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

State Cattle Groups Oppose NCBA Checkoff Task Force Findings

Tommy

Well-known member
CATTLE ASSOCIATIONS’ JOINT PRESS RELEASE

October 12, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Independent Beef Association of North Dakota , Patrick Becker, President (701) 422-3396

South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Rick Fox, President (605) 255-4614

Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association, Doug Zalesky, President (970) 259-7118

Cattle Producers of Washington , Lee Engelhardt, President (509) 766-0161

Oregon Livestock Producers Association, Mike Smith, President (541) 820-4483

State Cattle Groups Oppose NCBA Beef Checkoff Task Force Findings

Cattlemen’s associations in five states announced today their joint opposition to recent findings by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s (NCBA) "Industry Wide Beef Checkoff Task Force".

The groups are the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND); South Dakota Stockgrowers Association (SDSGA); Colorado Independent Cattlegrower’s Association (CICA); Cattle Producers of Washington (CPOW); and Oregon Livestock Producers Association (OLPA).

The NCBA Task Force publicly reported its findings on September 8, 2006 in the form of four recommendations that included adopting a beef checkoff referendum model similar to that of soybean producers; possibly re-naming the Federation Division of NCBA to the Beef Checkoff Federation; making the checkoff program more inclusive by eliminating reference to the charter date of established national non-profit industry governed organizations; and increasing the mandatory beef checkoff to $2 per head.

The following comments can be attributed to the presidents of the five state cattlemen’s groups:

• While we agree that a complete review and overhaul of the current mandatory beef checkoff program is long overdue, a task force structured by the NCBA was not a credible method to accomplish this. NCBA is the majority contractor for beef checkoff funds and as such, should never have assumed the role of hosting and structuring a beef checkoff task force. Voting representation on the NCBA task force was structured to accomplish a predetermined outcome. 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.

• Opening the Beef Act and Order to the amendment process presents the cattle and beef industries with the opportunity to update a decades-old program with substantive changes that better fit the needs and desires of the industries today. This should be a thoughtful and deliberate process that is inclusive, with all cattle and beef organizations equally represented in order to present Congress with amendments that are constructed carefully and with vision. Only through a fair and transparent process will the industry arrive at the methods by which to reach these and other goals.

• Long before we ask independent cattle producers to support a 100% increase in the beef checkoff assessment fee, there are administrative issues that must be addressed. U.S. cattle producers want their checkoff program to promote U.S. beef, not a generic product that includes foreign imported product. 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. Ignoring this issue will not resolve a core problem with the program. Cattle producers want the CBB to function as an agent that contracts directly with vendors. Our organizations support removing the Federation of Beef Councils from under the auspices of NCBA.

• We vigorously oppose any increase in the beef checkoff assessment at this time. While we support the checkoff program and appreciate the program’s successes in building beef demand, we also recognize that while beef demand has grown, live cattle producers’ share of the retail beef dollar has contracted. This is a problematic signal about the true successes of the overall program. A thorough, unbiased analysis of the checkoff program’s economic effectiveness should be conducted before asking producers to double their input.

• We feel it would be premature to make any approach to Congress about amending the Beef Act until a true, honest and inclusive review of the beef checkoff program is conducted.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
• While we agree that a complete review and overhaul of the current mandatory beef checkoff program is long overdue, a task force structured by the NCBA was not a credible method to accomplish this. NCBA is the majority contractor for beef checkoff funds and as such, should never have assumed the role of hosting and structuring a beef checkoff task force. Voting representation on the NCBA task force was structured to accomplish a predetermined outcome. 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.


But...but...but...our representative are elected within our system, so our dictatorial control is legitimate. :roll: :? :wink: There should be a clear and absolute separation between NCBA and CBB...NCBA should have no more influence on the checkoff than any other legitimate cattle organization. CBB should be the center of the diversified beef industry.

Imported beef and cattle that are verified to the consumer should be exempted.

Net market share has been lost since the establishment of the checkoff!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
• While we agree that a complete review and overhaul of the current mandatory beef checkoff program is long overdue, a task force structured by the NCBA was not a credible method to accomplish this. NCBA is the majority contractor for beef checkoff funds and as such, should never have assumed the role of hosting and structuring a beef checkoff task force. Voting representation on the NCBA task force was structured to accomplish a predetermined outcome. 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.


But...but...but...our representative are elected within our system, so our dictatorial control is legitimate. :roll: :? :wink: There should be a clear and absolute separation between NCBA and CBB...NCBA should have no more influence on the checkoff than any other legitimate cattle organization. CBB should be the center of the diversified beef industry.

Imported beef and cattle that are verified to the consumer should be exempted.

Net market share has been lost since the establishment of the checkoff!

...but then you would disenfranchize MRJ and all the "work" she has done!

