-stop-NCBA-

[HAY MAKER]

You are factually challenged, here, OT. Possibly it is your blinding bias against NCBA affecting your viison.

With as many ways as the OCM/LMA/R-CALF/NFU cabal has tried over the past several years in misguided attempts to damage NCBA by ending the beef checkoff, does ANYONE honestly believe that IF there had been illegal activities by NCBA it would NOT have been found and prosecuted???

mrj

I have $305,365 reasons to believe other wise, seriously how many believe the fund does'nt need watching closer ?
good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

The Beef Board is in fact a stand alone board, governed independently of NCBA. The checkoff dollars are not collected by NCBA. Another organization, Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) collects and disperses the monies. The state councils get fifty cents of each dollar to operate within the state collected; they may invest a portion of their fifty cents in national programs if desired. The Operating Committee of CBB decides how the monies are dispersed. The committee members are all producers and may be nominated by any of 245 different farm organizations. Contractors can only be reimbursed for the work they actually do and cannot make a profit from a checkoff contract. Dozens of organizations are eligible to apply for checkoff dollars. No contractor may be reimbursed for expenses above and beyond actual costs. The NCBA does submit the bulk of these requests asking to be reimbursed for the work they have done to promote the beef industry, so indeed they do receive the bulk of the remaining dollars. Perhaps there is a relationship between who receives the bulk of the dollars and who is doing the bulk of the work. There are, however, many folks who do not want to be confused by the facts, and the fact is the NCBA is only a contractor and in no way is a manager of the Beef Board.

The NCBA has two distinct divisions. The divisions are The Policy Division and the Federation of State Beef Councils. The Federation of State Beef Councils receives checkoff dollars. They coordinate with the state councils and contract with the state Beef Boards to implement and conduct checkoff programs to use checkoff dollars for their intended purpose. Absolutely NO checkoff dollars are used by the Policy Division of NCBA. This system works to channel half of our checkoff dollars from states with high numbers of cattle (checkoff dollars) and fewer numbers of consumers to impact states that have fewer cattle and more people. About a fourth of the national population lives in the Northeast, and our advertising dollar is quite effective up there. After all, let's not preach to the choir. Cattlemen already love to eat beef. Urban America needs to be informed of the value of beef in their diets. These are facts.

What are you basing these statements on ? Your gut feeling or verifiable facts.
And how do you really verify these so called facts without an independent investigation ?
I could tell you every NCBA member sitting on the executive board is a democrat and say it's a fact............. , funny thing about this stuff called facts, it always seems to follow $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
good luck

 

[VB RANCH]

sure can get sidetracked can't we
no wonder the bunny huggers
are this close to running the world
did any of you see how many slimey
lawyers they have at there hand
people ain't hungry and this kinda crap
will work

 

[HAY MAKER]

sure can get sidetracked can't we
no wonder the bunny huggers
are this close to running the world
did any of you see how many slimey
lawyers they have at there hand
people ain't hungry and this kinda crap
will work

Yes we sure can I always get a chuckle when someone starts with the "Fact"
Theory.
Which I have one to share with you "bunny hungers"ain't running nothin round here, now that is my fact for today.
Gettin back to seriousness, it really is hard to decide which side of the fence to be on in this issue, seems like everyone has a fact that feathers his own nest.
Good luck

 

[Shortgrass]

The Beef Board is in fact a stand alone board, governed independently of NCBA. The checkoff dollars are not collected by NCBA. Another organization, Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) collects and disperses the monies. The state councils get fifty cents of each dollar to operate within the state collected; they may invest a portion of their fifty cents in national programs if desired. The Operating Committee of CBB decides how the monies are dispersed. The committee members are all producers and may be nominated by any of 245 different farm organizations. Contractors can only be reimbursed for the work they actually do and cannot make a profit from a checkoff contract. Dozens of organizations are eligible to apply for checkoff dollars. No contractor may be reimbursed for expenses above and beyond actual costs. The NCBA does submit the bulk of these requests asking to be reimbursed for the work they have done to promote the beef industry, so indeed they do receive the bulk of the remaining dollars. Perhaps there is a relationship between who receives the bulk of the dollars and who is doing the bulk of the work. There are, however, many folks who do not want to be confused by the facts, and the fact is the NCBA is only a contractor and in no way is a manager of the Beef Board.

