:
"The 'Grassley-Thune' amendment would interfere in what has always been a free market by subjecting our industry to even more oversight and regulation. This amendment, pushed by Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.), establishes a full-time special counsel whose sole purpose is to prosecute the agricultural sector. In addition, this amendment goes against our Constitution by presuming 'guilt' and forcing producers and cattle feeders to defend themselves against broad, and possibly unsubstantiated claims in order to prove innocence. It also establishes a task force which would exclude any representation from the cattle industry and would have virtually unlimited authority to investigate marketing transactions including those used in alternative marketing arrangements." --Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns, November 8, 2007
The Texas Cattle Feeders Association says:
"Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has an amendment that would create an Agriculture Competition Task Force of virtually unlimited authority to investigate and regulate livestock mergers, acquisition, transaction and other business arrangements--past, present and future. The task for would assume guilt from the start and require parties to prove their actions do not and would not harm competition." --Texas Cattle Feeders Association Newsletter, November 2, 2007

The Truth:
NCBA's fabrication misleads producers into believing market manipulating rules should not be enforced. This bill accomplishes three major things. First, it establishes an Agriculture Competition Task Force. Second, it establishes an Office of Special Counsel. Third, it makes some changes to the Clayton Act.

The Agriculture Competition Task Force has limited investigative authority and no regulatory authority. The claim that the Task Force will "have virtually unlimited authority to investigate marketing transactions including those used in alternative marketing arrangements," is completely unsupportable. The Task Force will not look at individual transactions of cattle but will be concerned with antitrust matters. Quoting the bill, the Task Force has the duty to:

investigate problems in competition in the agricultural industry;
define and focus the national public interest in preserving an independent family farm and ranch sector;
coordinate Federal and State activities to address unfair and deceptive practices and concentration in the agricultural industry;
work with representatives from agriculture and rural communities to identify abusive practices in the agricultural industry;
submit to Congress such reports as the Task Force determines on the state of family farmers and ranchers, and the impact of agricultural concentration and unfair business practices on rural communities in the United States; and
make such recommendations to Congress as the Task Force determines on agricultural competition issues.
The Task Force has no authority to regulate anyone, let alone agriculture producers.

The Office of Special Counsel has authority to carry out two duties according to the bill;

Analyze mergers within the food and agricultural sectors, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the Department of Agriculture, the Assistant Attorney General, and the Chairman, as required under section 9; and
investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
There are no new regulations involved in this part of the bill. The current obligation for GIPSA to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act would be moved to the newly created Office of Special Counsel. No changes are made to the Packers and Stockyards Act by it.

The changes made to the Clayton Act deal only with antitrust issues. The Clayton Act is strictly antitrust law. Contrary to what has been reported, these changes will not apply to producers. This section of the bill says:

"In this paragraph, the term 'covered civil action' means a civil action brought against any person for violating this section in which the plaintiff alleges that the effect of a merger, acquisition, or other transaction affecting commerce may be to substantially lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, in the business of procuring agricultural products from, or selling products to, agricultural producers in one or more geographic areas, and establishes that a merger, acquisition, or transaction is between or involves persons competing in the business of procuring agricultural products from, or selling products to, agricultural producers."
Producers are specifically excluded.

The statements concerning this bill are outrageous and false in the way they present the assumption of guilt. The section of this bill that places the burden of proof on the defendant is a very narrow situation. This part of the bill would amend the Clayton Act. The "defendant" in this section is always a corporation that proposes or has already engaged in a corporate merger, acquisition, or other transaction that has a bearing on existing antitrust law. The Clayton Act is antitrust law and only applies to antitrust situations. It is normal in existing law for entities proposing a merger to be required to prove that it will not harm competition. This concept is nothing new. However, the key is that this only applies to antitrust type mergers, acquisitions and transactions, and never to producers. As in the bill itself, these requirements are restricted to those who buy from or sell to producers, not the producers themselves.

The "Competitive Injury" Amendment
The NCBA says:
"A Competitive Injury amendment, which could be offered by Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) or Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), will have unintended consequences by basing lawsuits under the Packers and Stockyards program on a matter of 'fairness' which is not defined. The use of fairness as a determining factor is dangerous because each individual has their own definition of what is fair, and these disparities could be used to sue marketing alliances if someone thinks it's unfair for cattle producers to get paid extra for producing the quality animals that fit the requirements of these marketing programs." --Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns, November, 8 2007.

