A
Anonymous
Guest
This kind of long-but a very good article that calls a spade a spade...And I'm sure when MRJ gets her new computer so she has time and access to all the information, she will want to comment on it :wink: :lol:
Today 10/20/2006 8:56:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes With Rick Fox
Rick Fox runs a cattle ranch near Hermosa, South Dakota. With the last of his three children soon leaving the nest, he’s concerned about the future of the industry and where we’ll find the next generation of ranchers. It’s a concern that led him to become involved in cattle industry issues in the mid 1990’s and he soon joined up with the likes of Leo McDonnell. The R-CALF crowd had a new and very effective convert.
Fox now serves as the president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, a group with close ties to R-CALF. With that very vocal national group, he shares some firm political beliefs about the independence – some might even say the sovereignty – of the American cattleman.
He’s four-square against NAIS, for example, calling it “biggest fiasco to hit the cattle industry,” and an issue with “too many unanswered questions.”
He’s an enthusiastic backer of Country of Origin Labeling. He once complained, “We don’t even have Country of Origin Labeling yet for American consumers, but USDA is providing it for Japanese consumers.”
And he makes no bones about his disdain for the recent work done by the Beef Checkoff Task Force. Acting as head of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, he joined with the presidents of four other state cattlemen’s associations in the Northwest to issue a stinging rebuke to the Task Force, its suggestions and the make up of its membership.
Click here to read the press release published October 13 in Cattlenetwork.com.
The statement, also signed by Patrick Becker of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota, Doug Zalesky of the Colorado Independent Cattlegrower’s Association, Lee Englehardt of the Cattle Producers of Washington, and Mike Smith of the Oregon Livestock Producers Association left no doubt about their concerns or their position on several key issues.
I thought a few minutes with Rick Fox might prove interesting to those people on either side of the issues brought forth by the Task Force.
How did you get into the cattle business?
I was raised on a strictly cow/calf and yearling cattle ranch in western South Dakota. My dad helped set me up with 25 head of first calf heifers. My wife and I have worked on different ranches in South Dakota and Wyoming and in 1983 we moved here to our ranch at Hermosa, working here at first, and then had the opportunity to buy our ranch.
What does the Fox family do for "r & r" when they’re not working the ranch?
We have three children that were very active in school sports, plays, and rodeo, so following them and watching them participate in their activities has been our "r & r.” Our youngest is now a senior in high school, so we’re wondering what our entertainment will be after he graduates.
For a long time, now, you’ve been very involved in a variety of cattle industry services most recently serving as president of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association. Why have you decided to devote so much of your time and energy to these voluntary pursuits?
I could see that being in the cattle business was not something that I could pass down to the next generation without doing something to bring some profitability back into the business. My wife worked in town, and still does part time. All I could see was that with the capital investment we were making there should be no reason, whatsoever, that our ranch should have to have "outside" money to make it return a profit.
I started going to a few South Dakota Stockgrower meetings in the mid to late 90's and could see that the people making decisions about my business was not doing an adequate job. Then the one thing that really got me involved was in 1998. I went to a meeting at the Philip, South Dakota sale barn and listened to someone named Leo McDonnell. Leo put imports of cattle and beef into a perspective that a lot of us only thought about, but would never do anything about. From then on I have done what I could do raise some issues that will hopefully return profitability for the US CATTLE industry.
Rick, in your role as president of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association, you joined with the presidents of 4 other state groups to condemn the work done by the Beef Checkoff Task Force. The five of you issued a pretty forceful statement emphasizing your collective opinion. Why did you get together on the issue and were other groups invited?
It's obvious why we came together on this particular issue, we all disagreed on what the task force agreed on. There were other issues on the table that we did agree on that were shot down.
Fall is a busy time of year for ranchers. This was an informal group that came together spontaneously. Since the press release went out, there have been calls from other state associations saying they would have liked the chance to sign on because they agree with the position the five states took. Maybe we proceeded a little too fast, what the heck, we are all ranchers and we like to get things done. I just hope the ranchers across the US realize that if we stand united we can make a difference.
