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.
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.