The NCBA has two distinct divisions. The divisions are The Policy Division and the Federation of State Beef Councils. The Federation of State Beef Councils receives checkoff dollars. They coordinate with the state councils and contract with the state Beef Boards to implement and conduct checkoff programs to use checkoff dollars for their intended purpose. Absolutely NO checkoff dollars are used by the Policy Division of NCBA. This system works to channel half of our checkoff dollars from states with high numbers of cattle (checkoff dollars) and fewer numbers of consumers to impact states that have fewer cattle and more people. About a fourth of the national population lives in the Northeast, and our advertising dollar is quite effective up there. After all, let's not preach to the choir. Cattlemen already love to eat beef. Urban America needs to be informed of the value of beef in their diets. These are facts.

What are you basing these statements on ? Your gut feeling or verifiable facts.
And how do you really verify these so called facts without an independent investigation ?
I could tell you every NCBA member sitting on the executive board is a democrat and say it's a fact............. , funny thing about this stuff called facts, it always seems to follow $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
good luck

http://www.beefboard.org/about/whoweare.asp

This tells a bit about the beef board. I am personally acquainted with some employees of the Beef Board, as well as NCBA, and these statements are factual.

 

[Shortgrass]

Ag in the Classroom. A program that teaches urban teachers how beef arrives at the table. The ranch, feedlot, packing proceedures. They enable teachers to teach our youth how humane and safe beef production is. Shall we put a stop to this?

Culinary events teaching about heart health and beef. Maybe we should put a stop to this?

WWW.BeefitsWhatsForDinner.com provides beef recipes on line for working mothers. Best put a halt to this.

Farmers and ranchers went to LA for discussions with entertainment gurus, chefs, large resturant operators, journalists for the facts on food production. A proactive approach food safety and environmental concerns by the beef industry.

Development of new beef cuts?

These are things NCBA supports. Lets put a stop to it???

 

[HAY MAKER]

I think it's obvious that there is some good in these Programs, I also think its good we have another group watching them, kinda like our 2 party system.
I'm like the majority I really don't know how much truth in some of these "Facts" that get around, but I do remember the day when all you heard was what the NCBA wanted you to hear, that's changed and that's a good change.
Thanks for your perspective..............good luck

 

[Soapweed]

Personally, I think the thread needs to stay right here. It is of definite interest to all ranchers. The OCM is trying to stab the whole ranching industry in the back, and they are doing it with the help of HSUS. Ranchers need to be made aware of this fact.

.

Soap, provide some detail about your stance on the OCM, when you get a minute.
Good luck

HAY MAKER, animal agriculture has no worse an ememy than HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). They are a Liberal organization whose sole purpose is to eliminate the eating of any animals. They are con artists who filch much money from well-meaning donators, who have no concept of where the money actually goes. For OCM (Organization of Competitive Markets) to crawl in bed with HSUS to accomplish their goals is lower than low. Birds of a feather flock together. You can tell much about a person, or an organization, by the friends they keep.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Personally, I think the thread needs to stay right here. It is of definite interest to all ranchers. The OCM is trying to stab the whole ranching industry in the back, and they are doing it with the help of HSUS. Ranchers need to be made aware of this fact.

.

Soap, provide some detail about your stance on the OCM, when you get a minute.
Good luck

HAY MAKER, animal agriculture has no worse an ememy than HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). They are a Liberal organization whose sole purpose is to eliminate the eating of any animals. They are con artists who filch much money from well-meaning donators, who have no concept of where the money actually goes. For OCM (Organization of Competitive Markets) to crawl in bed with HSUS to accomplish their goals is lower than low. Birds of a feather flock together. You can tell much about a person, or an organization, by the friends they keep.

Well, you have a point, not sure what the OMC was thinking, I bet they wish that "Fact" would go away.................good luck

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

.

