r-calfers, which way is it?

[Sandhusker]

SH, "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????"

"Read that as R-CALF"? Once again, you submit your opinion as fact. You are asking that people accept your interpretation of what was said instead of what actually was said. I think MOST folks on this board are intelligent enough that they don't need you to interpret simple statements for them - especially when the source of the interpretation is considered.

BTW, did you realize that Jim Hanna is a past president of NCBA affiliate Nebraska Cattlemen? I suppose he was one of the Great Blamer Purge of NCBA members to R-CALF? :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

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~

And R-CALF is the only cattle-producer outfit that has been formed after 1986? :? Geeeeeeeeze. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're a dandy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag, I had no doubts a slime ball like you would try to slither around this contradiction as well.

I suppose you are going to try to convince us that R-CALF is concerned about some other "recently formed cattle-producer organizations" being able to bid on beef checkoff contracts".

HAHAHAHA!

You are so completely pathetic.


Carry on Sandbag, I love it when you bury yourself in your own stupidity.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

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~

Where does it say rcalf, SH? Maybe they just want any cattleman's organization that represents cattlemen that is not controlled by the status quo (NCBA).

 

[Anonymous]

Yup, and just like clockwork here comes the other phony to try to suggest that R-CALF is concerned about other "recently formed cattle-producer organizations" getting to bid on those contracts rather than themselves.

Hahaha!

The phonies on this site are as predictable as the sun coming up.

CREATE THE ILLUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag, I had no doubts a slime ball like you would try to slither around this contradiction as well.

I suppose you are going to try to convince us that R-CALF is concerned about some other "recently formed cattle-producer organizations" being able to bid on beef checkoff contracts".

HAHAHAHA!

You are so completely pathetic.


Carry on Sandbag, I love it when you bury yourself in your own stupidity.



~SH~

They're just concerned that there are only a select few who are eligible for funds. What good does that serve? Somebody else might have some great ideas that could benefit us all. If the board doesn't like what a newcomer offers, they can still give everything to NCBA. Why do you refuse to see things for what they actually are instead of perpetually digging for trash?

Your only bias is truth?

 

[mrj]

Guys, if you don't know the facts, it is pretty easy to get lost in the details.

ocm, there truly are two SEPARATE divisions of NCBA. The Federation is exactly that; the national organization of State Beef Councils (formerly the National Livestock and Meat Board), and THAT is the group that contracts with the CBB.

The Policy/Dues/Membership division is the one that lobbies. And does NOT receive contracts.

It really isn't that difficult to understand that the three (CBB, Federation Div., and Policy Div.) can be housed under one roof, share employees, and STILL have separate duties and finances......though it is apparent that some people do not WANT to understand it.

While rearranging old files, I found additional information from Monte Reese, date 7-21-'04:

On the issue of Beef Board nominations, the majority of the eligible state organizations are NOT affiliates of NCBA.

For the 39 CBB seats up for appointment in early 2005, there were 172 organizations certified to nominate; ONLY 32 of which (18%) were NCBA affiliates. IF you consider the 23 state CattleWomen's groups as NCBA affiliates (which they are NOT!) that would still be ONLY 32% of the total. The organizations include state Barm bureau, Farmers Union, dairy and veal groups, and many more, including SDLMA and SDSGA both strongly supportive of, and with many members of, R-CALF. One state has 18 different organizations certified to nominate. SD has 13. Organizations certified to nominate candidates for CBB are approved upon application to USDA. R-CALF state affiliates would be eligible if they applied. Some have applied and already been approved.

NCBA membership is neither required nor even monitored for service on CBB or the Operating Committee.

Every year the Operating Committee turns down some of NCBA's funding requests.

CBB has seven other contracting organizations in addition to NCBA. LMA is eligible to submit proposals and seek a contract. The FACT that no profit may be made on the contracts, and that there are sometimes losses or refusal to re-imburse for even simple, honest mistakes, doubtless makes it less appealing to some groups to request contracts.

