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

R-Calf

Help Support Ranchers.net:

littlejoe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana, East Slope
I still say:
If I've got a right to know where an apple or a spud came from, I got a right to know same about my burger.



Northcenteral Iowa S. CATTLE PRODUCERS
September 2016

Dear Cattle Producing Friend,

What does the rest of 2016 have in store for your U.S. cattle industry? The answer is up to us.

After 18 years of herd liquidation that started in 1996, cattle inventories fell to a 73-year low while over 171,000 beef cattle producers and 84,000 independent cattle feeders exited our industry. When the dust finally settled U.S. beef production fell to the lowest level in two decades. Responding to this incredible shortage of beef and cattle, prices for your cattle in 2014 climbed to the highest nominal levels in our history.

Amidst all of this, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), which represents large multinational meatpackers: Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef, told a U.S. federal court that U.S. cattle producers don't want their beef labeled with a USA country of origin label.

The NCBA said: "beef is beef, whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán." The NCBA claims there is no difference between beef produced from U.S. cattle and beef produced from Canadian or Mexican cattle. According to them, beef produced from cattle sourced from anywhere in the world is just the same as beef from your U.S. cattle.

With this message, the NCBA worked with Canada, Mexico and the World Trade Organization (WTO) to convince Congress to repeal country of origin labeling (COOL). And Congress did.

With COOL gone, there is now a worldwide effort to render the origins of U.S. cattle irrelevant on a global scale. The effort includes relegating U.S. farmers and ranchers to nothing more than raw-product suppliers to the multinational meatpackers' global supply chain.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP) is being pushed by the NCBA and meatpackers. The TPP states the origin of beef is wherever the animal is slaughtered. This means when cattle are imported from Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada or Nicaragua and slaughtered by JBS or Tyson in a U.S. packing plant, the meat will be labeled as "Product of the USA."

We were deceived. We now know the real reason COOL was repealed was to help multinational meatpackers steal the good name and reputation of U.S. cattle producers and put it on beef from foreign-sourced cattle for duty-free distribution to TPP countries, including the United States. Your reputation is worth billions of dollars. Our own USDA helped gift this incredibly valuable asset to the multinational meatpackers. You got nothing.

R-CALF USA is the only association that testified before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that the TPP should be rejected because it destroys competition between the U.S. live cattle industry and live cattle industries from around the world. The ITC's investigation reveals that even with the addition of Japan, and even after 15 years of operation, the TPP will not reverse the horrendous trade deficit the U.S. has with the 11 other TPP countries. The ITC found that the U.S. beef trade deficit with TPP countries was nearly $2.8 billion in 2015 alone. This ongoing deficit in the trade of beef is weakening the economic viability of our industry.

With both cattle supplies and beef production so low, and with steady beef demand, cattle prices were expected to remain at historical highs from 2015 until 2018, at which time herd rebuilding was projected to cause prices to gradually subside. But something went terribly wrong.

Recall June 2015 when the U.S. House of Representatives repealed COOL. Up until then fed cattle prices were steady and strong ($160.70 per cwt in May). But in June prices tumbled by more than $9 per cwt and kept tumbling through December. When the dust settled the market had lost an astounding $36 per cwt just since May. Fed cattle prices never fell so far or so fast at any other time in the history of our industry.

Calf prices fell just as hard, if not harder. In May 2015, feeder calves weighing 550 pounds were bringing $286.41 per cwt. By December, prices fell to $194.28, representing a loss of over $506 per head for U.S. cow/calf producers! This wasn't caused by competitive market fundamentals. No, this was the result of manipulation within our U.S. fed cattle market.

In early January, R-CALF USA asked the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the cause of the 2015 cattle price collapse so we can prevent it from ever happening again. In response to our request, the Judiciary Committee in April asked the United States Comptroller General to conduct the investigation through his agency, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In addition, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley immediately introduced legislation to ban packer ownership of livestock, which will help reduce the control that multinational meatpackers presently have over our markets.

On May 26, the GAO accepted the request to investigate the cause of the 2015 price collapse. In fact, the U.S. Comptroller General is now investigating the changes that have occurred within our markets during the past 10 years. (2005 was the last year meatpackers purchased more than one-half of their cattle supplies in the competitive cash market. Today, the volume in the competitive cash market is below 22 percent.)