The Texas Cattle Feeders Association says:
"Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has an amendment to remove the 'competitive injury' standard from the Packers and Stockyards Act and replace it with an undefined 'fairness' standard." --Texas Cattle Feeders Association Newsletter, November 2, 2007

The Illinois Beef Association says:
"One [amendment], sponsored by Senator Brown (D-OH), would change the Packers and Stockyards Act to strike the clauses that require proof of 'competitive injury' in an anti-trust case. Instead, this clause would be changed to one of having to prove 'unfairness.' Unfairness is not defined in statute; therefore, what is 'unfair' would be determined by each individual jury. NCBA is opposing this amendment." --2007 Farm Bill Summary, October 25, 2007

The Truth:
The Packers and Stockyards Act as it exists today already has the term "unfair" eleven times. "Fairness" and "unfairness" are concepts that have been a part of the Packers and Stockyards Act for 86 years, and nowhere are they specifically defined. This is normal in commercial law.

There is no "competitive injury" standard in the Packers and Stockyards Act. Some activist judges have added that requirement. The statement that this amendment will strike the "competitive injury" clauses from the Packers and Stockyards Act is an unmitigated lie. Such clauses do not exist.

The "competitive injury" requirement for action under the Packers and Stockyards Act was introduced through the judicial activism of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its London v. Fieldale decision in 2005 .The plaintiff was a poultry grower and the defendant was a poultry processor. Mr. London had testified in a court case involving Fieldale. Subsequently, Fieldale abruptly terminated its contract with Mr. London, causing great harm to Mr. London's business. The court decided that Mr. London had to prove harm not only to himself, but also to competition in the whole industry. Even the USDA sided with the plaintiff and filed an amicus brief opposing the new judicially legislated "competitive injury" requirement. Senator Harkin's amendment would undo that judicial activism.

If this amendment is not passed and the damage done to the original intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act is not undone, then producers stand in great danger of having harm done to them because prohibitions against unfair practices that now exist would not be enforceable.

For example, "if a packer changes or manipulates its grade and yield specifications upon which producer payment is made, and the impact is directed to one producer, there is no harm to competition but the producer is harmed. The Act prevented this harm before the 11th Circuit change in the law." --News Release 10-27-2007, Organization for Competitive Markets.

Contrary to what has been said about the "competitive injury" amendment, it would restore the interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act to what it was when it was first written in 1921. Interestingly, it was written by a man who was at the time the president of the cattle organization that was a predecessor to the NCBA. On their web site the NCBA lists him as a past president and describes him as follows:

J.B. Kendrick
Sheridan, Wyoming
1919-1921

After driving a herd of cattle from Texas to Wyoming, he met a rancher's daughter, married her, and stayed to become Governor of Wyoming, then United States Senator. While serving in the Senate, he was elected President of ANLSA; reportedly solving the Association's lobbying needs for a while. During that time, Kendrick wrote and pushed through the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The West is yet to produce his equal, writes one historian.

It is obvious that Kendrick was not interested in creating a law that protected packers from one another, but rather he wanted a law to protect producers from packers. The judicial decision that established the "competitive injury" standard for the Packers and Stockyards Act changed the intent of the law from one to protect producers from abuses by packers to one that protects packers from one another. The "competitive injury" amendment would restore the original intent as former NCBA president and Wyoming Senator J.B. Kendrick wrote it.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
This should erode some of the integrity of NCBA with its cow/calf members!??? :???:

It amazes me that so many producers think their product can only be sold by large packers for as little cost as possible. This low cost food idea for beef has been pushed for thirty years...how much market share has it recaptured for beef????????
 

Tex

Well-known member
If these quotes are correct quotes, the NCBA and Texas Cattle Feeders Association have a lot of explaining to do like:

WHY ARE THEY LYING?

Change the leadership or change the name to "The Packers Protection Association".

Based on the comments above, I think there really needs to be a RICCO investigation or a real investigation (RICCO could be involved) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the collusion prohibitions.

