Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue 13 FROM USCA PRESIDENT€¦ · · 2015-11-07Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue...

United States Cattlemen’s Association

1

1

Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue 13

COOLInterviewwith Leo

McDonnellBy Leesa Zalesky

FROM USCA PRESIDENT

Danni Beer While the U.S. cattle industry and consumers await a World Trade Organization (WTO) ar-bitration panel ruling on the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) program, Leo McDon-nell, a rancher in Montana and North Dakota and a long-time COOL proponent, sat down with me for this interview about the status of COOL. The WTO pan-el decision -- about whether or not U.S. COOL caused damage to the Canadian and Mexican cattle industries and, if so, how much those damages amount to -- will dictate whether or not Canada and Mexico are per-mitted to retaliate against the U.S. and at what level. McDon-nell has been a cornerstone of the COOL effort in the U.S.; his work on the matter stretches back more than a decade.

Please see COOL on page 7

he 2015 USCA Annual meeting is in the books but the great memories made with great people are fresh in my mind. Members met up on Friday and headed out to see some amazing ranches in western North Dakota. We visited four beautiful ranches, each was unique and yet shared common goals. The common goals included land and ranch sustainability. None of them are wondering how to define sustainability, like those outside the agriculture community, all of them are living sustainability, day in and day out. See pictures from the tour in this newsletter.

Saturday the Annual Business meet-ing took place followed by some really good speakers including Terry Stewart from Stewart and Stewart Law Firm in Washington DC. Terry updated us on the status of the WTO case and expects we will hear a panel decision on the tar-iff amount in December. USCA members out west have been hard at work on the sage grouse and the Endangered Species List listing. Their hard work paid off as they have seen some success with the non-list-ing of the Sage Grouse. There is much work to be done as the agencies imple-ment the management plan and USCA will remain engaged. Read more on page 10. Considerable discussion was given to the growing concern of food retail-ers advertising unrealistic claims, for example Subway’s announcement to use meat that is “antibiotic free”. As ranchers we read labels and adhere to antibiotic withdrawal periods. The challenge is to educate the people in charge of these decisions that we need to be the ones determining the proper treatment of our animals, not someone in a marketing board room wanting to increase sales by offering a certain “free” product.

Please see BEER on page 2

“The challenge is to educate the people in charge ofthese decisions that we need to be the ones determining the proper treatment of our animals, not someone in a marketing board room wanting to increase sales by offering a certain “free” product.

T

Reprinted with permission fromthe Western Ag Reporter:


2

2

Region I – Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii Kent Wright 118 NE 92nd Ave. Vancouver, WA 98664 509-435-3590 [email protected] Region II - California and Nevada Jane Wooster Box 340 San Lucas, CA 93954 831-385-5316 H 831-809-4568 C 831-385-6878 Fax [email protected] III – Arizona and New Mexico Boe Lopez Diamond Arrow Ranch, LLC P.O. Box 674 Springer, NM 87747 505-469-9055 C 575-483-2335 H 575-445-2618 Fax [email protected] IV – Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado Adam Redland 2988 D Road Ten Sleep, WY 82443 307-250-1548 [email protected] V -T exas Chuck Kiker 7635 Colonial Dr. Beaumont, TX 77707 409-842-5070 H / Fax 409-658-0959 C [email protected] VI - Montana and Idaho Mary Ann Murray 487 S Sand Creek Rd Jordan, MT 59337 406-557-2400 H 406-853-2402 C-cell only works away from ranch 406-557-2402 Fax [email protected]

Region VII - Nebraska and Iowa Rod Gray 4281 Henry Road Harrison, NE 69346 308-668-2520 H 308-668-2525 W 308-665-5979 C [email protected] VIII- Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma Allan Sents 758 Pioneer Road

Marquette, KS 67464 620-241-7283 H 620-241-4713 C 785-546-2216 W 785-546-2217 Fax [email protected] IX- Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and AlabamaRegion X – North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota Kenny Graner 5355 HWY 1806 Mandan, ND 58554 701-663-3805 H 701-471-8879 C [email protected] XI- Florida and GeorgiaRegion XII: West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina Eddie Shelton Diamond S Farms 411 Buckscrape Road Union Hall, VA 24176 540-576-1223 H 540-420-3813 C 540-576-3756 Fax [email protected] website www.diamondslivestock.comRegion XIII - Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan

