-stop-NCBA-

[Faster horses]

One thing that seems to have been forgotten here is, we are talking
about $1 per head. That seems like a pretty small investment to me
for the return we get. And now, when calf prices are as high as they are,
the ratio is even more in our favor.

I think your mind has been made up and nothing we say isn't going to change it, mytwocents. You have already discounted the research done
to show the return on the dollar beef producers realize from the checkoff.
Too bad the checkoff is set up so that you have to pay
that darn dollar/head. 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
longer.

You know, collectively we can do more good promoting beef than any of
us can do on a individual basis.

I hope you aren't losing any sleep over this.

FH: No, the dollar per head has not gone forgotten. The point I was trying to make was: I'm not arguing about whether these different check off funded programs do a good job to promote beef or not. I'm saying that I don't want to foot the bill for it. The retailers/packers can foot their own bill. We producers already assume enough of the costs, risks, labor in raising live cattle. Thanks to many of these check off funded programs we also willingly and foolishly take on the extra costs of promoting, advertising, researching, educating, etc. the benefits of beef. I've already "promoted" my product (live cattle) to my buyers. Let the retailers/packers promote their product (beef) to their buyers. Not to mention, I don't care to pay one red cent towards promoting foreign beef that is mixed in with US beef- which is an issue that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As far as discounting research, I probably should've spent more time explaining that. I'm just skeptical of any of it- even if it's for something I'm in favor of, until I can verify the group doing the research, etc. and one doesn't always have time for that - so I try to take it at face value until I learn more.

It takes more than this to cause me to lose sleep. I responded with my opinion on an issue. I didn't try to change anyone else's mind, but seems a lot of effort has gone into trying to change mine.

Usually when people say, "it's not the money"...it's the money.
Have a good evening.

 

[mrj]

I have to say what I post re. the beef checkoff is not so much to change any set minds, but to correct the mis-information.

A personal opinion as to what one likes or dislikes is one thing. Stating things about the checkoff which are not true is another.

The fact is, a majority of cattle producers from all organizations brought that into being and still controls how the money is spent and what projects are accepted for funding, as well as continuing a high level of support for the whole thing.

FACT: the beef checkoff is paid on all imported cattle and beef on a carcass equivalent basis, so it/they do not get a free ride. We also import leaner cattle or beef to blend with our fattier trim meat. That allows us to sell some of our high quality beef to export markets for higher prices.

Some of us DO believe and admit that when packers are NOT making money, they cannot pay more for cattle, and vice versa!

mrj

I do wish there was a way to allow those like you to opt out and not accept the benefits of the beef checkoff.

 

[jodywy]

I have to say what I post re. the beef checkoff is not so much to change any set minds, but to correct the mis-information.

A personal opinion as to what one likes or dislikes is one thing. Stating things about the checkoff which are not true is another.

The fact is, a majority of cattle producers from all organizations brought that into being and still controls how the money is spent and what projects are accepted for funding, as well as continuing a high level of support for the whole thing.

FACT: the beef checkoff is paid on all imported cattle and beef on a carcass equivalent basis, so it/they do not get a free ride. We also import leaner cattle or beef to blend with our fattier trim meat. That allows us to sell some of our high quality beef to export markets for higher prices.

Some of us DO believe and admit that when packers are NOT making money, they cannot pay more for cattle, and vice versa!

mrj

I do wish there was a way to allow those like you to opt out and not accept the benefits of the beef checkoff.

glad they were there in the bs about pink slime came out!

 

[mytwocents]

1.

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.

2. 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.

3. However, the Beef Checkoff law was designed to be very difficult to 'take over' by anyone.

4. 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.


5. 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.

6. 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.

7. #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.



8. #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.

9. #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.

10. 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!

11. #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?

12. #6. Does your state have that "new, SIMPLE, COMMON SENSE page"? Have you asked for it?

13. 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.

14. #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'!!!!

15. 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.