The group made this statement: "None of the organizations we represent were invited to be part of the task force. The majority of the task force was comprised of affiliates and committees of NCBA and other groups closely tied to NCBA. Thus, there was no chance to seriously consider the issues so crucial to U.S. cattlemen." Bottom lining this statement is the accusation that NCBA stacked the deck and intentionally kept unfriendly voices out of the mix. What organizations were left out and what unexplored issues do the five organizations who signed the press release consider crucial?
NCBA and Farm Bureau made up the majority of this particular task force with themselves and their affiliate state organizations. It was their task force. They have every right in the world to appoint individuals or organizations that they choose. But, they shouldn’t claim to be representing the interests of all cattle producers.
I could appoint a 17 member task force that would have a predetermined outcome that would say to stop the beef check-off all together. This is not rocket science! There are many organizations within the cattle industry with differing opinions, maybe the same could be said within the beef industry organizations as well. There is a clear a distinct difference between live cattle producers and the beef industry.
Some crucial issues that should be addressed:
1) Stop advertising a generic product and start advertising USA born, raised, and processed beef. We currently give check-off dollars to the US Meat Export Federation to advertise and promote US BEEF in foreign countries. Importers can have their own check-off and the importing country can have their own Meat Export Federation. Why would we want the US cattle rancher to pay the majority for research, promotion and education and then allow importers to capitalize on our investment?
2) Separation from the NCBA and the CBB. Calling the Federation of State Beef Councils a different name does not change anything except the name. We see environmental groups changing their name all the time. As soon as people distrust their organization, the same members form another club and keep going with the same agenda. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
3) The vast majority of check-off revenue comes from LIVE CATTLE. Ranchers and feeders raising cattle (the live cattle industry) is only a part of the total beef industry. Maybe we need to change this to the "Cattle check-off". With the competitiveness and the changes facing the cattle industry, we may need to do more with environmental issues, property rights, raising and marketing cattle, and the list goes on. Over a billion dollars in 18 years could have helped a lot of ranches stay in business. The amount of ranchers that have been forced to sell out because of low cattle prices since the inception of the check-off is over 20%. Is this really a success story?
The price of beef at the retail counter does not always reflect the price of cattle. I raise cattle and I want to do what I can to improve my bottom line. When beef prices go up in the stores, the "trickle down economics" sometimes dries up like a South Dakota creek, before it gets here. Live cattle producers know their share of the retail dollar has contracted and continues to shrink. Is this a success story for the check-off?
The five of you also said, "It is no secret that independent cattle producers object to the relationship between the Federation of Beef Councils and NCBA. Cattle producers are seeking a distinct separation between the beef checkoff and NCBA." Let’s put it on the table in the same uncertain terms used in your press release. What are the reasons behind the objection to the working relationship between the Federation of Beef Councils and the NCBA and what advantages would occur in the ‘distinct separation’ you’ve called for between the checkoff and the NCBA?
The Federation of Beef Councils is made up from a super majority of NCBA members. NCBA is the majority contracting organization for check-off dollars. Some say these contracts are cost recovery basis. Then you hear things like 'implementation fees' are a part of the contract. This is basically a way for profit to be figured into a contract without calling it a profit. This is too close of a relationship with the amount of producer dollars involved with what I feel does not have enough oversight.
The CBB should be completely independent from any organization. We have allowed this to happen from the guidance of just a few individuals. More ranchers in South Dakota are becoming involved with all the different issues. Today we have roughly 4000 R-CALF members in South Dakota and probably 200-300 NCBA members in state. South Dakota has four representatives on the CBB, further broken down: R-CALF members on CBB - 0, NCBA members on CBB - 4. The check-off in South Dakota is taxation without representation. This may be straying away from the question that you posed, but it is something that people across the country should know.
Thousands of cattlemen read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
Ranchers, don't think you can't have a voice for your industry. There are some organizations out here that are made up of ranchers just like you. We fix fences, dig post holes, get kicked by calves, some of us even get bucked off. Don't be afraid to get involved. It’s a chore we have to do, just like feeding cows.
We, as independent ranchers, need to engage to make the CATTLE industry profitable for the next generation. How many young ranchers are in your area? Not many in mine and we need to change that. There are kids growing up on ranches that would love to stay, or come back, but there has to be profitability. Let’s work together on making this happen.