This unprecedented investigation is our last best chance to stop the multinational meatpackers from capturing control over our live cattle supply chain through vertical integration. They already accomplished this capture in both the poultry and hog industries. We call the processes of capturing control over livestock supply chains "chickenization." So, this is our last chance to stop the meatpackers from chickenizing our cattle industry. We hope you will help us.

R-CALF USA members are also dissatisfied with paying into a beef checkoff program that funnels tens of millions of dollars to the NCBA – the same organization that fights to repeal COOL, that helps meatpackers vertically integrate the cattle supply chain, and that supports free trade agreements that marginalize U.S. cattle producers by weakening their competitiveness.

During the time the NCBA-controlled, mandatory beef checkoff program has been in place, per capita beef consumption fell from 79 pounds to 54 pounds while per capita chicken consumption increased from 51 pounds to 83 pounds. Yet, there is no mandatory checkoff program for chicken growers! It is way past time for independent cattle producers to take back their beef checkoff program.

In May, R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit in federal court against the beef checkoff program. Our lawsuit alleges it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution for the USDA to allow one-half of all checkoff taxes to be siphoned off by private state entities that use those taxes to promote the message that beef from cattle produced anywhere in the world is just as good as USA beef. In July, we helped introduce two new bills in Congress to prohibit any lobbying groups from receiving checkoff dollars and to make the checkoff program voluntary.

R-CALF USA is the largest producer-only cattle association in the United States. We recently included sheep producers within our ranks. We need to continue building our producer-focused organization throughout the rest of 2016.

No organization is fighting harder or more effectively to prevent multinational meatpackers from chickenizing your U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA has been successfully fighting against this for 16 years and we're likely the only reason you still have independent farmer-feeders bidding against the multinationals for your feeder calves. But we need your support to fight even harder. We are worried that many more independent feeders are continuing to exit our industry following the 2015 price collapse. Alarmingly, our steadily declining calf prices are now about half of what they were less than two years ago. We must act quickly!

Let's win-back COOL. Let's restore competition to our fed cattle market and strengthen competition in our feeder cattle market. Let's put an end to cattle-price manipulation. Let's defeat trade agreements that marginalize cattle producers. Let's stop USDA from importing beef from disease-affected countries like Brazil, Argentina and Namibia. Let's eliminate the corruption and misuse of the beef checkoff program. Help us begin winning on each of these goals this year!

If you join R-CALF USA, winning on all or most of these goals will be what's in store for your cattle industry in 2016 and beyond. R-CALF USA works only for you – the U.S. cattle and sheep producer – and not for the multinational meatpackers that want to control you and your production.

Whether you are a small or large cow/calf producer, yearling operator or sheep producer, or a small or large feedlot operator, we work for your economic interests.

We do not receive any government checkoff funds. We do not receive pharmaceutical, banking, meatpacker or other corporate contributions. We do not share our membership list with anyone. And, all of our revenues are generated by membership dues and contributions from your fellow cattle producers and local business that rely on the cattle industry. In short, no other organization is so exclusively devoted to cattle producers and sheep producers as is R-CALF USA.

Please join today. For just $50 per year or $140 for three years, you will have a substantial say in whether your cattle industry continues heading in the direction the multinational meatpackers want it to go or if it will stand up and defend its independence so our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to be independent farmers and ranchers.

To join: http://www.r-calfusa.com/membership/

Bill Bullard, CEO
R-CALF USA
 
I am proud of the product I produce and would like it if I could label it back to me!
 
http://competitivemarkets.com/ncba-files-to-keep-up-the-cover-up-of-abuses-of-beef-checkoff-funds/
 
George said:
I am proud of the product I produce and would like it if I could label it back to me!

George you have a small enough herd and a fairly large "Urban type" population around you, why don't you finish your own calves and market your beef right off the farm. Cut out the middlemen and have your own label on your beef.
 
I did a lot of that in the 1980s but most of the slaughter houses have closed in this area and I have aged and just like raising them.

I have kept the steers this fall so far and might feed them out depending upon how much I'm offered for them. We have about 100,000 bu of corn in the bins so I could feed them and I enjoy working with them much like I enjoy the cows.
 
I'd like to see the NCA go across the Dakotas, Montana and Nebraska and tell those guys that there is no difference between their cattle and south of us40 cattle. Maybe time for a referendum on some issues more than the check off. It's hard to support the check off and not support other majority rule issues.
 
