Letters To The Editor

Dear Sir,
The recent action of the LMA demanding a recall referendum by cattlemen of the $1 per head checkoff that finances the beef promotion, research and product development program is of great concern to all cattlemen, as it should be.

We spent years and a great amount of money and effort getting this program in place. The first two votes failed and it was only on the third attempt that the necessary two-thirds majority prevailed, authorizing the checkoff.

The beef production businesses that supply the checkoff dollars are made up of many diverse groups that oftentimes have difficulty in understanding and remembering the common interests that bind them. This diversity of interests created the difficulty in passing the first authorizing referendum and it could be nearly impossible to overcome if another referendum is forced upon us. We need to fix our problems now and keep on working. Starting over will be difficult at best and may be impossible.

Unfortunately, we are in the bottom of the once every decade cattle cycle, and everyone is hurt and bleeding from three years of bad markets. Hopefully, the end of this decade is in sight and we will see better times soon. The losses of equity being experienced now should make it clear that the beef industry needs more promotion and product development. Now is no time to be cutting back in this area.

Packer concentration and all the related problems will still be with us and we need to keep working for relief in this area. The industry will be more effective working through the organizations we have now than by throwing everything out and trying to start over.

If the present NCBA consolidation is the problem, let’s fix it, but don't eliminate the checkoff funding in the process. This is a time for hard decisions and straight talk.

We cannot afford the luxury of fighting over real or imaginary grievances and continuing turf battles.

John S. Cargile
San Angelo, Texas

Dear Sir,
Where does LMA, the representative of owners and operators of livestock auction marketing businesses, get the right to dictate policy and programs to NCBA, the national organization of beef producers? It is not right for LMA to hold hostage our Beef Check-Off to blackmail NCBA into acting as LMA dictates. And under the guise of protecting the interests of ranchers, yet! LMA claims to represent small and medium size ranchers, but do those ranchers pay dues to support LMA? Are they allowed to vote on the policy issues of LMA? There are small, medium, and large cattle producer members of NCBA who do set the programs and policies of NCBA, and we are the ones who have the right to decide what to do with our check-off money. People from most other beef producer organizations are included in NCBA through their representatives on state Beef Industry Councils in the Check-Off division of NCBA. The auction markets may collect part of it for us, but do they also try to dictate what is done with the money we ranchers pay into their hands for health and brand inspections, transportation, etc., which they remit to the proper places? They also claim to make these collections at their expense. Somehow, I thought their costs were probably in the fee they charge a rancher for selling his cattle for him.

When LMA says their dispute with NCBA goes back to "alliances research", are they forgetting that even earlier, in the days of auction market defaults that left producers with their cattle gone and no money for them, the ranchers in NCBA attempted to get more protection from market default, and LMA surely fought against that! As for the alliances research, it seems to me more correctly to be a select supplier type program where everyone in the beef production chain may benefit by building and earning a trustworthy reputation for their inputs toward creating a high quality beef product, than a vertical integration move. It does give a rancher options to look at rather than just taking his calves to the sale barn and hoping for the best. That may be tough for the sale barn owner, and he may have to change how he does business and become a part of putting these people together and facilitating feedback to producers so they can improve their cattle. That may be more difficult than continuing to promote the old adversarial relationships between segments of the beef industry. I believe LMA is grasping at straws and deliberately misleading beef producers to turn them against NCBA and the Check-Off because of anger over failure of NCBA to support LMA issues without question.

Shouldn’t a professional journalist such as yourself provide documentation, or at least some sort of explanation when making such a serious charge against an organization as "... the reversal, under questionable circumstances, of a vote..."? What my family witnessed at the NCBA convention with the resolution on mandatory price reporting was quite different than the current LMA version. I believe it was debated and failed to pass in committee, then at the General Session a vote to reconsider passed. It was debated, and once again, failed. I believe it failed largely because members had reservations of the consequences and because a study group, including strong supporters of mandatory price reporting, was in the process of being named to research those questions. It is likely the study will be completed and a report made at the mid-year meeting next summer. If the questions are answered and the resolution is as beneficial as claimed, it will likely be supported.

Do you honesty believe NCBA is "giving" Beef Check-Off money to IBP for any reason, new product development included? If they develop a partnership of some form, I'm guessing it would be sharing of completed and on-going research already funded with Check-Off money which may also be used for other end results as well, and further, that the Check-Off share will be minor compared with the IBP share. We have all heard of the astronomical costs of new product development and the fact that a great percentage of new products fail within the first year of introduction into the markets, so isn't it a reasonable use of Check-Off money to share results of beef industry research with other segments of our industry? This is an era of rapid change for all business. It might be nice to stay in horse and buggy days and ways, but that's not reality. We can’t stop change, we can only strive to make it beneficial as possible for each of us. That won't happen if we follow the lead of some LMA people, especially some in South Dakota, as they continue to pit various segments of the beef industry and organizations against one another. We need to work together to correct the problems of the entire industry, not just point to the other guy's messes.

You say, regarding accomplishments of beef Check-Off results, that "what-if can’t be proved." Do you not use results of polls, surveys, etc. in your paper? The surveys to determine effectiveness of Beef Check-Off programs have been conducted by experts who are highly regarded in their field of expertise. They show returns on investment of Beef Check-Off dollars at the rate of five to seven dollars to one check-off dollar. If one studies even a fraction of all the projects and programs done with Beef Check-Off dollars, I believe that one can reasonably expect to find similar values. But if one does not look at the broad picture and focuses on programs we don't like, we will likely conclude that they are not worthwhile, especially when that is what we want to find!