Region XIV -Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois Linda L. C hezem 530 Denny Drive Mooresville, IN 46158 317-409-5050 C [email protected] Region XV - Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Ver-mont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode IslandRegion XVI - Native American Reservations of the United States

Affiliate Council Seat: Destry Brown PO Box 158 Hyannis,NB 69350 08-458-2244 [email protected] Emeritus Leo McDonnell, Jr. 13 Bull Drive Columbus, MT 59019 406-322-4447 H 406-780-0176 C 406-321-0655 C (Sam) 406-322-5210 Fax [email protected]

BEER (continued from page 1)

Some common sense came forward in the finalization of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines from United States Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Health and Hu-man Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Burwell regarding the 2015 Dietary Guidelines. In a hearing in the House Ag. Committee, both stated that the in-clusion of sustainability and environ-mental concerns in the proposed 2015 guidelines was far outside the commit-tee’s expertise and stated goal. USCA

Officers &

DirectorsUSCA

President – Danni Beer 10779 – 212th Ave. Keldron, SD 57634 605-524-3383 H 701-471-6232 C-cell only works away from ranch [email protected]

Vice President - Chuck Kiker 7635 Colonial Dr. Beaumont, TX 77707 409-842-5070 H / Fax 409-658-0959 C [email protected]

Treasurer – Jane Wooster PO Box 340 San Lucas, CA 93954 831-385-5316 H 831-809-4568 C 831-385-6878 Fax [email protected]

Secretary -Whitney Klasna 31784 Hwy 201 Lambert MT 59243 C 406-951-0538 H 406-774-3461 [email protected]

Immediate Past President - Jon Wooster PO Box 340 San Lucas, CA 93954 831-385-5316 H 831-809-4577 C 831-385-6878 Fax [email protected]

submitted comments and we were heard. Good job and thank you Secre-taries Vilsack and Burwell. This week IARC (the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer) announced a list of things that “cause” cancer. In the list of “probably carcinogenic” is processed red meat. According to USCA director Linda Chezem the report is very mis-leading, “It should also be noted that the IARC completed reviews of 940 other substances to determine the risk posed to cancer. The items receiving the high-est risk classification included sunlight,

air, hair coloring, and alcohol amongst others. USCA remains committed to promoting the nutritional benefits of red meat and its important role in a healthy, well-balanced diet.” The silver lining in these attacks from outside our industry on sustain-ability, linking beef to diseases and outrageous “free” claims, is the oppor-tunity created to give cattle producers a chance to respond. We are the ex-perts on providing healthy beef and we can tell the truth about beef’s valu-able role in healthy diets and healthy ecosystems.


3

3

Ongoing Issues: Progress,But Significant Work Remains The past few months have seen sig-nificant action on a number of items that have been on agriculture’s “watch list” for some time. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) and the United States Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) and United States Depart-ment of Health and Human Services (HHS) all issued significant announce-ments on their respective issues. You can reference USCA’s press statements included in this newsletter for more background on these items, and of course, if you’re not following us on Facebook or Twitter yet—do so!—as we broke news on all of these items via that medium. On August 28th the EPA’s proposed changes to the Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS) officially went into effect. The changes, now referred to as the Clean Water Rule, were to be implemented across the country by EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, the co-administra-tor of the rule. However, a number of lawsuits have since resulted in a halt to these changes. First, a successful law-suit filed by 13 states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mex-ico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, granted a halt to implemen-tation of the rule in these select states. Following this decision, on October 9th the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Ap-peals ruled a stay on implementing the changes to all states, meaning that no states are mandated to implement the changes until the court decides wheth-

