R-Calf Gong Show

[Guest]

AFF Sentinel - Opinion/Editorial
For Immediate Release

Two Conventions: A Study In Contrasts

Colorado Springs, CO Feb. 13, 2005



Having recently just attended both the R-CALF and the Cattle Industry annual conventions - the latter where NCBA, the CBB, ANCW, Cattle-Fax and National Cattlemen's Foundation meet - I was struck by the contrasts I observed.

The obvious first comparison, of course, is sheer size. At the national R-CALF convention, there were never more than 100 cattlemen in the room at any time during the three days. At NCBA-CBB joint sessions, thousands of cattlemen crammed huge theaters and ballrooms. Committee sessions had 25 to 50 people in attendance setting policy. Their joint board of directors' meeting had twice the number of people as R-CALF's "all-in" sessions. NCBA, CBB and ANCW registered over 6,000 attendees. I couldn't find any convention report information on R-CALF's Web site two weeks after their convention.

Of course, for those of you who haven't attended NCBA and CBB conventions, it should be said that information is presented in both separate policy and checkoff sessions as well as jointly. But only dues- paying NCBA members can vote on policy issues and only CBB board members can vote on checkoff items.

It appears obvious from the numbers that the NCBA-CBB-ANCW groups enjoy an overwhelming share of the support of U.S. cattlemen compared to R-CALF. And it is ludicrous for R-CALF to imply - as it does by claiming that NCBA is just a tool of the major packers - that all these cattlemen turned out in San Antonio just to soldier on, on behalf of the packers.

R-CALF had very little committee activity at all during their convention. The only committee scheduled for a real meeting was an International Trade Committee, and they met just before the end of convention, after final policy had been adopted. NCBA-CBB has dozens of subcommittee and committee sessions where policy and priorities are set before the board and membership sessions vote. And the committees get input from lots of sources as part of the decision-making process.

And while NCBA President Jan Lyons pointedly reminded USDA Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns that there were several points in the Canadian Rule on which NCBA had serious concerns, the notation was done in a firm but professional manner that indicated a willingness to listen and NCBA's intention to justify its positions with facts. That left USDA the room to respond, explain and adjust if necessary. By contrast, USDA officials were insulted and their integrity questioned from the floor of the R-CALF meeting.

In fact, NCBA's extensive subcommittee and committee approach, routed to a resolutions committee and then board and membership meetings, resulted in a detailed, 11-point resolution on the Canadian issue. Printed copies of over 100 resolutions were ready for the membership to review and vote on.

By contrast, at the R-CALF convention resolutions were considered from the floor, evidently with no preliminary work done by a resolutions committee at all. No printed copies of the proposed resolutions were available at the door of the session. Several of the roughly dozen resolutions were withdrawn by their authors or held for study because of confusion as to whether policy already existed or because there was another resolution being proposed that dealt with the same issue. Evidently their resolutions committee either never met or is not empowered to do much work on proposed resolutions.

Many of the R-CALF resolutions evidently came from individual members rather than from a committee. They put the proposed resolutions up on a screen and discussed and amended each of them from the floor. As one member commented, if their members were in the least conformists, there would be no need for an R-CALF to exist. Consequently, they spent over two hours working over a half-dozen resolutions, deleting phrases, adding phrases, re- inserting deleted phrases, questioning the appropriateness of the resolution itself, etc., etc. The chairwoman of the session had no easy time refereeing such a messy procedure. Keeping track of which amendment or version was on the floor was confusing. The suggestion from the floor that next time the employment of a professional parliamentarian might be advised was met with a stony silence from the chair.

One member, perhaps making an oblique reference to the chaos, suggested that maybe R- CALF should have a committee study a more appropriate organizational structure and perhaps even examine the idea of term limits for officers. That too was met with stony silence. After all, I believe it was President Leo McDonnell himself who noted during R-CALF's RFD television show that R-CALF did not have any nominating committees "so no possible mischief" could occur in selecting candidates. McDonnell has been president since the organization's inception in 1998.

But I suspect many of the members rather preferred the chaos of a 100-member resolutions committee to what they would consider the overly secretive and too undemocratic structure of a committee.

But watching a bunch of non-conformists who can't decide whether they are anarchists or not, work through a handful of resolutions from the floor, was illustrative of the people involved. And R-CALF members are not really anarchists - they don't believe that there should be no government. But they do believe that government should not necessarily carry out the wishes of the majority. They want it to carry out their own wishes, even if they are in the minority. And they want government to protect their vision of the cattle industry - they are not interested in the "beef" industry - at the expense of other industry sectors they do not like.