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or



Lying is deceptive in my book.

We need some jail time here.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Such rash accusations!

The simple fact that many of the nations best cattlemen do not agree with the R-CALF mantra of "let's sue our way to prosperity" makes you lose your grip on reality, it appears.

I've never seen a list of the Stevenson boys' qualifications to interpret laws and rules, let alone determine how the cattle and beef businesses should be conducted in the USA.

Many of the tried and true cattlemen representing and working within NCBA over more than 100 years have an enviable record of achievements and accomplishments in many segments of the cattle/beef industry.

There's a proposed resolution for your little organization that may still be on your website which will cut your diminished membership rolls even further, I believe.

Maybe the stressful situation of seeing it all slipping away is prompting all the spitting and scratching and hissing at NCBA of late!

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Such rash accusations!

The simple fact that many of the nations best cattlemen do not agree with the R-CALF mantra of "let's sue our way to prosperity" makes you lose your grip on reality, it appears.

I've never seen a list of the Stevenson boys' qualifications to interpret laws and rules, let alone determine how the cattle and beef businesses should be conducted in the USA.

Many of the tried and true cattlemen representing and working within NCBA over more than 100 years have an enviable record of achievements and accomplishments in many segments of the cattle/beef industry.

There's a proposed resolution for your little organization that may still be on your website which will cut your diminished membership rolls even further, I believe.

Maybe the stressful situation of seeing it all slipping away is prompting all the spitting and scratching and hissing at NCBA of late!

mrj

One thing that I will give you, MRJ, is that you are very loyal. No matter how misplaced or undeserving that loyalty may be, you would be a good friend to have.

One thing that I've noticed is that every time somebody blasts NCBA, your modus operandi is to try to throw doubt on the authors and then shout the praises of NCBA. You NEVER come out and say, "That is wrong and here is why."

The floor is open for rebuttal. If you or any of your comrades can refute what the Stevenson boys have presented, feel free to make your case. They're saying NCBA is not being truthful - pretty strong medicine. Show your mettle and prove them wrong. I eagerly await your reply to the content of the article.

If anybody will take it, I've got $20 on Terry and Randy.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
Such rash accusations!

The simple fact that many of the nations best cattlemen do not agree with the R-CALF mantra of "let's sue our way to prosperity" makes you lose your grip on reality, it appears.

I've never seen a list of the Stevenson boys' qualifications to interpret laws and rules, let alone determine how the cattle and beef businesses should be conducted in the USA.

Many of the tried and true cattlemen representing and working within NCBA over more than 100 years have an enviable record of achievements and accomplishments in many segments of the cattle/beef industry.


There's a proposed resolution for your little organization that may still be on your website which will cut your diminished membership rolls even further, I believe.

Maybe the stressful situation of seeing it all slipping away is prompting all the spitting and scratching and hissing at NCBA of late!

mrj

Let's see, you said nothing about the issues...your only reference was to "the Stevenson boys' qualifications"...you attacked R-CALF-USA and praised NCBA!!!! HHHhhhhmmmmmmm!!!!!!

Edit: You beat me!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
The very least even you staunch anti-NCBA guys should be able to admit is that people who raise and sell cattle can have differing OPINIONS about the affect of the so called "Captive Supply Reforem Act".

It is CATTLE PRODUCERS saying THEIR OWN CHOICES of how and when to sell cattle to packers is detrimentally affected by the proposed changes, NOT some mythical "NCBA crystal ball"!

Econ, you must wonder a bit about their facts if you wonder "IF these quotes are correct quotes....". So, why do you then ask "why are they lying", implying that they must be, if you are not absolutely certain that Stevensons are factual?

For jail time, guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. When has that happened in all these accusations and "examples" of "foul play" re. P&S?

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
The very least even you staunch anti-NCBA guys should be able to admit is that people who raise and sell cattle can have differing OPINIONS about the affect of the so called "Captive Supply Reforem Act".

It is CATTLE PRODUCERS saying THEIR OWN CHOICES of how and when to sell cattle to packers is detrimentally affected by the proposed changes, NOT some mythical "NCBA crystal ball"!