Promotion is good. I think we need to promote. I think we need to use funds to educate the consumer/fight groups like HSUS. Yes if you get scientific and read all the fine print, details the beef board & NCBA are seperate. Yes any group can apply for funding from a beef board to do research etc. Yup, there are membership on state beef councils that aren't pro NCBA. My director is one of them. He ran against someone who was pro NCBA, endorsed by Nebraska Cattleman, and Nebraska Cattleman did a write up on the canadates that they endorsed. No write up about the canadates that were running against the person they endorsed. Which is fine, thats their right. Yet it kinda shows favoritism IMHO, just saying. Say, if your needing a job done. Two people apply. One is a friend/relative, the other isn't. Everything else is equal or maybe the non friend has a slightly better offer...yet your cousin is the other...who are you going to chose? Some would do the best deal, others would make sure they scratched backs...thats just life. When its all "the same house" things can get messy. That is some of the grumbling with check off dollars Ive heard over the years.

I have no problem with lobbyist groups. Im not a member of one, but if you are thats your choice. NCBA was fromed to be a lobbyist group. That is their main purpose. Guess I feel that either a group should be a lobbyist group or research/promotion group. Let people pay dues to NCBA, R-CALF, USCA, Farmers Union, etc. and let the lobbyists do what they are supposed to do. Don't let them be able to access or "contract" for check off funding. Im not positive but I think the University of Nebraska developed the flat iron steak cut for instance. Someone like that should be able to get funding. I hear more people complaining, myself included about check off dollars being spent to work against us than for us. I do think NCBA has done some good for the cow/calf guy. I don't think we are at the top of the totem pole in their prioroaties. I know a lot of people that want to promote. Its just who & how the money gets spent. Yes, everyone has an opinion on how money is to be spent & they think their way is the correct way to do it. Just how we are. I truely do think the check off would have less oposition toward the check off or an increase in the check off. Just my 2 cents.

Heres a link that was on a different thread here. I'm not a fan of Farmers Union. I do know Dave Wright. He's opinionated, but he wouldn't spin facts. It has some length, but its intersting to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugMHu30jDWI
 
So much dissention, so little time! Well, it is the "Halloween Season", so we should expect spooks to be lurking about with a few nasty tricks.

Such as: There IS a 'right to know' where your beef comes from. Last time I noticed, there were around 150 'brands' on beef, and some, if not all include the producer(s) and location.That ranch or producer of origin was deliberately omitted from COOL, which in my opinion (shared by many) made it a fraudulent premise. It only PRETENDED to tell you where the beef came from, gave part of the story'. Claims that NCBA says we don't want our beef labelled are ludicrous! We just don't want hollow labels which don't give consumers what they want. The multitude of labels we already have will continue to grow as consumers show their approval by their purchases. I believe that is the way of "Free Enterprise", which many of us prefer to government mandated, "pretend to help" empty label laws.

CONSUMERS, with considerable frequency had told Beef Check Off leaders that producer/ranch of origin is WHAT THEY WANT. When proponents of the COOL law REFUSED to include that information, it became a worthless ploy of a law. It was a hollow attempt to make consumers feel better with really minimally informative information. There was no way for them to use the label to find any facts they might want about the beef and how it was raised, fed, etc. Plus, for producers of high quality beef, there is the nasty little fact that not every beef animal produced in the USA truly IS up to our standards for quality. What happens when Ms. Consumer gets a really substandard piece of beef clearly labelled "product of USA"? At least with the labels we do have, consumers have someone to complain to, and help improve all beef. Not so with COOL!

So far as the typical member solicitation rhetoric and scarey stories about NCBA from R-CALF leaders, facts are hard to find in them.

Amo, I agree with you we need to continue using Beef Check Off funds to educate consumers! That began with the voluntary check offs, and continues to grow in success gained from conducting workshops with consumers.

I believe you may be right that UNL developed the Flat Iron Steak, but believe if you would dig a bit, you would find that UNL was funded in that work by the Beef Check Off. I could be wrong, but I know that such projects ARE funded by Check Off dollars, and may be through NCBA directing it to UNL, and others.

And, YES, we do need to fight HSUS!!! I do not know if it is legal to use Check Off money for something like that, tho. BUT, do you know that R-CALF and their cohorts are using HSUS money to fight NCBA? HSUS has to be laughing their arses off over that one! Getting cattle ranchers' organization to lead one battle in the HSUS WAR to end ALL uses of ALL animals. That would be funny if it were not so pathetic! And that 'war does include cattle, believe it or not.

mrj
 
I was always under the impression that The Check-Off was behind the finding of the Flat Iron Steak. It was a real success story.