er it has the authority to rule on the matter. It was just announced that this court will consider oral arguments on December 8th in order to determine its authority on the issue. We remain active within our EPA-based Agricul-ture-led coalition in order to collectively fight back on this issue; stay tuned for updates. Following the EPA news, the U.S. De-partment of Interior (DOI) announced on September 22nd that the FWS had determined not to list the Greater-Sage Grouse under the Endangered Spe-cies Act (ESA). USCA spent consider-able time this year, especially during the annual fly-in to Washington, D.C., meeting with Administration officials on this issue and we are pleased with the ruling. However, while this decision is a victory for those on private lands, it remains to be seen how the public lands will fare. USCA’s Public Lands Committee has been actively engaged on this issue and have received mixed messages in that the proposed “sage grouse plans” for public lands vary widely from state to state and within their designated field offices. USCA is working to address these concerns and secure needed certainty and assuranc-es from the Administration that public lands will not be unduly harmed by the listing decision. Our goal from the start has been to support the co-existence of livestock and the grouse and to better publicize the benefits of livestock graz-ing on prime grouse habitat. We remain committed to the mantra, “what’s good for the herd is good for the bird” and

will continue to work to ensure this is the case for all producers who operate on both private and public lands. Lastly, on October 7th, the USDA and HHS made official remarks that sustain-ability and environment-based sections of the proposed 2015 Dietary Guide-lines would not be included in the final product. If you recall, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines were issued earlier this year with some disturbing additions—nota-bly the sections stated above. The Di-etary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) acted far outside their scope of expertise in including these referenc-es and USCA was pleased to see both USDA Secretary Vilsack and HHS Sec-retary Burwell comment on the over-reach. Additionally, after what was a considerable lapse in communication, it was relayed to USCA during this year’s fly-in that the serving size recommen-dation of red meat would remain the same in the 2015 guidelines as it has in previous years. This was welcome news following speculation and reports that hinted otherwise. The final 2015 guide-lines will be released later this fall and we will continue to monitor the draft and discussions as that date nears. Each of these departments’ decisions significantly affect agriculture, and particularly the cattle industry, and as explained here, USCA remains active on multiple fronts pursuing means by which to battle back against any ad-verse decisions. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at 202-870-3342 or [email protected] if you have any questions or comments on anything noted above.

USCA Deputy Director Government & Industry Relations

Kelly Fogarty

“what’s good for the herd is good for the bird””


4

4

“... they can’t generate the calls and emails from constituents like YOU ...”

CountryT H E

withJESS PETERSON

USCA Executive Vice President

C O N N E C T I O N

Greetings USCA Members, A big thank you to all that attended the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota and the US Cattlemen’s Association joint annual meeting in Bismarck, ND Oct. 2-3rd. The meeting was very productive and provided a great opportunity to bring together a group of dedicated and motivated cat-tle producers committed to making a difference within the US cattle indus-try. A big thank you to the folks in North Dakota that helped put the meet-ing together. One of the highlights of this year’s meeting was the full day ranch tour that served as a kick-off to the two-day event. The tour was both enjoyable and informative and offered a great chance for producers outside the state to see the best of North Dako-ta and its producers. Plans are already underway to build off of this year’s success for the 2016 meeting. If you are interested in playing a role in US-

CA’s 2016 Annual Meeting, please let us know. COOL, EPA and Endangered Spe-cies are thoroughly covered in this newsletter. I will focus my comments on the state of the cattle market and how cattle producers need to lean in and build our base of engaged par-ticipants within the policy arena. I will make one quick note on COOL…if your Senator is not supporting the Hoeven-Stabenow prescriptive fix to COOL…call them RIGHT now and say you support truth in labeling. Repeal-ing COOL and replacing our current meat labels with a false origin label is unacceptable. The fact that Senators in western cow-calf states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Nebraska are not on this bill is extremely disappoint-ing. It costs next to nothing to make a phone call or send an email. The op-ponents are filling the coffers of politi-cal campaign accounts…but they can’t generate the calls and emails from

