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

SAY nr DO YOU REMBER THAT OLE WOMAN THAT CALLED HERSELF MRJ

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Welcome back, MRJ. Many times I WISHED you were here, so I'm happy getting what I wished for.

I am a supporter of the checkoff and as for more people/organizations having a say-so in how the funds are handled, all it will do is slow down the process. The few of us on this board can't agree to much, how in the world would the check-off fare any better? Action is better than no action because of too many trying to make a decision. There will always be the ones who say "we shudda done this"...sometimes they don't know the situation, but they have a big (mouth) voice.

Just my thoughts.

It took awhile, but I think we see/realize the results of the checkoff regularly. (And I don't belong to NCBA.)
 
faster horses explain to me how competition has ever slowed the process?cant believe you said that...............good luck
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
Cal said:
cal I could say the same thing about your dumb ass,she is back aint she..............good luck


HAYMAKER, anyone who thinks the beef industry would benefit by having the LMA handle the checkoff has no business calling anyone a dumba**.

cal you are hard headed or short on memory I have said this at least a dozen times but because I believe you to be slow ILL repeat it again,:I WANT TO SEE MORE THAN ONE PLAYER CONTROLLING THE CHECK OFF .I support the check off and I would support it if it was $5 a head but listen closely conpetion breeds fairness give the cattle man the option plan A controlled by the ncba or plan B controlled by the LMA..............good luck PS I believe even you can understand that???


Haymaker your the hard headed one. I'm not even from the states and I understand how your check off is controled. The CBB in each state which is made up of many cattle orgs. You can be so pig headed at times.

:cowboy:[/quote]



You can be so pig headed at times.

yes I suppose I can,but there are thousands of cattle men that must be pig headed too because we are all wanting change ,and I personally believe that the ncba should handle the check off as usual,and any body that wanted to could participate,but I also believe the ones that wanted another optition,should be able to participate in another plan . COMPETITION CREATES FAIRNESS ...............GOOD LUCK
 
Haymaker, first off, NCBA does NOT control the Beef Checkoff! Second, there IS more than one player controlling the beef checkoff! The CBB has representatives from many organizations. While I do not have the number breakdowns as to organizations represented, I don't believe NCBA members are a majority on the board. The CBB makes all the decisions as to which projects from which potential contractor will get the jobs, that is, CBB makes ALL decisions on where/how/for what the money goes. BTW, even your treasured LMA is represented on the CBB. However the desire of some of their members to spend the money for lobbying would be illegal under the checkoff law.

BTW, Haymaker, I did explore the River Walk and some other places in San Antonio. Missed that great Museum of TX Cultures this trip, but did quite a lot of touring the area between Ft. Worth and Frederiksburg and the 'scenic' route from there through the mtns. to San Antonio, then south east to Corpus Christi and Kingsville, then back along the coast and up to Houston before heading for Jackson, MS. Also spent a few hours at the stock show on Sunday before leaving SA. Saw some very impressive Brahma cattle. We had fantastic steaks at Texas Land and Cattle Co. steakhouse on the Riverwalk. Even got to be a 'good samaritan'. Two little boys, not over six and eight years of age were lost and asked for directions. I sent them into the TLC we had just walked out of to ask directions, telling them we didn't know the area well. I knew a law officer was just inside the door as he had given us directions for a short-cut to our hotel. Moments later he came up beside us with the boys in hand, telling them how dangerous it is to "just decide to go for a walk" without your parents when you are a tourist in town and of their ages. Really scary to think of them going off alone like that, as they were a long way from where they said they were supposed to be, and it was getting dark.

FH, I understand your point that having too many people making decisions is 'untidy' at best. Representative governance is the alternative to chaos. Just read the letter to ed. in Tri-State Livestock News this week contrasting the NCBA and R-CALF conventions to get the full meaning of that statement! The complex system of the two divisions of NCBA and the CBB is that way in order to gain the most representation of the most cattle producers making decisions in the most fair, yet workable manner. I know there are people who choose not to believe that because they have another agenda not well served by that system.

Re. the NCBA convention......there is a lot in the Ag media of reports of the action taken, speakers, workshops, etc. We saw/heard most of it and thought the educational stuff was tops. The meetings went smoothly. I did miss some of the discussion forums due to inability to be in two places at the same time. It seemed that people were pretty focused on studying issues and hopefully, decisions arrived at were mutually satisfactory where there was any differing opinions. That was reflected in the general session. Of course one person could not attend every committee meeting, but didn't hear of much discord, though generally there is strong discussion on at least a few issues in committee. The crowds were huge, with many standing-room only sessions and scrambling by staff to get more chairs, larger rooms, etc. to accomodate drop-in attendees. People were pretty mellow, maybe due to good prices, mild winter for most, etc. Sure did like the British born newsman who subbed for Chris Matthews. His talk was an inspiring cheering session for the values and the people of this, his adopted country.

MRJ
 
OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".

rancher, what "flip-flop"? I never saw anything like that. I saw cattle producers who have studied issues, considered consequences, and taken action they deemed best for our industry.

