FH, after the Beef Checkoff was voted in, the ability to get back your money ended. For the very good reason that small producers felt the biggest ones would get their money back and yet benefit from the work
"the rest of us" do.
I think I can understand those who are opposed to ALL checkoff plans, since there were some that did all of what people falsely accuse the Beef Checkoff of doing.
However, the Beef Checkoff law was designed to be very difficult to 'take over' by anyone.
For the record, hard as many of us have worked to get it, keep it healthy, and inclusive of all, I can see how a system with only members who are favorable and supportive might be better and let 'grumblers' and 'strong individualists' figure out their own system without the beef checkoff.
For 'mytwocents', I'm sorry you are unhappy with the checkoff. You seem unwilling to believe those who have been involved and/or interested enough to learn about the Beef Checkoff.
I do believe some of your counterpoints to my earlier post deserve answers, so: #1. There was a vote and the beef checkoff passed by a substantial margin to become law.
#2. And there are some cattle and auction organizations who pettitioned to end it and were found to have enticed signers with 'prizes', so it was thrown out; then they tried a lawsuit and lost, recently they tried a form of espionage and that was discovered, now some of the same people are working with HSUS, (a group who proudly dupes unwitting folks with sad pictures into donating to supposedly save animals, but in reality the money supports salaries and pensions of a few at the top) AND who conducts surreptitious attacks on animal farms and ranches to file lawsuits in an attempt to damage NCBA, apparently believing that will end the beef checkoff.
#3. & 8. You seem not to understand that those outside groups which partner on beef checkoff projects often contribute very substantially, to the point that without them, projects would be impossible.
#4. Your 'shoe' does NOT fit the majority, if any, of the people my family has seen over the years, especially more recent years, among those who work darn hard to make the checkoff serve cattle producers! Yes, I have been with groups who were having fun with people from many segments of the cattle/beef industry, and I seriously doubt anyone has put pressure on any cattle producer member of a committee or CBB of Federation rep. to change any vote, or vote for 'their' pet project. If you aren't there and see it for yourself, just maybe you are being sold a bill of goods by someone who either has a personal axe to grind, or who sees 'evil' just walking by a group of people laughing and talking with a glass of something that looks suspiciously like alcohol in hand. I can comfortably state that there are MANY who do not drink alcohol. ALSO, many projects, possibly most, originate with state cattlemen and women.
For the record, CBB members are limited to two three year terms. There are representatives of many, if not all, cattle organizations. In SD it is 8 different groups, not all favoring NCBA, either! The bad thing about the CBB is that there have recently been too many political appointments when the people nominated by the state cattle producers was passed over and someone else was named to the position. I believe I'm correct in stating in SD that has happened only when, nationally, Democrats have been in power. That is not what those who worked so hard to get a national beef checkoff wanted! Lots of those old cowboys and CowBelles groups must be rotating pretty restlessly these days!
#5. Yes, I am certain the checkoff law is followed, with the exception of above re. appointments to the CBB. But the work of the checkoff is according to rules. But since you believe it isn't, would you please share your info so the problem can be corrected?
#6. Does your state have that "new, SIMPLE, COMMON SENSE page"? Have you asked for it?
When you asked the price of those ads, did you also ask who paid for them? I happen to know some of those ads were sponsored by individuals or groups of them who believed in the checkoff enough to put some of their own money into defending it! There is a limit to what can be spent for producer information, and while I don't know what it is, I doubt it is exceeded.
#7. I've heard dissenting opinions, in fact there have been times when it hasn't been easy to maintain Roberts Rules of Order for meetings! If dissent cannot be made with civility, I don't want any part of it. For the record, not all votes are unanimous. Changes are made when majority rule dictates at NCBA meetings and people ARE heard when they don't agree. you believing something is not in your best interest does not mean a large number of other ranchers feel the way you do. I do not always agree with the majority, either. That is civil society at work, isn't it? Consider the alternative. I belive we have seen some of that in action in politics and the mobs in the streets the past couple of years. I sure don't like that form of 'discussion'!!!!
Another 'for the record' we have been quite active in NCBA and predecessor organizations. We have often found the people at the meetings to be some of the finest, in the best of real 'cowboy tradition', whether they wore a hat or not, of people know anywhere! And we enjoy people and meeting new friends, not from any official position. I do not believe we are easily fooled by people, after having years of training in recognizing both good character and the other end of the spectrum, by some rather stern elders in our families! We have been blessed to be able to attend meetings by families who filled in at home......sort of counters the less fun aspects of a close family business....for all our 55 years of married life and ranch partnership. It as been a rare opportunity we fully appreciate.
#9. I'm sorryyou don't believe independent researchers and surveys. They can be a valuable tool in determining direction for a checkoff, an association, or a business. Finding the ones that are highly respected makes a difference, I'm sure.
We could just belly ache and complain about consumers not learning how to properly cook the old style beef we were producing, and some still do, but what does that help? May make us feel better, or work us up to a real tantrum, but sure doesn't sell cattle for more money!
We are raising more pounds of beef than ever with fewer cows. That gives us a better chance to be profitable. It cut our 'carbon footprint' which gives us ammunition against 'Eco-Freakos', and the beef is of higher quality for those who work at it.
There probably are people with expertise to tell us which project of beef checkoff, or fewer, or better quality cows producing calves that weigh more, or 'new' cuts of beef (love any of those I've tried!!!), or better food safety from farm to consumer make ranchers the most money, but you and many others probably would refuse to believe that, either.
mrj
It used to be that you could send in a form at the end of the year and get your money back...not sure if that applies any
