MRJ, "Sandhusker, how many ranchers do the organizations I criticized as being anti-beef allow to produce cattle on land they own? And I did NOT call them "radical"!"

I'd say about as many of them as that own land.

MRJ, "How can Nature Conservancy be called anti-beef when they are continuing cattle production on the land they own, and in the process, giving some young ranchers the opportunity to continue in cattle production."

I don't think Nature Conservancy can be called anti-beef any more than CU can.

MRJ, "There ovbiously are quite a number of NCBA members who would rather find ways to work with them than spit in their eye and gain nothing."

Strange.  I'd say NCBA's treatment with groups such as CU is much closer to spitting in their eye than working with them.  R-CALF does choose to work with them and they get chastised for it.  Why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

MRJ, "I understand that you will not believe it or admit it, but the fact remains that enough of the 30+ NCBA state affiliates' directors DID give NCBA leadership permission to go ahead with working to open the Canadian border, seeing that adequate progress was made on the 11 Points. Working toward normalizing that trade asn't hurt cattle prices, either, has it?"

30+ directors overturned what how many thousands of members voted in?  Where in the directive did membership give leadership the right to decide "enough" was accomplished?   Does 11 mean 11 or does it mean 7 or more?  5 or more?

MRJ, "Re. USDA, you choose to believe they are doing packer bidding. I choose to believe they are doing their best and working to find the best science avaliable to apply to problems and still serve the ranchers, farmers, food industry segments and consumers well."

I KNOW they're doing the packer's bidding.   I've asked this question to illustrate that, and haven't got an answer yet; Other than the effect on the packer's pocketbook, what was different between the first 22 countries we closed to and number 23?

MRJ, "We also might as well realize that USDA is a bureaucracy, and there doubtless are many long-time liberals entrenched within, doing their darnedest to keep the "new guy" at the top from upsetting any apple-carts for them. Effects of the past 50+ years of liberalism has certainly settled into the depths of all departments of government and are not conducive to quick changes that might lessen the bureaucratic power-hold."

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!  Just last week, I was talking to Congressman Osborn about the USDA.  Tom told me part of Johann's problem was the people under him were the same ones who had been there forever.