OUR TOP STORY

EAJA Reform Welcome News for New Mexico Agriculture Groups

Legislation that would bring oversight and accountability to payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is gaining broad support in New Mexico and across the country.   
The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA), New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. (NMWGI), New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC), Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM) and AZ/NM Coalition of Counties (Coalition) are joining producers nationwide in support of the Open EAJA Act of 2010 (H.R. 4717), introduced by Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and co-sponsored by Representatives Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Rob Bishop (R-UT).

The EAJA was passed by Congress in the 1980s as means to protect the rights of non-profits, small businesses and individual citizens from unreasonable government actions.  Along the way, however, it has been co-opted by special interest and  environmental groups, who use the law to get paid after suing the federal government.

“When the EAJA was passed, it was meant to protect people like family ranchers and others from the federal government,” said Bert Ancell, NMCGA President, Bell ranch.  “Today, these activist groups are using our tax dollars to sue the federal government and try to put us out of business. According to the only research to date, activist environmental groups have gotten paid $42 million dollars to sue the federal government in the last decade.”

The Open EAJA Act of 2010 would bring accountability and transparency to payments made under the EAJA.  Specifically, the bill requires an accounting of how attorneys’ fees are being awarded under EAJA, an annual report to Congress outlining the number, stature and amount of the awards, and a Government Accounting Office (GAO) audit of the uses of EAJA funds over the past 15 years.

Every year, activist groups file thousands of motions and petitions with various government agencies across the country.  The resulting paperwork keeps the agencies from actually getting any on the ground work done, and guarantees that a deadline will eventually be missed by the agency, opening the door for a lawsuit.  Rather than go to court, the federal agencies settle the suit with the activist group, and typically agree to pay them for their attorneys’ fees under EAJA.

“These lawsuits keep the agencies in turmoil, and have a big impact on our operations,” said Jim Cooper, NMWGI President, Arabela.  “Our tax dollars fund the government agencies and their attorneys.  To make sure our rights as landowners and producers are protected, we have to intervene in the lawsuit, spending our own money on attorneys and court costs. Then, the government pays these groups’ attorneys’ fees – using our tax dollars again – giving them money for the next lawsuit.”   

New Mexicans have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past 15 years in an attempt to protect natural resources users who make up the custom, culture and economy of the state, according to Louis Peterson, Hatchita, President of the Arizona/New Mexico Coalition of Counties.

“On rare occasions we have been reimbursed for some of the actual expenses incurred in protecting New Mexico families,” she said. “But it is shocking to see that $300,000 was paid on a single case --- that was not even decided in favor of the Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity.”

What the public doesn’t know is that not only are these suits keeping federal agencies from doing their jobs in terms of conserving wildlife and lands, but they are driving at the heart of the nation’s food supply, notes Al Squire, Hagerman, DPNM President.

“Americans pay less than ten percent of their disposable income for the most abundant and safest food supply in the world,” says Squire. “While we are producing that cheap and wholesome food under government controlled caps, so that we cannot pass along increased production costs, we are paying up to three times for litigation that is aimed at eliminating us.”

Congresswomen Lummis and Herseth Sandlin and Congressman Bishop deserve the support, praise and heartfelt appreciation of nature resources users ---which every member of the public who eats, drives a car, and uses utilities like water and electricity, points out Don L. “Bebo” Lee, Alamogordo, NMFLC President.

“As a nation we have come to expect that electricity is automatic when we flip a switch, that water is magically in the tap when we turn it and that our grocery stores will always be stocked with all the food we want or need,” Lee comments. “Many don’t realize that the production of these necessities of life are the fruits of the land --- and that someone has to have the ability to work that land.”

The DPNM, Coalition, NMCGA, NMFLC, and NMWGI are asking the New Mexico Congressmen Ben Lujan, Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich to co-sponsor and support H.B. 4717. They are also asking for other groups and individuals to join with them in this effort.

For further information call 505.247.0584, 575.622.1646, or 505.379.9243.

Add New Comment Show Comments (0)


TOP STORIES

 

All Eyes On The Ears

BY LEE PITTS
Sit down in almost any rural coffee shop these days and it won’t take you long to discover that THE topic of conversation amongst farmers and feeders is corn. Everyone from ethanol entrepreneurs to poultry pluckers wants to know how many of the golden ears will be available to feed, trade, turn into plastic, gasify or eat.