Great point mrj. R-Calf has s taken up with HSUS. Do desperate groups do desperate things? This was a mistake in my book.
"And, YES, we do need to fight HSUS!!! I do not know if it is legal to use Check Off money for something like that, tho. BUT, do you know that R-CALF and their cohorts are using HSUS money to fight NCBA? HSUS has to be laughing their arses off over that one! Getting cattle ranchers' organization to lead one battle in the HSUS WAR to end ALL uses of ALL animals. That would be funny if it were not so pathetic! And that 'war does include cattle, believe it or not."
 
Why would anyone believe R-Calf has "taken up" with HSUS? The problems with the check off started long before HSUS entered the picture. On the other hand NCBA has become partners with the The World WIldlife Fund and The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. Spend a little time researching the agenda of WWF.
 
I was always under the impression that The Check-Off was behind the finding of the Flat Iron Steak. It was a real success story.

Some say the French have been cutting the Flat Iron steaks for years and named it from that Iron hard strip of Grissle in it.

Besides, there's only about $8.00 difference at most between carcasses utilizing the Flat Iron and those making Ground Chuck out of it. Not counting the extra time it takes to cut the Flat Iron from the Chuck.

You might want to come up with something a little more ground breaking & earth shattering that the NCBA has done. :wink:
 
MJR, Im not going to look because as I remember it...yes it was check off funding. That is why I brought that up in my post. As to R-Calf crawling in bed with HSUS, Im going to politely ask you for evidence saying so. Don't get me wrong, Im not saying your lying...just asking for fact. I have a friend that is big into R-Calf. I believe it was 2 years ago in February or March I overheard him comment in a group discussion that R-Calf wasn't affiliated itself with HSUS. Which at that time, Nebraska Farmers Union had just joined forces with HSUS. They thought it was easier to work with them instead of fight them, which in my opinion is BS. Farmers Union does have a substantial membership of niche producers, so I can see why they maybe would agree with to join forces. To me its like palying russian rulet. Of course ICON, which kinda associates itself with Farmers Union on certian issues aslo associates itself with R-Calf. Like I said in the origonal post of this thread for various reasons Im not a fan of any lobbyist group. There are times where say Farm Bureau and Farmers Union join forces on legislation...or Farm Bureau and NCBA take your pick. In my opinion lobbyist groups joining forces on legislation doesn't mean they are "crawling into bed with them". Like I said, what my friend said was several years ago. Things do change over time, so if R-Calf is taking money from HSUS please give me some examples. Im not a member of any lobbyist group for my own reasons. So Im not specifically defending R-Calf. I would like some specific examples instead of hear say.

Im going to cut and paste some comments I made on a thread in here that got moved to the bull session page about a month ago. Im not against lobbyists and Im for promotion. Just like a division of church and state, no lobbyist group....be it NCBA, R-Calf, Farmers Union, etc should be able to touch check off fund period. A lot of the problem with the check off is people don't trust a lobbyist group that they don't approve of. Ya Ive heard the story of contracts are open to anybody and non profit which is open to interpretation. This was copied from the other thread.....70% of NCBA's annual budget is from the Checkoff
Past NCBA CEO, Forest Roberts earned $450,000.00 and 70% of that $450thousand was checkoff dollars.
NCBA pays out over $13million in yearly salaries and 82% of their budget is Checkoff dollars.
There are 26,000 NCBA members. I didn't look it up, I didn't fact check it. You can do the work to defend it.

MJR you hit the nail on the head.....So much dissention, so little time! What better way to get rid of the dissention than to completely eliminate any distrust than make a seperation of church and state with check off funding and lobbyists? Im not going to sit hear and nit pick every split nose hair. Ive read on hear you and others feel NCBA is as honest as the pope. That is fine, its your opinion that you have developed for your own reasons. You like the group, support them. Others don't like the group, and donate to others. They have their reasons, and dislike the others...so be it. We all know people in agriculture as independent. Every get a group in the coffee shop to agree on which brand of tractor or pickup is the best? Did you get them to agree? I highly doubt it. So if you cant get that accomplished, how in the sam heck are you going to get a bunch of cattle producers to agree? I truely believe if you get the lobbyist away from the check off contributions, your going to have a lot more agreement amungst producers. If you haven't convinced them in 20 some years that NCBA is honest, your not going to. Like you said....so little time, why are we wasting oxygen on this like a soap opera. Lets figure out a different way to do it.