constituents like YOU. Money is not the issue in this debate. Apathy is the greatest risk. If calls or emails are not made…we will lose. It seems so strange to simply put in a request for a phone call from the country, yet it means so much when Kelly Fogarty and I walk into a Congressional office. If you don’t make the call…don’t complain when all is lost. (202) 224-3121 is the line to call, ask for your Senators’ offices. This past year I have witnessed first-hand what it means to be com-pletely disappointed and depressed, yet inspired knowing that there is only one cattlemen’s association out there that fights tooth and nail for YOU the cow-calf producers and YOUR bottom line and that’s of course the US Cattle-men’s Association. This year marked the expiration of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 also known as Mandatory Price Reporting (MPR). The Act is re-authorized every 5 years. Each reau-thorization process involves livestock groups and meat packers circling up to discuss potential changes and adjust-ments. All of the major livestock and packer groups and companies partici-pated in the meetings. Discussions took place from June through August and heated up like the temperatures outside. I can’t go into a lot of details, however, what was mos


5

5

“... FIGHTING for the bottomline and competitive edgefor US cattle producers.”

depressing and disappointing was the fact that the groups who opposed mak-ing changes to MPR knew exactly what they were during and how they were setting up the cattle market to tank. I won’t place the lack of changes within MPR as the sole or primary factor for the drop in the cattle market, but it cer-tainly played a role. USCA heard from sources within the industry and price reporting offices earlier this year that a storm in the cattle market was brew ing. The bottom line is this: When the moment arose for the meat packers to run the tables, they had every tool in their toolbox to do just that. Look no further than what the cattle market did from August forward….From a capitalist standpoint, I have no prob-lem with any segment of our industry turning a profit. But not implementing policy that would have enhanced price discovery, competition and transparen-cy is just plain wrong. USCA led an effort to insert bill language that would require commit-ted- for-delivery cattle to be reported. This is a simple, common sense mod-ification of the current law. A similar provision can be found within the hog reporting law. Granted, I don’t see this as a silver bullet provision, rather it represents a first step in taking some needed steps to provide tools for com-petition and transparency. The lack

of negotiated cattle is unsettling to anyone involved in cattle marketing. As previously noted in my newsletter article, even Wall Street analysts will tell you, competitive markets thrive from true price discovery. The rise in non-negotiated agreements needs to be addressed and this is the first step. At the end of the day we had to reach consensus in order to move the bill for-ward and ensure a lapse in MPR did not occur. I appreciate the leadership and commitment from Senate Ag Com-mittee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Ranking Member Debbie Staben-ow (D-MI) and their staff to shepherd along passage of the bill and look for-ward to the President’s signature of MPR. It’s unfortunate that some of the changes I discussed did not occur. In this case more members, would have meant more pressure. That being not-ed, if anyone asks why join USCA….right there you have an answer…this organization is in the trenches FIGHT-ING for the bottom line and competi-tive edge for US cattle producers. Cat-tle producers need an organization that is in the trenches day in and day out. I am proud that USCA is working hard and doing just that. The fight isn’t over on MPR…our understanding is that USDA will be opening the law up for a proposed rule-making and comment period in

2016. The changes that USCA teed up in 2015 could become law via the 2016 rule-making process. We’ll keep you posted via the newsletter, web-site, emails, social media and the Horn Wrap. A couple of things in closing: This cattle market has been a wild horse race with twists at every turn. I can’t thank the folks at Consolidated Beef Producers (CBP) enough for their mar-keting of fat cattle on the cash market along with the market insights that they provided USCA throughout the MPR process. CBP is putting their mon-ey where their mouth is, they sponsor a daily market report and overview called “The Beef”. Simply log on to: http://www.thebeefread.com/ . Some of the BEST market insights and intel-ligence can be found here at NO COST. Check it out – you will be glad you did. Also – calling into the Horn Wrap just got easier…you can now dial in via a 1-800 number and not type in any code. Simply dial: 866-254-5984 at 7 am MT the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month. Thank you for your continued sup-port and involvement in USCA. All things considered, we are doing well and next year will be even better. Con-tinue to sign up new members with USCA. Now is the perfect time to posi-tively influence your bottom line.

Calling into the Horn Wrap just got easier…you can now dial in via a 1-800 number and not type in any code. Sim-ply dial: 866-254-5984 at 7 am MT the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month.