If you can believe the USDA, farmers plan to plant from fence row to fence row, sowing 90.5 million acres of corn this year, 15% more than last year and the most in 63 years. The National Corn Growers Association estimates that farmers will harvest 12.7 billion bushels, the largest crop ever.

Big crop equals cheap feed, equals high prices for feeder cattle right?

Ordinarily news of such a bumper crop would have sent feeder cattle futures skyward and feedlots would be plumb full of baby Holsteins and five-weight calves as cattle feeders sought to take advantage of an abundance of corn. Poultry and pig farmers would be licking their chops under normal circumstances. But nothing about this gold rush is normal as both the supply and the price are going up at the same time, defying economic theory. The USDA says corn for ethanol use is expected to eclipse corn for export this year and that we’ll produce a BILLION less pounds of meat in 2007. Americans will eat 1.7 pounds less per person and pay more for it.
Wheat and soybean prices have also jumped as farmers planted more acres to corn. A cattle feeder who may have used more wheat instead of high priced corn would have to pay 25% more for it than he did last year. Yes, ethanol has made a mess of economic theory, and feedlot closeouts, and it could get worse before it gets better.

A Cruel Hoax?

Cattleman want to like ethanol, they really do. The 31 new ethanol plants built in the U.S. since 2005 help farmers, revitalize rural towns and put money in the pockets of people who look almost like them, except for the bib overalls. That sure beats sending our money to Mideast sheiks who sponsor terrorists. Ethanol is better for the environment and the politically correct thing to do, but it’s still hard to fall in love with something that threatens to completely destroy your business. Let’s face it, the U.S. cattle business is based on a grain-fed product. So what do we do when 20% of the corn harvest was diverted to produce ethanol? A figure that is sure to rise.

Sure, there are nay sayers who contend that ethanol is just a cruel hoax on cattle feeders and won’t last long. They say ethanol is not really a viable answer to our energy problems as all the ethanol produced last year was equal to about 3% of our gasoline supply. According to the University of Minnesota to replace all our gas it would take all the cropland in the U.S. plus 20% more! But when 60% of our current crude oil supplies come from overseas, making us vulnerable and less secure, every little bit helps. Ethanol critics point out that gas will some day be made from less valuable crops but don’t get too excited about that prospect... the main product they are planning to use in the future to replace corn is grass! That can’t be good for cowboys!
Ethanol may not be the long-term answer to our energy needs, and it may be a fraud, but it’s a popular fraud and it has the backing of the Democratic Congress and the environmentalists, two pretty powerful groups at the moment.

Some say that if we weren’t subsidizing ethanol to the tune of $7 billion a year it would make absolutely no economic sense, but when you look on the other side of the ledger you’ll see that $7 billion was negated by the $7 billion less our government paid out in farm subsidies because farmers got more money for their corn. Perhaps we ought to just get used to the idea that higher corn prices are here to stay.

Corn Plastic

There’s something else we haven’t told you about. Even if ethanol is not the panacea some people think it is the untold story is that, when it comes to corn, cattlemen have more than ethanol to worry about. Corn is also an ingredient in Coca Cola™, candies, cakes, carpets, cups, coffee, cooling fluid and a whole host of other products that don’t begin with the letter C. Corn is also used in the packaging material used to ship or serve these products, from soda pop containers to packaging foam.

Corn syrup basically replaced sugar in the 1980s as the main sweetener in soft drinks and other food products and in the future corn is being considered for all sorts of products formerly made from petrochemicals. Although currently only 2% of the chemicals used in this country come from crops, researchers say that in the future “bio-products” will be used for everything from car seats to surf boards.

We’ve been here before. Henry Ford believed that crops would be used to produce a plethora of products. In the 1930s Ford bought 12,000 acres with the idea of mass-producing car bodies from soybeans. The trend didn’t catch on then but fast forward to today and the Ford Motor Company is once again considering using crops to produce foam to be used in car seats, armrests and headrests.

With oil prices over sixty bucks the next BIG THING happens to be bio-plastics. The time is certainly right; renewable bio-plastics made from corn and soybeans are cleaner for the environment, produce fewer greenhouse emissions and would make us not quite so dependent on foreign sources of oil. But, and this is a BIG but for cattlemen, with so much corn being diverted to ethanol and bio-plastics will there be any corn left to feed cattle? And if so, at what price?

The Corn Conundrum

With ethanol and plastic plants digesting corn that was formally digested by cattle it’s probably safe to assume that cattle will spend as little time as they can in the feedlot and the maximum amount of time on grass.