NCBA does not "write" the industry long-range plan. An independent group appointed jointly by CBB and NCBA (and remember: there are two parts to NCBA, and one is comprised of virtually ALL cattle organizations) officers seeks input (LMA and R-CALF can have that input opportunity, if they choose to) prepares a plan, and submits it to the CBB and NCBA for approval. NOTE: when the current, newly adopted plan was being worked on, I saw many solicitations for any cattle producer to comment and add their two cents worth to it. It was adopted during the recent NCBA convention. It is a guidline with goals for the cattle/beef industry for the next five years.

The Joint Audit Advisory Committee audits only NCBA, not CBB. CBB has its own audit committee wihich includes ONLY members of CBB. NO representatives of NCBA serve on the CBB Audit Committee. However, CBB has a representative on the NCBA Audit Coimmittee as one more safeguard against misuse of checkoff funds.

NCBA does not control CBB. USDA cannot allow that to happen. Neither would CBB.

You can check it out by emailing [email protected].

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "They're just concerned that there are only a select few who are eligible for funds."

Who? The R-CALF resolution or the R-CALF leader's opinions?

The two are obviously conflicting.

The leaders say they have no interest in contracts, the members who wrote the resolution say they should have equal opportunity at those contracts. DIRECT CONTRADICTION!

OCM stated that there was conflicting resolutions but he didn't say how many or what they were. This is obviously one of them.

To quote Rush Limbaugh, "WORDS MEAN THINGS".

Sandbag: "Somebody else might have some great ideas that could benefit us all."

What is stopping anyone from being eligible for a beef checkoff contract now besides legalities on HOW those dollars can be spent????

Sandbag: "If the board doesn't like what a newcomer offers, they can still give everything to NCBA."

NCBA doesn't get every contract. The land grant universities get many of the checkoff funded research contracts. Why don't you leave your blaming world and join the fatual world for once. Just try it.

Sandbag: "Why do you refuse to see things for what they actually are instead of perpetually digging for trash?"

I see this for exactly what it is. A direct contradiction between an R-CALF resolution and what their leaders are telling the media.


Keep dancing Sandbag!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The contradiction you talk about is from a REPORTER. R-CALF's leadership's statements mirror R-CALF's resolution.

 

[Anonymous]

Last year there were $25,759,000 in CBB budget Promotion requests---$25,475,000 were for projects requested by NCBA.......
MICA requested $234,000
ANCW were co sponsors with the NCBA on one $1,821,500 request...

Now that is what I call DOMINATION and MONOPOLY......

Source: Page 57 of The Beef Promotion Operating Commitee Conference

 

[Anonymous]

Old Timer,

Until you can provide proof of misuse of funds, you're barking up an empty tree like most of you blamers do.

Sandbag: "The contradiction you talk about is from a REPORTER. R-CALF's leadership's statements mirror R-CALF's resolution."

That's a lie!


Want to see Sandbag dance folks?

Watch this.............

Sandbag,

Does R-CALF's resolution state: "the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts"?

YES OR NO?

I'm sick of your slime ball tactics.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Old Timer,

Until you can provide proof of misuse of funds, you're barking up an empty tree like most of you blamers do.

Sandbag: "The contradiction you talk about is from a REPORTER. R-CALF's leadership's statements mirror R-CALF's resolution."

That's a lie!


Want to see Sandbag dance folks?

Watch this.............

Sandbag,

Does R-CALF's resolution state: "the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts"?

YES OR NO?

I'm sick of your slime ball tactics.


~SH~

Yes it does, but you havn't proved that R-CALF wants at the funds for themselves! That just shows that they want to pool of potential contractors enlarged! Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Yes it does, but you havn't proved that R-CALF wants at the funds for themselves!"

Oh so now you change your story again!

A minute ago you were saying,

"The contradiction you talk about is from a REPORTER. R-CALF's leadership's statements mirror R-CALF's resolution."

And now you admit that "the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts" was part of the resolution.

The two positions are conflicting. There is no way around it.

Quit being such a jerk and just admit that the two positions are conflicting instead of trying to create the "ILLUSION" that R-CALF is looking out for some other "recently formed cattle-producer organizations" other than themselves.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU HONESTLY THINK YOU ARE KIDDING WITH YOUR DECEPTION HERE SANDBAG???

This is Randy A Schneider from Cody, NE we are talking about here. Do you suddenly feel more accountable??? LOL!

Pathetic deceptive individual!


~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Sandhusker what does the A stand for?

