Sandhusker
Well-known member
Jolley: Five Minutes With Bill Bullard
R-CALF has been one of the most ‘activist’ organizations in the meat business since its inception. Often characterized as a rowdy bunch spoiling for a fight, they almost seemed to be toning down the rhetoric a few months ago. A softer, gentler R-CALF was not to be, however, and an internal coup quickly restored them to their old, accustomed ways. The gloves came off and they renewed their original objectives with great vigor.
Safe to say, they have a hard-core, fight-for-the-independent-cattlemen agenda and they’re ready to go ‘bare knuckles’ to win their battles. Their recent board room battles should be seen in the light of what it really was – extremely passionate people fighting for populist principles. A few minutes on the phone with Bill Bullard refutes the idea that this is an organization coming apart at the seams.
For those groups that have done battle with R-CALF in the past, their nose might be a little bloody but the fight is still in them. Prepare to go head-to-head with them again. In sports and politics, the rule is the same. Just when you think you’ve got a formidable opponent on the ropes, he’s likely to strike back and knock you down.
The five minutes I planned to spend with Bill Bullard stretched into ten as he pounded out one pugnacious answer after another to the questions I asked. Here’s what he said:
Q. There’s been a lot said about the status and health of R-CALF since the “recent unpleasantness.” Let’s contrast and compare. What does the membership and the financial structure look like today vs. where the organization was in 2005?
A. In 2005, we were at the height of R-CALF’s litigation and we were challenging USDA’s attempts to relax health and safety import standards for Canada, a country at that time that had several outbreaks of BSE. The industry responded very positively and we raised 2.5 million dollars. It was an anomalous year, the best we ever had. However the first quarter of this year was the second best we’ve ever had. Our financial condition is very strong and I think the members are as committed as ever to accomplishing the policies that our members have voted on and the opportunities are as great as they’ve ever been. Congress is considering the 2007 farm bill and we’ve been participating as a witness in the senate Ag hearings and all of our issues are not only on the table but they’ve been transformed into written legislation that is currently under consideration by congress. We’ve never in our history had all of the issues – country of origin labeling, captive supply reform , limitation of packer ownership of cattle – all of these have been transformed into written legislation and that, for our industry, represents the best opportunity we’ve ever had of achieving meaningful reform for our market structure.
Q. R-CALF’s in-your-face attitude about several issues has created ill-will in some powerful circles, something your ex-president Chuck Kiker wanted to try to end. You wrote an open letter that said “After all, no one within the traditional beef industry power circle wanted to share their power and influence with another organization, especially not a new upstart organization like R-CALF USA that objected to the status quo and advocated major industry reforms for the benefit of producers.” Historically, though, many “upstart organizations” offer an olive branch to the power elite after they’ve gained political credence and won a few important battles. Are you still fighting those battles? And are you still trying to gain political credence?
A. Absolutely. Remember that our industry did not get in the position that it is today – an industry that’s plagued by an unprecedented concentration in the marketing structure as well as, in the last decade, the introduction of marketing tools that have given the meat packer a distinct pricing advantage in the marketplace. It took an evolution of over 50 years to get the industry to where it is now. We are in need of making significant reforms. We must change the status quo. We must essentially compete with some of the most powerful economic forces known in Washington --- the food industry---and a USDA that has been heavily influenced by this industry.
It’s going to take two things: time and an aggressive posture on behalf of the cattle producers to change the stat quo. You don’t get that thru negotiation. If we are to take control over the political and economic powers participate in this very profit beef supply chain. Our goal as live cattle producers is to capture some of the competitive share of the consumer beef dollars and of the domestics and international beef market. In order to do that, we must transform current policies that tilt the balance of power toward packers and processors and away from cattle producers. We have been successful in elevating the voice of independent producers because we have demonstrated our resolve not to back off.
We will continue to purse these reforms aggressively. We lose if we quit fighting. If we don’t push these reforms, no one else will. That was part of the contention within R-CALF.