Today 10/20/2006 8:56:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes With Rick Fox
Rick Fox runs a cattle ranch near Hermosa, South Dakota. With the last of his three children soon leaving the nest, he’s concerned about the future of the industry and where we’ll find the next generation of ranchers. It’s a concern that led him to become involved in cattle industry issues in the mid 1990’s and he soon joined up with the likes of Leo McDonnell. The R-CALF crowd had a new and very effective convert.
Fox now serves as the president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, a group with close ties to R-CALF. With that very vocal national group, he shares some firm political beliefs about the independence – some might even say the sovereignty – of the American cattleman.
He’s four-square against NAIS, for example, calling it “biggest fiasco to hit the cattle industry,” and an issue with “too many unanswered questions.”
He’s an enthusiastic backer of Country of Origin Labeling. He once complained, “We don’t even have Country of Origin Labeling yet for American consumers, but USDA is providing it for Japanese consumers.”
And he makes no bones about his disdain for the recent work done by the Beef Checkoff Task Force. Acting as head of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, he joined with the presidents of four other state cattlemen’s associations in the Northwest to issue a stinging rebuke to the Task Force, its suggestions and the make up of its membership.
Click here to read the press release published October 13 in Cattlenetwork.com.
The statement, also signed by Patrick Becker of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota, Doug Zalesky of the Colorado Independent Cattlegrower’s Association, Lee Englehardt of the Cattle Producers of Washington, and Mike Smith of the Oregon Livestock Producers Association left no doubt about their concerns or their position on several key issues.
I thought a few minutes with Rick Fox might prove interesting to those people on either side of the issues brought forth by the Task Force.
How did you get into the cattle business?
I was raised on a strictly cow/calf and yearling cattle ranch in western South Dakota. My dad helped set me up with 25 head of first calf heifers. My wife and I have worked on different ranches in South Dakota and Wyoming and in 1983 we moved here to our ranch at Hermosa, working here at first, and then had the opportunity to buy our ranch.
What does the Fox family do for "r & r" when they’re not working the ranch?
We have three children that were very active in school sports, plays, and rodeo, so following them and watching them participate in their activities has been our "r & r.” Our youngest is now a senior in high school, so we’re wondering what our entertainment will be after he graduates.
For a long time, now, you’ve been very involved in a variety of cattle industry services most recently serving as president of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association. Why have you decided to devote so much of your time and energy to these voluntary pursuits?
I could see that being in the cattle business was not something that I could pass down to the next generation without doing something to bring some profitability back into the business. My wife worked in town, and still does part time. All I could see was that with the capital investment we were making there should be no reason, whatsoever, that our ranch should have to have "outside" money to make it return a profit.
I started going to a few South Dakota Stockgrower meetings in the mid to late 90's and could see that the people making decisions about my business was not doing an adequate job. Then the one thing that really got me involved was in 1998. I went to a meeting at the Philip, South Dakota sale barn and listened to someone named Leo McDonnell. Leo put imports of cattle and beef into a perspective that a lot of us only thought about, but would never do anything about. From then on I have done what I could do raise some issues that will hopefully return profitability for the US CATTLE industry.
Rick, in your role as president of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association, you joined with the presidents of 4 other state groups to condemn the work done by the Beef Checkoff Task Force. The five of you issued a pretty forceful statement emphasizing your collective opinion. Why did you get together on the issue and were other groups invited?
It's obvious why we came together on this particular issue, we all disagreed on what the task force agreed on. There were other issues on the table that we did agree on that were shot down.
Fall is a busy time of year for ranchers. This was an informal group that came together spontaneously. Since the press release went out, there have been calls from other state associations saying they would have liked the chance to sign on because they agree with the position the five states took. Maybe we proceeded a little too fast, what the heck, we are all ranchers and we like to get things done. I just hope the ranchers across the US realize that if we stand united we can make a difference.