6

6


7

7

Q. Please update readers on the cur-rent status of U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL). LM: The WTO (World Trade Organi-zation) panels, while affirming the right of the U.S. to have COOL, have ruled against the way the Department of Ag-riculture (USDA) implemented it, say-ing it discriminates against importers. We are now in the period called “arbi-tration” where Canada and Mexico are seeking WTO authorization to impose retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. In fact, on September 14 and 15, the degree of tariffs to be allowed by the WTO was argued before a WTO arbitration panel in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.S. was included in this hearing and was per-mitted to present arguments. Obviously, Canada and Mexico argued for high tar-iffs, and the U.S. argued for lower tar-iffs with each presenting their own eco-nomic models related to harm. During that process, Canada went out of the norm by trying to substantiate harm to cattle prices in their own country, which is interesting based on the record prices

Canada has had while COOL has been in effect.

Q. When do you expect a ruling from the WTO arbitration panel on retal-iation? LM: Originally, a decision was to be issued on November 27th; however, it has now been delayed until December 7.

Q. How do you see the final outcome for COOL unfolding? LM: There are basically four poten-tial outcomes, in my opinion: 1) The first possibility is that the WTO will grant low-level retaliatory tariffs, and we should be able to keep mandatory COOL. 2) The second possibility is that the WTO will grant high-level retaliatory tariffs, and the U.S. Senate will pass a bill to re-peal COOL after which we would revert back to the old standards of where cattle or nearly any beef imported into the U.S. can be labeled as U.S. beef. 3) The third potential outcome is that the U.S. Senate could retain the current law but simply change the language to “voluntary” for

COOL (continued from page 1)

pork and beef, which would exempt Canada and Mexico from having to la-bel their product in the U.S. It’s difficult to believe any elected official would sup-port this because it would return us to the deceptive practices of the past. This would be particularly disturbing, espe-cially when there is a solution that al-lows everyone to win, at least when it comes to truthfulness in labeling. 4) And the fourth possibility is that the WTO grants high-level retaliatory tariffs, and the U.S. “stands its ground” regarding the U.S. being able to govern itself for something as simple as labeling food products as to origin. I don’t believe the last option is at all viable in today’s polit-ical environment.

Q. It seems now that the amount of retaliation authorized by the WTO against the U.S. is key to COOL’s future. Canada and Mexico have claimed billions of dollars in damag-es, and the U.S. has argued that the

Please see COOL on page 8

“Keep the “A” label provision, which is set aside exclusively for U.S. beef. U.S. producers would have an already-established and well-funded marketing program to promote their product and support exclusive U.S. beef products.”


8

8

COOL (continued from page 7)

damages are far, far less. The possi-ble outcomes you’ve described seem to hinge on what the WTO finds the damages actually are, if any. Ex-pound on that, please. LM: If you look at the reported prices from Canada, from 2009 (after COOL went into effect) until May 2013, there was little or no change in Cana-dian fed cattle prices as compared to U.S. prices. Actually, there was a $2/cwt difference, which is quite an improve-ment from the late 1990s when Canadi-an prices were $7/cwt under U.S. prices. Remember, these are cattle prices that the packers are required to report un-der the mandatory price reporting pro-gram, so it’s unlikely they would report false numbers due to the associated fed-eral laws and subsequent criminal laws that would be broken by doing so. From May 2013, when USDA issued new COOL rules to satisfy WTO con-cerns, Canadian fat cattle slipped to $3 under fed cattle. It’s still not clear if the change was due to economic and market conditions in Canada as the Ca-nadian dollar was starting to fall, or if U.S. packers placed the costs of the new rule on just imported cattle rather than across all cattle harvested in the U.S. If the latter scenario is true, it could give cause for discriminatory actions to be brought against those plants. Again, if you use actual reported prices, there is little harm to Canada and Mexico, which is supported by the growing percentage of their production the U.S. has been taking since COOL was im-plemented. With that said, the U.S. has not fared well in WTO challenges and historically has lost 90% of such cases. It’s interesting that neither Canada, Mexico, nor the importers could prove economic harm in our court system when they filed a lawsuit to have COOL blocked and lost the case.

