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

South Dakota Brand Board just stepped in it....

What on earth do the politics of R-CALF or NCBA have to do with destroying a cheap, efficient and reliable brand inspection program by turning brand inspection over to a government bureaucracy?

The Stockgrowers have done nothing illegal and there have been no charges filed despite the wild claims made by the Brand Board. If you have knowledge of something that they have done that is illegal, share it with us and I promise to see to it that law enforcement investigates your charges thoroughly.

The brand inspection program is totally separate from the Stockgrowers organization and if and when they made a profit they were free to use it like any other contractor.

In the past when there was a shortfall, the Stockgrowers made up the difference out of their treasury. I don't suppose you had a problem with that?

Do you actually believe the Brand Board can run the inspection program "cheaper and more efficiently" as Mark Kimball claims? I wish them luck with that one!!!

As I said before, I don't like either R-CALF or NCBA, but neither organization has any relevance to the brand inspection program that has operated very well in South Dakota for well over a hundred years. The purpose of brand inspection is to help prevent theft and identify cattle, not to pad the pockets of any organization.
 
Maybe you should ask Lyndell Petersen that question because he's the one who brought the matter forward when he told the press that trouble really began when SD Stockgrowers affiliated with R-CALF.

Public money has strings attached and one of those strings is accountability. Don't care one way or another how the Fox organization spends their own dues money, but brand profits are another deal. A lot of us don't want one red cent of ours - or profits generated off of us - being poured into the black hole at R-CALF where nothing is accounted for.

The brand board did the right thing. They need to get on with it.
 
Reggie said:
Maybe you should ask Lyndell Petersen that question because he's the one who brought the matter forward when he told the press that trouble really began when SD Stockgrowers affiliated with R-CALF.

Public money has strings attached and one of those strings is accountability. Don't care one way or another how the Fox organization spends their own dues money, but brand profits are another deal. A lot of us don't want one red cent of ours - or profits generated off of us - being poured into the black hole at R-CALF where nothing is accounted for.

The brand board did the right thing. They need to get on with it.
Click to expand...
Here's the quote from Lyndell's letter: "The smell in South Dakota intensified back when Governor Rounds fired four of the five Brand Board members on the strength of a so-called investigative report on brand inspection. No charges were ever filed yet the report was made public. How often have you seen an investigative report publicized before charges are filed? This action took place some time after the South Dakota Stockgrowers dropped their affiliation with the NCBA and joined the R-Calf alliance. Coincidence? You decide."

If politics were involved, it came from the governor.

I would remind you that none of the brand inspection money is public money. Its money that livestock producers pay to a contractor (the Stockgrowers or what ever entity does the inspections) for services rendered, i.e. brand inspection.

None of the brand inspection money goes to R-CALF or any other organization. The money pays the inspectors, pays their mileage, and pays the Chief Brand Inspector and his secretary to keep track of the mountain of paperwork. If there is a profit they use it as any contractor would, if there wasn't a profit they made up the shortfall themselves. Is the Brand Board going to do that? I think not.

Didn't you think it was interesting that almost immediately after Mark Kimball said that the Brand Board could do brand inspections cheaper and more efficiently he was quoted in the same article saying this: However, Kimball said he couldn't predict whether the board could lower fees or keep them level. "I would never speculate on that right now, because all of our expenses just keep going through the roof," he said. "We're looking at maybe having to raise it a bit to make it work."

Raise it a bit to make it work? After he just said the reason the Brand Board was taking the program over because they could do it "cheaper and more efficiently"? What's wrong with this picture?

I talked to the Brand Board office yesterday and they don't have enough brand inspectors hired to even take care of what producers and sale barns need now. The real train wreck will jump the tracks when fall shipping starts.

I've gotten two calls today from locals that can't find a brand inspector. The first one sells bulls and needed an inspector to inspect a replacement bull for a customer and was told they didn't have an inspector for him and didn't know how soon it would be before they could send one – and he needs an inspector NOW!