 

[ocm]

~SH~, you have this all screwed up in your mind.

R-CALF wants checkoff reform.
They want organizations formed after 1986 to be eligible for checkoff contracts. Technically that would make R-CALF eligible.
However, R-CALF also wants any organization that lobbies NOT to be eligible for the funds, that would make R-CALF ineligible, but would leave several other eligible including some that have offered lower bids before that have been rejected.

I WAS THERE. This is the position of R-CALF. Chris Clayton got it WRONG. Jim Hanna said it succinctly. There is no contradiction in R-CALF wanting other to have a chance at funds who are now ineligible and not wanting funds themselves.

MRJ, I understand the structure of NCBA. The fact that you must continually explain it proves that it is easily misunderstood. There was a merger (Johanns said so at the NCBA convention). That means one organization. It's not about tracing the money. What R-CALF wants is total ineligibility for any organization that does lobbying to be totally ineligible (including any "separate" organization under its umbrella). Yes, that would disqualify the Federation unless it "unmerged" which I think would be a good thing.

I think what would satisfy most R-CALF people is for NCBA to become EITHER a lobbying organization or a checkoff contractor--not both--even though the two are separately operated.

~SH~, One more shot. You have eyewitness testimony from several different observers and participants. One is out of whack with the others. Which do you believe.

Answer--the one most destructive to R-CALF.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Yes it does, but you havn't proved that R-CALF wants at the funds for themselves!"

Oh so now you change your story again!

A minute ago you were saying,

"The contradiction you talk about is from a REPORTER. R-CALF's leadership's statements mirror R-CALF's resolution."

And now you admit that "the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts" was part of the resolution.

The two positions are conflicting. There is no way around it.

Quit being such a jerk and just admit that the two positions are conflicting instead of trying to create the "ILLUSION" that R-CALF is looking out for some other "recently formed cattle-producer organizations" other than themselves.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU HONESTLY THINK YOU ARE KIDDING WITH YOUR DECEPTION HERE SANDBAG???

This is Randy A Schneider from Cody, NE we are talking about here. Do you suddenly feel more accountable??? LOL!

Pathetic deceptive individual!


~SH~

You're just reading what you want to read, SH. I rest my case. You're wearing me out.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker what does the A stand for?

Amused

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "~SH~, you have this all screwed up in your mind."

Of course I do! ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

OCM: "R-CALF wants checkoff reform."

No, they don't know what they want because they cannot seperate the beef checkoff and NCBA "non packer and import blaming policy" in their conspiring minds.

OCM: "They want organizations formed after 1986 to be eligible for checkoff contracts. Technically that would make R-CALF eligible."

Excellent job making my point!

OCM: "However, R-CALF also wants any organization that lobbies NOT to be eligible for the funds, that would make R-CALF ineligible, but would leave several other eligible including some that have offered lower bids before that have been rejected."

Then why didn't they add that language to:

"the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on beef checkoff contracts"

Nowhere does it say anything about "the ability for recently formed cattle-producer organizations THAT DO NOT LOBBY" to bid on checkoff contracts".

You can't keep changing interpretations once words are written to fit what you NOW THINK they should have meant.

You guys are so pathetic with your dance routines.

OCM: "I WAS THERE."

Bully for you! That doesn't change the actual resolution wording does it???

OCM: "This is the position of R-CALF. Chris Clayton got it WRONG. Jim Hanna said it succinctly. There is no contradiction in R-CALF wanting other to have a chance at funds who are now ineligible and not wanting funds themselves."

Oh sure! change the meaning of the resolution to fit what you want it to read.

NAME ME ONE RECENTLY FORMED CATTLE PRODUCER ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT INVOLVED IN LOBBYING!

JUST ONE!

Try that on for size OCM!

OCM: "What R-CALF wants is total ineligibility for any organization that does lobbying to be totally ineligible (including any "separate" organization under its umbrella). Yes, that would disqualify the Federation unless it "unmerged" which I think would be a good thing."

WITHOUT ONE STITCH OF JUSTIFICATION BASED ON A MISUSE OF CHECKOFF FUNDS. It's all based on the same packer and import blaming conspiracies that drive LMA/OCM/R-CALF/WORC.

