• 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-calfers, which way is it?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
quote="Oldtimer"]January 30, 2006



“We recognize the importance of beef promotion and look forward to working with the CBB to create an even stronger program,” Hanna continued. “We need to move away from finding things we can

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.



Now today I get this in the RECORD STOCKMAN: Which way is it?
scan0001.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sw- The way I read the proposal was that R-CALF is not looking at being the PRIMARY contractor like NCBA now is--In fact they believe no group that lobbys for a certain political direction in the cattle and beef industry should be the primary contracter- including NCBA....
BUT
They do believe they and some of the other cattle organizations that are now prohibited from bidding on Beef Board projects because of the clause in the checkoff that all bidder organizations have to have been established prior to 1987 should be allowed to....

As it is now, there are only about 3 organizations that qualify for and bid on the project bids and NCBA gets 90% of them....

The law needs to be brought up to date....
 

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
OT,
As the law reads, none of the money is to be used for political lobbying. It is to be used for beef promotion and research. All I want to know is do they want checkoff dollars or not? If they do then they have to stop making everything political and start promoting beef and being involved in research. MCA has 2 seats on the Montana Beef Council at this time. They are now finding out how the checkoff works and it will really be something to see them at the Beef council booth during the MATE show to see if they are going to promote beef or RCALF
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sw said:
OT,
As the law reads, none of the money is to be used for political lobbying. It is to be used for beef promotion and research. All I want to know is do they want checkoff dollars or not? If they do then they have to stop making everything political and start promoting beef and being involved in research. MCA has 2 seats on the Montana Beef Council at this time. They are now finding out how the checkoff works and it will really be something to see them at the Beef council booth during the MATE show to see if they are going to promote beef or RCALF

Thats exactly one of the things the total proposal said--- It called for R-CALF members to become more involved with the Beef Councils...

The Checkoff and CBB is a big boy now--they should be allowed to go out on their own- into their own offices and not be tied to any organization that leads a policy direction on cattle or beef or in the case of NCBA actively lobbys for and donates to political candidates- neither R-CALF or NCBA should have to hold their hand anymore.....They should be a lone nonpolitical entity.......

NCBA currently uses the checkoff and checkoff dollars as an advertising tool- many times crediting checkoff funded projects to the NCBA and often putting the NCBA logo on checkoff funded material...When I spoke with Monte Reese a few months ago he admitted this was a major concern of his- but it sounded like with the current NCBA checkoff domination his hands were partially tied...I expressed my concern to him that I believe if anything causes the checkoff to lose a court challenge it will be the tying of the NCBA name to the checkoff- especially because of NCBA's lobbying and political involvement..This is forcing checkoff payers to pay (taxing) to support a policy or political view which may be contrary to theirs...(And don't give me MRJ's not being federation or political committee or sub sub committee or whatever--Its all being done under the NCBA name)....

One of the major problems I've seen between R-CALF, LMA, OCM etc and the checkoff is that they knew they could not be actively involved...This 1987 date prohibited any from actively participating or using any checkoff funds for CBB approved projects....These checkoff dollars should be available to and used by all cattle and beef organizations to promote beef...These groups should be able to propose projects to the beef board for approval and contract to carry them out.....Yes - R-CALF should have access to CBB approved checkoff funding....


Like I said- times, views, and the direction of cattle producers are changing- and these cattle producers that are paying the bill expect the Checkoff to change with it......
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Oldtimer said:
sw said:
OT,
As the law reads, none of the money is to be used for political lobbying. It is to be used for beef promotion and research. All I want to know is do they want checkoff dollars or not? If they do then they have to stop making everything political and start promoting beef and being involved in research. MCA has 2 seats on the Montana Beef Council at this time. They are now finding out how the checkoff works and it will really be something to see them at the Beef council booth during the MATE show to see if they are going to promote beef or RCALF

Thats exactly one of the things the total proposal said--- It called for R-CALF members to become more involved with the Beef Councils...