Some said now was the time to back off, to extend that olive branch. The problem was that we have not won the issues. When we win on these very critical issues then that might be the time to extend the olive branch. We’re still in the very peak of this contentious competition right now and it’s not time to back off. That’s what the majority of the board said and they made the corrective changes necessary to insure that we kept to that direction; very aggressive, firm, professional but unyielding effort to change the status quo.
Q. The single most influential impact on the near term future of the cattle industry will be the new farm bill. USDA secretary Mike Johanns recently told CattleNetwork that he’s very happy with the shape it seems to be taking. Do you agree? And what do you see as the most important parts of the bill?
A. The most important parts of the bill are the parts that Secretary Johanns has not included and that’s why we must work with both the senate and house in order to include within the bill a competition title that offers independent cattle producers the opportunity to reform what has become a market structure that’s heavily influenced by the buying power of meat packer and processors. We need to transform that structure into an open, competitive marketplace where producers are on a level playing field in terms of capturing their competitive share of that marketplace. The farm bill that Johanns has produced does not include the competition title and that’s the most important aspect of the farm bill as we see it right now.
Q. Can we put together a friends and enemies list? You’re on record as calling the American Meat Institute (AMI), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a few foreign governments, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) unfriendly to R-CALF’s working agenda. At this point, who do you see as with you and who is against you?
A. RCALF is attempting t change an institution and this is an institution where you have the USDA and the nations major meat packers, processors and retailers working together to achieve their mutual goals. What RCALF must do is compete against the economic and political forces that do not agree that cattle producers should be able to capture their fair share of the marketplace. Current policies are tilted away from benefiting producers and we’re trying to achieve a new balance that will require a substantial change which means we would take market power away from some of the meat packers and processors and put that power in the hands of producers. It isn’t a list of friends and enemies; it’s a list of competitors and partners.
Producers are integral partners with packers and processors and retailers. We are also fierce competitors in order to capture the greatest share of the profits and to minimize our risk and enhance our competitiveness. Our competitors are those that benefit economically from current policy and the USDA which for ideological reasons supports the model that currently exists. Again, it’s not a list of friends and enemies but competitors and partners. And what R-CALF is trying to do is elevate our voice so that we’re on a level playing field at least on a par with the packers, processors and the USDA.
Q. Let’s look inside your organization. The “internal pressure within R-CALF USA to achieve the same end – to force R-CALF USA into conformity and to force R-CALF USA to end its ongoing legal battle to protect the health and safety of the U.S. cattle industry” was painful. It split the board and caused a walk out. Who are the people that elected to stay the course and what will their future contributions be?
A. The leaders who elected to stay the course are the majority of the board – Dr. Max Thornsberry, Randy Stevenson, Johnny Smith, James Fudge, James McCuen Gene Barber, Eric Nelson, and Margene Eiguren. The controversy and the split were between a majority and minority. The majority made the decision to stay the course. The minority disagreed and, rather than continue to work with the majority, elected to leave. What that did was create a board of very like-minded individuals who are firmly committed to achieving the member policy objectives of this organization and that makes R-CALF stronger.
We will still have disagreements but remember that were a producer-driven org and our members have created clear, concise, action-oriented policies. For example, we don’t support maintaining adequate import protection against BSE and other diseases. Our member policy as voted on by our 15,000 members says we will challenge and stop USDA from relaxing our border restrictions and that’s exactly what the majority intends to do – to follow those policies without exception. The minority disagreed and left. I think were better for it. We’re moving forward and this is going to be an exciting year for our members.
Q. You’ve been holding a series of regional meetings across the country to address member questions and to re-affirm R-CALF USA’s commitment to its members. What are those members saying to you – pro and con? Are they delivering a clear mandate to stay the course or are you getting some mixed messages?
We got a clear message through our series of 5 meetings and now it’s time to get back to work. Many members said the reason they joined R-CALF was we were willing to use every legal and ethical means of meeting member objectives.
They want us to aggressively pursue our policies. On the downside, some said they hoped we would have all been able to work together. Some of those were vehemently opposed to litigation. What we have found is that litigation is a very useful and successful tool in terms of helping us achieve our goals.
We didn’t get here overnight and we won’t solve those problems overnight either. We will be stronger than ever and we’re going to continue to grow in terms of membership and grow in political and economic influence.
