So if the LMA is concerned about saving cattlemen...

[Brad S]

In a town called South Hutchinson, Kansas (very near the center of the state), an LMA member sale barn called "Central Livestock inc" issued more than 60 worthless checks to cattle sellers on Feb 15.

Anybody wanna guess the bond amount required by PSA? Don't fall down laughing, its $75,000. Why oh why doesn't our savior, the LMA (remember they want to save us from our popular checkoff) have greater requirements or better yet provide 100% bond for members? When Pratt and Salina can routinely sell more than $5 mil/day, what the hell good is a trifling $75,000 bond? And why hasn't the LMA acted to save cattlemen from evil salebarns?

If you're like me, guessing the LMA doesn't give a crap about cattlemen, at least your conclusion is consistant with the facts.

 

[Anonymous]

In a town called South Hutchinson, Kansas (very near the center of the state), an LMA member sale barn called "Central Livestock inc" issued more than 60 worthless checks to cattle sellers on Feb 15.

Anybody wanna guess the bond amount required by PSA? Don't fall down laughing, its $75,000. Why oh why doesn't our savior, the LMA (remember they want to save us from our popular checkoff) have greater requirements or better yet provide 100% bond for members? When Pratt and Salina can routinely sell more than $5 mil/day, what the hell good is a trifling $75,000 bond? And why hasn't the LMA acted to save cattlemen from evil salebarns?

If you're like me, guessing the LMA doesn't give a crap about cattlemen, at least your conclusion is consistant with the facts.

Why doesn't your State Dept of Livestock get off its fat rear and put in some of these laws if they are needed?

 

[Econ101]

In a town called South Hutchinson, Kansas (very near the center of the state), an LMA member sale barn called "Central Livestock inc" issued more than 60 worthless checks to cattle sellers on Feb 15.

Anybody wanna guess the bond amount required by PSA? Don't fall down laughing, its $75,000. Why oh why doesn't our savior, the LMA (remember they want to save us from our popular checkoff) have greater requirements or better yet provide 100% bond for members? When Pratt and Salina can routinely sell more than $5 mil/day, what the hell good is a trifling $75,000 bond? And why hasn't the LMA acted to save cattlemen from evil salebarns?

If you're like me, guessing the LMA doesn't give a crap about cattlemen, at least your conclusion is consistant with the facts.

Why doesn't your State Dept of Livestock get off its fat rear and put in some of these laws if they are needed?

That will never happen. GIPSA is trying to reinvent itself as a collection agency for the livestock industry. If they did anything that had as much common sense as increasing the bond to the buying level of the agent or check verification at the barn, they wouldn't have anything to do and couldn't get out of their real regulatory duties.

 

[Jason]

Brad don't you have an insurance fund to cover this kind of thing?

Here in Alberta 10 cents per head is taken off every animal to cover if the buyer can't pay.

Granted the situation you posted was a barn issuing bad cheques, but unless they were fraudulent the cause would be buyers not paying for the cattle they bought, resulting in a shortage of funds.

Either way I hope they get it straightened out.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Good to see you back BradS, hope your feeling better. I agree with you, the LMA is so vocal about the industry down their and saving the producer from the evil packers it is hard to believe has that they could let this slip.
The price of cattle has made most bond levels obsolete.
I know others say the government and other should have made or changed the laws but with the LMA saying they are looking out for the little guy they have dropped the ball.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess I never thought of LMA as a government regulatory agency-- with the power to enforce required bonding and insurance coverage-- in fact I don't think there is even a requirement to belong to them :???: ....

This falls under GIPSA jurisdiction for the federal enforcement- and in Montana their is a quite rigorous licensing requirement for both Sales Barns and Buyers including bonding and minimum trust account requirements....

Looks like the PSA needs to be updated and have some more teeth put in it-- and USDA and GIPSA need to enforce it...Kind of what R-CALF has been pushing for....Brad-- What has NCBA done or even said about GIPSA's failures?

You NCBA folk just give too much credit to LMA, just like you do R-CALF...We really don't ALL walk on water :wink: ....

 

[Brad S]

Jason, they didn't get me - I wouldn't trade with them. The barn owner would camoflage his trader calves in between reputation cattle - I finked him out to anyone that would listen, but you know about horses and water. I'd guess the guys that got gigged by the barn would really support the 10 cent insurance - you'd never notice the deduct, and it would be good insurance. Here the bond is supposed to protect against mischief, but in this case they're going to get about 10% recovery. The beautiful part is the barn is owned by a corporation. Remember when Ford accepted Pinto fires because it was cheaper than fixing the car, noone went to jail because of the corporate veil. I can't think of a sale barn that isn't incorporated.

BigMuddy, thanks. I'm in the frustrating part - no longer sick, but half the man I used to be. Its hard to stay positive when something simple like loading pots wears me out.