Everyone seems to have an answer as to how cowmen can cope with the corn conundrum. Some magazines, supported by drug dollars, and professors, aided by research grants, say that to maximize gains on grass cattlemen should revisit implants. To quote one magazine, “Growth implants may be an efficient and economic strategy for ranchers to add pounds to their calves and gain extra income next fall.” One professor said, “To offset lower calf prices, producers may want to consider using growth implants on the ranch to garner extra pounds come sale time.”

Those quotes hit the streets just days before daily newspapers carried the news that men whose mothers ate a lot of beef during their pregnancy have a sperm count about 25% below normal and three times the normal risk of fertility problems. Research scientists said the problem may be due to anabolic steroids used to fatten cattle. The article in the journal, Human Reproduction, said that in the daughters of those same beef-eaters the growth hormones could alter the incidence of polycystic ovarian syndrome, the age of puberty and the postnatal growth rate.

With news like that hitting the streets, along with the growing popularity of natural beef and the rancher’s natural tendency not to implant, we really doubt that implants will be the answer to the corn problem. Just the opposite could happen. We know that some implants can consistently lower the grade of beef and this is definitely NOT what the Doctor ordered when you are faced with feeding less corn and shortening the fattening period.

High priced corn will make it harder for some implants and beef breeds to survive. During the past 15 years in an attempt to increase the number of Choice cattle and improve carcass merit there has been a tendency to make the nation’s cowherd blacker... as in Angus. The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center has confirmed what most ranchers already know: that Angus and Red Angus marble higher than all other beef breeds. (The MARC study actually showed Red Angus actually out-marbled the black Angus!) Despite this move on the part of ranchers to improve the gradability of our cattle there has been no increase in the percent of cattle grading choice in the past 15 years! About 55% of cattle currently grade Choice.

Angus breeders would, no doubt, say that we haven’t yet made our cattle black enough! But if we haven’t made an improvement yet, and we are faced with feeding our cattle even less grain in the future, things do not look good for the consumer acceptance of our product down the road. Our checkoff dollars will really be challenged! One would think that slaughter weights would fall as a result of high priced corn and we may even see breeds come to the fore, or make comebacks, like Murray Greys, Jerseys, Shorthorn and Brown Swiss and other breeds known for their early maturity and ability to grade. Or it’s conceivable that Angus could come to dominate the beef business like Holsteins have the dairy. All because of corn... or lack thereof.
The other thing that will no doubt change is the price of real estate. All of a sudden Midwestern farm ground that can produce 180 bushels of corn is worth something again. Ditto a good grass ranch.

With all the pain high-priced corn may cause cattlemen at least we can be thankful that a steer is not a chicken. Cows are not walking soybeans. Can you imagine what the price of corn has done to our competition, the poultry pluckers and pig farmers who don’t have the grass option and must lock up their animals and feed them grain for their entire lives? Even if consumers will eat less meat as a result of higher corn, as the USDA projects, cattlemen may have a window of opportunity to gain back some market share from the other white meat... and the other other white meat.

Riches In Niches

Some cattlemen have bet their ranches on the idea that faced with higher priced grains their salvation lies in grassfed beef. In the past five years more than 1,000 U.S. ranchers started raising their cattle for the grassfed market. It is estimated that 60,000 grass-fed cattle were marketed in the U.S. in 2006, compared to 5,000 head in 2000. That’s less than 1% of the nation´s supply, but sales reached $120 million last year and are expected to increase 20% a year over the next decade as upscale groceries like Whole Foods and Trader Joe´s are now selling grassfed beef.

"It´s a niche, niche market," said Angela Jackson, president of the Organic Grassfed Beef Coalition in South Dakota. "It´s been growing 50 percent a year the last three years, but the number of producers coming on is not as fast as the growth in demand. We don´t ever see being able to catch up."

Those ranchers putting on grassfed demonstrations in upscale supermarkets have a lot to brag about. Grassfed beef is lower in saturated fats than grain fed beef, higher in omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins A and E. Proponents of grassfed beef say that their product can also reduce cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure and that consumers have less of a chance of being contaminated with E coli.

Having said all that there is a big perceived problem with the product: it doesn’t taste as good as grain fed beef. Mack Graves, CEO of Panorama, formerly Western Grasslands, admits that is the case if the consumer buys the Uruguayan product now available in U.S. stores. “They kill their animals at 900 pounds and they are old.” Needless to say, Mack is a big supporter of country of origin labeling.