I can't wait to hear R-CALF try to defend this stupid position against the Act and Order that has specific parameters on how those checkoff dollars can be spent or try to come up with misuse of checkoff dollars under the existing system. It's political bullsh*t driven purely by R-CALF emotion.

OCM: "I think what would satisfy most R-CALF people is for NCBA to become EITHER a lobbying organization or a checkoff contractor--not both--even though the two are separately operated."

Nothing would satisfy them because they are blamers. They spend their time blaming someone or something for everything that they "PERCEIVE" is wrong with the industry and waste a lot of time and energy doing it when that same energy could be spent to gain more consumer dollars.

OCM: "~SH~, One more shot. You have eyewitness testimony from several different observers and participants. One is out of whack with the others. Which do you believe."

I believe the written word and the fact that you will dance around trying to point out recently formed cattle producer organization that doesn't lobby, like a circus chicken.



~SH~

 

[mrj]

~SH~, you have this all screwed up in your mind.

R-CALF wants checkoff reform.
They want organizations formed after 1986 to be eligible for checkoff contracts. Technically that would make R-CALF eligible.
However, R-CALF also wants any organization that lobbies NOT to be eligible for the funds, that would make R-CALF ineligible, but would leave several other eligible including
******************
some that have offered lower bids before that have been rejected.
******************
ocm, would you explain that? I've heard it before on here, and there never was a real explanation or corroboration of it. thanks for any clarification.

MRJ
***************

I WAS THERE. This is the position of R-CALF. Chris Clayton got it WRONG. Jim Hanna said it succinctly. There is no contradiction in R-CALF wanting other to have a chance at funds who are now ineligible and not wanting funds themselves.

MRJ, I understand the structure of NCBA. The fact that you must continually explain it proves that it is easily misunderstood.
**************
I've stated often that the structure is complex in order to be as inclusive of all types and sizes of cattle producers and organizations as possible, with as much transparency as possible to assure that honesty is easily monitored in all financial dealings. People do need to take responsibility to learn for themselves, rather than just believing every nasty rumor that is manufactured about the Beef Checkoff, CBB, and NCBA, IMO.
MRJ
*****************
There was a merger (Johanns said so at the NCBA convention). That means one organization.
***************
It's very possible that Johanns does not know the real situation there. Yes, there was merger, of sorts. The National Livestock and Meat Board, which sort of functioned as the national arm of the state Beef Councils, was "merged" out of business and the state Beef Councils became the Federation division; allied, but not "merged" in the conventional understanding of that word, with the Policy division of NCBA, and the CBB for the purpose of sharing staff and office space, and keeping a focused message and activities designed to improve profit opportunities for cattle producers.
MRJ
*****************


It's not about tracing the money. What R-CALF wants is total ineligibility for any organization that does lobbying to be totally ineligible (including any "separate" organization under its umbrella). Yes, that would disqualify the Federation unless it "unmerged" which I think would be a good thing.

I think what would satisfy most R-CALF people is for NCBA to become EITHER a lobbying organization or a checkoff contractor--not both--even though the two are separately operated.
**************
Granted you are entitled to your opinion, as is R-CALF, and everyone else. However, there are an awful lot of people in our business who are not R-CALF members who do not agree with you. If it should come to a vote of ALL cattle producers, so be it. I firmly believe that if it were not for the absolute drenching of media with "stories" of abuses of the checkoff by NCBA prior to the formation of R-CALF, this problem would not have occured and cattle producers would not have lost so much valuable time in FULLY supporting and working in the CBB and Federation division to build up beef demand and mitigate the coming downward market pressure that is inherent in the cyclical nature of the cattle business. Time lost is never recovered.
MRJ
*****************

~SH~, One more shot. You have eyewitness testimony from several different observers and participants. One is out of whack with the others. Which do you believe.

Answer--the one most destructive to R-CALF.

 

[ocm]

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?

I talked to Leo today. I brought up this story from the Record Stockman. He said it was a DTN story (I knew that Chris Clayton worked for DTN) and that DTN had already published a retraction.

I still haven't found it, nor even the original story on DTN, but it is a fact that Chris writes for DTN. Hard to search their website with google cause its subscription.

ONCE MORE. Chris Clayton got it wrong.