MRJ
 
OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".

rancher, what "flip-flop"? I never saw anything like that. I saw cattle producers who have studied issues, considered consequences, and taken action they deemed best for our industry.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
OT, I can't let you leave the impression that NCBA is the only contractor for checkoff funds, nor that they have ANY control over the funds. Surely you know better than that.

There are many other contracting organizations. Anyone can present a project to the CBB which is a totally separate organization that controls the funds, and if that board believes it worthy they can award a contract. Remember, those contracts are on a cost recovery basis only, though, and not many groups are eager to do the work on that basis.

Contrary to your opinion, OT, NCBA did not refuse to hold a referendum on the checkoff. The law does not allow a referendum without a successful petition signed by a mere ten percent of cattle producers asking for such a vote. LMA, angry after they failed in stopping an NCBA project with which they disagreed, determined, as one of their directors, Herman Schumacher stated, " we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA".


MRJ

MRJ- NCBA's continued involvement with the checkoff has left the impression that it is an NCBA project... The way the boards were set up to have certain committees and chairs and makeup dominated by NCBA members leave the impression of impropriety... And any time you are working with a Tax funded (government mandated) operation, if there is that impression than it needs to be changed to remove it- whether it is actually happening or not.....

And in my opinion the USDA would not have thrown out the checkoff revote without the heavy lobbying of NCBA....A lot of the decision was made on grey area USDA policy decisions- on who qualified as a signature vote-- does the husband, does the husband and wife each, does the husband wife and two sons if they all ranch together count as one or four.......

I am not against the checkoff- I think it has done us good...But like any outfit it needs a major overhaul once in awhile to bring it up to the times-NCBA no longer rides the only stud horse..... But this may all be a moot point as its up to the court now.......
 
MRJ,

I was in San Antonio, too. The Riverwalk was gorgeous! Too bad the weather wasn't so nice.

I am behind you 100% concerning the Beef Check-Off. There are so many things it has done! Myself as a CattleWoman (member of MCW, ANCW) put some of those funds to good use! NCBA has nothing to do with the Check-Off, the CBB does. I've spent some time each year in the Beef Council booth in a trade show and you wouldn't BELIEVE what I get accused of!!That I am getting paid for working the booth and the checkoff $$$ is paying for it!! These people don't listen because they don't want to hear the truth. I donate the day plus MY fuel to drive 1 1/2 hrs to the trade show (1 way) to work the booth. I do it because there are a few people who are misinformed but are WILLING to listen! Keep up the good work..
 
Hanta Yo said:
NCBA has nothing to do with the Check-Off, the CBB does.

But Hanta Yo, will you concede that the CBB is dominated by NCBA members and by their charter has to be? This is what gives the impression of the checkoff being the NCBA's and the air of improper actions and it being NCBA's meal ticket....

I never could get MRJ or any other member to discredit or explain the postings that were on here showing that the charter requires some CBB committees be chaired and co-chaired by NCBA members or requires 3-1 dominance of the committees be NCBA....So the other day I asked an old NCBA member-- he said that it was set up with that dominance and was set up that way with a purpose-- so that some liberal US President couldn't come along and appoint a Liberal Ag Secretary which started appointing Greenies and Peta members to the CBB and using checkoff funds--Leaves NCBA with the greatest vote and say over where the funds can be spent ---Sounds good to me-- except that this has never been made very public or clear to the people of the checkoff (which is everyone that has to pay it) either by CBB or NCBA....It may have been a good idea when it started, but you can't run a multi-million tax dollar operation from behind closed doors.....
 
"Behind closed doors"...
OT,

I get tired of R-Calfers, MCA inferring all the BAD things going on "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS". Just like our leftist media, put a little "niggle" of a thought in someone's brain and get them thinking...
I personally wouldn't want an R-Calf person as chair on CBB because our checkoff $$$ are NOT supposed to create policy, nor to SUE!!! PERIOD!Our checkoff $$$$ are to PROMOTE our PRODUCT and EDUCATE the population about our PRODUCT!!! The whole reason behind the original lawsuite against the Beef Check-Off was that Charters applied for a grant from Beef Council to promote their "own" grassfed cattle and were turned down because our Beef Check-Off $$$ aren't supposed to support any NICHE market, just BEEF. Charters got mad so here we are....
LMA has jumped into the lawsuit because they look at it as a way to bring NCBA down as NCBA supports selling on grids ie letting the cattleman have the opportunity to market his own cattle his own way and LMA thinks everything ought to go through the sale ring. That is MY opinion, take it or leave it. BTW, how do you think Pat Goggins got rich? How did Lee Pitts get rich? They own the auction markets, the newspapers, all at OUR expense. DID YOU KNOW...Goggins has in the past sent cattle up to Canada to be fed??? DID YOU KNOW Goggins has in the past purchased feed from Canada???
How is HE helping the US cattleman?? Why is the R-Calf office in PAYS, as you know Goggins owns?? Why does he own both sales yards in Billings when in his "note" in Agri News in the past has indicated him being up in arms about competition? There is no competition in these two sales yards.
Sorry, I couldn't hold back any longer. :!:
 
Hanta Yo said:
"Behind closed doors"...
OT,

I get tired of R-Calfers, MCA inferring all the BAD things going on "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS". Just like our leftist media, put a little "niggle" of a thought in someone's brain and get them thinking...
I personally wouldn't want an R-Calf person as chair on CBB because our checkoff $$$ are NOT supposed to create policy, nor to SUE!!! PERIOD!Our checkoff $$$$ are to PROMOTE our PRODUCT and EDUCATE the population about our PRODUCT!!!