Soap, provide some detail about your stance on the OCM, when you get a minute.
Good luck

HAY MAKER, animal agriculture has no worse an ememy than HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). They are a Liberal organization whose sole purpose is to eliminate the eating of any animals. They are con artists who filch much money from well-meaning donators, who have no concept of where the money actually goes. For OCM (Organization of Competitive Markets) to crawl in bed with HSUS to accomplish their goals is lower than low. Birds of a feather flock together. You can tell much about a person, or an organization, by the friends they keep.

Well, you have a point, not sure what the OMC was thinking, I bet they wish that "Fact" would go away.................good luck

Haymaker should know all about crawling in bed with the wrong "Outfit".

 

[HAY MAKER]

bring the chain Miss Tam, he got loose again.................good luck

 

[Anonymous]

USCA Responds to Beef Checkoff Lawsuit

Northern Ag Network posted on August 13, 2012 16:47 :: 142 Views


The following is a press release from the U.S. Cattlemen's Association:

USCA (August 13, 2012) - The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) responded today to the announcement by the Organization For Competitive Markets (OCM) that it has filed a lawsuit in partnership with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC) seeking an injunction to halt the flow of beef checkoff funds to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). OCM leadership announced its lawsuit on Thursday, August 9, citing audits that have uncovered the misappropriation of checkoff funds as well as an Inspector General's report that found fault with USDA's administration and oversight of commodity checkoff programs. The Inspector General is expected to release in the near future a separate audit report examining specifically the beef checkoff, its contractors and checkoff oversight.

"USCA will not support OCM's willing involvement of HSUS, a known opponent of U.S. ranchers and animal agriculture, in this lawsuit partnership," said Leo McDonnell, USCA Director, Columbus, MT. "We doubt that HSUS has any true concerns about how checkoff dollars are administered and, in fact, if the organization's long-term goal is to eliminate animal agriculture, then the complete demise of commodity checkoffs supports that plan. While cattle producers have serious concerns about the beef checkoff, these issues would be better handled within the industry and by the industry itself."

"Unfortunately, language in the Beef Act and Order requires that checkoff work be conducted by industry organizations through contracts with the CBB, rather than allowing the CBB to contract directly with service providers for promotion, research and education about beef," noted Jon Wooster, USCA President. "USCA has worked diligently over time to facilitate changes in the law so the program is more responsive to a changing beef industry, more efficient and more transparent. In fact, today USCA will be involved in ongoing meetings with other national groups and USDA officials in Denver about accomplishing exactly that."

"We are disappointed that OCM has felt the need to work cooperatively with The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that reportedly already faces charges under RICO statutes on racketeering, obstruction of justice and malicious prosecution in a law suit brought by Ringling Brothers Circus' parent company Feld Entertainment, Inc.," continued Wooster. "HSUS has been increasingly questioned on their fund-raising programs that apparently misrepresent their efforts and accomplishments and we are disappointed than OCM has chosen to align themselves with this group which has certainly demonstrated their animosity to animal agriculture and cost our industry countless dollars.

"USCA urges the CBB and USDA-AMS to react to this lawsuit proactively by moving immediately to develop short-term plans that will ensure a seamless continuation of current checkoff programming by other contractors in the event the plaintiffs in this case successfully obtain the injunction they are seeking from the court," said Wooster. "We must move forward with a solution-oriented approach in order to achieve the sort of meaningful revisions to the overall program that will finally restore producer trust and confidence in beef checkoff. USCA stands ready to work with the CBB and USDA as this process moves forward.


Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to concentrating its efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry's voice on Capitol Hill. USCA has a full-time presence in Washington, giving cattle producers across the country a strong influence on policy development. For more information go to www.uscattlemen.org.

 

[Sandhusker]

I generally support what OCM does, but I don't support having anything to do with HSUS. Some people you just don't have a damn thing to do with for whatever reason.