Q. Some who support mandato-ry COOL argue that changing the

COOL law to a voluntary basis is un-acceptable. Explain why you don’t agree with that. LM: Their argument is simply not correct in my opinion, and here’s why. If we keep the law as it is with the “A” label provision, which is set aside ex-clusively for U.S. beef, but change the language from mandatory to voluntary, it is still the law, and we will have pro-tected the definition of what is U.S. beef for labeling purposes. Beef from import-ed cattle or most imported beef that is further processed in the U.S. could not be labeled as a U.S. product under the bill that has been introduced by Sen-ators Stabenow and Hoeven. In other words, we would still maintain the in-tegrity and identity of U.S. beef, and we would protect producers’ opportunity to differentiate our product and mar-ket it truthfully and appropriately. If we ever get the beef checkoff updated to the 21st century and make it respon-sive to consumers’ growing demands to know where their food comes from, U.S. producers would have an already-es-tablished and well-funded marketing program to promote their product and support exclusive U.S. beef products. With that in mind, why not take the most important first step by truthfully identifying our product as U.S. beef and clearly defining the eligibility parame-ters for that label? This will be key to differentiating our product in the global market we find ourselves in today. I urge producers to contact their U.S. Senators to preserve the integrity of the COOL la-bel by supporting the Stabenow-Hoeven bill in the Senate. If Senators have not signed on to the Stabenow-Hoeven bill, they are, in fact, supporting full repeal of COOL and a retreat to a system that easily allows mislabeling for consumers.

Q. Would changing the language in the COOL law from mandatory to voluntary have to be approved by the WTO dispute process? LM: I don’t believe so, but it would have to be approved by Canada and

Mexico, as part of the negotiations to stop potential retaliation tariffs.

Q. What if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to the language change? LM: Then the U.S. would have to bring a case before the WTO, basically saying that we are in compliance with the WTO’s decision. Not long ago, Mex-ico brought a case against the U.S. on a voluntary dolphin label, and the U.S. won that challenge, so we have a pretty good precedence. One thing about it, we will find out just how good are neigh-bors, Canada and Mexico, really are.

Q. You’re very experienced with the politics involved in getting COOL passed by Congress in the first place as you were part of that difficult process. If the U.S. Senate repeals COOL now, is there any possibility of working with Congress to come back later on with voluntary COOL legislation that would incorporate what you’ve described? LM: If the current COOL law is ful-ly repealed, voluntary or mandatory, it’s highly unlikely in my lifetime that we will see it reintroduced. COOL op-ponents have very deep pockets and the significant political influence that comes with that. Any new legislation would be compromised worse than the current legislation has been today.

Q. The long battle over COOL has lit-erally pitted U.S. cattle producers and consumers against the special interest groups representing the multinational packers, Canada and Mexico. No one knows that better than you. LM: What has been most disappoint-ing and discouraging is the fact that the primary contractor for the mandatory beef checkoff program - the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) - has been a leading opponent of U.S. cattle producers’ right to label and dif-ferentiate their product from that of foreign nations. That is, on one hand you have the government mandating a


9

9

collection of the $1.00 per head checkoff to market and promote our product, and on the other hand you have the prima-ry contractor for the mandated checkoff lobbying to keep producers from iden-tifying product for promotion-targeted consumers. In a free market system where accountability counts for some-thing, NCBA would’ve been fired a long time ago as a checkoff contractor. It’s really unfortunate, but that is where we are today. Fortunately, many of the oth-er agriculture commodity checkoff pro-grams have moved to a more modern-ized checkoff structure under the as the 1996 Commodity Checkoff Act, which is far less regulated and frees checkoff programs to solicit and contract with some pretty exciting and dynamic mar-ket specialists rather than the same old industry policy groups.