R-CALF has been one of the most ‘activist’ organizations in the meat business since its inception. Often characterized as a rowdy bunch spoiling for a fight, they almost seemed to be toning down the rhetoric a few months ago. A softer, gentler R-CALF was not to be, however, and an internal coup quickly restored them to their old, accustomed ways. The gloves came off and they renewed their original objectives with great vigor.
Safe to say, they have a hard-core, fight-for-the-independent-cattlemen agenda and they’re ready to go ‘bare knuckles’ to win their battles. Their recent board room battles should be seen in the light of what it really was – extremely passionate people fighting for populist principles. A few minutes on the phone with Bill Bullard refutes the idea that this is an organization coming apart at the seams.
For those groups that have done battle with R-CALF in the past, their nose might be a little bloody but the fight is still in them. Prepare to go head-to-head with them again. In sports and politics, the rule is the same. Just when you think you’ve got a formidable opponent on the ropes, he’s likely to strike back and knock you down.
The five minutes I planned to spend with Bill Bullard stretched into ten as he pounded out one pugnacious answer after another to the questions I asked. Here’s what he said:
Q. There’s been a lot said about the status and health of R-CALF since the “recent unpleasantness.” Let’s contrast and compare. What does the membership and the financial structure look like today vs. where the organization was in 2005?
A. In 2005, we were at the height of R-CALF’s litigation and we were challenging USDA’s attempts to relax health and safety import standards for Canada, a country at that time that had several outbreaks of BSE. The industry responded very positively and we raised 2.5 million dollars. It was an anomalous year, the best we ever had. However the first quarter of this year was the second best we’ve ever had. Our financial condition is very strong and I think the members are as committed as ever to accomplishing the policies that our members have voted on and the opportunities are as great as they’ve ever been. Congress is considering the 2007 farm bill and we’ve been participating as a witness in the senate Ag hearings and all of our issues are not only on the table but they’ve been transformed into written legislation that is currently under consideration by congress. We’ve never in our history had all of the issues – country of origin labeling, captive supply reform , limitation of packer ownership of cattle – all of these have been transformed into written legislation and that, for our industry, represents the best opportunity we’ve ever had of achieving meaningful reform for our market structure.
Q. R-CALF’s in-your-face attitude about several issues has created ill-will in some powerful circles, something your ex-president Chuck Kiker wanted to try to end. You wrote an open letter that said “After all, no one within the traditional beef industry power circle wanted to share their power and influence with another organization, especially not a new upstart organization like R-CALF USA that objected to the status quo and advocated major industry reforms for the benefit of producers.” Historically, though, many “upstart organizations” offer an olive branch to the power elite after they’ve gained political credence and won a few important battles. Are you still fighting those battles? And are you still trying to gain political credence?
A. Absolutely. Remember that our industry did not get in the position that it is today – an industry that’s plagued by an unprecedented concentration in the marketing structure as well as, in the last decade, the introduction of marketing tools that have given the meat packer a distinct pricing advantage in the marketplace. It took an evolution of over 50 years to get the industry to where it is now. We are in need of making significant reforms. We must change the status quo. We must essentially compete with some of the most powerful economic forces known in Washington --- the food industry---and a USDA that has been heavily influenced by this industry.
It’s going to take two things: time and an aggressive posture on behalf of the cattle producers to change the stat quo. You don’t get that thru negotiation. If we are to take control over the political and economic powers participate in this very profit beef supply chain. Our goal as live cattle producers is to capture some of the competitive share of the consumer beef dollars and of the domestics and international beef market. In order to do that, we must transform current policies that tilt the balance of power toward packers and processors and away from cattle producers. We have been successful in elevating the voice of independent producers because we have demonstrated our resolve not to back off.
We will continue to purse these reforms aggressively. We lose if we quit fighting. If we don’t push these reforms, no one else will. That was part of the contention within R-CALF.
Some said now was the time to back off, to extend that olive branch. The problem was that we have not won the issues. When we win on these very critical issues then that might be the time to extend the olive branch. We’re still in the very peak of this contentious competition right now and it’s not time to back off. That’s what the majority of the board said and they made the corrective changes necessary to insure that we kept to that direction; very aggressive, firm, professional but unyielding effort to change the status quo.