Econ, you must wonder a bit about their facts if you wonder "IF these quotes are correct quotes....". So, why do you then ask "why are they lying", implying that they must be, if you are not absolutely certain that Stevensons are factual?

For jail time, guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. When has that happened in all these accusations and "examples" of "foul play" re. P&S?

mrj

Translation: she can't rebut or disprove a fact they have given...No surprise :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
The very least even you staunch anti-NCBA guys should be able to admit is that people who raise and sell cattle can have differing OPINIONS about the affect of the so called "Captive Supply Reforem Act".

It is CATTLE PRODUCERS saying THEIR OWN CHOICES of how and when to sell cattle to packers is detrimentally affected by the proposed changes, NOT some mythical "NCBA crystal ball"!

Econ, you must wonder a bit about their facts if you wonder "IF these quotes are correct quotes....". So, why do you then ask "why are they lying", implying that they must be, if you are not absolutely certain that Stevensons are factual?

For jail time, guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. When has that happened in all these accusations and "examples" of "foul play" re. P&S?

mrj

MRJ, the Stevenson's didn't bring opinions, they brought quotes from NCBA and they brought facts. Where do you see a quote attributed to a generic cattle producer? There is not one there, so why do you mention them?

They are saying, "Here are NCBA's exact words, they are full of crap, and here is why" and you can't even offer the slightest rebuttal? If Terry and Randy are wrong and NCBA is right, why can't you point that out? If they are right, why do you continue to support an organization that either doesn't know how major legislation will effect the people they claim to represent, or does know and is lying? NCBA is being called out here in a big way. May I suggest you even ask one of your leaders? Get some help on this.
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, you mean like you gave additional confirmatory facts to support your their "points"???

Your usual name calling has to substitute for your "facts" most of the time, IMObservation!

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj, you are nothing but a laugh. You can't dispute facts because you have no grasp on reality.

As far as the "quotes", I would like to see them in print, and by who in the NCBA the quotes are made. If they were disseminated to members with this misinformation, I would like to see them take responsibility for the lies they are telling to members. If there are attorneys involved in their legal decision, I would like to see who they are and why they would allow NCBA "management" to lie about the facts to members.

Yes, I do believe you have to fight untruths and hold people in positions of responsibility to a certain standard. Obviously you do not care anything except who the people are that say the comments, not whether or not they are accurate.

Please refute the quotes if you can or continue to earn your name, "Bumpkin".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tex, "Please refute the quotes if you can or continue to earn your name, "Bumpkin"."

If she could, she would of, but she can't so she hasn't. That's why I recommended that she ask one of the NCBA mucky-mucks for help. I'd like to see them defend their statements. I don't think they can.

BTW, I still haven't got any takers to bet against Terry. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
OT, you mean like you gave additional confirmatory facts to support your their "points"???

Your usual name calling has to substitute for your "facts" most of the time, IMObservation!

mrj

I don't have to confirm them- I consider the Stevenson boys very qualified expert witness's- and until shown credible evidence otherwise have no reason not to believe them .... Years of NCBA's past history of backing the corporate packers side on issues over that of the cattleman (especially the cow/calf man) has already shown their modus operandi......

But I breathlessly await your rebuttal arguments that allow you to believe these are "rash accusations"......Your continued silence can only be taken as your admittance to your lack of knowledge of the subject of which you spoke and thus, just a blind following of your corporate packer sold out cult.....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tex, "Please refute the quotes if you can or continue to earn your name, "Bumpkin"."

If she could, she would of, but she can't so she hasn't. That's why I recommended that she ask one of the NCBA mucky-mucks for help. I'd like to see them defend their statements. I don't think they can.

BTW, I still haven't got any takers to bet against Terry. :lol:

I will add a $20 to yours, Sandhusker.

mrj, bid to you.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Gambling is boring! Never been interested in it.

Too many dishonest people willing to twist facts to claim their wins.

While I have a basic knowledge of the 'facts', I'm not expert on the details involved in "proving" them.

Further, it's a waste of time, because you boys will simply twist and deny anything that DOES verify the beliefs of the many cattle producers who implemented and support NCBA's position on the rules changes.