 

[Anonymous]

Shortgrass,

There is no doubts that the beef board and the beef checkoff have done some great work. The problem I see with the checkoff is that you have everyone paying in and benefitting whether they want to or not. I have said this before, I don't believe cattlemen should be forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. The progressive side of the industry needs to be able to move forward without the blaming side of the industry pulling them backwords. Let R-CALF, OCM, etc. file suits until they are bankrupt if that's how they think their money should be spent while the progressive side of the industry continues to focus on the demand side of the beef equation. Many feel like the loss of the beef checkoff will be the start of the end of the cattle industry. I tend to look at it differently. I think further seperation between the progressive and regressive side of the industry will allow the progressive side of the industry to move forward at a faster pace. There is nothing I would like better than to double or triple the beef checkoff and watch those dollars only serve the producers who understand the importance of beef demand.

Packers are still concentrated, imports are still coming in, and packers are still engaged in captive supply arrangements yet we are experiencing some of the best cattle prices ever DESPITE THE COST OF CORN. Shows how much the packer blamers know. When they have nothing left to blame they'll start blaming eachother.


~SH~

 

[mytwocents]

Ag in the Classroom. A program that teaches urban teachers how beef arrives at the table. The ranch, feedlot, packing proceedures. They enable teachers to teach our youth how humane and safe beef production is. Shall we put a stop to this?

Culinary events teaching about heart health and beef. Maybe we should put a stop to this?

WWW.BeefitsWhatsForDinner.com provides beef recipes on line for working mothers. Best put a halt to this.

Farmers and ranchers went to LA for discussions with entertainment gurus, chefs, large resturant operators, journalists for the facts on food production. A proactive approach food safety and environmental concerns by the beef industry.

Development of new beef cuts?

These are things NCBA supports. Lets put a stop to it???

Shortgrass,
Yes, let's put a stop to all of that. While we're at it, let's also put a stop to our checkoff dollars being used towards: www.beefretail.org, www.beeffoodservice.org, www.beefinnovationsgroup.com, www.beefnutrition.org, www.family-mealtimes.org, www.vealmadeeasy.com, www.vealfoodservice.com, http://bovine.unl.edu, www.BeefCookOff.org, and all of the other wasteful programs listed on their website that our checkoff pays for. I see no need for me to be forced to pay a checkoff to promote BEEF? I don't sell beef. I sell live cattle. Let the packers and retailers promote their own products (Beef) at their own expense, not mine.

 

[Soapweed]

Ag in the Classroom. A program that teaches urban teachers how beef arrives at the table. The ranch, feedlot, packing proceedures. They enable teachers to teach our youth how humane and safe beef production is. Shall we put a stop to this?

Culinary events teaching about heart health and beef. Maybe we should put a stop to this?

WWW.BeefitsWhatsForDinner.com provides beef recipes on line for working mothers. Best put a halt to this.

Farmers and ranchers went to LA for discussions with entertainment gurus, chefs, large resturant operators, journalists for the facts on food production. A proactive approach food safety and environmental concerns by the beef industry.

Development of new beef cuts?

These are things NCBA supports. Lets put a stop to it???

Shortgrass,
Yes, let's put a stop to all of that. While we're at it, let's also put a stop to our checkoff dollars being used towards: www.beefretail.org, www.beeffoodservice.org, www.beefinnovationsgroup.com, www.beefnutrition.org, www.family-mealtimes.org, www.vealmadeeasy.com, www.vealfoodservice.com, http://bovine.unl.edu, www.BeefCookOff.org, and all of the other wasteful programs listed on their website that our checkoff pays for. I see no need for me to be forced to pay a checkoff to promote BEEF? I don't sell beef. I sell live cattle. Let the packers and retailers promote their own products (Beef) at their own expense, not mine.

Any cattle producer who thinks they only sell "cattle" and not BEEF is only fooling themselves. We all need to raise our cattle with the ultimate product of BEEF in mind. This includes gentle low stress handling of livestock, vaccinations in the neck, proper nutrition, and many other aspects that go with the business. What is good for BEEF promotion has a very direct effect on the value of cattle that ranchers produce.

 

[mytwocents]

Ag in the Classroom. A program that teaches urban teachers how beef arrives at the table. The ranch, feedlot, packing proceedures. They enable teachers to teach our youth how humane and safe beef production is. Shall we put a stop to this?

Culinary events teaching about heart health and beef. Maybe we should put a stop to this?