The Checkoff and CBB is a big boy now--they should be allowed to go out on their own- into their own offices and not be tied to any organization that leads a policy direction on cattle or beef or in the case of NCBA actively lobbys for and donates to political candidates- neither R-CALF or NCBA should have to hold their hand anymore.....They should be a lone nonpolitical entity.......

NCBA currently uses the checkoff and checkoff dollars as an advertising tool- many times crediting checkoff funded projects to the NCBA and often putting the NCBA logo on checkoff funded material...When I spoke with Monte Reese a few months ago he admitted this was a major concern of his- but it sounded like with the current NCBA checkoff domination his hands were partially tied...I expressed my concern to him that I believe if anything causes the checkoff to lose a court challenge it will be the tying of the NCBA name to the checkoff- especially because of NCBA's lobbying and political involvement..This is forcing checkoff payers to pay (taxing) to support a policy or political view which may be contrary to theirs...(And don't give me MRJ's not being federation or political committee or sub sub committee or whatever--Its all being done under the NCBA name)....

One of the major problems I've seen between R-CALF, LMA, OCM etc and the checkoff is that they knew they could not be actively involved...This 1987 date prohibited any from actively participating or using any checkoff funds for CBB approved projects....These checkoff dollars should be available to and used by all cattle and beef organizations to promote beef...These groups should be able to propose projects to the beef board for approval and contract to carry them out.....Yes - R-CALF should have access to CBB approved checkoff funding....


Like I said- times, views, and the direction of cattle producers are changing- and these cattle producers that are paying the bill expect the Checkoff to change with it......

Oldtimer bring us some of the specifics and we will discuss the misuse of funds!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not quit runing off at the mouth about it. The rumor mongering does not go over good with most folks and does nothing to promote anyones cause.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mwj said:
Oldtimer said:
sw said:
OT,
As the law reads, none of the money is to be used for political lobbying. It is to be used for beef promotion and research. All I want to know is do they want checkoff dollars or not? If they do then they have to stop making everything political and start promoting beef and being involved in research. MCA has 2 seats on the Montana Beef Council at this time. They are now finding out how the checkoff works and it will really be something to see them at the Beef council booth during the MATE show to see if they are going to promote beef or RCALF

Thats exactly one of the things the total proposal said--- It called for R-CALF members to become more involved with the Beef Councils...

The Checkoff and CBB is a big boy now--they should be allowed to go out on their own- into their own offices and not be tied to any organization that leads a policy direction on cattle or beef or in the case of NCBA actively lobbys for and donates to political candidates- neither R-CALF or NCBA should have to hold their hand anymore.....They should be a lone nonpolitical entity.......

NCBA currently uses the checkoff and checkoff dollars as an advertising tool- many times crediting checkoff funded projects to the NCBA and often putting the NCBA logo on checkoff funded material...When I spoke with Monte Reese a few months ago he admitted this was a major concern of his- but it sounded like with the current NCBA checkoff domination his hands were partially tied...I expressed my concern to him that I believe if anything causes the checkoff to lose a court challenge it will be the tying of the NCBA name to the checkoff- especially because of NCBA's lobbying and political involvement..This is forcing checkoff payers to pay (taxing) to support a policy or political view which may be contrary to theirs...(And don't give me MRJ's not being federation or political committee or sub sub committee or whatever--Its all being done under the NCBA name)....

One of the major problems I've seen between R-CALF, LMA, OCM etc and the checkoff is that they knew they could not be actively involved...This 1987 date prohibited any from actively participating or using any checkoff funds for CBB approved projects....These checkoff dollars should be available to and used by all cattle and beef organizations to promote beef...These groups should be able to propose projects to the beef board for approval and contract to carry them out.....Yes - R-CALF should have access to CBB approved checkoff funding....


Like I said- times, views, and the direction of cattle producers are changing- and these cattle producers that are paying the bill expect the Checkoff to change with it......

Oldtimer bring us some of the specifics and we will discuss the misuse of funds!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not quit runing off at the mouth about it. The rumor mongering does not go over good with most folks and does nothing to promote anyones cause.