Graves insists, as do the customers at Trader Joes where Panorama’s beef is sold, that their grassfed beef is different. First of all, it is produced by 43 ranchers in 4 western states, primarily California. The cattle are at least 50% Angus and ideally 100%. Panorama cattle are never fed animal byproducts or grains, although they do go into what Graves calls a “finishing facility” for the last 60 days where they are fed grass or alfalfa hay. This is to achieve consistency of product. Panorama itself does not own any cattle and the ranchers are paid for their cattle hanging on the rail. At the time of this report they were receiving two dollars per pound compared to a buck for generic cattle. They are processed and distributed by Yosemite Meats.

If you are surprised by the price per pound be advised that just because it’s grassfed does not make it cheaper. Graves said their product typically sells for 20-30% more per pound. At Trader Joes their ground round was selling for $4.99 per pound. Ranchers need to be paid for all the extra hassle and genetics but also a grassfed carcass will only yield 57% compared to 62-63% for grain fed cattle.

Graves insists that their beef is not tough and has no displeasing yellow fat normally associated with grassfed beef if it is cooked properly. On each package consumers are warned that it cooks much faster. Also on each package is a “Born and bred in the USA tag,” to distinguish it from the foreign product. Graves says their grassfed beef is different because they kill their cattle at 16 to 18 months of age when they weigh 1050 to 1100 pounds and that only the best in Angus genetics are used.

One would think that Graves would be jumping for joy as the beef industry seems to be moving in their direction but he points out that because of the high priced corn all cattle will be spending more time on grass which pushes up the price of pasture and makes it less available. Like we said, the corn conundrum is having a revolutionizing effect on all aspects of the cattle business. But lest we get to feeling too sorry for ourselves we should remind ourselves that things could be a lot worse. The last time corn was this high, in February 1996, fat cattle were only bringing sixty three cents!

 Is R-CALF DEAD? -- by Lee Pitts

If you read some cattle publications you may be under the impression that R-Calf USA is deader than a can of corned beef. The obituaries for the 7-year-old cattlemen’s organization, largely responsible for keeping the Canadian border closed long enough for ranchers to enjoy their best years ever, have been quite flowery:

• "R-CALF is disintegrating, falling apart at the seams."

• "This has been a hostile take over."

• "The R-CALF name is completely destroyed."

A newspaper in Fort Worth called the battle brewing at R-CALF nothing less than a "range war; Cattlemen against cattlemen." Beef Magazine suggested that R-CALF was on its last legs and Steve Kay, the often quoted publisher of Cattle Buyers Weekly, said that current events will likely lead to R-CALF’s demise.

A blogger wrote, "The right-wing fundamentalist extremists have taken control of R-CALF and they´ve triple branded the organization as radicals. Bullard is leading the industry to a Johnstown massacre - drink the Kool-aid at your own risk."

No question, R-CALF has experienced trying times lately but we think you will find upon further reflection that R-CALF’s status is much like that of Mark Twain’s when he cabled from London in 1897, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

A Long Time Coming

What’s all the hubbub about? R-CALF’s Exec Bill Bullard told the Digest that things have been leading up to a fight between those who wanted a kinder and gentler R-CALF and those who wanted to continue to be aggressive. "There had always been a small group amongst R-CALF’s Board of Directors that never supported the litigation against the USDA," says Bullard. On the one side you had good and sincere folks who wanted to halt the litigation to stop Canadian mad cows from flowing South because they felt it was a waste of time and money and other efforts should come to the front including putting more effort on COOL. (Although one wonders what more R-CALF could have done on COOL given the cesspool of politics that is Washington D.C.) On the other side you had equally good, strong-willed ranchers who knew it was the Canadian border issue that made R-CALF so popular in the first place and if Canadian cows started flooding across our border a few of them would no doubt be mad cows that could kill American consumers, along with our collective taste for beef. That seems to be a cause worth fighting for, don´t you think?