In fact, they even want protection from other cattlemen, cattlemen whose innovations are designed to improve industry efficiency and attune beef products more closely with consumer demand. They are demanding that government agencies and Congress protect them from market requirements, business practices or competition they deem unfair.

The over 100 resolutions considered at the NCBA session covered a wide array of the total interaction of cattlemen with the world. Some R-CALF members would counter that they only concentrate on one or two areas of cattlemen's interests and, consequently, wouldn't be expected to have so many resolutions.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. R-CALF cannot see the forest for the trees, does not have much perspective. It has demonstrated a total lack of interest in most of the rest of the world everyone else lives in - including their customers, particularly those buyers of live cattle, packers - and those who try to use cattle as a raw material to produce a myriad of products. The members at their convention who so fiercely defend the cow-calf producer at the exclusion of everyone else somehow believe they exist in a vacuum, requiring no meaningful interaction with the rest of the world. They regard as unfair and unreasonable any demands from the marketplace that they should have to worry about anything after the ranch gate.

And since the rest of the world has demonstrated an overwhelming rejection of that notion, they have turned to brute force, in the form of legal action and unholy alliances, to prove to the world that they - the producers of the raw material - should call the tune.

The two conventions just reinforce the vast chasm between the two approaches.

[Guest]

I have to agree with you guest, the differences between the two cattle mens group is obvious,the fact that one is losing members while the other is gaining momentem confirms the fact R calf works, without R CALF you would not have seen any change in NCBA's policy.................good luck

[HAY MAKER]

[Oldtimer]

[reader (the Second)]

I don't have a dime in the game as Sandhusker says but I found the Gong Show article to be blatantly biased and as such I disregarded the author's points as pure propaganda. I'm guessing he's someone's paid shill. Liked your all's points -- if R-Calf is a forcing function on NCBA only, it's served a useful function.

[Guest]

R-Calf reminds me of the Titanic (actually maybe more like the S.S. Minnow). Glad some of you can find comfort and something positive in it's demise.

[Tam]

Good post R-CALF is shown for what they are a small town group will a small mind that can only deal with one issue at a time. Right now the Canadian border is the issue and they will say anything to achieve their goal even if that means scareing US consumers away from eating any beef. But the big picture is they will destroy their own livelyhoods if they keep it up. No lie is big enough as long as it keeps the border closed and to He** with the future consequences. The demise of R-CALF will come when they are asked to explain how US beef can be safe to eat when Canadian beef is the most hazardous in the world and we have traded cattle for a hundred plus years. And that can't happen fast enough for me. The only bad thing is another radical group will pop up and replace them and start the same crap again and it will probably be that same people just under a different name with a clean slate.

"R-CALF did not have any nominating committees "so no possible mischief" could occur in selecting candidates. McDonnell has been president since the organization's inception in 1998. "


Tell me how many other beef organizations have the same president for 7 years and if you can't vote him out what holds him accountable for what he says?

[Murgen]

heard the pres. is stepping down. I guess he doesn't want to be around when it hits the fan! he'll probably go hide in some hole somewhere, hope he doesn't catch vCJD from the same hole!

[Murgen]

But he probably doesn't believe any of the stuff he's been spouting anyway, so he's safe.

[Tam]

I hear there is a hole in Iraq that is vacant now maybe he could hide there.

[Sandhusker]

Tam, you can say what you want about food safety etc..., but you can't ignore that the score on BSE positives is still Canada 4- US 0. Will we find a native case here? I don't think anybody would be surprised if we do, but as of today, we haven't.

[don]

sandhusker: Tam, you can say what you want about food safety etc..., but you can't ignore that the score on BSE positives is still Canada 4- US 0. Will we find a native case here? I don't think anybody would be surprised if we do, but as of today, we haven't.

and for how much difference that makes to your export customers you can look at the long list of foreign markets you have compared to us. sandhusker, the rest of the world knows the two herds have been mixed so it's futile for r-calf to deny it. it may also be a reflection on the credibility of the american testing program. if the us is clean and we, admittedly, are not, where are your markets? that is the situation you have to deal with. and yes, we can talk about food safety because our positives don't make it into the human or animal food supply and we can trace cohorts for testing to determine the prevalence of the disease in the highest risk animals.