Yes, NCBA & the Beef Board are seperate entities, but when NCBA is the main contractor...its basicly the same house. Poultry is basicly all vertically intergrated now. So they have no need for a check off. The meat processor owns the chickens from birth baiscally, so it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul if they had a check off.

Not everyone will agree with how check off money is spent. Like a guy said, why do we need the check off providing "price cards" (the cards at the sale barn to write prices down, with out getting a bidders number) to people that are paying for the check off? I have heard since the importation of Brazilian beef a lot of talk about check off funding... NCBA being on the packer/feeders side, no "whats for dinner" comercials. I do think the beef councils have changed their marketing strategy. Leaving comercials & going more on Facebook, etc. I still say, if no lobbyist group could get access to check off money...there would be a lot less opposition to the check off. Kinda like Obama and the birth certificate mess. He swore up and down that he was a citizen. Which I had no doubt. Hillary had that sniffed out at the begining of the primaries....if he wasn't, shed been nominated. Instead of showing his certificate, he just drug it on & on. Finally he broke down and showed it. He was right, just like NCBA really has never had a major infraction on the use of check off funds. Yet why was car fax so popular when it first came out? You could ask right away and know proof positive which way the wind blew! There is no suspicion. If lobbyist groups couldn't contract for beef board funding, there would be no suspicion!

Like I said before, I think we need to promote. We need to educate. If you feel you need to support a lobbyist group weather its the NRA or NCBA, so be it...do it. If that group truely represents all your beliefs, its a very good way to defend your position as a citizen. As a person who doesn't always agree with NCBA's stances on issues, I really dislike that they even have an oppurtinity to have access to my check off dollars.

I do feel, especially the Nebraska beef council does do a fair bit of good. They run some comercials, send money to other states beef councils, etc. I disagree with the money that they send to the "federation". I fail to see how I get a return on my investment from that. One program I think is truely awesome is they bring in cheifs, doctors, bloggers, magazine writters/editors from the metropolition areas. The one medical doctor appeared on the tv show Dr. Oz, explaining the healthiness of beef in a diet. These people spend a week in rural Nebraska. They visit with a vet, go to a ranch, feedlot, packing house, every segment of the beef food production chain. They get enlightened, first hand as to what really does go on to have "pasture to plate".

The Nebraska beef council was asking for a state check off of 50 cents per head. Saying a pickup or a pair of jeans doesn't cost what it did back in 1984 (or when ever the check off was implemented). Where they had to give 50% of the money they collect to the national council, the inflation for 30 some years didn't give them much left to work with. They went through and talked about the people that were employed, what they did, how much money went to state beef councils back east, and some money goes to "the federation". . They spent a vast amount of time talking about my paragraph above. Spent 10 minutes talking about it, which I think is an awesome program. Really played it up in order to get support for the 50 cents state check off. Didn't say it would be used to step up efforts to educate the consumer (fight HSUS), but thats the jist I got. Spent 10 seconds on the federation money.

I don't exactly remember what all the numbers were. I will use cents instead of percents. Of course 50 cents goes to the national beef council. Then, the rest was so many cents on advertising, wages, etc. I don't remember exactly, but I think 10 cents went to the federation. The program Im talking about cost about 3 cents! If I got a return on my investment of federation money, I think she would of said more about it, than just saying so much of our budget goes to the federation. If they took that federation money and spent it on education, they could triple that program! I can very easily see where I get a benifit from that program. Id give a $1 just to that program, if I knew it was only going to be spent on that. Like I said, not everyone is going to agree with every expenditure. Its just it will all go into one big coffer. NCBA will get access to it. So then Im supporting a lobbyist group that I don't think exclusively has ALL my best interests at heart. Yes, there are producer members who are on the beef board, deciding the funding. Nebraska producers vote who we want in. Last time some were elected, Nebraska Cattleman in their magazine "profiled" canidates that were running for the beef board. They "profiled" one person...the one that they would prefer to be elected to the beef board in their magazine. The canidate that wasn't pro NCBA oriented wasn't profiled. Which they are a lobbyist group, its their magazine for their membership. They have the right to profile who they prefer to get elected. It was kinda funny, right then is when I started getting their magazine. I have never been a member of their group. I also live in a district where their "profiled" canidate didn't get elected. Kinda makes me wonder why all of the sudden I started getting their magazine?????? So when other states appoint the directors to their beef boards, I have to question does the entire spectrum of beef producers get represented on the beef board or is it a "stacked deck"? Yes there's a fair bit of sarcasm in what I just said, but when I talk about what I described in the magazine profiling certian canidates, its hard for me to truely believe that NCBA & the Beef Board are seperate entities, but when NCBA is the main contractor...its basicly the same house.

