WHOOPEE!!! – Cow-tax lawsuit is the best news I’ve heard this long, hot, dry summer.

In a normal year the Flint Hills of Kansas receive 36 inches of rain. Steve Anderson holds a nine-foot-tall blade of grass that he has mounted on to a stick.
Purchase Great Ranches of the West - $34.95

I never liked being taxed to fund “Government Speech,” so OCM’s lawsuit against U.S.D.A and it’s mismanagement of the cow-tax was the best news I’ve heard this long, hot, dry summer. And if Callicrate was sharp enough to con HSUS into funding the lawsuit with thousands of their puppy mill dollars, more power to him.

When the Kansas Livestock Association partnered up with the Sierra Club to pass Land Trust and Conservation easement legislation here in Kansas, the NCBA didn’t paw the dirt and bellow in indignation. In fact I’m betting the cow-tax paid for the free BBQ at the KLA meeting that summer with all those Sierra Club flags flying and nattily dressed dudes in attendance.

Why don’t the NCBA want an honest audit of the cow-tax dollars and Wow they’re spent? We all learned when Eastern Livestock stuck hundreds of cattlemen in 30 states with millions in fraud, that Government oversight ain’t worth hen squat. No honest organization objects to a fair annual audit.

If Alexander is correct, 75% of producers support the cow-tax, then why does the NCBA so vehemently oppose letting us hold an honest vote every 5 years? Democracy or Plutocracy?

If we’re all in this together, why did the NCBA take Canada’s side on the COOL trade dispute? To me, COOL is more than a label, it’s a property right. Born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. and proud enough to darn sure label it that way.

GIPSA clearly proved the only bunch NCBA is willing to sit around a campfire with are the packers.

Twenty-five years of cow-tax and over 10,000 cattlemen gone broke isn’t exactly a record to brag about.

I can well remember when our own Pat Goggins teamed up with Callicrate and a few honest men to sue a packer. A good jury awarded U.S. cattlemen over a billion dollars. When a black robed clown threw out the verdict, we all know which cattle group snickered up their sleeves.

Negotiating with wolves, either 4 or 2 legged is a useless gesture as proven again and again. I learned all about negotiations in Miami at the 2003 Free Trade Summit. A cowgirl from Kalispell, MT and I were the only ranchers on our side of the police lines, along with 25,000 working class and retirees. All the other cowboys were on the elite protected side with the elite, transferring jobs out of the U.S. Us protestors got tear gassed, some beat bloody and many arrested. The other cowboys got free steaks and whiskey. We went home with our pride and integrity intact. They went home with a bag of empty promises.

Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglas

So get ’em Mike and O.C.M.; the chickenization of cattle country is knocking at our door.

Stephen Anderson
27610 Poor Farm Road
Alma, Kansas 66401

Posted in Beef Checkoff, HSUS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Local Catholic rancher sues USDA, others over alleged favoritism to large cattle producers

By VERONICA AMBUUL
9/7/2012

COLORADO SPRINGS. Catholic rancher Mike Callicrate, a St. Mary Cathedral parishioner, is the plaintiff in a lawsuit in federal district court in Kansas City against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Cattlemens’ Beef Board (CBB) and other entities. The lawsuit alleges that money collected from cattle ranchers to improve the marketing of beef to U.S. consumers is actually used to lobby for policies harmful to family farmers.

“My money’s being used against me, and I want it to stop,” said Callicrate, who operates the Ranch Foods Direct store and home delivery service in Colorado Springs, on Aug. 15 during an interview on AgriTalk radio.
[audio:http://media.cattlenetwork.com/audio/RobertsOCM.mp3]

The focus of the lawsuit is money raised through the beef checkoff program, which was established in 1986. For every head of cattle brought to market, $1 is paid by the seller to the Beef Industry Council, which in turn goes to the Centennial (Colo.)-based National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

In his lawsuit, Callicrate claims that the NCBA’s management of checkoff funds has not improved market share for cattle producers, citing a decline in domestic cattle operations. He further alleges that the checkoff program, as it is currently operated, favors large conglomerates at the expense of small, independent cattle ranchers by advocating for “an industrial model of beef production, processing and distribution — harming both producers and consumers.”

Callicrate’s ranching operation, located in St. Francis, Kan., eschews the use of hormones and antibiotics in raising cattle and uses grass feed, as opposed to corn.

According to the NCBA website, the association does not favor any one mode of beef production over another, nor does it take a stand on issues like whether hormone-free beef is healthier.

