Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
R-CALF Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Texan" data-source="post: 43684" data-attributes="member: 416"><p>Good post, Marty. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. I'd also like to hear some thoughts from some of the rest of you. Its very easy for something like this to degenerate into a debate between two people. Oldtimer, I know where you stand on this issue but always like to hear your point of view. You always give me something else to think about. Sometimes it seems like you guys in the mountains and plains have a different perspective on this issue and its good for those of us in the South to hear that. I'd also like to hear from some of the rest of you, especially if there's any NCBA members who have an opinion. Now, just a few thoughts on your post, Marty:</p><p> </p><p>The $85 million figure I gave you was the total checkoff assessments for last year taken in by the <em>Cattlemen's Beef Board</em>. That money doesn't all go to NCBA. Where do you get that idea? CBB does have a lot of contractors. I'm sure the NCBA gets a piece of it as a contractor for the CBB, but I'm not sure how much. Maybe I can find out or maybe someone else can tell us. I'm probably wrong, but sometimes it seems to me that this is the big problem with the Checkoff in the eyes of R-CALF and LMA. You think if they were getting a big cut of that money that they might be more supportive? </p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with you about the fantasy. A border closed to imports but open to exports? You and R-CALF do have a perfect world in mind, don't you? We all know that can never happen because there are trade issues involving too many other industries. I hope R-CALF is not really spending its resources persuing that goal!</p><p></p><p>As for outlawing packer ownership, I've got a big problem with that! I believe in capitalism, free enterprise and less government intervention. I don't think R-CALF does. But, let's say we ban packer ownership and any type of captive supplies like some of you guys want. And its not just R-CALF member that would like to see this, by the way. What's the next logical step in that sequence? </p><p></p><p>Maybe stocker operators would like to ban cattle feeders from running stocker cattle? That gives the feeder an unfair advantage! I'm a cow-calf operator. Maybe I think we should have a law to keep stocker outfits from running cow-calf operations, too. That takes them out of the market for my calves! That's not fair! Why don't we have a law to stop futures basis trades and forward contracting? That takes those buyers out of the cash market later. </p><p></p><p>And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries! <em>I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle!</em> That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law......</p><p></p><p></p><p>And I'll tell you what, Marty. I'll actually try to find out something good about R-CALF, because as I've said before, I'm sure there are good things they do for this business. I know for a fact that I have many things in common with the R-CALF <em>member</em>. Seems like its always easier to concentrate on our differences! That's counterproductive, at best. Deadly to our industry, at worst!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Texan, post: 43684, member: 416"] Good post, Marty. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. I'd also like to hear some thoughts from some of the rest of you. Its very easy for something like this to degenerate into a debate between two people. Oldtimer, I know where you stand on this issue but always like to hear your point of view. You always give me something else to think about. Sometimes it seems like you guys in the mountains and plains have a different perspective on this issue and its good for those of us in the South to hear that. I'd also like to hear from some of the rest of you, especially if there's any NCBA members who have an opinion. Now, just a few thoughts on your post, Marty: The $85 million figure I gave you was the total checkoff assessments for last year taken in by the [i]Cattlemen's Beef Board[/i]. That money doesn't all go to NCBA. Where do you get that idea? CBB does have a lot of contractors. I'm sure the NCBA gets a piece of it as a contractor for the CBB, but I'm not sure how much. Maybe I can find out or maybe someone else can tell us. I'm probably wrong, but sometimes it seems to me that this is the big problem with the Checkoff in the eyes of R-CALF and LMA. You think if they were getting a big cut of that money that they might be more supportive? I agree with you about the fantasy. A border closed to imports but open to exports? You and R-CALF do have a perfect world in mind, don't you? We all know that can never happen because there are trade issues involving too many other industries. I hope R-CALF is not really spending its resources persuing that goal! As for outlawing packer ownership, I've got a big problem with that! I believe in capitalism, free enterprise and less government intervention. I don't think R-CALF does. But, let's say we ban packer ownership and any type of captive supplies like some of you guys want. And its not just R-CALF member that would like to see this, by the way. What's the next logical step in that sequence? Maybe stocker operators would like to ban cattle feeders from running stocker cattle? That gives the feeder an unfair advantage! I'm a cow-calf operator. Maybe I think we should have a law to keep stocker outfits from running cow-calf operations, too. That takes them out of the market for my calves! That's not fair! Why don't we have a law to stop futures basis trades and forward contracting? That takes those buyers out of the cash market later. And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries! [i]I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle![/i] That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law...... And I'll tell you what, Marty. I'll actually try to find out something good about R-CALF, because as I've said before, I'm sure there are good things they do for this business. I know for a fact that I have many things in common with the R-CALF [i]member[/i]. Seems like its always easier to concentrate on our differences! That's counterproductive, at best. Deadly to our industry, at worst! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
R-CALF Poll
Top