16. #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.

17. 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!

18. 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.

19. 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

4. I'd rather be a "strong individualist" than a sheep.

5. I'm unhappy with the stupidity of letting the retailers/packers continually mooch off of us to help pay for their beef promotional costs? Why not take some of our programs like: www.beefretail.org and www.beefinnovationsgroup.com and hand them over to them and say, "Here, we did all of this work for you, but from now on these programs are your responsibility to fund and manage, because it's not fair that we carry most of the weight on our shoulders anymore."

7. I wasn't aware of any bribes during the LMA's petition drive, nor evidence of such. Yes, I am aware of groups such as the HSUS and their history, as well as the wackos of PETA. Do the retailers/packers contribute as much as us to fight these radical groups?

8. You seem to be missing the point that these "projects that would be impossible without them" are NOT our responsibility in the first place. This "topsy-turvy" view of this is what my issue is all about. :roll:

9. Like I wrote- not fair of me to stereo-type…

10. And the CBB is in charge of our check off…. Political appointments over state nominated individuals…& local rancher control lost … don't seem right

11. Did I say anywhere whether or not I believe it isn't? I don't believe I did, so don't put words in my mouth. I was asking YOU if it was, since you seem to be the expert.

12. I'm talking about NCBA doing it on their website.

13. I don't recall asking.

16. I'm just skeptical and don't think one should believe all research until they've had time to research the group doing it, etc.

19. I think you're putting words in my mouth and making inaccurate assumptions that have nothing to do with the point I was originally trying to make. I don't doubt your expertise and experience with the beef check off. I do, however, doubt your reading comprehension and ability to stay on track.

 

[mytwocents]

One thing that seems to have been forgotten here is, we are talking
about $1 per head. That seems like a pretty small investment to me
for the return we get. And now, when calf prices are as high as they are,
the ratio is even more in our favor.

I think your mind has been made up and nothing we say isn't going to change it, mytwocents. You have already discounted the research done
to show the return on the dollar beef producers realize from the checkoff.
Too bad the checkoff is set up so that you have to pay
that darn dollar/head. 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
longer.

You know, collectively we can do more good promoting beef than any of
us can do on a individual basis.

I hope you aren't losing any sleep over this.

FH: No, the dollar per head has not gone forgotten. The point I was trying to make was: I'm not arguing about whether these different check off funded programs do a good job to promote beef or not. I'm saying that I don't want to foot the bill for it. The retailers/packers can foot their own bill. We producers already assume enough of the costs, risks, labor in raising live cattle. Thanks to many of these check off funded programs we also willingly and foolishly take on the extra costs of promoting, advertising, researching, educating, etc. the benefits of beef. I've already "promoted" my product #live cattle# to my buyers. Let the retailers/packers promote their product #beef# to their buyers. Not to mention, I don't care to pay one red cent towards promoting foreign beef that is mixed in with US beef- which is an issue that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As far as discounting research, I probably should've spent more time explaining that. I'm just skeptical of any of it- even if it's for something I'm in favor of, until I can verify the group doing the research, etc. and one doesn't always have time for that - so I try to take it at face value until I learn more.

It takes more than this to cause me to lose sleep. I responded with my opinion on an issue. I didn't try to change anyone else's mind, but seems a lot of effort has gone into trying to change mine.

Usually when people say, "it's not the money"...it's the money.
Have a good evening.

FH: Are you and mrj related or something? Good God... it's like trying to teach braile to the deaf and sign language to the blind. It seems as if you're missing my point entirely– about our check off footing costs for retailers/packers. Liberal-minded folks would believe that it is our job to coddle them, and extend our responsibilities to do the things that they are responsible and capable of doing for themselves. Conservative-thinking folks would believe in personal responsibility – ours and theirs. I don't know of many businesses that operate in this manner - that can afford to be so generous with their resources, helping competitors, above and beyond, while getting the smallest profit margin on the product.