In his lawsuit, however, Callicrate said that, in practice, the NCBA favors multinational corporations like Cargill, which he described as a monopoly that drives down prices paid to cattle producers.

“They are paying producers less while charging consumers more,” he said during the radio show.

As an example, Callicrate pointed to the recent furor in the media over the use of low-grade beef trimmings, commonly known as “pink slime,” as filler in ground beef. Neither the NCBA nor the USDA has tried to stop the practice, making consumers suspicious of beef, Callicrate said.

“NCBA fought to keep pink slime in hamburgers. That is embarrassing to all of us cattle producers,” he said. “There’s a connection between technology and appetite. When you go too far with technology, you most likely will lose appetite.”

Callicrate also claims that the NCBA is violating federal law that prohibits the use of beef checkoff funds for influencing government policy, and he said he hopes the lawsuit will put an end to the NCBA’s political activism.

Forest Roberts, CEO of the NCBA, told AgriTalk that the lawsuit was a “complete distraction and a waste of time and energy” during an already-difficult time for the beef industry caused by drought conditions. He also questioned the relationship between the Organization for Competitive Markets, of which Callicrate is president, and the Humane Society of the United States, which in the past has been at odds with the cattle industry and is accused by some in the industry of having a goal of stopping the consumption of beef altogether.

However, Callicrate said the Humane Society does not have a vegan or vegetarian agenda and simply wants to improve the way animals are treated.

“I’m in complete alignment with their philosophy that animals should be treated humanely,” Callicrate told AgriTalk during the interview.

Copyright (c) 2012 The Colorado Catholic Herald

Posted in Beef Checkoff, Pink Slime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney Daniel D. Owen Explains Checkoff Lawsuit

Excuse me … your Mr. Dittmer? (Meat packer and NCBA defender, Steve Dittmer was in attendance. He misrepresented the facts in a news piece he authored from the news conference the day before.).

“Dittmer? Excuse me. Here’s a copy for you … are you looking for one? Here you go … and your Mr. Dittmer? Good to meet you? Um… I think you wrote Mr. Stokes missed the irony, how did you put it ‘the irony of a lawyers law firm like mine’ I will be happy to visit with you at any length after the program .. Um to go on about the lawsuit.”
Daniel D. Owen – Polsinelli Shughart PC

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Hasn’t the HSUS Done Lately?

Ag and Trade | Food | By Ben Gotschall | 09/04/2012

The U.S. didn’t lose 91% of its pork producers, 82% of its dairy producers, 42% of its beef producers and 33% of its sheep producers overnight. It has happened by degrees since 1980, during my lifetime, and isn’t going to be slowed down, stopped, or even partially “fixed” in less than a year.

Timmy Samuel Nebraska rancher Ben Gotschall

In a recent column entitled “Waiting for the HSUS,” Daily Yonder co-editor Bill Bishop issued a not-so-subtle challenge to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to prove to him, and apparently to everyone else, that HSUS is working proactively to benefit independent farmers and ranchers.

Clearly, Mr. Bishop is not satisfied with the progress, or (as he sees it) the lack thereof, in the market creation aspect of the HSUS’s new approach of working with ag groups and producers.

As I see it, the question should not be whether or not Mr. Bishop is satisfied with the HSUS’s efforts at this point, but whether or not farmers and ranchers are satisfied, namely those who have been directly working with HSUS. After all, they’re the ones with the most at stake in all this, aside from organizations like the Nebraska Farmers Union that support them.

Those producers and organizations are the ones under the intense scrutiny, and in some cases under the direct attack, from other producers, ag groups, armchair quarterbacks and backseat drivers waiting in the wings to pounce when they smell blood.

From what I can see, as someone intimately involved in the issue, those producers, at least in Nebraska, are extremely satisfied with HSUS’s involvement.

Just last week, not long after Bishop’s column was posted, the Nebraska Agriculture Advisory Council to the HSUS released a video discussing their outlook and goals. The Ag Council published the video on YouTube, the HSUS website, Facebook and the Nebraska Farmers Union website.

Seems pretty public to me. Seems like a group of committed individuals who believe enough in what they do for a living to step up and say something about it—again, in a public forum.

But, to be fair to Mr. Bishop, those producers aren’t HSUS representatives. His question yet remains: what has the HSUS, as an organization, done to help folks like those featured in the Ag Council video?

Maybe a more instructive question to ask would be: what hasn’t the HSUS done in the past 10 months?