OT, certainly NCBA will respond to insufficient bond requirements before LMA, I'd just say the fact LMA has not responded to police themselves to protect producers from fraudulent sale barns pretty well clears up their angle with respect to the checkoff suits. LMA's interest in protecting cattlemen is exposed as a lie, they're exploiting a divide among cattlemen to protect their turf.

 

[Sandhusker]

Brad, how many sale barns do you know of that are pulling this kind of a deal?

 

[fedup2]

http://www.carrauction.com/apr8/

 

[Brad S]

Sandhusker, the Hutch deal is the only really criminal failure I know of. As far as the slight of hand between reputation cattle vs trader cattle, its everywhere, but I say let the buyer beware on that. At Hutch, failure has been coming for several years. The Fredericks were trading many many cattle back when every turn lost money several years ago. Rather than be honest with their banker, who would cease the enterprise, they kept lieing to he banker and losing more money.They were facing criminal prosecution for defrauding the bank, so they used the sale barn to cover he losses where they are protected by the corporate veil. The local prosecutor makes close to $100K but he is not competant to challenge or pierce the corporate veil - I guess a hundred grand don't buy much anymore

It seems I remember a scurvy deal in Missouri several years ago, but I can't recall the details. Great Bend and Kiowa have suffered honest failure that may have cost lenders but not consignors. Come to think of it, Salina is owned by the bank following foreclosure, but no consigners lost money. To be fair, Samples at Salina now, runs a square deal all arround.

 

[Econ101]

Sandhusker, the Hutch deal is the only really criminal failure I know of. As far as the slight of hand between reputation cattle vs trader cattle, its everywhere, but I say let the buyer beware on that. At Hutch, failure has been coming for several years. The Fredericks were trading many many cattle back when every turn lost money several years ago. Rather than be honest with their banker, who would cease the enterprise, they kept lieing to he banker and losing more money.They were facing criminal prosecution for defrauding the bank, so they used the sale barn to cover he losses where they are protected by the corporate veil. The local prosecutor makes close to $100K but he is not competant to challenge or pierce the corporate veil - I guess a hundred grand don't buy much anymore

It seems I remember a scurvy deal in Missouri several years ago, but I can't recall the details. Great Bend and Kiowa have suffered honest failure that may have cost lenders but not consignors. Come to think of it, Salina is owned by the bank following foreclosure, but no consigners lost money. To be fair, Samples at Salina now, runs a square deal all arround.

Brad S, don't start educating everyone on that corporate veil defense, you might get those corporate hating juries in your area too. Then MRJ's favorite line of juries just awarding because of the perception of "evil" corporations might take on in your area too!!

You are just too close to MRJ's delusional perceptions about Alabama jurists and their "bias against corporations conspiracy theory" instead of the evidence. :roll: :roll:

I think MRJ gets her bible and the NCBA handbook confused from time to time. She seems to believe the jury in Pickett did also.

 

[Brad S]

I think we all must agree that there was jury shopping in Pickett. That's only good lawyering. The issue should really be decided within 500 miles of Garden City.

I agree that MRJ is steadfast to her NCBA playbook, but you can't fault defending what you believe. We'd all be better off if we knew the Bible like MRJ knows the NCBA playbook.

 

[Econ101]

I think we all must agree that there was jury shopping in Pickett. That's only good lawyering. The issue should really be decided within 500 miles of Garden City.

I agree that MRJ is steadfast to her NCBA playbook, but you can't fault defending what you believe. We'd all be better off if we knew the Bible like MRJ knows the NCBA playbook.

To be fair, I think there was a little judge shopping there too by the defendants.

I don't hold NCBA stuff against MRJ except when she defers to NCBA over the facts or even the absence of them. I do fault her for not advocating a stronger position against GIPSA and JoAnn Waterfield when it comes to NCBA.

You could probably argue that the NCBA is 95% good. It is when the 5% control all of it and herd the unthinking flock astray that there are problems. That 5% resides mostly in Washington D.C. where they are supposed to be looking after all the member's interests, not the packers over the producers.

 

[mrj]

I think we all must agree that there was jury shopping in Pickett. That's only good lawyering. The issue should really be decided within 500 miles of Garden City.

I agree that MRJ is steadfast to her NCBA playbook, but you can't fault defending what you believe. We'd all be better off if we knew the Bible like MRJ knows the NCBA playbook.

To be fair, I think there was a little judge shopping there too by the defendants.

I don't hold NCBA stuff against MRJ except when she defers to NCBA over the facts or even the absence of them. I do fault her for not advocating a stronger position against GIPSA and JoAnn Waterfield when it comes to NCBA.