WWW.BeefitsWhatsForDinner.com provides beef recipes on line for working mothers. Best put a halt to this.

Farmers and ranchers went to LA for discussions with entertainment gurus, chefs, large resturant operators, journalists for the facts on food production. A proactive approach food safety and environmental concerns by the beef industry.

Development of new beef cuts?

These are things NCBA supports. Lets put a stop to it???

Shortgrass,
Yes, let's put a stop to all of that. While we're at it, let's also put a stop to our checkoff dollars being used towards: www.beefretail.org, www.beeffoodservice.org, www.beefinnovationsgroup.com, www.beefnutrition.org, www.family-mealtimes.org, www.vealmadeeasy.com, www.vealfoodservice.com, http://bovine.unl.edu, www.BeefCookOff.org, and all of the other wasteful programs listed on their website that our checkoff pays for. I see no need for me to be forced to pay a checkoff to promote BEEF? I don't sell beef. I sell live cattle. Let the packers and retailers promote their own products (Beef) at their own expense, not mine.

Any cattle producer who thinks they only sell "cattle" and not BEEF is only fooling themselves. We all need to raise our cattle with the ultimate product of BEEF in mind. This includes gentle low stress handling of livestock, vaccinations in the neck, proper nutrition, and many other aspects that go with the business. What is good for BEEF promotion has a very direct effect on the value of cattle that ranchers produce.

Soapweed:
As far as how we raise cattle, it sounds like you're talking about the "Beef Quality Assurance" program - which is one program that actually is directed towards live cattle and the rancher. Can you tell me any other (check off funded) programs that are directed towards live cattle that benefit the rancher directly? Yes, I agree that we need to raise our cattle with the end product in mind. Yet, I don't believe it's my job to promote the end product. It's my job to raise my live cattle to the best of my ability. It's the packers and retailers job to promote THEIR end product, beef. They would certainly like for us to be brainwashed into believing that "we are all in this together" but we are not. They don't help me pay any of my operating expenses. Why am I forced to fund a part of theirs?

Do you believe that if we didn't have the beef check off promoting market development, new beef product development, food science research, product-enhancement research, product merchandising, etc… and all of the many other programs that benefit the retailers/packers that they would simply stop selling beef or that their sales of beef would decline? I believe if we stopped funding all of these programs FOR THEM that they would have to start funding them for themselves in order to promote THEIR product - all by themselves. I'd sure be willing to end the checkoff to give my theory a try.

 

[Soapweed]

Shortgrass,
Yes, let's put a stop to all of that. While we're at it, let's also put a stop to our checkoff dollars being used towards: www.beefretail.org, www.beeffoodservice.org, www.beefinnovationsgroup.com, www.beefnutrition.org, www.family-mealtimes.org, www.vealmadeeasy.com, www.vealfoodservice.com, http://bovine.unl.edu, www.BeefCookOff.org, and all of the other wasteful programs listed on their website that our checkoff pays for. I see no need for me to be forced to pay a checkoff to promote BEEF? I don't sell beef. I sell live cattle. Let the packers and retailers promote their own products (Beef) at their own expense, not mine.

Any cattle producer who thinks they only sell "cattle" and not BEEF is only fooling themselves. We all need to raise our cattle with the ultimate product of BEEF in mind. This includes gentle low stress handling of livestock, vaccinations in the neck, proper nutrition, and many other aspects that go with the business. What is good for BEEF promotion has a very direct effect on the value of cattle that ranchers produce.

Soapweed:
As far as how we raise cattle, it sounds like you're talking about the "Beef Quality Assurance" program - which is one program that actually is directed towards live cattle and the rancher. Can you tell me any other (check off funded) programs that are directed towards live cattle that benefit the rancher directly? Yes, I agree that we need to raise our cattle with the end product in mind. Yet, I don't believe it's my job to promote the end product. It's my job to raise my live cattle to the best of my ability. It's the packers and retailers job to promote THEIR end product, beef. They would certainly like for us to be brainwashed into believing that "we are all in this together" but we are not. They don't help me pay any of my operating expenses. Why am I forced to fund a part of theirs?