Somehow we need 1 united voice to promote & educate. We also need lobbyist groups. There is legislation that is good for one segment of the system, but will hinder another. Both parties need to be represented to develop an amicable compromise. After all we have democrats & republicans for a reason....different view points. How can you have one lobbyist group represent the cow calf, stocker, feeder, & packer without having favoritism more toward one group than another? No lobbyist group need check off funding, period.
 
I like this one The question was asked "what is OCM." "OCM is a mutual admiration society of paranoid deluded narcisists. It has about 40 members who dislocate their sholders pating each other on the back. Generaly they distrust democracys, majorities, free makets and anyone smarter than themselves (which is just about everyone)
 
or this one "OCM is carrying water for HSUS.
OCM and R-calf exploit the annual audit.
OCM has HUS lawyers review it.
OCM follows HSUS advice to have an HSUS friendly Kansas City law firm file the case probono (IE: you and I the tax payers are paying for this via charitable contribution deductions)
HSUS keeps their hands clean.

Obnoxious can get you the same reputation as stupid. Too bad Mike Callicrate does not feed sheep...or he might even have learned that"




http://beefmagazine.com/poll/08222012
 
I use to respect Mike Callicrate when he sued the packers. Once he joined I think its Colorado's HSUS advisory panel, I lost all respect for him. I scanned your links Big Muddy Rancher. Im not a fan of Farmers Union, which I knew they had formed a lot of alliances with HSUS. I also knew ICON, or Independent Cattleman of Nebraska had agreed with some similar issues as farmers union. Had the impression that ICON & R-Calf hadn't affiliated themselves with HSUS. So the one link with all of their logos is news to me.

Lobbyist groups do form alliances on issues they agree on & don't on issues that they disagree on. Ill bet NCBA has joined forces at one time or another with say Farm Bureau, etc. What I asked was for examples of R-Calf getting actual funding from HSUS. I have said before, I don't pay dues to any lobbyist group cause I don't agree with their stance 100% of the time. I find it funny in this debate, one side myself and others question weather or not NCBA is getting money under the table from the Beef Board. Yet your trying to get me to assume that since R-Calf has joined an alliance with other lobbyist groups its automaticly getting funding from HSUS? Sounds like both sides are using the same argument yet believing their preferred group is "pure and ethical". Which once again goes to my whole point.....if no lobbyist group could even get a penny of check off funding it would remove all suspicion from all sides!

I did some googling. I typed in "Does R-Calf take funding from HSUS". I had various news articles come up. A lot of them dealing with OCM and R-Calf suing over check off funding in various forms. I listened to Bill Bullard's radion program today, since I was in the tractor while it was on. Im going to be honest, if I had to support a group Id support R-Calf over NCBA. He talked about them wanting the OIG (I think) or DOJ to look into the packers paying certain feedlots extra and not others. Supposedly these feedlots claim they haven't turned a profit for several years. Yet somehow they are able to have credit etc. As far as Im concerned if "Joe" wants to buy "Tom's" cattle for set price, then give extra for what ever reason....so be it. Of course the extra doesn't go to the manditory price reporting. Long story short, R-Calf, Farmers Union, OCM are all trying to lobby for smaller operations. Small, niche type operations are the live blood of HSUS's production agriculture membership. Why they choose to use them as their lobbyist organization lord only knows. Maybe some of the other groups should look to try and gain their membership. Yet it does explain (no matter how much I dislike it) why these groups would join forces on certain issues. Yet after an hour of scanning articles & trying different google search phrases, all I seen was that OCM was using a lawyer from HSUS. Which I would interpurt as HSUS is footing the bill. I didn't read of any direct cash payment from HSUS to R-Calf.