You could probably argue that the NCBA is 95% good. It is when the 5% control all of it and herd the unthinking flock astray that there are problems. That 5% resides mostly in Washington D.C. where they are supposed to be looking after all the member's interests, not the packers over the producers.

Econ, because I do not agree with you on what constitutes "the facts" does not mean that I "defer to NCBA over the facts". Quite the contrary!

Clearly, when NCBA has already stated that they support the 'new broom' and want GIPSA to FOLLOW THE LAW, they are taking a strong position as contrasted with your 'jail them all' and check the facts afterward mentality toward USDA, J. Waterfield, et. al. of an extreme position based on emotion, facts be damned!

Do you even understand an organization that is run by the members? That "5%" you refer to who "resides mostly in Washington, DC is not members, but staff, and certainly is not 1300+ people which is slightly less than 5% of our membership now.

Staff does not run NCBA, contrary to what some would like people to believe.

Obviously, you do not understand that there are MANY cattle producers who do not believe packers are evil incarnate, as you like to paint them.

But, you have succeeded in getting me to respond to you, who will not disclose your identity, claim to have had your phone tapped, and to have "insider" information.........what a waste of my time!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

I think we all must agree that there was jury shopping in Pickett. That's only good lawyering. The issue should really be decided within 500 miles of Garden City.

I agree that MRJ is steadfast to her NCBA playbook, but you can't fault defending what you believe. We'd all be better off if we knew the Bible like MRJ knows the NCBA playbook.

To be fair, I think there was a little judge shopping there too by the defendants.

I don't hold NCBA stuff against MRJ except when she defers to NCBA over the facts or even the absence of them. I do fault her for not advocating a stronger position against GIPSA and JoAnn Waterfield when it comes to NCBA.

You could probably argue that the NCBA is 95% good. It is when the 5% control all of it and herd the unthinking flock astray that there are problems. That 5% resides mostly in Washington D.C. where they are supposed to be looking after all the member's interests, not the packers over the producers.

Econ, because I do not agree with you on what constitutes "the facts" does not mean that I "defer to NCBA over the facts". Quite the contrary!

Clearly, when NCBA has already stated that they support the 'new broom' and want GIPSA to FOLLOW THE LAW, they are taking a strong position as contrasted with your 'jail them all' and check the facts afterward mentality toward USDA, J. Waterfield, et. al. of an extreme position based on emotion, facts be damned!

Do you even understand an organization that is run by the members? That "5%" you refer to who "resides mostly in Washington, DC is not members, but staff, and certainly is not 1300+ people which is slightly less than 5% of our membership now.

Staff does not run NCBA, contrary to what some would like people to believe.

Obviously, you do not understand that there are MANY cattle producers who do not believe packers are evil incarnate, as you like to paint them.

But, you have succeeded in getting me to respond to you, who will not disclose your identity, claim to have had your phone tapped, and to have "insider" information.........what a waste of my time!

MRJ

MRJ, make it .05% then.

I don't think all packers are evil incarnate---just those who break the PSA and the economic protections it gives producers. You don't even know the difference or what it takes to show it.

There have been no successful investigations into the type of activity that JoAnn Waterfield was involved in without the threat of federal action, usually something along the lines of lying to a federal officer, and the threat of jail time.

The USDA seems to have taken that possibility off the table prematurely and the NCBA has not been very vocal on that point. Guess why? They don't want vigorous enforcement of the PSA for producers against them because they really represent the packers when it comes down to packers vs. producers.

Has NCBA come out for real action that will get to the bottom of the questions being raised? If they have, will you please just post it? And please, no more cheerleading.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't it ironic that the LMA, the self proclaimed savior of the cattleman, is far more concerned about the "packer" side of the PSA than the "stockyards" side. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING! Make no mistake. Some guys eat out of their hands and think the LMA is the second coming of Christ.


Brad: "I think we all must agree that there was jury shopping in Pickett. That's only good lawyering. The issue should really be decided within 500 miles of Garden City."

Bingo!


Good to have you back again Brad. Hope things are going good for you and those youngin's are handling calves like men already. Give me a call if you ever get up this way.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

From what has been presented so far, not many producers have been hurt by Auctions going under - that is probably why there is no big alarm.

And, SH, both sides get to pick the jury. :wink:

 

[mrj]

To be fair, I think there was a little judge shopping there too by the defendants.

I don't hold NCBA stuff against MRJ except when she defers to NCBA over the facts or even the absence of them. I do fault her for not advocating a stronger position against GIPSA and JoAnn Waterfield when it comes to NCBA.

You could probably argue that the NCBA is 95% good. It is when the 5% control all of it and herd the unthinking flock astray that there are problems. That 5% resides mostly in Washington D.C. where they are supposed to be looking after all the member's interests, not the packers over the producers.