Hanta Yo- I know all that about how it came about-- and about how the vote got shot down ( which would have been pro-checkoff and quieted much of the opposition)... You say you don't want R-CALF or any group thats not supposed to use checkoff $$$ to create policy-- but NCBA is a political lobbyist and even this year took a position in national elections--NCBA creates the direction and policy for CBB thru their overweighted membership on the CBB committees-- Is it right for an organization (NCBA) to gain income from tax dollars (thru contracting to run CBB) and then turn around and endorse political candidates and administration decisions, while still controlling which way the checkoff funds should be used and by who?-- getting on pretty shakey ground, no matter what your politics are... I would say the same if it was Farm Bureau or Farmers Union that had done the same or whether it was Rep. or Dem they supported..... Tax dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda--It definitely promotes an illusion of impropriety....And the checkoff is a tax- whichever way you look at it- If you can be imprisoned or fined $100,000's of dollars by the government for not paying it- it is a tax on cattle raisers.......

Like I said, I've been a supporter of the checkoff--altho I lost faith in the NCBA and the direction they began taking in the late 90's.... But because of the administration question and the fact that it appears as tho in some parts of the nation it is very randomly collected if at all, support is rapidly falling-- without a major overhaul it will be gone, if it isn't already.........
 
OK. NCBA did not spend a dollar on GW, they endorsed him. Checkoff dollars are never to be spent on anything but promotion and education. Where do you get the idea that checkoff dollars are promoting a candidate ? the money NCBA may or may not have given to GW is from the membership dues, not from the checkoff as you claim. Get a clue. Have youever applied for a grant from Beef Council or the CBB? I have been involved. The world is run by the people who show up. PERIOD. From my experience the people who are uninformed are those who oppose everything, i.e. change, R_LAFF, LMA, OCM, NPRC, WORC, are all in favor of moving back to the way things used to be with ALL cattle going through the auctions, no retained ownership, Pat Goggins is in charge, how does J and L Livestock have a dispersal every year? My grandmother thinks that Goggins is the best thing that ever happened since sliced bread. She in her 95 years has never figured out that all of his wealth came from real beef producers. The only way to capture real value from your cattle is to retain ownership. DO YOU WANT TO BE A MULTIPYER OR A PRODUCER OF BEEF? That is the real question.
 
sw said:
OK. NCBA did not spend a dollar on GW, they endorsed him. Checkoff dollars are never to be spent on anything but promotion and education. Where do you get the idea that checkoff dollars are promoting a candidate ? the money NCBA may or may not have given to GW is from the membership dues, not from the checkoff as you claim.

How much money did NCBA make in contracting with and administering the CBB and the checkoff? How much of that was actual expenses? Its hard to be reassured when the CBB audit committee is overwhelming made up of and chaired by NCBA members as part of the charter... They need to change the smell that this puts out or the checkoff will be history...

sw- I'm glad you have been happy with retained ownership- I know many others that have too... But I have also seen those that lost their rear... Saw one producer that was missing 600 head by the time they were notified that the owner had went off the deep end and deserted the feedlot... And this was a "CAB approved" long operating reputation lot...Guess who is last in line by law to recoup losses after bill holders, banks, and the government-- the cattle owner.......

Retained ownership is alright if you are in a position to monitor your cattle closely and can afford to take a hit if something drastic happens- I also am of the opinion that you shouldn't put all your ducks in the one pond... The guys I've seen that came out best sold some calves and retained some so that they had some security.........
 
OT,
the best way to take advantage of retained ownership is to sell an interest in the cattle, 1/2 works for me, more or less dependent upon the price of calves, the price of fed cattle and the futures. By selling an interest, you are not checking into a "corn motel", the feeders have a reason to try to make money instead of selling corn and yardage. They also try to sell at an advantage, they are at risk also. I was at one of Agman's seminars a few years ago and he put up numbers that showed that if you make $20 /head in the long run every year you will make more money than making $150 on the right market. Play for the long run, ag is not a get rich scheme for the short term. We all need to remember this, ranching is for the long term, this is not short term, R_CALF has forgotten the long term. WE HAVE TO GET BACK THE EXPORT MARKETS. Lest we forget, feds were trading at $116 before the BSE bull and we are now at $88 today, what has the border closure done for us, IT HAS LOST US $28 FROM MY CALCULATIONS.
 

Latest posts

Top