Q. Boil all the controversy over COOL down and tell readers what aspect of the program you believe drove its opponents to such lengths to see it defeated? LM: The COOL law deviated from what’s known as “point of transforma-tion,” which is a method used on a lot of imported products. Prior to COOL, if you simply slaughtered imported cattle in the U.S. or further processed import-ed beef after it came into the U.S. -- even just sprinkling seasoning on it -- you could call it U.S. beef. However, we all know people don’t eat cows or sit down to a dinner of a quartered beef carcass or a chub of frozen imported lean beef. The previous rules did not specifically address livestock, so we worked with Congress to develop the “born, raised, and slaughtered” language that became part of the COOL law. The importers and packers and their friends didn’t like this because, if U.S. beef was actually promoted in the U.S. like it is in foreign markets where it brings a 20% premi-um over the product of our next closest competitors Canada and Australia, then they would have to buy it from U.S. cat-tle producers, which would greatly re-

duce their procurement basis. Obvious-ly, they want the same opportunity in the U.S. domestic market that they enjoy in the international market where they can claim it is U.S. beef as long as it was harvested or processed in some way in the U.S. They basically want a free mar-ket system with no rules, no origin in-tegrity, and no transparency.

Q. What made it so difficult for the WTO panel in their ruling against the U.S.? LM: The opposition made it very dif-ficult for the WTO to understand how much record-keeping is already in place and required for brand name claims and quality grade claims here in the U.S. These are systems that the packing plants already have in place to identify live cattle for many of the marketing claims in place today like Certified Her-eford Beef, Certified Angus Beef, the natural beef programs, etc. There are around 75 branded products alone that use Angus in their brand name, and this

claim requires that the cattle be at least 51% black-hided, which -- when you look at many of the Angus labels used for products like hamburger -- means keeping trimmings and other grounded product segregated. I don’t believe the WTO was allowed to understand the fact that our food system requires that the food industry has to be able to trace back and verify these claims.

Q. Are there other countries with such a defined COOL system? LM: There are about 60 countries around the globe with some form of COOL. Interestingly, member nations of the European Union are adopting a form of COOL that will even be stricter and broader than what we have in the U.S. Also, Canada is moving to COOL with the support of their Chamber of Commerce, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sided with Canada and Mex-ico in trying to repeal COOL here in the U.S.

uscattlemen.org

DATE:Calls are held on thefirst and third Tuesdaysof each month.

TIME:9:00 a.m. Eastern8:00 a.m. Central7:00 a.m. Mountain6:00 a.m. Pacific

Call in number:

866-254-5984

Calling into the Horn Wrap just got easier…you can now dial in via a 1-800 number and not type in any code. Simply dial: 866-254-5984 at 7 am MT the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month.

HORN WRAP


10

10

USCA (September 23, 2015) – The Unit-ed States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) applauds the announcement made by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decid-ed not to list the greater sage grouse un-der the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The announcement comes as wel-come news to ranchers, land users, man-agers and owners across the West who have been working with the DOI and USDA to prevent a listing of the species. USCA Public Lands Committee Chair-man Bert Paris (Nevada) commented on the announcement, “USCA and our mem-bers in the West welcome the non-listing decision, particularly on private lands. Ranchers have worked hand-in-hand with private and public stakeholders to ensure that every effort was being taken to maintain greater sage grouse habitat while still maintaining a viable operat-ing environment for ranchers and live-stock.” “The non-listing decision sets an ex-ample for how the next steps on this is-sue must happen. Instead of relying on a top-down approach to species listings and habitat management, the process must involve land owners and other us-ers. The decision not to list acknowledg-es the commitment made by individuals and organizations who maintain a sus-tainable working Western landscape that includes conservation of the region’s nat-ural resources.”“USCA and producers across the West should be heartened by this announce-

ment as a solid first step on this matter. The critical next step in this process is how the land management agencies will now implement their management plans.“ “We understand the concerns raised by Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) regard-ing the BLM and USFS management plans and the fact that they do not recog-nize the hard work put in at the state level to implement s u c c e s s f u l conservation and manage-ment plans. We encourage the agencies to engage with those working on-the-ground in sage grouse habitat to m a i n t a i n both the spe-cies and the l ive l i h o o d s of those that have worked