The group made this statement: "None of the organizations we represent were invited to be part of the task force. The majority of the task force was comprised of affiliates and committees of NCBA and other groups closely tied to NCBA. Thus, there was no chance to seriously consider the issues so crucial to U.S. cattlemen." Bottom lining this statement is the accusation that NCBA stacked the deck and intentionally kept unfriendly voices out of the mix. What organizations were left out and what unexplored issues do the five organizations who signed the press release consider crucial?
NCBA and Farm Bureau made up the majority of this particular task force with themselves and their affiliate state organizations. It was their task force. They have every right in the world to appoint individuals or organizations that they choose. But, they shouldn’t claim to be representing the interests of all cattle producers.
I could appoint a 17 member task force that would have a predetermined outcome that would say to stop the beef check-off all together. This is not rocket science! There are many organizations within the cattle industry with differing opinions, maybe the same could be said within the beef industry organizations as well. There is a clear a distinct difference between live cattle producers and the beef industry.
Some crucial issues that should be addressed:
1) Stop advertising a generic product and start advertising USA born, raised, and processed beef. We currently give check-off dollars to the US Meat Export Federation to advertise and promote US BEEF in foreign countries. Importers can have their own check-off and the importing country can have their own Meat Export Federation. Why would we want the US cattle rancher to pay the majority for research, promotion and education and then allow importers to capitalize on our investment?
2) Separation from the NCBA and the CBB. Calling the Federation of State Beef Councils a different name does not change anything except the name. We see environmental groups changing their name all the time. As soon as people distrust their organization, the same members form another club and keep going with the same agenda. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
3) The vast majority of check-off revenue comes from LIVE CATTLE. Ranchers and feeders raising cattle (the live cattle industry) is only a part of the total beef industry. Maybe we need to change this to the "Cattle check-off". With the competitiveness and the changes facing the cattle industry, we may need to do more with environmental issues, property rights, raising and marketing cattle, and the list goes on. Over a billion dollars in 18 years could have helped a lot of ranches stay in business. The amount of ranchers that have been forced to sell out because of low cattle prices since the inception of the check-off is over 20%. Is this really a success story?
The price of beef at the retail counter does not always reflect the price of cattle. I raise cattle and I want to do what I can to improve my bottom line. When beef prices go up in the stores, the "trickle down economics" sometimes dries up like a South Dakota creek, before it gets here. Live cattle producers know their share of the retail dollar has contracted and continues to shrink. Is this a success story for the check-off?
The five of you also said, "It is no secret that independent cattle producers object to the relationship between the Federation of Beef Councils and NCBA. Cattle producers are seeking a distinct separation between the beef checkoff and NCBA." Let’s put it on the table in the same uncertain terms used in your press release. What are the reasons behind the objection to the working relationship between the Federation of Beef Councils and the NCBA and what advantages would occur in the ‘distinct separation’ you’ve called for between the checkoff and the NCBA?
The Federation of Beef Councils is made up from a super majority of NCBA members. NCBA is the majority contracting organization for check-off dollars. Some say these contracts are cost recovery basis. Then you hear things like 'implementation fees' are a part of the contract. This is basically a way for profit to be figured into a contract without calling it a profit. This is too close of a relationship with the amount of producer dollars involved with what I feel does not have enough oversight.
The CBB should be completely independent from any organization. We have allowed this to happen from the guidance of just a few individuals. More ranchers in South Dakota are becoming involved with all the different issues. Today we have roughly 4000 R-CALF members in South Dakota and probably 200-300 NCBA members in state. South Dakota has four representatives on the CBB, further broken down: R-CALF members on CBB - 0, NCBA members on CBB - 4. The check-off in South Dakota is taxation without representation. This may be straying away from the question that you posed, but it is something that people across the country should know.
Thousands of cattlemen read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
Ranchers, don't think you can't have a voice for your industry. There are some organizations out here that are made up of ranchers just like you. We fix fences, dig post holes, get kicked by calves, some of us even get bucked off. Don't be afraid to get involved. It’s a chore we have to do, just like feeding cows.
We, as independent ranchers, need to engage to make the CATTLE industry profitable for the next generation. How many young ranchers are in your area? Not many in mine and we need to change that. There are kids growing up on ranches that would love to stay, or come back, but there has to be profitability. Let’s work together on making this happen.