I'm not doubting the argument that we all win when more beef is sold. I'm saying let them do their part at their end. Retailers/packers want to sell more just as much as we do. That's what they're in the business of doing. They have the ability to promote their product on their own without us. Should our check off help pay other companies (pharmaceutical, dog food, leather/upholstery goods, etc) costs to promote all of the beef by-products as well? Or does it already do that? Where do we end our support for big corporations with our check off? How far up the chain do we follow that commodity, long after we sold it, while still paying operating costs on it?

 

[mytwocents]

I have to say what I post re. the beef checkoff is not so much to change any set minds, but to correct the mis-information.

A personal opinion as to what one likes or dislikes is one thing. Stating things about the checkoff which are not true is another.

The fact is, a majority of cattle producers from all organizations brought that into being and still controls how the money is spent and what projects are accepted for funding, as well as continuing a high level of support for the whole thing.

FACT: the beef checkoff is paid on all imported cattle and beef on a carcass equivalent basis, so it/they do not get a free ride. We also import leaner cattle or beef to blend with our fattier trim meat. That allows us to sell some of our high quality beef to export markets for higher prices.

Some of us DO believe and admit that when packers are NOT making money, they cannot pay more for cattle, and vice versa!

mrj

I do wish there was a way to allow those like you to opt out and not accept the benefits of the beef checkoff.

mrj: Would you care to tell me where I stated anything about the check off that was untrue? You're missing the point – and trying to argue with me over things that aren't even the argument- so forgive me for not following you off into left field anymore. :roll: Maybe you could just write a 10 page essay about the check off or something – and just get it all off of your chest – and correct all of the mis-information out there– of which none was stated by me- (which you'd notice if you took the time to read and COMPREHEND the posts) – without deviating from point and going off on a tangent – thinking I'm your new pet project to educate. Just do the essay – you'll feel much better when you've done that good deed. :wink: Do me a favor: Don't forget to add some pages that I would be most interested in such as: how much our check off helps the retailers and packers and if there's any evidence in your research showing whether or not they have the ability, the money, and the expertise to do that on their own or not. Okay?

 

[mytwocents]

Beef By-Products Usage Summary

Beef by-products continue to be important in production of a variety of edible and inedible products. The export of beef by-products is a significant economic activity that offers additional potential for expanded uses of beef by-products in industrial, pharmaceutical, food manufacturing, leather and animal feed applications.

The use of beef by-products in animal feeds is the most significant single application (other than hides) on a volume basis. The production of meat and bone meal, by-pass proteins and an assortment of pet foods is an expanding market. The growth of leather demand is potentially significant, but is restricted by the availability of high quality hides suitable for production of upholstery leathers. Gelatins, made from animal collagen, vontinue to have a remarkable number of applications in the pharmaceutical, food, cosmetic and manufacturing industries. The use of beef tallow components in industrial chemical formulations is a major market, and while competition from alternate compounds is significant, the biodegradable characteristics and cost features of animal-based fatty acids is sufficient to assure continued, if not expanded, utilization.

The use of beef by-products in human foods continues in some cases, but is limited due to concerns about total fat intake. Pharmaceutical uses of beef by-products as direct human therapies continues, but some applications have been replaced by alternate products. The export market for beef glands and other tissues with pharmacological applications is strong and provides cost-effective alternatives for buyers who are limited by technology, tradition or price.

The rendering industry, by-product brokers, oleo-chemical manufacturers, pharmaceutical producers and other industries who utilize beef by-products offer numerous potential partners for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Opportunities for market enhancement, public education efforts and other joint ventures ought to be explored as a mechanism to enhance the overall value of the products originating from the beef industry. Furthermore, these organizations are an important part of the positive story that beef producers have to tell. The utilization of beef by-products is not only economical, but environmentally and ethically appropriate as well.

http://www.beef.org/uDocs/Beef%20By%20Products%20Usage%201996.doc • DOC file

 

[Soapweed]

Yes, I am aware of groups such as the HSUS and their history, as well as the wackos of PETA. Do the retailers/packers contribute as much as us to fight these radical groups?