She could no longer salute NCBA in her Nazi like manner anymore.
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Has anyone else noticed that any time RCALF and its minions dont like something they hang the NCBA label on it and commence to whine and cry? Course I should say the same is true for the NCBA crew as well. I know as a middle of the road type person that I am sick of both sides and think that they should pack up and get out of the way and let people who will work together figure things out and get something done. The cattle industry sounds and looks more like the political scene in the US more and more every day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
Has anyone else noticed that any time RCALF and its minions dont like something they hang the NCBA label on it and commence to whine and cry? Course I should say the same is true for the NCBA crew as well. I know as a middle of the road type person that I am sick of both sides and think that they should pack up and get out of the way and let people who will work together figure things out and get something done. The cattle industry sounds and looks more like the political scene in the US more and more every day.

This thread is about NCBA's "Industry Wide Beef Checkoff Task Force". How can you not hang a NCBA label on it?
 

ocm

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
Has anyone else noticed that any time RCALF and its minions dont like something they hang the NCBA label on it and commence to whine and cry? Course I should say the same is true for the NCBA crew as well. I know as a middle of the road type person that I am sick of both sides and think that they should pack up and get out of the way and let people who will work together figure things out and get something done. The cattle industry sounds and looks more like the political scene in the US more and more every day.

NCBA has often taken credit for checkoff funded projects. If they don't want the blame, they shouldn't take the credit.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
Has anyone else noticed that any time RCALF and its minions dont like something they hang the NCBA label on it and commence to whine and cry? Course I should say the same is true for the NCBA crew as well. I know as a middle of the road type person that I am sick of both sides and think that they should pack up and get out of the way and let people who will work together figure things out and get something done. The cattle industry sounds and looks more like the political scene in the US more and more every day.

The point is that the cattlemen have different goals than the packers. What I hate to see is the NCBA taking the packer point of view almost all the time or allowing packers to get their view achieved through not doing anything about it.

Nenmrancher, if you don't like the arguments, maybe the bull session isn't for you. I've often found that to be the case for me.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Don't let 'em chase you off nenmrancher. You make some good points though it is quite easy to see that it is the R-Calf minions that tend to do most of the fault finding and complaining.

Even with the positive news of US beef once again selling out in Japan the minions (I like that term) were looking for anyway they could to criticize what had been accompished.

There those who try to make things happen in this business and then there is those who try drag everything down to the lowest denominator. Could this be the main reason they are so afraid of NAIS?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
There those who try to make things happen in this business and then there is those who try drag everything down to the lowest denominator. Could this be the main reason they are so afraid of NAIS?

Coming from a producer of a country that doesn't even want its product labeled as to the country it comes from- would rather support the Packers/retailers lying to the consumer... :roll: Why do Canadians fear US consumers knowing if the beef is imported or not? Do you want to keep it generic, because you fear Americans won't buy Canadian beef?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
There those who try to make things happen in this business and then there is those who try drag everything down to the lowest denominator. Could this be the main reason they are so afraid of NAIS?

Coming from a producer of a country that doesn't even want its product labeled as to the country it comes from... :roll: Why do Canadians fear US consumers knowing if the beef is imported or not? Do you want to keep it generic, because you fear Americans won't buy Canadian beef?

You keep crying the same old tune Oldtimer even though it's been pointed out time and time again that it is Americans taking the labels off.
Do you have a comprehension problem? We label it and your American importers take it off. That's about as simple as it can be explained!

Given all the e-coli coming out of the US I will gladly label my product Canadian.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
If the Task force had an R-calf member, a Cattlemen's member and a Stockgrower's member (talking about Montana), the task force would be so huge nothing would have been accomplished. The 4 points that were voted on were to please everyone on the task force. There were 7 R-Calf members there at the meetings, what are you guys complaining about????? One of the four points was to include those Organizations who were established post 1985, which would include R-Calf and others who don't have the opportunity to use CheckOff dollars now. The main thing, two points are going to have to go through some major hoops, esp those that have to go through Congress then voted on by the public (as I understand it). Isn't it something you R-Calfers are talking amongst yourselves in this thread. Bash me or whatever, I'm going to get some more info and post later, gotta do barn chores.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
There those who try to make things happen in this business and then there is those who try drag everything down to the lowest denominator. Could this be the main reason they are so afraid of NAIS?

Coming from a producer of a country that doesn't even want its product labeled as to the country it comes from... :roll: Why do Canadians fear US consumers knowing if the beef is imported or not? Do you want to keep it generic, because you fear Americans won't buy Canadian beef?

You keep crying the same old tune Oldtimer even though it's been pointed out time and time again that it is Americans taking the labels off.
Do you have a comprehension problem? We label it and your American importers take it off. That's about as simple as it can be explained!

Given all the e-coli coming out of the US I will gladly label my product Canadian.
I know who's doing it...BUT
Its still the Canucks backing and promoting it -- and crying and whining every time some in the US look at making these folks tell the truth....