Here is an article from the Oklahoma Farm Bureau....http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2016/09/01154_DittmerCommentary09172016_054551.php#.WCO51vkrLIU

I found this paragraph very interesting in the article I linked....""Two OIG audits have found no problems with breaches of the firewall between the checkoff and NCBA, yet OCM and HSUS continue to press on, to the detriment of the beef industry. Bottom line: the mindset of OCM's members will not allow them to believe NCBA could possibly be operating on the up and up. Only OCM members and the organizations they collaborate with can be good guys."

Now I will slightly disagree with no issues between the firewall as I do remember reading this....

"Compliance Review of NCBA Completed



California Farmer, Jan 17, 2011



Following a third party review, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association has agreed to repay the Cattlemen's Beef Board nearly $217,000 to clear up spending discrepancies and accounting errors that occurred during fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and the first five months of fiscal 2010 .January 17, 2011



USDA, Justice Urged to Reject NCBA Ploy to Deflect Charges

of Misuse of Beef Checkoff Funds; Full Investigation Requested



Washington, D.C. – Today, R-CALF USA sent a formal request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) to request that a proposed resolution between the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) that is designed to absolve NCBA of its misuse of Beef Checkoff (Checkoff) dollars be rejected. Further, R-CALF USA requested that NCBA's contract with CBB be suspended, pending a full and complete investigation into NCBA's misuse of Checkoff money.



CBB and NCBA have apparently agreed to an arrangement in which NCBA would pay CBB $216,944 for its improprieties initially identified by Clifton Gunderson in a July 2010 compliance review. Both organizations are asking USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to approve this agreement. The compliance review covered only a sample of actual financial transactions.



"NCBA's improper expenditures of $216, 944 are intolerable, and these serious violations represent not only disrespect and disdain by NCBA for its legal obligations to the Checkoff, but also to the hundreds of thousands of independent U.S. cattle producers required to pay into the Checkoff," said R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair Joel Gill. "Many cattle producers believe USDA is subsidizing NCBA's political and policy agenda with Checkoff dollars. There are deep concerns that CBB has decided not to demand reimbursement for NCBA policy activities within its final resolution, even when all expenses were found to have been charged to the Checkoff."



In documents that support the agreement between CBB and NCBA, CBB identifies NCBA actions that violate the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (the Act), the Beef Promotion and Research Order (the Order), and the contract between NCBA and the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC). The documents reveal that NCBA used thousands of Checkoff dollars to: 1) pay legal fees to maintain NCBA; 2) pay NCBA's credit card fees; 3) pay employee's time for non-Checkoff activities; 4) pay for employees to participate in NCBA's charity golf tournament; 5) pay for spouses' travel; 6) pay for meetings, travel, and speaker costs for non-Checkoff activities; and, 7) pay for expenses incurred by NCBA's policy division, which is the non-Checkoff division that advances the organization's political and policy objectives.



"If AMS approves the joint agreement between CBB and NCBA, it would confirm concerns that subsidization is ongoing and would make it appear that NCBA's repayment of $216,944 for its misuse of Checkoff funds was actually a no-interest bearing loan to NCBA by the Checkoff for NCBA's several improper expenditures," Gill pointed out.



"NCBA has violated the trust of every U.S. cattle producer required to pay into the Checkoff by committing numerous wrongful and unlawful acts of charging the Checkoff for improper and ineligible activities, and we urge USDA and Justice to immediately suspend NCBA's eligibility to contract with CBB until a comprehensive investigation has been conducted and the findings reviewed," he emphasized.

Lazy Bar B Angus on Facebook

Very minor infractions, but they were infractions. I do hope that this is the only example of misuse. I honestly do feel so, and the OIG audits are probably accurate. Yet the ironic thing about the paragraph from the article I linked from Oklahoma is they are mad at OCM for being suspicious about misuse of funds. Yet there were minor misuse. So can you really blame them? Yet they are upset about suspicion yet NCBA just assumes that R-Calf is taking funding from HSUS for joining forces on a common cause? Sounds to me like both sides are being hypocritical in trying to defend that their group is "pure".

Like I said earlier. If you want to be a member of a lobbyist group, do it. Lets get rid of all suspicion and keep check off funding out of any lobbyist's hands. We have enough things to figure out, why bicker with each other?
 
"Lazy Bar B Angus on Facebook"

I don't know exactly what part you got from the Lazy Bar B but that's Oldtimer and he doesn't have much credibility on this site.
 

Latest posts

Top