The second was from a small fourth generation butcher shop that can't find an inspector for a steer a guy brought them to butcher. They got the same story from the Brand Board. This is more efficient? I think not!

This is our livelihood the governor is playing politics with and I don't see how you could think the Brand Board is doing the right thing. Explain that to us, will you?
 
SAY SOMETHING TO BE HEARD!


This is part of a project that deals with Brand recording and Brand Inspection. The research is to find a system in South Dakota that is efficient, performs as economically as possible and fills the needs of livestock identification and theft prevention.
RESULTS FROM WEB SITE POLL - 2007
Are truck and trailer traffic checks important in livestock theft prevention?
Yes 91% No 9%
Should ownership inspection be optional West River?
Yes -8% No 91% No answer 1%
Would you favor Ownership verification at markets be combined with the SD Animal Industry Board (who handles Health Inspection) for administration?
Yes 54% No 36% No Answer 10%
When you sell directly off the ranch, do you have trouble getting a brand Inspection?
Yes 0% No 73% Sometimes 27%
Would your neighbors object if cattle sold off your pastures were not brand Inspected?
Yes 64% No 36%
Have your livestock when selling at the auction ever sold before inspection and been yarded back for inspection?
Yes 9% No 27% No Answer 64%
Approximately how many times a year do you have livestock ownership inspected?
5 or less 45% 5 to 12 27% 12 to 24 18% No Answer 10%
 
Liberty Belle, didn't you overstate the situation? The story indicated a minor glitch, which was covered and probably will be taken care of soon.

Transparency of finances, with all the money going into inspection, and better relationships between inspection and investigators may solve more problems faster, than putting it into profits and worn out traditions of the past and may serve cattle producers better than ever.

mrj
 
In 2005 the SD Brand Board contracted with a consultant to study the financial results of brand inspection. The Brand Board modeled the investigation after a committee set up by the legislature in 1984.
The first Brand Fee Audit committee was made up of the SD Secretary of Agriculture, Marvis Hogan, the State Auditor General, Maurice Christensen and Bob Gadd, Executive Director of the Brand Board. The committee was dissolved when Christensen told the Legislature the committee found no problems and had no recommendations other than dissolve the committee. The 1988 legislature did.
In 2005 the Brand Board again asked consultants to look at the audited financial statements of the Stock growers to determine if the Stock growers were operating in an efficient manner.
The consulting committee submitted four recommendations. They were:
*A trust account should be set up for the fees to be deposited into.
*There should be a cap set for the expenses of the program.
*An independent time study should be conducted annually for the Stock grower's personnel involved in the program to determine the allocation percentage for the individual salaries.
*The consultants suggested the details of the SDSGA operating expenses might be a more legitimate basis for negotiating a new inspection fee from time to time rather than the on going allocation of expenses of the contract.
The outgoing Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, told the legislature he can not accept the transfer of $600,000 and used for the Stock growers general purposes since 1985.
Gabriel said, as sponsor of the amendments in the 1984 session (HB1325) when he was in leadership of the Legislature-
"Maybe its time to go back and clean those laws up and do a better job than I did."
A private research group is asking cattlemen what they want in changes to the Brand law.
 