Do you believe that if we didn't have the beef check off promoting market development, new beef product development, food science research, product-enhancement research, product merchandising, etc… and all of the many other programs that benefit the retailers/packers that they would simply stop selling beef or that their sales of beef would decline? I believe if we stopped funding all of these programs FOR THEM that they would have to start funding them for themselves in order to promote THEIR product - all by themselves. I'd sure be willing to end the checkoff to give my theory a try.

We are all "in it together." The more the packers and retailers make, the more they can afford to pay us for our cattle.

 

[leanin' H]

Lets do the same thing with our tax dollars! :roll: That way i won't have to worry about police protection or schools for my kids. Even tear out the highways in michigan and california that don't benefit me at all.

To me our checkoff dollars go to promote the product i try to sell and profit from it. Is the program perfect? I'd say no and we all need to look for ways to improve it. But the highway in California sends my beef to Los Angeles even if i never visit the place. Our check-off dollars keep beef in the consumers wheelhouse thanks to advertising. The packers should be proactive enough to understand we supply them with the live cattle that keeps them in business and we have to see that the gigantic distribution, feeding, slaughter and shipping network takes support from us to give us a marketplace to sell our cattle to. I sell most of my beef direct to folks who want local, ranch raised beef. I guess i could argue that the checkoff hardly benefits me at all. But magazine ads, school programs and other checkoff funded proactive ideas send people my way too. Lets work together to improve the checkoff program but i see no need to destroy it and start over.

 

[Faster horses]

Shortgrass,
Yes, let's put a stop to all of that. While we're at it, let's also put a stop to our checkoff dollars being used towards: www.beefretail.org, www.beeffoodservice.org, www.beefinnovationsgroup.com, www.beefnutrition.org, www.family-mealtimes.org, www.vealmadeeasy.com, www.vealfoodservice.com, http://bovine.unl.edu, www.BeefCookOff.org, and all of the other wasteful programs listed on their website that our checkoff pays for. I see no need for me to be forced to pay a checkoff to promote BEEF? I don't sell beef. I sell live cattle. Let the packers and retailers promote their own products (Beef) at their own expense, not mine.

Any cattle producer who thinks they only sell "cattle" and not BEEF is only fooling themselves. We all need to raise our cattle with the ultimate product of BEEF in mind. This includes gentle low stress handling of livestock, vaccinations in the neck, proper nutrition, and many other aspects that go with the business. What is good for BEEF promotion has a very direct effect on the value of cattle that ranchers produce.

Soapweed:
As far as how we raise cattle, it sounds like you're talking about the "Beef Quality Assurance" program - which is one program that actually is directed towards live cattle and the rancher. Can you tell me any other (check off funded) programs that are directed towards live cattle that benefit the rancher directly? Yes, I agree that we need to raise our cattle with the end product in mind. Yet, I don't believe it's my job to promote the end product. It's my job to raise my live cattle to the best of my ability. It's the packers and retailers job to promote THEIR end product, beef. They would certainly like for us to be brainwashed into believing that "we are all in this together" but we are not. They don't help me pay any of my operating expenses. Why am I forced to fund a part of theirs?

Do you believe that if we didn't have the beef check off promoting market development, new beef product development, food science research, product-enhancement research, product merchandising, etc… and all of the many other programs that benefit the retailers/packers that they would simply stop selling beef or that their sales of beef would decline? I believe if we stopped funding all of these programs FOR THEM that they would have to start funding them for themselves in order to promote THEIR product - all by themselves. I'd sure be willing to end the checkoff to give my theory a try.

My response to this is, "If we don't care, who does?
Sometimes ya just gotta step up to the plate. And I can tell you that
before the beef checkoff, no money was spent with women's magazines
and the magazines gave beef a bad name. Remember that? After beef
checkoff funds came to them in the form of advertising, beef
was promoted by them in a more postive manner. And they ran beef recipes
on their own which hadn't been done AND they interviews movie stars who
ate beef, not just ran articles on movie stars who were vegatarians.
Oh, yeah, there has been a lot of good press due to the beef checkoff
spending $$$ with them. Sorry, but that's how it works.