They haven’t threatened to kick the asses of perceived opponents out of the state of Nebraska. That was what Nebraska’s Governor Dave Heineman has done, on more than one occasion.

They haven’t siphoned $100,000 from the state’s coffers into a front group established to directly attack its perceived opponents. That was Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and his sweetheart gift to We Support Agriculture.

They haven’t introduced ag-gag legislation to specifically target those who might (God forbid) observe and report practices currently taking place on operations that violate the animal-treatment standards established on those same operations. That was Nebraska State Sen. Tyson Larson, with LB 915, a bill eerily similar to one passed in Iowa in February 2012, which is an obvious paraphrase of bills proposed in Missouri, Utah, Indiana, Minnesota and Illinois. I wonder who wrote them (or should I say it)?

HSUS hasn’t unleashed a ballot initiative in the state of Nebraska to regulate agricultural practices through legislation, in keeping with its agreement with Nebraska Farmers Union.

Ben Gotschall A "flow-well" from my family's ranch in the Sandhills of Holt County, NE. The water perpetually flows from the pipe tapped directly into the Ogallala Aquifer. Clean, cold water, without a pump, using no energy.


HSUS hasn’t put one single independent livestock producer out of business—not in the last ten months, not in the last ten years, not ever.

In short, the HSUS hasn’t fought nearly every effort of independent family farmers and ranchers and our allies to ensure our agriculture system doesn’t slip further into the same highly-concentrated, anti-competitive, transparency-blocking pattern of predatory behavior that has been eliminating livestock operations for decades. I wish I could say the same for some of the other organizations and corporations that purport to collectively “support” agriculture.

Don’t take that to mean that HSUS couldn’t do more. In fact, much more needs to be done.

Our family farmers and ranchers are just as endangered now as they’ve ever been, and any efforts to “save” them are going to have to be well organized, well funded and purposeful—descriptors often attributed to the HSUS by its opponents, as if the same couldn’t be said of those same opponents.

Identifying, developing and expanding new markets is a huge undertaking, and the to-do list grows by the day.

Let’s keep in mind that the HSUS agreement with Nebraska Farmers Union happened less than a year ago, and much of that time has been spent defending said agreement from attackers, detractors and naysayers—a fair share of which came from the ranks of their own members.

The U.S. didn’t lose 91% of its pork producers, 82% of its dairy producers, 42% of its beef producers and 33% of its sheep producers overnight. It has happened by degrees since 1980, during my lifetime, and isn’t going to be slowed down, stopped, or even partially “fixed” in less than a year.

We must start somewhere, and this is still only the beginning.

Case in point: earlier this month, directly after the OCM meeting Mr. Bishop sat through dissatisfied, I met HSUS executive director Wayne Pacelle for the first time along with members of the Nebraska Ag Council. I presented a progress report to the group on what I had been doing for the past four months as Coordinator for the Ag Council.

It was an educational experience—not really for those of us at the table well versed in raising livestock as a business—but mostly for Mr. Pacelle. He asked many questions: about the landscape of processing facilities, about the economic challenges of drought and feed shortage, about the hurdles placed in the path of direct producer-to-consumer connections.

Mr. Pacelle listened (I’ll repeat: listened) to our concerns, ambitions, drought stories, and jokes about vegans enjoying a steak dinner. I know I for one, and I think Mr. Pacelle also, came away from that meeting with a renewed sense of purpose and an understanding of the road ahead.

To respond to Mr. Bishop’s challenge, I offer this:

The real nuts and bolts business of market development isn’t sexy. It isn’t the stuff you see in front-page, above-the-fold newspaper headlines. You don’t hear CEO’s and senators singing its praises. It’s the day-to-day, often frustrating, sometimes boring, but always important work that is essential to rebuilding a sustainable system from the ground up.

It takes a collaborative effort. It requires a lot of listening to a lot of different voices. The more voices represented in our efforts, the more widespread those benefits will be. I invite Mr. Bishop, and any other interested parties, to join not only in the discussion, but also in the action.

Ben Gotschall is a fourth-generation rancher from Nebraska. In addition to raising beef and dairy cattle and marketing meat and cheese, he is the Energy Director for Bold Nebraska and the Coordinating Consultant for the Nebraska Agriculture Advisory Council to the Humane Society of the United States. He is also the president of District 5 and Lancaster County Nebraska Farmers Union.