Who in the heck "cares" if the retailers/packers "contribute as much" as us (cattle producers) to fight these radical groups?

That is getting very "nit-picky" to worry about who is contributing the most to fight these radical wacko groups. The main point is--the radical groups need to be held accountable, and I'd darn sure rather pay too much than too little in the suppression of these idiot outfits. Any respect I ever had for Mike Callicrate has flushed down the toilet since he brought HSUS into helping him with his own private "poor me, the victim" lawsuit.

 

[Faster horses]

:agree:

See, now it's back to the money.

 

[mytwocents]

Yes, I am aware of groups such as the HSUS and their history, as well as the wackos of PETA. Do the retailers/packers contribute as much as us to fight these radical groups?

Who in the heck "cares" if the retailers/packers "contribute as much" as us (cattle producers) to fight these radical groups?

That is getting very "nit-picky" to worry about who is contributing the most to fight these radical wacko groups. The main point is--the radical groups need to be held accountable, and I'd darn sure rather pay too much than too little in the suppression of these idiot outfits. Any respect I ever had for Mike Callicrate has flushed down the toilet since he brought HSUS into helping him with his own private "poor me, the victim" lawsuit.

soapweed:mrj brought up the radical groups in her post earlier. I was trying to make a point about something else... and made the mistake of even making a comment off topic in order to use it as an example about the other issue... Now you jump on the bandwagon attacking me about something that wasn't even the point. Geez, you people.. go kick your dog first or something before coming on here and trying to start fights when no one even engaged the issue YOU bring up to argue about. Unbelievable! Hope you folks are never on some board or committee that calls for critical thinking skills, analyzing all sides of issues, staying focused and on-track, being fair and reasonable, etc. One sure as hell wouldn't want you on jury duty. I never said a word about Mike Callicrate, yet you're picking an argument with me about him.

You want an argument, well here you go! Mike Callicrate is doing the job every damn one of you should be doing. You're arguing tooth and nail defending the beef check off. Yet, in the same breathe criticizing him for trying to save it! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You all should have been backing him up and the other REAL cattlemen groups and attempting to do something - to get it back to what it was intended to be in the first place. Maybe if all of you so-called check off lovers would have gotten off your critical, judging, close-minded, ignorant a##es to do something, he wouldn't have accepted help from the Humane Society in the first place. OCM, USCA and R-CALF have all done more good for ranchers than your crooked NCBA has… but you're brainwashed minds are unable and unwilling to comprehend that.

 

[Soapweed]

Yes, I am aware of groups such as the HSUS and their history, as well as the wackos of PETA. Do the retailers/packers contribute as much as us to fight these radical groups?

Who in the heck "cares" if the retailers/packers "contribute as much" as us (cattle producers) to fight these radical groups?

That is getting very "nit-picky" to worry about who is contributing the most to fight these radical wacko groups. The main point is--the radical groups need to be held accountable, and I'd darn sure rather pay too much than too little in the suppression of these idiot outfits. Any respect I ever had for Mike Callicrate has flushed down the toilet since he brought HSUS into helping him with his own private "poor me, the victim" lawsuit.

soapweed:mrj brought up the radical groups in her post earlier. I was trying to make a point about something else... and made the mistake of even making a comment off topic in order to use it as an example about the other issue... Now you jump on the bandwagon attacking me about something that wasn't even the point. Geez, you people.. go kick your dog first or something before coming on here and trying to start fights when no one even engaged the issue YOU bring up to argue about. Unbelievable! Hope you folks are never on some board or committee that calls for critical thinking skills, analyzing all sides of issues, staying focused and on-track, being fair and reasonable, etc. One sure as hell wouldn't want you on jury duty. I never said a word about Mike Callicrate, yet you're picking an argument with me about him.