Been pages of specifics layed out on here over the last couple years...Go back and research...Or better yet call Monte Reese up- he can tell you....
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
sw said:
quote="Oldtimer"]January 30, 2006



“We recognize the importance of beef promotion and look forward to working with the CBB to create an even stronger program,” Hanna continued. “We need to move away from finding things we can

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.



Now today I get this in the RECORD STOCKMAN: Which way is it?
scan0001.jpg

There is not anything in the article itself that spports the headline.

I was at the convention. I heard the discussion. Oldtimer has it almost right. What Kiker said was the consensus of everyone I talked to. R-CALF has no interest in being ANY kind of contractor.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a correction in the next Record Stockman.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
ocm-

where the hell did you come up with answer?? I think you better re-read it. The first few sentances support the headline. Your definately an R-calfer couldnt tell the truth if you tried. You and the rest of them belong in a tiny group of "special people" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



sw..
good job on posting this headline it sure shows how the r-calfers can divert and walk around the truth.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Gentlemen, I'd like to point out that the question, "Which way is it" implies R-CALF is contradicting themselves. However, the evidence presented includes quotes from R -CALF officers and the words of a reporter - two different people. What is being presented is not a contradiction of one entity but rather conflicting statements by two different and seperate entities - and one is simply a reporter.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Manitoba_Rancher said:
ocm-

where the hell did you come up with answer?? I think you better re-read it. The first few sentances support the headline. Your definately an R-calfer couldnt tell the truth if you tried. You and the rest of them belong in a tiny group of "special people" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



sw..
good job on posting this headline it sure shows how the r-calfers can divert and walk around the truth.....

Sorry I missed that first sentence.

This is an inaccurate story. I was at the convention.

I know several directors and director candidate. They emphatically do NOT want R-CALF to recieve checkoff funds.


THE HEADLINE IS WRONG. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS WRONG.

The consistent opinion is that NO organization that lobbies should receive funds from the checkoff---even if the funds are kept separate.

Let me say it again. I predict you will see a retraction in the Record Stockman!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks OCM- You were there so know the reasoning behind the policy...

Personally I also don't believe any group should be running the Checkoff and CBB...They should stand alone...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM,

If R-CALF has no interest in contracting with the checkoff, then why the concern with NCBA receiving 90% of the contracts???

One of R-CALF's positions was that checkoff contracts should be made available to organizations other than the NCBA but on the other hand, they say they do not want to contract.

TYPICAL POLITICAL DOUBLE TALK!

None of them including NCBA basher OT can bring a case of misuse of checkoff funds. They just want something to bitch about because that's what blamers do best.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
OCM,

If R-CALF has no interest in contracting with the checkoff, then why the concern with NCBA receiving 90% of the contracts???

One of R-CALF's positions was that checkoff contracts should be made available to organizations other than the NCBA but on the other hand, they say they do not want to contract.

TYPICAL POLITICAL DOUBLE TALK!

None of them including NCBA basher OT can bring a case of misuse of checkoff funds. They just want something to bitch about because that's what blamers do best.


~SH~

Typical double talk? :lol: I'd say it is more a case of typical poor reading comprehension on your part. Try again, SH - ask someone for help.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
OCM,

If R-CALF has no interest in contracting with the checkoff, then why the concern with NCBA receiving 90% of the contracts???

One of R-CALF's positions was that checkoff contracts should be made available to organizations other than the NCBA but on the other hand, they say they do not want to contract.

TYPICAL POLITICAL DOUBLE TALK!

None of them including NCBA basher OT can bring a case of misuse of checkoff funds. They just want something to bitch about because that's what blamers do best.


~SH~

I am not in Rcalf, SH, and I don't know any more about this issue than what is posted but even I got the message. What is wrong with your reading comprension?

Here is what OCM posted:

The consistent opinion is that NO organization that lobbies should receive funds from the checkoff---even if the funds are kept separate.

Can you not read?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
OCM,

If R-CALF has no interest in contracting with the checkoff, then why the concern with NCBA receiving 90% of the contracts???

One of R-CALF's positions was that checkoff contracts should be made available to organizations other than the NCBA but on the other hand, they say they do not want to contract.