In 2005 the SD Brand Board contracted with a consultant to study the financial results of brand inspection. The Brand Board modeled the investigation after a committee set up by the legislature in 1984.
The first Brand Fee Audit committee was made up of the SD Secretary of Agriculture, Marvis Hogan, the State Auditor General, Maurice Christensen and Bob Gadd, Executive Director of the Brand Board. The committee was dissolved when Christensen told the Legislature the committee found no problems and had no recommendations other than dissolve the committee. The 1988 legislature did.
In 2005 the Brand Board again asked consultants to look at the audited financial statements of the Stock growers to determine if the Stock growers were operating in an efficient manner.
The consulting committee submitted four recommendations. They were:
*A trust account should be set up for the fees to be deposited into.
*There should be a cap set for the expenses of the program.
*An independent time study should be conducted annually for the Stock grower's personnel involved in the program to determine the allocation percentage for the individual salaries.
*The consultants suggested the details of the SDSGA operating expenses might be a more legitimate basis for negotiating a new inspection fee from time to time rather than the on going allocation of expenses of the contract.
The outgoing Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, told the legislature he can not accept the transfer of $600,000 and used for the Stock growers general purposes since 1985.
Gabriel said, as sponsor of the amendments in the 1984 session (HB1325) when he was in leadership of the Legislature-
"Maybe its time to go back and clean those laws up and do a better job than I did."
A private research group is asking cattlemen what they want in changes to the Brand law.
 
Someone from South Dakota needs to request from the State Vet the 2008 Cooperative Agreement with APHIS for the National Animal Identification system including the WORK PLAN under the freedom of information act.
In this agreement you might get your answer concerning the brand inspection versus NAIS.

This cooperative agreement will give you some very valuable information. If your state vet refuses cc: your state reps and your senator in Congress.
 
mrj said:
Liberty Belle, didn't you overstate the situation? The story indicated a minor glitch, which was covered and probably will be taken care of soon.

Transparency of finances, with all the money going into inspection, and better relationships between inspection and investigators may solve more problems faster, than putting it into profits and worn out traditions of the past and may serve cattle producers better than ever.

mrj
Click to expand...
No mrj, I didn't overstate the situation at all. Producers and butcher shops in my area have been dealing with the same problems. The butcher shop in Bison has always had a brand inspector living right in town they could depend on to come when they needed him. Now they can't even find an inspector and have had to send customers home because they couldn't get brand inspected. This fiasco may very well put this fourth generation business out of business.

A local breeder, SoDak Angus, had the same problem. A guy needed another bull to replace one that had gotten hurt. Same problem – not a brand inspector to be found! Now wouldn't you think that as long as the Brand Board has been planning on taking over the program, some of those geniuses would have thought through the process and got inspectors lined up ahead of time instead of expecting Larry Stearns to find them in less than three weeks?

To my knowledge, there has never been a government entity that has taken over a program and been able to run it "cheaper and more efficiently". I just can't understand what the governor is thinking. Why is he doing his level best to destroy a program that has worked pretty well for over a century? Can you tell us?

Chase Adams, from the Chasin' Ag show over KBHB Radio, posted this on another blog that brings up some good points:
I have to agree with the majority of the previous comments on this issue. The brand inspection program may not always have been perfectly run by the Stockgrowers, I have no doubt over the years there have been good managers and likely some not so good. But the fact remains that it is a producer program and specifically a West River producer program and the Stockgrowers have done an excellent job of providing the service without state funding maintaining accountability to the producers. That is something I can't see the brand board, an appointed good old boys club, keeping up. My question is are the tax payers of this state going to accept funding the inspection or are the producers going to accept an increase in the inspection fees? One of both of those will be inevitable under this scheme. Lets face it, we're not Wyoming, we don't have their tax base, our brand program must work as it has worked, not based on any other state's program simply for its own sake.
Chase Adams | Jul 3, 2008
Click to expand...
 
I have no idea what problems the governor saw, other than what has been stated by the Brand Board, ALL good, hardworking SD cattle producers determined to do what is best to assure a solid brand inspection and investigation program for cattle producers.

Personally, I regard the SD Brand Board as just that, and not as a government agency. Board members are not government employees, but businessmen serving their industry. What other government agency operates independently and on a fee for service, rather than on taxes collected from all taxpayers in the state?

mrj
 
mrj said:
I have no idea what problems the governor saw, other than what has been stated by the Brand Board, ALL good, hardworking SD cattle producers determined to do what is best to assure a solid brand inspection and investigation program for cattle producers.