This debate started about two years ago and came to a head over the 30 month rule. R-CALF was, and still is, fighting the USDA over their proposal to allow cattle and beef from animals over 30 months old into the U.S. This despite an ongoing problem with BSE in Canada in which mad cows born after the feed ban keep popping up. Efforts were made within R-CALF to stop that litigation. One board member even tried to get Bullard fired for his preoccupation with Canadian cows. But it was one action, some consider a traitorous one, that caused the festering issue to burst open for all the world to see. Bullard explains, "The USDA slipped up when they published the proposed 30 month rule. They only included cows and not beef, when they clearly intended to allow in beef from older Canadian cows into this country. In response, R-CALF wrote a letter to the USDA asking for a delayed implementation until the USDA showed their true intentions for Canadian cow beef. We sent the letter on a Sunday," recalls Bullard, "but unbeknownst to us, Chuck Kiker, then R-CALF President, wrote one of his own the next day with the assistance of former USDA officials which basically asked the USDA to ignore the first letter from R-CALF and apologized. This completely thwarted R-CALF’s efforts to delay the implementation of the rule," says Bullard.

It’s not as if Bullard was acting on his own in his fight against the USDA. R-CALF’s policies have always been decided by its members. Last year, those members established policy that instructed the board to "take appropriate action to challenge and stop USDA from allowing the importation of beef products from cattle older than 30 months of age, as well as the importation of live cattle over 30 months of age, from Japan or any other BSE-affected country."

 

A Trojan Horse

When Bullard said that Kiker’s letter was drafted with the assistance of former USDA officials he was referring to Bill Hawks and Valerie Ragan. These two are part of the consulting firm, AgWorks Solutions, a lobbying group made up of former top USDA officials. These folks were originally hired in early 2006 to help R-CALF navigate the maze of bureaucracy in Washington D.C. It was thought that they would understand the inner workings of Washington and could provide valuable insight. One wonders now if these former USDA officials were a Trojan Horse, establishing a USDA presence within R-CALF to moderate their message.

Kiker’s letter was the fuse that lit the bomb and R-CALF’s Board responded. On February 8, by a close majority vote, R-CALF asked Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry, then Vice President, to take over the Presidency. Three weeks into his second term Chuck Kiker was ousted as R-CALF President, but he was not kicked off the Board. No, he took that action himself. The disillusioned R-CALF’ers have suggested that Kiker’s ousting was an illegal action on the part of R-CALF’s board.

The fallout was immediate. Thirteen committee chairmen quit as did Jess Peterson, Government Relations Director in Washington D.C. That kind of a blow would put a dent in any organization but the one resignation that rattled people’s faith was that of one of the founders of R-CALF, its President for the first six years and a man who, when history is written, will be regarded as having helped the independent rancher more than any other single person: Leo McDonnell.

What Would Leo Do?

For the sake of his family and business Leo McDonnell had tried to disentangle himself from R-CALF before. After all, he had traveled constantly for R-CALF for six years while at the same time he and his wife owned and operated the largest and most prestigious bull test in the country: Midland. After his six year presidency Leo was ready to leave. And he’d left it in good shape with 18,000 members and $500,000 in the bank. But the Board could not envision going forward without Leo so they created an eleventh chair, that for the immediate past president. They wouldn’t let him quit.

No question, Leo did not like the fact that Kiker was booted, but in a recent phone conversation Leo said that is not why he quit the Board. "It was for my family." In response to the ruckus R-CALF decided to hold five regional meetings to answer member’s questions. More than 300 people showed up on February 28 in South Dakota and the talk got a little heated about the recent change in leadership. Basically it was a squaring off between the Montana delegation, who supported Kiker and held a more centrist view, versus the South Dakota faction who has always been more vocal and aggressive. At that meeting Leo McDonnell, R-CALF’s patron saint, tried to soothe the boiling waters. "I resigned from the Board for personal reasons," he said. "I did not resign my R-CALF membership. I continue to believe in this organization to accomplish R-CALF’s policy goals. I encourage each of you to do the same. This last year I’ve heard people talking about sides in R-CALF, there is no us and them, only we. The bickering and name calling and petty stuff must stop now, and it must stop here. There is unity in the Board now, so we need to let the Board go forward and lead and lead R-CALF to the next level. We all want the same thing, we just go about it differently. It is one thing to have a passion for this organization, but it is entirely inappropriate to level personal attacks against each other. Just because you think you’re right, doesn’t mean you’re doing the right thing. Every decision made should be based on what is good for the U.S. rancher."

Ah, once again, the voice of reason.

Looking back one wonders if Leo wishes he had not formally resigned for all the commotion it caused because his resignation was unnecessary anyway. Once Kiker became the Past President Leo would no longer sit in the Past President’s seat.