Posted in HSUS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

R-CALF USA Demands Suspension of Contracts Between NCBA and Beef Checkoff


August 28, 2012

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250

Sent via facsimile and U.S. Mail: 202-720-6314

Re: R-CALF USA’s Demand for the Immediate and Permanent Suspension of all Contracts Between the Beef Checkoff and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

R-CALF USA hereby demands that you fulfill your statutory and regulatory duty to enforce the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order), which together govern the Beef Checkoff Program (Beef Checkoff), against the ongoing, unlawful expenditure of producers’ Beef Checkoff funds by immediately ordering the permanent suspension of any and all contracts between the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Beef Checkoff.

For longer than two years: beginning May 24, 2010, and subsequently on Aug. 4, 2010; Dec. 14, 2010 (to Deputy Secretary Merrigan); Jan. 17, 2011; Jan. 20, 2011; Feb. 3, 2011; Feb. 28, 2011; and Aug. 22, 2011, R-CALF USA sent formal letters, replete with researched evidence of NCBA’s unlawful use of Beef Checkoff funds, that urged you to fulfill your statutory and regulatory responsibility by immediately suspending all contracts between the NCBA and the Beef Checkoff.

During that longer than two-year span, you abrogated your statutory and regulatory duty to preserve the integrity of the Beef Checkoff for U.S. cattle producers, despite your receipt of evidence from us that demonstrate the Beef Checkoff is being unlawfully abused under your watch. Instead, you and your Department have played the role of NCBA’s patsy. You have continued to allow the Beef Checkoff to unlawfully award tens of millions of dollars to NCBA, which enabled that organization to continue its unlawful use of Beef Checkoff funds to successfully undermine your Administration’s stated goals concerning country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and the competition rule proposed by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), just to name two.

Because you shirked your responsibilities under the Act and Order and to U.S. cattle producers, a lawsuit was necessarily filed against you by an R-CALF USA member, Mike Callicrate. That lawsuit, Michael Callicrate v. USDA et al., makes nearly all the allegations we made to you during the past two years; references nearly all the evidence we provided you during the past two years; and, it seeks the same remedy we urged you to grant our industry during the past two years.

R-CALF USA is outraged by your inaction – particularly following your receipt of our evidence that showed NCBA had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of cattle producers’ Beef Checkoff funds – and fully supports the merits of the Michael Callicrate v. USDA et al. lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against you because you failed to stop the NCBA from unlawfully using Beef Checkoff funds to continually undermine the policy goals of independent U.S. cattle producers, which has effectively reduced their economic opportunities. A summary of the lawsuit that highlights the meritorious arguments R-CALF USA fully supports is attached.

We demand that you, by your own fruition, immediately put a stop to the NCBA’s ongoing abuse of the Beef Checkoff by fully implementing the entire remedy sought in the lawsuit, which is the remedy we have unsuccessfully sought from you for longer than two years. We are calling on you to act, and to act appropriately, without the lawsuit having to proceed any further.

Individual cattle producers should not have to file a lawsuit to ask a federal court to order you to enforce statutes and regulations that you know are being violated. And, you should not be assigning your responsibilities to individuals and federal courts in hopes that they will do what you lacked the courage to do.

As part of our demand we call your attention to an allegation that R-CALF USA did not previously articulate, but which is contained in the lawsuit. That allegation is that the “prohibition on the use of checkoff funds applies equally to any trade/producer organizations funded wholly or in part by a particular board or contractors to the board.” We believe this language expresses the clear intent of both the Act and Order as it unequivocally bars any trade association that may receive Beef Checkoff funds from also engaging in activities to influence governmental action or policy. In other words, no policy-oriented trade association can continue its lobbying activities if it is a recipient of Beef Checkoff funds. Your Department must initiate a rulemaking to make it crystal clear that organizations that contract with the Beef Checkoff are barred from engaging in lobbying activities.

Your Department’s August 24 announcement indicating that you are now expanding the contracting authority for the Beef Checkoff is void of any mention that recipients of Beef Checkoff funds cannot engage in lobbying activities. Essentially, your Department’s announcement suggests that you intend to perpetuate the ongoing, unlawful use of Beef Checkoff funds by authorizing groups in addition to NCBA to compete directly with policy groups like NCBA for available Beef Checkoff funds. This is unconscionable.

We trust that you will carefully consider our demand and choose to comply in full. Doing so will negate the need for R-CALF USA to formally join in a complaint against you.

Sincerely,

Bill Bullard, CEO

Posted in Beef Checkoff | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment