gunslinger: "Pretty new to the boards but it seems that you don't care much for R-Calf. So why not and are there any cattle associations that you are for and why? I am smalltimes daughter, just as a reference."
Thank you for the question.
There is many reasons why I have nothing good to say about R-CALF. Bottom line is that R-CALF has done nothing good for producers and they have misled them with continual misleading information and outright lies.
Look at the most obvious example recently. R-CALF recently stated that when the Canadian border was opened to live cattle, that prices would fall dramatically. They even stated this in their lawsuit against USDA.
Last year the border was closed to Canadian live cattle imports. This year the Canadian border is open to Canadian live cattle imports. Cattle prices are higher this year than last year. Shows you how much R-CALF knows about what factors affect our cattle markets.
I am not saying that Canadian imports do not have some negative impact on our markets, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply stating, as fact, that R-CALF greatly exaggerated the impact of Canadian imports on our cattle markets.
I detest lies and deception and that is exactly what R-CALF's philosophies are based on. Lies about the affect of imports, lies about packers manipulating markets, lies about the beef checkoff supporting anti producer organizations, lies about the safety of Canadian beef, and the list goes on and on.
The basic differences between R-CALF and the NCBA are the same philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats. R-CALF wants more government regulations to address "PERCEIVED" problems and NCBA wants less government intervention. Same philosophical differences between American Farm Bureau and Farmers Union. Same philiosophical differences between the SD Stockgrowers and the South Dakota Cattlemens Association. One wants more government and the other wants less. One favors liberal democratic leaders and the other favors conservative republican leaders. Why do you suppose Johnny Smith outwardly supported Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson? Because Tom and Tim have the same MORE GOVERNMENT MANDATE philosophies that Johnny Smith has.
I am a member of the South Dakota Cattlemens Association and a member of NCBA. I don't believe large successful packers are an enemy to this industry as R-CALF does. I believe Country of Origin Labeling is best driven by the consumer, not by the flawed government mandate that R-CALF is promoting called "M"COOL to save consumers from themselves. I believe the feeding industry can price their own cattle without a government mandate (Captive Supply Reform Act) dictating who can own cattle and how they will be sold. I believe that U.S. producers are better off with free but fair trade policies while R-CALF thinks we'd be better off without any trade as stated by their CEO.
R-CALF continually lies to producers. I'll give you an example. Bill Bullard stated that "USDA does not care about food safety". That is a bold faced lie. USDA's primary responsibility is for the safety of our food to the U.S. consumer and they are held accountable to the U.S. consumer. In comparison, R-CALF is not held accountable and changes their positions from day to day. R-CALF simply made this statement because they wanted to create the illusion that Canadian beef was unsafe to stop Canadian live cattle imports. R-CALF's position was that Canadian beef was contaminated due to Canada having BSE in their native herd. R-CALF risked the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (U.S. produced beef) by lying about the safety of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports). R-CALF took out an add in the Washington Post claiming that Canadian beef was contaminated due to having BSE in their native herd. When the U.S. had BSE in their native herd, R-CALF then said that we have the safest beef in the world due to our firewalls. Gunslinger, Canada has the exact same firewalls that the U.S. has. There isn't an R-CALF representative that could give you a good straight faced reason why Canadian beef is unsafe and U.S. beef safe when they have the same BSE precautionary measures in place. All they can respond with is that Canada has more BSE than the U.S. Well, either these precautionary measures are effective or they are not. The number of cases is a moot point. This whole BSE fiasco was simply a deceptive political ploy by R-CALF to stop Canadian imports WHICH THEY LOST IN A COURT OF LAW.
How stupid is it to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption by lying about BSE? Can you imagine if the media had gone to R-CALF as a reliable source of information on BSE???? Our headlines would have read "U.S. BEEF CONTAMINATED" "BSE FOUND IN NATIVE HERD".
HOW CAN ANYONE CONSIDER THAT PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE U.S. CATTLE PRODUCER????