Personally, I regard the SD Brand Board as just that, and not as a government agency. Board members are not government employees, but businessmen serving their industry. What other government agency operates independently and on a fee for service, rather than on taxes collected from all taxpayers in the state?

mrj
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: That makes me laugh-- Thats what the local MSGA used to say about the Montana Livestock Board in praising them- when many of the appointees were MSGA members--but then when we got a new Gov. and he put in a bunch of new appointees (all in the livestock business) that weren't MSGA members- and all of a sudden that board was considered a bunch of no good, worthless, dumb, political hack appointees by those same people... :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess its the same everywhere...All a matter of perspectives.....
 
Seems to me when the Stockgrowers were affiiated with NCB that everything was ok where they spent their profits. But when they switched to R-calf, then someone got their panties in a wad.
 
Under SDSG the brand program was being administered by an organization linked at the hip to a non-profit organization (R-CALF). Let's face it - the lion's share of R-CALF's funding comes out of SoDak. For 18 months now that organization has turned its nose up at the laws governing non profits. There is absolutely no accountability with producer money going on at R-CALF. No one there wants to come clean with income and expenses. I suspect board members are working only with the CEO generated spread sheets and not something produced by an independent accountant or at the very least by their own CPA. Guess what? People object! Rightfully so. Board member confidentiality agreements and oaths of loyalty just don't sit well with the average producer. Beyond a handful R-CALF has no credibility left because everybody knows you need an attorney of your own if you're going look crossways at Bill Bullard.

What interests me are the few who seem to delight in the less than seamless takeover of the inspection program. If they were true to their support of the brand system, it wouldn't matter who or what was managing the system and would be helping the process along. Some, like Liberty Belle, seem to be hoping that the system tanks under the brand board's administration which is a bit pathetic. To allude that the brand program can't be run without SDSG is like saying R-CALF can't survive without Bill Bullard.

And, OT, you just might get your wish about a market-driven animal id program. If the U.S. House has its way producers will have to be enrolled in NAIS to sell into the school lunch program. This would eliminate the foreign beef going into the program. Wanna debate this subject?
 
mrj said:
I have no idea what problems the governor saw, other than what has been stated by the Brand Board, ALL good, hardworking SD cattle producers determined to do what is best to assure a solid brand inspection and investigation program for cattle producers.

Personally, I regard the SD Brand Board as just that, and not as a government agency. Board members are not government employees, but businessmen serving their industry. What other government agency operates independently and on a fee for service, rather than on taxes collected from all taxpayers in the state?

mrj
Click to expand...
This Brand Board was appointed by the governor after he fired the former board members to "protect them" and the Brand Board is answerable only to Gov. Rounds. There is no legislative oversight over the board and that was fine as long as they contracted the brand inspection to a private livestock organization that understood what they were doing.

The brand inspection program worked just fine when Claude and John R. Olson were presidents of the Stockgrowers, it worked fine when your husband was the Stockgrowers president and it worked fine when Bart Blum was the president. The Stockgrowers weren't doing anything differently with the brand inspection program than they did back then and I for the life of me can't understand why the governor would try to fix a program that wasn't broken.

The more I look at this the more I'm starting to believe that this whole fiasco is political. As Lyndell said in his letter, it all seems to stem from when the Stockgrowers split with NCBA and went with R-CALF and the governor acted on some bad political advice he got from former Sec. of Ag Larry Gabriel. I have no love for either R-CALF or NCBA, I don't think the political positions of either are healthy for the livestock industry, but that has nothing to do with an effective and reliable brand inspection program.

I wouldn't care if the brand board gave the contract to any other livestock organization if that organization wanted it and was set up to handle it, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. If the South Dakota Cattlemen wanted to take over the contract, that would be great. I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it doesn't take a genius to see that turning brand inspection over to a governmental agency is just dumb.