Q. The single most influential impact on the near term future of the cattle industry will be the new farm bill. USDA secretary Mike Johanns recently told CattleNetwork that he’s very happy with the shape it seems to be taking. Do you agree? And what do you see as the most important parts of the bill?
A. The most important parts of the bill are the parts that Secretary Johanns has not included and that’s why we must work with both the senate and house in order to include within the bill a competition title that offers independent cattle producers the opportunity to reform what has become a market structure that’s heavily influenced by the buying power of meat packer and processors. We need to transform that structure into an open, competitive marketplace where producers are on a level playing field in terms of capturing their competitive share of that marketplace. The farm bill that Johanns has produced does not include the competition title and that’s the most important aspect of the farm bill as we see it right now.
Q. Can we put together a friends and enemies list? You’re on record as calling the American Meat Institute (AMI), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a few foreign governments, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) unfriendly to R-CALF’s working agenda. At this point, who do you see as with you and who is against you?
A. RCALF is attempting t change an institution and this is an institution where you have the USDA and the nations major meat packers, processors and retailers working together to achieve their mutual goals. What RCALF must do is compete against the economic and political forces that do not agree that cattle producers should be able to capture their fair share of the marketplace. Current policies are tilted away from benefiting producers and we’re trying to achieve a new balance that will require a substantial change which means we would take market power away from some of the meat packers and processors and put that power in the hands of producers. It isn’t a list of friends and enemies; it’s a list of competitors and partners.
Producers are integral partners with packers and processors and retailers. We are also fierce competitors in order to capture the greatest share of the profits and to minimize our risk and enhance our competitiveness. Our competitors are those that benefit economically from current policy and the USDA which for ideological reasons supports the model that currently exists. Again, it’s not a list of friends and enemies but competitors and partners. And what R-CALF is trying to do is elevate our voice so that we’re on a level playing field at least on a par with the packers, processors and the USDA.
Q. Let’s look inside your organization. The “internal pressure within R-CALF USA to achieve the same end – to force R-CALF USA into conformity and to force R-CALF USA to end its ongoing legal battle to protect the health and safety of the U.S. cattle industry” was painful. It split the board and caused a walk out. Who are the people that elected to stay the course and what will their future contributions be?
A. The leaders who elected to stay the course are the majority of the board – Dr. Max Thornsberry, Randy Stevenson, Johnny Smith, James Fudge, James McCuen Gene Barber, Eric Nelson, and Margene Eiguren. The controversy and the split were between a majority and minority. The majority made the decision to stay the course. The minority disagreed and, rather than continue to work with the majority, elected to leave. What that did was create a board of very like-minded individuals who are firmly committed to achieving the member policy objectives of this organization and that makes R-CALF stronger.
We will still have disagreements but remember that were a producer-driven org and our members have created clear, concise, action-oriented policies. For example, we don’t support maintaining adequate import protection against BSE and other diseases. Our member policy as voted on by our 15,000 members says we will challenge and stop USDA from relaxing our border restrictions and that’s exactly what the majority intends to do – to follow those policies without exception. The minority disagreed and left. I think were better for it. We’re moving forward and this is going to be an exciting year for our members.
Q. You’ve been holding a series of regional meetings across the country to address member questions and to re-affirm R-CALF USA’s commitment to its members. What are those members saying to you – pro and con? Are they delivering a clear mandate to stay the course or are you getting some mixed messages?
We got a clear message through our series of 5 meetings and now it’s time to get back to work. Many members said the reason they joined R-CALF was we were willing to use every legal and ethical means of meeting member objectives.
They want us to aggressively pursue our policies. On the downside, some said they hoped we would have all been able to work together. Some of those were vehemently opposed to litigation. What we have found is that litigation is a very useful and successful tool in terms of helping us achieve our goals.
We didn’t get here overnight and we won’t solve those problems overnight either. We will be stronger than ever and we’re going to continue to grow in terms of membership and grow in political and economic influence.