That a legislator from Iowa acting like a jackass and calling NCBA names does NOT mean the name is deserved or earned! He's simply playing to his audience of the moment, hoping to perpetuate himself in office and build up his Congressional Retirement gravy train, IMO!

Your guys are chewing on sour grapes because your outfit does NOT have credibility with Congress! And it has gotten even worse since the wiser members split off from the small herd running things.

Desperation causes SOME peopleto be pretty mean spirited and act rashly, it seems.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Gambling is boring! Never been interested in it.

Too many dishonest people willing to twist facts to claim their wins.

While I have a basic knowledge of the 'facts', I'm not expert on the details involved in "proving" them.

Further, it's a waste of time, because you boys will simply twist and deny anything that DOES verify the beliefs of the many cattle producers who implemented and support NCBA's position on the rules changes.

That a legislator from Iowa acting like a jackass and calling NCBA names does NOT mean the name is deserved or earned! He's simply playing to his audience of the moment, hoping to perpetuate himself in office and build up his Congressional Retirement gravy train, IMO!

Your guys are chewing on sour grapes because your outfit does NOT have credibility with Congress! And it has gotten even worse since the wiser members split off from the small herd running things.

Desperation causes SOME peopleto be pretty mean spirited and act rashly, it seems.

mrj

MRJ, we all know dang well that you're not up on the issues enough to know what is going on. You simply take what NCBA says as gospel and off you go. If you had the facts, all you have to do is present them as the Stevenson's did, facts speak for themselves.

These are huge issue that will greatly affect cattlemen for many years, issues that would certainly require questions from somebody who truly wanted to know the truth. You choosing to put your head in the sand and demonize those who dare question the mighty NCBA shows your allegance is to them and not cattlemen. Why don't you present Stevenson's article to your leaders and ask them to "say it isn't so?" I would like to see their answers. Even though you can't defend them, let your group defend themselves. Let's see what they've got. NCBA ran away from Lou Dobbs on COOL, I would like to see if they can stand up to Randy and Terry on the Farm Bill. Bring your best.
 

mrj

Well-known member
S., why do you fail to admit that some cattle producers who disagree with you have a right to their beliefs re. law changes?

While I've NEVER claimed to know ALL there is to know about marketing, it stands to reason that you don't know what affects all ranchers' marketing plans either!

Do you really think I need to "preesnt Stevenson's article" to anyone????

Surely you are big enough to admit that NCBA leaders can and do read the latest spiels by most who manage to get published their 'thoughts about agriculture steeped in conspiracy politics though they be) aren't you?

Lou Dobbs????? That headline hungry media gadfly???? You can't be serious in thinking he is seriously interested in helping agriculture, can you? He is promoting his career.........or a future run for political office!

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
S., why do you fail to admit that some cattle producers who disagree with you have a right to their beliefs re. law changes?

While I've NEVER claimed to know ALL there is to know about marketing, it stands to reason that you don't know what affects all ranchers' marketing plans either!

Do you really think I need to "preesnt Stevenson's article" to anyone????

Surely you are big enough to admit that NCBA leaders can and do read the latest spiels by most who manage to get published their 'thoughts about agriculture steeped in conspiracy politics though they be) aren't you?

Lou Dobbs????? That headline hungry media gadfly???? You can't be serious in thinking he is seriously interested in helping agriculture, can you? He is promoting his career.........or a future run for political office!

mrj

So then you've got 'nuthin and don't want to find out 'nuthin. Whatever, MRJ. You keep believing crap and pretty soon that's all this industry will be. I sincerely hope others in your group have enough concern for their futures to ask some questions and find the truth.

Are there any other NCBA members here than can defend NCBA's comments?
 

Tex

Well-known member
It really is a shame that however good NCBA might have been in the past, the fact is that they are nothing but a mouthpiece of misinformation for packer interests now and the Stevenson article shows that clearly.

mrj, there is a saying about an old dog an new tricks. It is clear you can't even see the new tricks being played in the industry. You couldn't refute RM on the lack of success of beef as compared to the substitutes or the Stevenson report on the claims being made on the proposed legislation.

You make a great Christmas Bumpkin!!!
 

Latest posts

Top