Ever the class act, Leo further explained his position to the Digest. "The differences weren’t so much about subject matter as it was the way you go about things," he said. "They wanted to do things a different way. I was all for building relationships and wanted to work more on trade reform and COOL. But it’s time to let them have the reins. I’m still an R-CALF member. What other group out there doing what R-CALF does?"

Leo sent Max Thornsberry a cordial letter and has gone to Washington on behalf of R-CALF to testify since the big dust up. All this probably never would have happened had Leo still been R-CALF President, but let the man come up for air, for gosh sakes.

Trigger Happy

R-CALF haters are, no doubt, enjoying all this. They claim that R-CALF lost several of its over sixty affiliates but only one has quit: The Independent Cattlemen´s Association of Texas, a longtime affiliate of both NCBA and R-CALF. The group’s board of directors voted unanimously to leave R-CALF because they did not agree with the use of aggressive litigation to solve cattle issues. Their President Bruce Dopslauf, told a Texas newspaper that R-Calf was "trigger-happy" when it came to suing the government in federal court, whereas Kiker urged negotiation and restraint.

It’s been reported that R-CALF lost 7,000 members as a result of the Texans quitting and while the group has that many members R-CALF never has counted its affiliate’s members as their own, as the NCBA used to do. To be a member of R-CALF you have to join R-CALF. Bullard says that R-CALF’s membership now stands at 15,000, a loss of 3,000 from its high point. R-CALF Vice President Randy Stevenson explains the loss this way: "During the record-breaking fund-raisers of 2005, many families signed up every single member of their family. Now, they’re decided to renew, but only under the ranch name, or only under the name of a single individual."

While some Texas ranchers are disillusioned with R-CALF other groups, like the South Dakota Stock Growers who voted unanimously to continue its affiliation, are happy with the group’s direction. "We’ve experienced great successes in the cattle industry since R-CALF was first created, said SDSGA President Rick Fox. "We look forward to continued success as we work together to achieve fair trade policies and to prevent the U.S. from becoming a dumping ground for the world’s poorest beef."

Sheeple

If you want to read what the R-CALF detractors are saying you can get your fill at swifthorses.com. This web site provide "R-CALF members with a timeline of events that led up to the organization´s current schism." No one has yet claimed credit for the anti-R-CALF site causing one blogger to suggest it was "engineered and fueled by possibly the NCBA, the American Meat Institute, the U.S.D.A., a few disgruntled radical members, or even possibly all of them on the same team."

We don’t suppose its anything quite that villainous. But whoever is responsible for stirring the pot is madder than a rained on rooster. Anyone who enjoys a good cat fight will get a kick out of this site as this entry suggests: "R-LAFF or R-CULT. So good luck and God bless you. Just don´t drink any of the Kool-Aid." An R-CALF supporter countered by calling the dissidents, "naive, uninformed "sheeple" that blindly jumps on a bandwagon without first finding out the facts."

Growing Pains

Bullard looks upon these recent travails as growing pains. "We were the new kid on the block and we grew very fast, gaining prominence almost overnight and enjoying explosive success. There are bound to be conflicts from within. It all happened so fast." Bullard also sees some benefit to the gut-wrenching events. "Since January our output far exceeds what we did before. The Board is unified and committed. Before this happened there was a growing level of bureaucracy at R-CALF. It had become too complex. Corrective action was taken and we are forging ahead working aggressively on issues that our members care deeply about."

Another R-CALF founder, Herman Schumacher, has become the Henry Kissinger of the cow business, traveling anywhere to put out the flames of discontent. Says Herman, "Our members have told us they want us to go on and be the voice that they’re so longing for that they haven’t had for many, many years."

Those who would bury R-CALF ought to be careful what they wish for. The recent cleansing means that R-CALF is going back to its roots as Hell-raising cowboys intent on doing the right thing, damn the politics. It’s what made R-CALF so successful in the first place. The people that remain are committed, hardened troopers who will never give up fighting for what they think is best for the American rancher. Their best, and worst, traits are summed up in four words... they are not compromisers.

Meanwhile, Kiker and the others who quit R-CALF did not run to join NCBA. Instead Kiker and several officers who resigned have formed a new group, the United States Cattlemen´s Association. When Leo McDonnell was asked what he thought about the formation of another group he spoke with the same common sense we’ve come to expect from him... "We can use all the squeaky wheels we can get in this business."

Add New Comment Show Comments (0)