Look at R-CALF's track record in court where facts matter:
R-CALF lost their dumping case against Canada.
R-CALF lost their injunction against USDA and this decision was upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
R-CALF supported the Pickett plaintiffs and one of their directors was a plaintiff. Pickett lost and this decision was upheld by the 11th circuit court of appeals.
R-CALF claims to not have a position on the beef checkoff yet Leo McDonnell recently stated that the beef checkoff is funding anti-producer organizations which is another bold faced lie. Herman Schumacher, R-CALF director, was involved in the lawsuit against the checkoff. This was another defeat for all those R-CALF members who are against the beef checkoff.
When it comes to facts and truth in a court of law, R-CALF loses every time because their positions are based on emotion, not fact.
Which side do you want to be on gunslinger? Do you want to support populist opinions just because that is what Johnny Smith, Dennis Hansen, and Herman Schumacher are telling people on the radio while giving their market reports or do you want to be on the side of facts and truth?
That is the decision you are making here.
There is not one more dime that will come into this industry if it does not come from the consumer. Now you tell me who has more focus on the consumer, is it NCBA or R-CALF?
R-CALF only recently aligned themselves with certain consumer groups who had taken an adversarial position against USDA not because they wanted to work with consumer groups but that's the way they have spun it to justify aligning themselves with CERTAIN consumer groups who were critical of our industry in the past.
When R-CALF first started out I thought they may have some value as a watch dog organization for fair trade. As time went on, R-CALF's agenda became more obvious. They didn't want any trade. They felt that the large packers were evil and should be regulated or even broken up. They wanted the government to save consumers from themselves with "M"COOL and they wanted to save the feeders from themselves with the Captive Supply Reform Act.
R-CALF thinks Country of Origin Labeling is going to be so important to this industry.
1. Only 5% of the U.S. beef consumption would be labeled as imported under this law.
2. The law is unenforceable because proponents of this law who demanded proof of where cattle were born, raised, and slaughtered did not want to be burdened with proving origination so they prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL and R-CALF is against traceback.
3. When you segregate 5% of the U.S. beef consumption as imported beef, you create a novelty item to the benefit of the novelty item due to it's rarity.
4. Consumers aren't asking for Country of Origin Labeling.
5. If Consumers were asking for Country of Origin Labeling, the free enterprise system could provide it and already is with the many source verified branded beef programs.
6. It will add costs to the industry. Not just the cost of tracking but the costs of enforcement which will be passed on to the producer in the form of lower cattle prices.
7. Consumers base their purchasing decisions on price far more than country of origin labeling. Just start reading labels around your house if you don't believe me.
"M"COOL as written is a complete joke. Symbolism over substance.
Bill Bullard, R-CALF CEO, stated twice now that U.S. producers would be better off without any trade. Prior to BSE, we had a $1.3 billion dollar trade surplus for a 7 year average when you consider the WHOLE TRADE PICTURE of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats, and hides. R-CALF presents you only part of the picture with their graph that isolates the beef and live cattle sectors of trade as if your hides and beef variety meats had no value. Typical of their deceptive ways of justifying their position.
Bottom line, R-CALF is simply dishonest and I detest dishonesty. I don't agree with every policy that NCBA has taken but I agree with their "less goverment" philosophies and their focus on the consumer.
When this industry starts letting biased sale barn managers determine what is best for this industry, the producer is being led down the primrose path. The sale barns are nothing more than service providers to this industry, certainly not it's spokesperson.
The fight between R-CALF and NCBA has it's roots in the Livestock Marketing Association who didn't like it when the beef checkoff funded research that showed that progressive producers with above average genetics could make more money retaining ownership on their cattle. This meant that the sale barns would lose those commission dollars. That's where the battle lines were drawn. The LMA is self serving, not the voice of this industry. Now the LMA agend hides behind R-CALF and the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM).
I wouldn't give you a dime for any of these organizations.
~SH~