Serving The Industry Since 1940

SUBSCRIBE TODAY 1 Year $55.00 2 Years $75.00

PO Box 30758 • Billings, MT 59107Phone 406-259-4589

Fax 406-259-6888

Patrick K. GogginsPublisher

Linda GrosskopfEditor

www.westernagreporter.com E-mail: [email protected]

so hard to maintain sustainable working landscapes.” “The conservation on private lands in the West signals a clear relationship be-tween the benefits of grazing and grouse habitat. This relationship holds true on public lands and the BLM and Forest Ser-vice management plans should reflect that.” “USCA members have traveled to Washington, D.C. and across the country to carry the message about the work be-ing done on the ground for the greater sage grouse. This summer, USCA mem-bers traveled to D.C. to specifically bring this message to lawmakers and to urge the Administration and agency officials to not the list species under the ESA. We are pleased with yesterday’s announce-ment and will now take up the next task at hand and show that conservation that works on private land can also work on public land.” Paris concluded, “This decision shows, ‘what is good for the herd is truly good the bird’.”

USCA Applauds Sage Grouse Non-Listing Decision; Urges

Continued Monitoring of Public Lands Management Decisions


11

11

United States Cattlemen’s Association12

USCA Newsletter Advertising Rates

Business Card size .......... $ 50.00 1/4 page ad ................... $ 100.00 1/2 page ad ................... $ 200.00 Full page ad ................... $ 350.00

USCA BODElects Officers

At the 2015 USCA Board of Di-rectors meeting in Bismarck on Oct. 3rd the BOD elected the fol-lowing as the officers for the com-ing year:

President: Danni BeerVice-President: Kenny Graner

Secretary: Whitney KlasnaTreasurer: Jane Wooster

Parliamentarian: Chuck Kiker

The New Mexico Cattle Grow-ers Association will fill the affili-ate seat held by Independent Cat-tlemen of Nebraska in 2014. The membership will vote by mail in November on Regional Di-rectors and policy changes.

Kent is a sixth generation cattle rancher, raised on the family ranch in the Saint John area of Whitman Coun-ty, Washington. A 2004 graduate of St. John/Endicott High School, Kent re-ceived an Associate of Science and an Associate of Arts degree from Walla Walla Community College where he was also a scholar athlete on the base-ball team. Kent then moved on to attend West Texas A&M University where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Biology while also compet-ing as a scholar athlete on the baseball team. Kent then moved on to attend Western Kentucky University earning his Master’s of Science degree while also serving as a graduate assistant baseball coach to West Texas A&M University baseball team and pursuing a lifelong dream of playing professional baseball. After a career as a professional baseball player for various teams Kent moved on to serve as a player and a trainer for professional polo horses. Kent is the current President of Northwest Farmers Union; a regional chapter under Na-tional Farmers Union. Kent currently resides in Vancouver, WA as it has an in-

ternational airport nearby for his work as a horse clinician and international baseball scout throughout the world. While Kent is often on the go he still maintains a close connection with the family ranch, Wright Way Angus, and serves as the marketing and communi-cations manager and assists in day to day operations as he is available. Kent and Tiffany, his wife, enjoy be-ing involved in agriculture and work-ing to improve the industry. They have one son.

Kent WrightSPOTLIGHT ON

United States Cattlemen’s Association 13

SADDLE UP WITH USCA!

NUTRALIX, INC. has generously donated

a saddle to theUNITED STATES

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATIONfor our

2016 membership drive.

If you join USCA or renew your membership between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, you will be entered for a chance to win this beautiful saddle. Also, for each new member you recruit to join USCA, you will be given an additional entry. To receive proper credit for your recruitment entry, the “recruited by” section of the membership form must be completed to include your name, address, and phone number. So, be sure to renew your membership and ask your friends and neighbors to become part of the USCA family!

EXACT DRAWING TIME AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED.

uscattlemen.org

L-R: George Yost, Gene Phillips and Joyce Phillips.


12

14

United State Cattlemen’S aSSoCiation

P.o. Box 339San lUCaS, Ca 93954

Members final stop of the day was at the Keller Broken Heart Ranch followed by a great steak supper sponsored by Dakota Community Bank and Trust.

Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue 13 FROM USCA PRESIDENT€¦ · · 2015-11-07Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue...

Documents

Transcript of Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue 13 FROM USCA PRESIDENT€¦ · · 2015-11-07Fall 2015 Volume 8, Issue...