The Brand Board IS a state agency and since they have turned brand inspection into a government program, you can be sure that this is one legislator who is going to demand some accountability from them. Heaven help them if they try to raise the inspection fees or fail to conduct an efficient, reliable, and effective brand inspection program.

Reggie – try to keep politics out of this will you? The merits of NCBA versus R-CALF or SDSGA versus SDCA have nothing to do with brand inspection. I care passionately about keeping a reliable, effective and efficient brand inspection program because our livelihood depends on it and I could care less about the politics involved in any of these organizations.
 
Reggie said:
Under SDSG the brand program was being administered by an organization linked at the hip to a non-profit organization (R-CALF). Let's face it - the lion's share of R-CALF's funding comes out of SoDak. For 18 months now that organization has turned its nose up at the laws governing non profits. There is absolutely no accountability with producer money going on at R-CALF. No one there wants to come clean with income and expenses. I suspect board members are working only with the CEO generated spread sheets and not something produced by an independent accountant or at the very least by their own CPA. Guess what? People object! Rightfully so. Board member confidentiality agreements and oaths of loyalty just don't sit well with the average producer. Beyond a handful R-CALF has no credibility left because everybody knows you need an attorney of your own if you're going look crossways at Bill Bullard.

?
Click to expand...

Reggie,
You are one big bucketful of misinformation. I hope it's not terminal.
 
WHAT DO YOU WANT
The brand board's consultants report suggests changes in the present Brand Law:
This questionnaire seeks comments on changes in the present law. The questions are suggestions by the consultant.
1. DROP HORSE INSPECTION
Yes_____ No____ No Opinion______
Comments_________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
2. CONDUCT BRAND INSPECTION AT WEST RIVER MARKETS ONLY.
Yes____ No_____ No Opinion____
Comments_________________________________________________________
3. ELIMINATE SHIPPERS PERMITS ISSUED TO TRAVEL TO DESIGNATED MARKETS OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP INSPECTION AREA.
Yes____ No____ No Opinion_____
Comments_________________________________________________________
The sole purpose of this poll is to seek opinions and relay those opinions
to the Brand Board- and- the State Legislature.
PLEASE RETURN TO;
BRAND LAW UPDATE
5705 Cleghorn Canyon Rd
Rapid City, S.D.57702
 
Cinch,

Prove it. I dare you.

Can you prove that board members weren't forced to sign confidentiality agreements?

Can you prove that board members weren't asked to sign an oath of loyalty?

Can you prove that R-CALF's books - not a CEO generated spread sheet - have been audited and can you make the general ledger and a balance sheet public?

Can you prove that R-CALF's membership list has been audited and that true membership numbers are being touted?

That's what I thought. Don't come here spewing your garbage unless you can back it up.
 
Liberty Belle,

Keep politics out of it? Then I suggest you stop bringing politics into it by rehashing Lyndell Petersen's and your own position that trouble started when SDSG associated with R-CALF. If you keep bringing it up we'll go there.

The cold hard fact is that a lot of producers don't want their brand money going into an organization that supports R-CALF. Period. And they don't want their brand money anywhere near a market owner turned R-CALF director who threatens people if they don't contribute or donate to his cause. What's the difference between an auction market owner threatening producers and the perceived packer influence at NCBA? None.

As I've said before, the hypocrisy among some of you knows no boundaries.
 
Reggie said:
Cinch,

Prove it. I dare you.

Can you prove that board members weren't forced to sign confidentiality agreements?

Can you prove that board members weren't asked to sign an oath of loyalty?

Can you prove that R-CALF's books - not a CEO generated spread sheet - have been audited and can you make the general ledger and a balance sheet public?

Can you prove that R-CALF's membership list has been audited and that true membership numbers are being touted?

That's what I thought. Don't come here spewing your garbage unless you can back it up.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that most of what you are saying is untrue. I am not making accusations about R-CALF, you are. You cannot prove your accusations. So stop spewing.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top