So you support M-COOL and requiring honest labeling to the customer eh Bill?.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Independent Beef Association of North Dakota , Patrick Becker, President (701) 422-3396

South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Rick Fox, President (605) 255-4614

Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association, Doug Zalesky, President (970) 259-7118

Cattle Producers of Washington , Lee Engelhardt, President (509) 766-0161

Oregon Livestock Producers Association, Mike Smith, President (541) 820-4483

State Cattle Groups Oppose NCBA Beef Checkoff Task Force Findings
Cattlemen’s associations in five states announced today their joint opposition to recent findings by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s (NCBA) "Industry Wide Beef Checkoff Task Force".

Are all those groups rcalf groups? If so, where is NCBA's supporting cattleman's groups? They are all in "joint opposition?"
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
course this it the other thing I see happen time in and time out if you dont like someones opinion tell them to leave.

From ECON101
Nenmrancher, if you don't like the arguments, maybe the bull session isn't for you. I've often found that to be the case for me.

 

Econ101

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
course this it the other thing I see happen time in and time out if you dont like someones opinion tell them to leave.

From ECON101
Nenmrancher, if you don't like the arguments, maybe the bull session isn't for you. I've often found that to be the case for me.


Stay if you want. Just be aware of the arguing that goes on here. I don't think anyone will apologize for it in the Bull Session.

One of these days I'll have to do some ranch work for MRJ and get to know her. I happen to like roast. Who knows, she might try to slip in a little crow in the meat.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Independent Beef Association of North Dakota , Patrick Becker, President (701) 422-3396

South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Rick Fox, President (605) 255-4614

Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association, Doug Zalesky, President (970) 259-7118

Cattle Producers of Washington , Lee Engelhardt, President (509) 766-0161

Oregon Livestock Producers Association, Mike Smith, President (541) 820-4483

State Cattle Groups Oppose NCBA Beef Checkoff Task Force Findings
Cattlemen’s associations in five states announced today their joint opposition to recent findings by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s (NCBA) "Industry Wide Beef Checkoff Task Force".

Are all those groups rcalf groups? If so, where is NCBA's supporting cattleman's groups? They are all in "joint opposition?"


I don't know, but I don't think so. Jim Hanna was there representing R-Calf, if you want the list of members of the task force, I can produce them, however, I'm sure most of you already know.

There was a wide array of Ag related businesses in this task force, and the 4 recommendations, the task force thought, would make all the different Ag groups happy. Is Jim Hanna happy? Ask him. He was there. IMHO adding Associations post 1985 was fair, (R-CALF, MCA - for Montana), offers an opportunity to petition for a referendum ie: beef referendum process be revised to provide producers the opportunity to petition every five years for a referendum on continuing the CheckOff. Ten percent of beef producers signing the petition at county offices will trigger the USDA to conduct a vote within a year.

The adjustment of the checkoff rate to $2.00/hd to be split 50/50 between State Beef Councils and Beef Board would remain the same. This has to go through some major hoops before it even comes to the voters. (As I understand it-if I find different I will post - I want you to be informed correctly.)

"Enhanced understanding of the Federation of State Beef Councils" - gives priority to enhancing its identity in order to strengthen beef industry stakeholder understanding of the Federation. IMHO too many people don't understand how Beef CheckOff dollars are spent, don't want to hear the truth because they believe otherwise with ???????? to back up their beliefs.

Making the checkoff more inclusive I mentioned in a earlier post and I don't want to be redundant.

Those of you who want to fight me tooth and nail about this::::You don't want to get it, you never will get it so it's not worth my time to argue with you. I presented FACTS here, if you want me to post those who were on the task force I have no probs, and what is needed to pass these recommendations I will have coming to my email soon.

IMHO, all 4 are fair because they include the array of associations related to Agriculture. I personally may not agree with part of the recommendations, but they represent the array of Ag who were on that task force. I don't see in any way NCBA making the task force "their" agenda.


IMHO,
Hanta Yo
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Hanta Yo...There were 7 R-Calf members there at the meetings, what are you guys complaining about?????

Did all 7 of those members get to vote on anything or was it just one who got a vote?

Hanta Yo..IMHO adding Associations post 1985 was fair, (R-CALF, MCA - for Montana), offers an opportunity to petition for a referendum ie: beef referendum process be revised to provide producers the opportunity to petition every five years for a referendum on continuing the CheckOff. Ten percent of beef producers signing the petition at county offices will trigger the USDA to conduct a vote within a year.

Ten percent of beef producers signing a petition now will bring it to a vote, right? They really gave up something there!

Hanta Yo...The adjustment of the checkoff rate to $2.00/hd to be split 50/50 between State Beef Councils and Beef Board would remain the same. This has to go through some major hoops before it even comes to the voters.

Yeah it goes to congress first. They may have opened a big can of worms.

Hanta Yo..."Enhanced understanding of the Federation of State Beef Councils" - gives priority to enhancing its identity in order to strengthen beef industry stakeholder understanding of the Federation.

This was a big arguement, a lot wanted to seperate the Federation of State Beef Councils completely from the NCBA. Remove the NCBA name from it and also move it out of the same building of the NCBA.




.
 
Top