Couldn't one reasonably expect NCBA to experience a few glitches in the first few years? This is, after all, a new concept; putting together the many segments of the very complex, complicated beef industry. It appears to me to be the only outfit solely dedicated to beef, and since raising cattle is our source of living, NCBA offers what we need in an ag organization. Some mistakes are bound to be make by a bunch of ranchers and farmers making the decisions on whom to hire, which programs and projects to pursue, and which allied industries to partner with, and more. I believe NCBA has done remarkably well, especially when the need to change course became apparent to enough people, at making those changes, and will continue to do so. This is especially amazing when one considers that the organization membership runs the gamut from fiercely independent ranchers to huge corporate and church ranches, to farmer-feeders, to investor feedlots, to producer cooperative packing plants, to corporate giant packers, to retail interests.

LMA might try getting involved, giving and taking like the rest of the divisions of NCBA, making needed changes in their own businesses, working to convince the rest of NCBA members of LMA needs and generally worrying for the good of the beef industry, rather than tearing down people who are. We had hopes that this was just a South Dakota problem, but since it’s been "exported," others should be aware there are some pretty strange politics involved, such as Lyndon Larouche materials prominently displayed at the meeting at Ft. Pierre, S.D. a year or so ago. Some of what Mr. Smith is currently saying on his radio ads recently seem based upon Larouche versions of world politics. We know that not all livestock market owners, even in S.D., go along with all this. We further believe things between the organizations could be worked out, but that is difficult when LMA refuses repeated invitations to meet to discuss the issues in question.

Maxine R. Jones
Midland, South Dakota

(Editor’s note: Like most disputes, this one has convincing arguments on both sides — and many other arguments on both sides that are less than convincing. It is also far from a South Dakota issue.

We hear from one side that the other side won’t come to the table, and from the other side that the first side won’t hear them out when they get there. And we hear from the countryside considerable fear that there won’t be any table left by the time the other sides get through carving on it.

LMA is facing an uphill battle — and rightly so — in its effort to initiate another referendum vote. It remains to be seen whether the group can obtain the 120,000 some-odd signatures it believes are necessary to compel that vote, aside from all the other hoops and hurdles that must be cleared. Should it even come close, LMA will have demonstrated at the very least what many of us out on the dirt roads are hearing — that a significant percentage of cattlemen are concerned about the direction their industry is headed.

If the struggle forces both sides to honestly confront the issues troubling producers deep down, it will have served a purpose. If, on the other hand, it never progresses beyond one side hurling accusations and the other countering with policy statements and parliamentary maneuvers, cowmen are in for a long, dry year.)

Dear Sir,
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was never a bill, an act, nor was it signed into law. President Clinton usurped authority and had it written into the Code of Federal Regulations. Then he had money transferred from other departments to fund this dastardly "initiative."

It offers grants to "river cities" that want to sign on and pledge their river to the AHRI. It's all done in the good name of conservation. Everyone is for true conservation. But the initiative is a radical land grab instead. It can declare the entire watershed of the "pledged river" as a breeding ground of some "endangered" species and therefore unusable for livestock production or commercial endeavors. It should be remembered that these so-called "endangered" species have co-existed in harmony with domestic livestock for thousands of years before anyone ever pondered protecting them. If left unchecked, this kind of radical preservation can impoverish our nation.

The ARRI came into existence by the abuse of executive power and it was funded by misappropriation of public funds.

Abuse of executive power and misappropriation of public funds are grounds for impeachment! Our congressmen and senators have let countless issues slide. They will let this one slip, unless we stand up and demand that the initiative be removed from the CFR and insist that King William be impeached!

Luke Shipp
Iraan, Texas

Dear Sir,
Like a lot of Americans, we do not understand what a lot of state government agencies exist for or who they are supposed to be working for. Due to our confusion on this matter, we have a question about the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Does the OCC work for the common people or for corporate America? We were under the impression that we as taxpayers and voters elected these people into office and pay their salaries to keep corporate America from running over the people like bulldozers. We wish someone would clarify this matter to us.

Here is the situation that is confusing us: We only get one set of true parents in our lifetime. It makes us sick to watch the way our parents are being treated by the OCC. They have worked together as a team for 46 years to build and achieve their dream. A portion of their lifelong work and dream, in the form of what used to be a gorgeous sandy creek with clear fresh water running across their land, is almost destroyed by a leak in one of three pipelines (all owned by the same company). Our dad finally got to retire. All our parents wanted to do was live out their days on their land that our dad and mom worked so hard to achieve. Our dad made his living for 36 years laying and building pipelines.

For the last three years, our dad has tried to get the OCC to help him get this leak stopped. We have heard the OCC lie to him, not return his phone calls and bog his problem down in paperwork.

We do not understand why the company that owns these three pipelines is above all the EPA and other government agencies’ laws about pollution. All our dad has ever asked was to find the leak and restore his land and creek back like they originally were.

We get very protective of our parents when they retire and their only income is social security and a few livestock. Dad has wasted a lot of their money on phone calls to the OCC asking for help and never receiving any.

We know we’re not the only children that have seen this happen to their parents.

It makes us angry that the OCC is trying to sweep this matter under the rug.

We don’t know, maybe the OCC is waiting for them to die or give up. Then they wouldn’t have to ruffle any corporate feathers. Well, we’ve got news for them. If that happens, GUESS WHO INHERITS THE LAND!! We love a good cause!

Rhonda Milligan, Patty Rushing
Carter County, Oklahoma