TYPICAL POLITICAL DOUBLE TALK!

None of them including NCBA basher OT can bring a case of misuse of checkoff funds. They just want something to bitch about because that's what blamers do best.


~SH~

I am not in Rcalf, SH, and I don't know any more about this issue than what is posted but even I got the message. What is wrong with your reading comprension?

Here is what OCM posted:

The consistent opinion is that NO organization that lobbies should receive funds from the checkoff---even if the funds are kept separate.

Can you not read?
How many head of cattle do you own Econ?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
OCM,

If R-CALF has no interest in contracting with the checkoff, then why the concern with NCBA receiving 90% of the contracts???

One of R-CALF's positions was that checkoff contracts should be made available to organizations other than the NCBA but on the other hand, they say they do not want to contract.

TYPICAL POLITICAL DOUBLE TALK!

None of them including NCBA basher OT can bring a case of misuse of checkoff funds. They just want something to bitch about because that's what blamers do best.


~SH~

I am not in Rcalf, SH, and I don't know any more about this issue than what is posted but even I got the message. What is wrong with your reading comprension?

Here is what OCM posted:

The consistent opinion is that NO organization that lobbies should receive funds from the checkoff---even if the funds are kept separate.

Can you not read?
How many head of cattle do you own Econ?

Would you like to start your own thread, Bill?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
I am not in Rcalf, SH, and I don't know any more about this issue than what is posted but even I got the message. What is wrong with your reading comprension?

Here is what OCM posted:



Can you not read?
How many head of cattle do you own Econ?

Would you like to start your own thread, Bill?
Nope. Just asking a question you avoided before http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7355&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Can you not read?"


I can read just fine CONman!


Quote from Tri-State Livestock News: "Members will vote on the proposed resolutions during this year's mail-in ballot, and the proposals contain three major themes:

To encourage R-CALF USA affiliate organizations and their members to become active in the process used to select members of the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and state councils, and to encourage those individuals to actively seek positions at both levels.

To make appropriate changes to the Beef Promotion Act and Order that would allow beef checkoff dollars collected from U.S. cattle producers to be used to promote products derived from cattle that are exclusively born, raised, and processed in the United States.

To establish a referendum process that could affect changes to the Act and Order including: the initiation of a required periodic referendum; the assurance that all national cattle organizations have adequate representation on the CBB and are able to participate in approved projects; the ability to promote branded beef products; the ability for a larger portion of funds to be used on "in-state" projects; the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts.

Now contrast that with Jim Hanna, R-CALF USA Beef Checkoff Committee chair stating, "I want to stress that none of these ideas advocate for R-CALF to receive checkoff dollars".

Or contrast that with Chuck Kiker, R-CALF USA President stating, "And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the checkoff, we do want our members who pay checkoff dollars to feel like they're engaged and have a vested interest in the checkoff process".

WHY WOULD THEY WANT RECENTLY FORMED CATTLE-PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS (READ THAT AS R-CALF) TO BID ON BEEF CHECKOFF CONTRACTS IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO CONTRACT WITH THE CHECKOFF OR WANT TO RECEIVE CHECKOFF DOLLARS????

A DIRECT 100% CONTRADICTION!!!


Like I said before, R-CALF's success depends on nobody reminding them of what they said yesterday. Right here, in front of your very eyes, you can see their Beef Checkoff Committee Chair and New President contradicting what the organization proposed in their resolutions at their recent meeting.

I suppose Kiker and Hanna's "OPINIONS" are policy until the resolution has been voted on huh? LOL! This is so typical of R-CALF!


sw, don't back off an inch. There is definitely a contradiction here. There is no need for any retraction OCM, the contradiction came from R-CALF themselves, not from the article.

You R-CALFers are so pathetic in your inability to admit to your contradictions.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CALF position ACCORDING TO OCM today: "The consistent opinion is that NO organization that lobbies should receive funds from the checkoff---even if the funds are kept separate."

R-CALF position yesterday: "the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts."

Will the real R-CALF please step forward?


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top