You want an argument, well here you go! Mike Callicrate is doing the job every damn one of you should be doing. You're arguing tooth and nail defending the beef check off. Yet, in the same breathe criticizing him for trying to save it! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You all should have been backing him up and the other REAL cattlemen groups and attempting to do something - to get it back to what it was intended to be in the first place. Maybe if all of you so-called check off lovers would have gotten off your critical, judging, close-minded, ignorant a##es to do something, he wouldn't have accepted help from the Humane Society in the first place. OCM, USCA and R-CALF have all done more good for ranchers than your crooked NCBA has… but you're brainwashed minds are unable and unwilling to comprehend that.

If the Beef Check-Off did no other good in the world than to help keep PETA and HSUS suppressed, it would be well worth the measly dollar per head that we pay. Fortunately, it not only keeps these wacko groups in line, but does so much more helping BEEF have a positive image with the final bill payer--the consumer. We need to count our blessings that we have the privilege of being in the cattle and BEEF business, instead of always thinking someone else is getting the better end of the deal.

 

[Denny]

An add that runs on the radio here goes something like this. A local repair shop would'nt spend a dime to advertise his goods and services when he finally did decide to advertise it was for his going out of business sale.I can't believe anyone can get so enthralled over a measely $1 per head which in all reality has been in effect longer than he's most likely been in the cattle business. My wife is a nurse and is forced to be in the union and she pays around $300 a month in union dues and she's glad to do it.The benefits far out way the negative. Do I agree with all the ways the beef checkoff is spent NO but it's money well worth it. Without the checkoff you may only see a $1 a cwt. less in sale price so on a 500# calf thats $5 -$1 checkoff your still ahead $4 per head.

 

[Silver]

An add that runs on the radio here goes something like this. A local repair shop would'nt spend a dime to advertise his goods and services when he finally did decide to advertise it was for his going out of business sale.I can't believe anyone can get so enthralled over a measely $1 per head which in all reality has been in effect longer than he's most likely been in the cattle business. My wife is a nurse and is forced to be in the union and she pays around $300 a month in union dues and she's glad to do it.The benefits far out way the negative. Do I agree with all the ways the beef checkoff is spent NO but it's money well worth it. Without the checkoff you may only see a $1 a cwt. less in sale price so on a 500# calf thats $5 -$1 checkoff your still ahead $4 per head.

In a perfect world those that wanted to opt out of the check off could, and sell their cattle into a different market. That way they could proudly save their lousy dollar, while taking 5 or 10% less for their product. If only there were a way for them to "wither on the vine".

 

[Mike]

I don't think anyone would be apprehensive towards the check-off if they thought they were getting their money's worth.

One thing I have never understood is the numerous beef promotion ads in cattle trade magazines............ Isn't that preaching to the choir?

I have never seen what I consider an effective "Beef Promotion" campaign to compare with the "Milk" producers.

I don't remember the last time I saw a Beef ad on TV.

 

[4Diamond]

Anyone in bed with HSUS needs to be watched. (Mike Callicrate)

 

[mytwocents]

Who in the heck "cares" if the retailers/packers "contribute as much" as us (cattle producers) to fight these radical groups?

That is getting very "nit-picky" to worry about who is contributing the most to fight these radical wacko groups. The main point is--the radical groups need to be held accountable, and I'd darn sure rather pay too much than too little in the suppression of these idiot outfits. Any respect I ever had for Mike Callicrate has flushed down the toilet since he brought HSUS into helping him with his own private "poor me, the victim" lawsuit.

soapweed:mrj brought up the radical groups in her post earlier. I was trying to make a point about something else... and made the mistake of even making a comment off topic in order to use it as an example about the other issue... Now you jump on the bandwagon attacking me about something that wasn't even the point. Geez, you people.. go kick your dog first or something before coming on here and trying to start fights when no one even engaged the issue YOU bring up to argue about. Unbelievable! Hope you folks are never on some board or committee that calls for critical thinking skills, analyzing all sides of issues, staying focused and on-track, being fair and reasonable, etc. One sure as hell wouldn't want you on jury duty. I never said a word about Mike Callicrate, yet you're picking an argument with me about him.