Econ, because I do not agree with you on what constitutes "the facts" does not mean that I "defer to NCBA over the facts". Quite the contrary!

Clearly, when NCBA has already stated that they support the 'new broom' and want GIPSA to FOLLOW THE LAW, they are taking a strong position as contrasted with your 'jail them all' and check the facts afterward mentality toward USDA, J. Waterfield, et. al. of an extreme position based on emotion, facts be damned!

Do you even understand an organization that is run by the members? That "5%" you refer to who "resides mostly in Washington, DC is not members, but staff, and certainly is not 1300+ people which is slightly less than 5% of our membership now.

Staff does not run NCBA, contrary to what some would like people to believe.

Obviously, you do not understand that there are MANY cattle producers who do not believe packers are evil incarnate, as you like to paint them.

But, you have succeeded in getting me to respond to you, who will not disclose your identity, claim to have had your phone tapped, and to have "insider" information.........what a waste of my time!

MRJ

MRJ, make it .05% then.

I don't think all packers are evil incarnate---just those who break the PSA and the economic protections it gives producers. You don't even know the difference or what it takes to show it.

There have been no successful investigations into the type of activity that JoAnn Waterfield was involved in without the threat of federal action, usually something along the lines of lying to a federal officer, and the threat of jail time.

The USDA seems to have taken that possibility off the table prematurely and the NCBA has not been very vocal on that point. Guess why? They don't want vigorous enforcement of the PSA for producers against them because they really represent the packers when it comes down to packers vs. producers.

Has NCBA come out for real action that will get to the bottom of the questions being raised? If they have, will you please just post it? And please, no more cheerleading.

No, if .05% were accurate for the number in W. DC, it still is the 63+% of the membership that are cow/calf producers, plus the 37+% that are feeders who control NCBA. The staff WORK FOR those members.

Who gave you a crystal ball, or mind reading capabilities that you claim NCBA "don't want vigorous enforcement of the PSA" and your claim that "they really represent the packers...." is ludicrous in the extreme!

That is not "cheerleading".....it is FACT. Sorry that you cannot accept facts. You just might be able to post more honestly if you only could recognize the difference between facts and your fantasies.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, because I do not agree with you on what constitutes "the facts" does not mean that I "defer to NCBA over the facts". Quite the contrary!

Clearly, when NCBA has already stated that they support the 'new broom' and want GIPSA to FOLLOW THE LAW, they are taking a strong position as contrasted with your 'jail them all' and check the facts afterward mentality toward USDA, J. Waterfield, et. al. of an extreme position based on emotion, facts be damned!

Do you even understand an organization that is run by the members? That "5%" you refer to who "resides mostly in Washington, DC is not members, but staff, and certainly is not 1300+ people which is slightly less than 5% of our membership now.

Staff does not run NCBA, contrary to what some would like people to believe.

Obviously, you do not understand that there are MANY cattle producers who do not believe packers are evil incarnate, as you like to paint them.

But, you have succeeded in getting me to respond to you, who will not disclose your identity, claim to have had your phone tapped, and to have "insider" information.........what a waste of my time!

MRJ

MRJ, make it .05% then.

I don't think all packers are evil incarnate---just those who break the PSA and the economic protections it gives producers. You don't even know the difference or what it takes to show it.

There have been no successful investigations into the type of activity that JoAnn Waterfield was involved in without the threat of federal action, usually something along the lines of lying to a federal officer, and the threat of jail time.

The USDA seems to have taken that possibility off the table prematurely and the NCBA has not been very vocal on that point. Guess why? They don't want vigorous enforcement of the PSA for producers against them because they really represent the packers when it comes down to packers vs. producers.

Has NCBA come out for real action that will get to the bottom of the questions being raised? If they have, will you please just post it? And please, no more cheerleading.

No, if .05% were accurate for the number in W. DC, it still is the 63+% of the membership that are cow/calf producers, plus the 37+% that are feeders who control NCBA. The staff WORK FOR those members.

Who gave you a crystal ball, or mind reading capabilities that you claim NCBA "don't want vigorous enforcement of the PSA" and your claim that "they really represent the packers...." is ludicrous in the extreme!

That is not "cheerleading".....it is FACT. Sorry that you cannot accept facts. You just might be able to post more honestly if you only could recognize the difference between facts and your fantasies.

MRJ

Where is their call and push for finding out how the system was so broken as to allow one person, JoAnn Waterfield, to have such an effect on a govt. bureaucracy? If you don't look for the problems, you will not find the solutions.

It seems the NCBA is not asking for this very hard. Oh, yes, they will go and have Capital Concerns, but making sure the regulatory authority that oversees the industry is working efficiently and professionally is not one of them.

Post the outcry from the NCBA on this issue and not just the little wimpers to be used in arguements, MRJ.