R-Calf

[mrj]

So I take it since there's no responce....R-Calf isn't taking funding from HSUS?

Having had little time to check ranchersnet lately, and using most of that time to look at the political site, I missed your challenge re. R-CALF taking or not taking HSUS funding.

First, I'm still busy, with a husband who had a horse fall with him a few days back, resulting in seven breaks in ribs on right side. Not fun! Needs help getting up and down, but improving, if slowly. And I postponed my own back surgery, so am slow at most everything I attempt till I get my repairs (now set for Nov. 23) and he recovers enough to be totally self sufficient, hopefully within a few days.

So, saving time, not checking my original post, I believe I said that the group filing lawsuits against Beef CheckOff and/or NCBA are "in bed with" HSUS because HSUS is funding that lawsuit. Whether or not any HSUS money goes directly to R-CALF and others involved with that lawsuit, it is the perception which counts: which, imo, at the least, saves R-CALF money since R-CALF does not have to come up with the cash to fund the lawsuit if HSUS is funding it.

You can beat around the bush all you want re. the projects/programs you like which the Beef Check-Off accomplishes with the projects conducted by contracts awarded by the Cattlemens' Beef Board to NCBA, yet you believe NCBA should not be allowed to get those contracts. It just doesn't make sense!

NCBA and the predecessor organizations' cattle producer members were the main motivators whose actions resulted in the Beef Check Off we have today. It stands to reason that members of that organization, as well as the other groups supporting that leadership creating the Beef Check Off, would be highly motivated to see that it continues to serve the cattle industry well. Applying for and winning contracts is a sound method of serving ALL cattle producers, not only NCBA members. That is particularly so considering those contracts cannot include ANY profit for the group fulfilling them.

I wish you could be happier with the excellence of the programs and find more worthy things about which to be concerned!

mrj

 

[Amo]

"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.

I don't know Lazy Bar B. Its something he posted from the California Farmer. I have no clue as to the political bias of the California Farmer.

So I take it since there's no responce....R-Calf isn't taking funding from HSUS?

Having had little time to check ranchersnet lately, and using most of that time to look at the political site, I missed your challenge re. R-CALF taking or not taking HSUS funding.

First, I'm still busy, with a husband who had a horse fall with him a few days back, resulting in seven breaks in ribs on right side. Not fun! Needs help getting up and down, but improving, if slowly. And I postponed my own back surgery, so am slow at most everything I attempt till I get my repairs (now set for Nov. 23) and he recovers enough to be totally self sufficient, hopefully within a few days.

So, saving time, not checking my original post, I believe I said that the group filing lawsuits against Beef CheckOff and/or NCBA are "in bed with" HSUS because HSUS is funding that lawsuit. Whether or not any HSUS money goes directly to R-CALF and others involved with that lawsuit, it is the perception which counts: which, imo, at the least, saves R-CALF money since R-CALF does not have to come up with the cash to fund the lawsuit if HSUS is funding it.

You can beat around the bush all you want re. the projects/programs you like which the Beef Check-Off accomplishes with the projects conducted by contracts awarded by the Cattlemens' Beef Board to NCBA, yet you believe NCBA should not be allowed to get those contracts. It just doesn't make sense!

NCBA and the predecessor organizations' cattle producer members were the main motivators whose actions resulted in the Beef Check Off we have today. It stands to reason that members of that organization, as well as the other groups supporting that leadership creating the Beef Check Off, would be highly motivated to see that it continues to serve the cattle industry well. Applying for and winning contracts is a sound method of serving ALL cattle producers, not only NCBA members. That is particularly so considering those contracts cannot include ANY profit for the group fulfilling them.

I wish you could be happier with the excellence of the programs and find more worthy things about which to be concerned!

mrj

Sorry to hear of your health issues mrj. I agree with your comments about perception. Thats my entire point. There are a lot of other people that aren't well pleased with the view point of NCBA. Does NCBA truly check off funding in a different pocket than lobbying money & not use promotion to "hedge" their agenda? You say they don't. Others say that they do. The perception that they project creates drama that hinders progress. We've discussed this now on several threads. Im not the only person on here that shares my view point. With your concerns about time, how much time has been spent discussing this? Not just hear, but everywhere for how many years. I hear tons and tons of old timers complain about check off funds going to NCBA. As I said if there was no lobbyist group having access to funding, there would be no reason to argue. I think it was you yourself mrj ( im not going to go back and look, its not that important) that said we need one unified voice. How better to unify, than get rid of one of the biggest political arguments in the industry. No body will ever agree on politics. Why waste time on trying? Yet I think you can unite people (or more people) on promotion & be able to generate more funding for promotion if you leave politics out. You can disagree if you will. Im sure your cowbells was a very loyal, effective, fiscally efficient group. I appreciate your & others efforts to promote. It just makes a lot more sense to me, as stated above to keep a hands off policy. In fact due to auditing Id think a lobbyist group wouldn't want to have to do extra paper work etc to keep accurate records to prove they weren't robbing peter to pay paul. Makes no sense to me at all, but thats my opinoin & we all have one...thats the problem!