You want an argument, well here you go! Mike Callicrate is doing the job every damn one of you should be doing. You're arguing tooth and nail defending the beef check off. Yet, in the same breathe criticizing him for trying to save it! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You all should have been backing him up and the other REAL cattlemen groups and attempting to do something - to get it back to what it was intended to be in the first place. Maybe if all of you so-called check off lovers would have gotten off your critical, judging, close-minded, ignorant a##es to do something, he wouldn't have accepted help from the Humane Society in the first place. OCM, USCA and R-CALF have all done more good for ranchers than your crooked NCBA has… but you're brainwashed minds are unable and unwilling to comprehend that.

If the Beef Check-Off did no other good in the world than to help keep PETA and HSUS suppressed, it would be well worth the measly dollar per head that we pay. Fortunately, it not only keeps these wacko groups in line, but does so much more helping BEEF have a positive image with the final bill payer--the consumer. We need to count our blessings that we have the privilege of being in the cattle and BEEF business, instead of always thinking someone else is getting the better end of the deal.

Soapweed: I agree with what you said about if the check off did no other good in the world than to keep PETA and HSUS suppressed, it would be well worth the measly dollar per head that we pay. Hell, I'd even pay $3 head to do that, because it would be money well spent…. And that is OUR responsible to fight that battle against animal rights activists because they threaten our livelihoods. If we had a check off that were "directable," we could all have a choice as to where our money goes. If I had a choice I would have mine go towards a program fighting those radical groups and I would rather eliminate www.foodretail.org, www.foodservices.org and hand those programs to the packers/retailers to finance because that more directly pertains to their end of the business and is THEIR responsibility (even though you all say "what helps them helps us" – we can't be responsible for every dang thing relating to packing and retailing companies selling beef!) Since some pet food comes from beef by-products should we also help dog food companies pay for commercials that say: "Alpo – It's What's For Dinner – for your dog!" Since beef by-products are used in cosmetics should our check off also be used to help those companies such as: Loreal, Mabelline, Cover Girl, etc. manufacture, merchandise, and sell their cosmetics? Come on, where does are financial support to companies end– just because we all share a mutual interest in the same commodity?
Can you answer me this one question? Where does our financial support end in supporting these retailing and packing companies that share an interest in the same commodity as us?

 

[mytwocents]

:agree:

See, now it's back to the money.

Hey you....over in left field.. :wave: yoo..hoo.. your attempts to antagonize are noted. :wink:

 

[mytwocents]

I don't think anyone would be apprehensive towards the check-off if they thought they were getting their money's worth.

One thing I have never understood is the numerous beef promotion ads in cattle trade magazines............ Isn't that preaching to the choir?

I have never seen what I consider an effective "Beef Promotion" campaign to compare with the "Milk" producers.

I don't remember the last time I saw a Beef ad on TV.

:agree:

 

[mytwocents]

An add that runs on the radio here goes something like this. A local repair shop would'nt spend a dime to advertise his goods and services when he finally did decide to advertise it was for his going out of business sale.I can't believe anyone can get so enthralled over a measely $1 per head which in all reality has been in effect longer than he's most likely been in the cattle business. My wife is a nurse and is forced to be in the union and she pays around $300 a month in union dues and she's glad to do it.The benefits far out way the negative. Do I agree with all the ways the beef checkoff is spent NO but it's money well worth it. Without the checkoff you may only see a $1 a cwt. less in sale price so on a 500# calf thats $5 -$1 checkoff your still ahead $4 per head.

Denny: I don't think anyones enthralled over the $1 per head - rather these folks' inability to comprehend the issue within the issue. If they would read the posts over very slowly and carefully perhaps they would get the point - in which I think they'd actually probably agree a little about - but they are looking at it as a whole and just jumping in to defend the check off without understanding the part within the check off I've been complaining about - which is simply some of these programs that I think are wasteful (duplicating one another) for us to spend resources on and that should be the responsibility of packers and retailers to use their resources on.

I'll put it another way. Would one agree that there are check off funded programs that are beneficial and those that are wasteful? Would one agree that there are areas that are our main responsibility to finance and areas that are others' main responsibility to finance?

 

[Soapweed]

soapweed:mrj brought up the radical groups in her post earlier. I was trying to make a point about something else... and made the mistake of even making a comment off topic in order to use it as an example about the other issue... Now you jump on the bandwagon attacking me about something that wasn't even the point. Geez, you people.. go kick your dog first or something before coming on here and trying to start fights when no one even engaged the issue YOU bring up to argue about. Unbelievable! Hope you folks are never on some board or committee that calls for critical thinking skills, analyzing all sides of issues, staying focused and on-track, being fair and reasonable, etc. One sure as hell wouldn't want you on jury duty. I never said a word about Mike Callicrate, yet you're picking an argument with me about him.

You want an argument, well here you go! Mike Callicrate is doing the job every damn one of you should be doing. You're arguing tooth and nail defending the beef check off. Yet, in the same breathe criticizing him for trying to save it! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You all should have been backing him up and the other REAL cattlemen groups and attempting to do something - to get it back to what it was intended to be in the first place. Maybe if all of you so-called check off lovers would have gotten off your critical, judging, close-minded, ignorant a##es to do something, he wouldn't have accepted help from the Humane Society in the first place. OCM, USCA and R-CALF have all done more good for ranchers than your crooked NCBA has… but you're brainwashed minds are unable and unwilling to comprehend that.

If the Beef Check-Off did no other good in the world than to help keep PETA and HSUS suppressed, it would be well worth the measly dollar per head that we pay. Fortunately, it not only keeps these wacko groups in line, but does so much more helping BEEF have a positive image with the final bill payer--the consumer. We need to count our blessings that we have the privilege of being in the cattle and BEEF business, instead of always thinking someone else is getting the better end of the deal.

Soapweed: I agree with what you said about if the check off did no other good in the world than to keep PETA and HSUS suppressed, it would be well worth the measly dollar per head that we pay. Hell, I'd even pay $3 head to do that, because it would be money well spent…. And that is OUR responsible to fight that battle against animal rights activists because they threaten our livelihoods. If we had a check off that were "directable," we could all have a choice as to where our money goes. If I had a choice I would have mine go towards a program fighting those radical groups and I would rather eliminate www.foodretail.org, www.foodservices.org and hand those programs to the packers/retailers to finance because that more directly pertains to their end of the business and is THEIR responsibility (even though you all say "what helps them helps us" – we can't be responsible for every dang thing relating to packing and retailing companies selling beef!) Since some pet food comes from beef by-products should we also help dog food companies pay for commercials that say: "Alpo – It's What's For Dinner – for your dog!" Since beef by-products are used in cosmetics should our check off also be used to help those companies such as: Loreal, Mabelline, Cover Girl, etc. manufacture, merchandise, and sell their cosmetics? Come on, where does are financial support to companies end– just because we all share a mutual interest in the same commodity?
Can you answer me this one question? Where does our financial support end in supporting these retailing and packing companies that share an interest in the same commodity as us?

Mytwocents, you should channel your energies into something more worthwhile. A thought that comes immediately to mind would be to work hard to get rid of Obama. This would save you much more money in the long run, and help the profit potential on your cattle producing livelihood much more than trying to get rid of the Beef Check-Off. The Check-Off (whether you agree or not) is helping your business. Obama is bad for your business now, but if he gets back in we will be lucky to even be able to ranch, period, in the future. Best of luck in whatever you decide. :wink: