December 21, 2004

Tribe: ‘only goal’ was to show checkoff violates ranchers’ rights

(Professor Laurence Tribe argued LMA’s case challenging the checkoff before the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8. Since then, some industry columnists have questioned some of his arguments and comments made at a post-hearing news conference. LMA asked Tribe to respond, and he authorized issuing this statement.)

“I wasn’t too surprised to see my comments on the beef checkoff taken out of context and blown out of proportion; it goes with the territory.

“My one and only aim in this case has been to demonstrate on behalf of the Livestock Marketing Association that the beef checkoff program violates the free speech rights of those ranchers who object to being forced, as a condition of their choice of livelihood, to support speech with which they happen, for whatever reason, to disagree.

“In our brief and in my oral argument, we consistently focused on LMA and our other clients’ objections to the beef checkoff program because it produces ads that refuse to promote the sale of cattle raised in the USA, but insists on promoting all beef equally– reflecting a viewpoint that inevitably enriches producers and importers of foreign beef, at the expense of U.S. cattle ranchers.

“Second, even cattle ranchers who might not object to the checkoff program on this basis may object to it for a variety of other reasons.

“One certainly needn’t be a vegetarian or an opponent of those who consume beef – I am neither of those – to believe that we needn’t agree with a particular viewpoint to understand that those who hold it should enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment, whatever their occupation.”

For Immediate Release
December 9, 2004

LMA STATEMENT

(Livestock Marketing Association issued this statement following the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8, on LMA’s challenge to the constitutionality of the beef checkoff):

The arguments before the Justices were very lively and wide-ranging. As expected, the Justices’ questions focused on the issue of ‘government speech,’ and whether producers can be forced to financially support a program with which they disagree.

LMA’s position, that the producer-funded, directed and controlled checkoff is not government speech, and is therefore unconstitutional, was forcefully argued by Harvard School of Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.

LMA’s attorneys are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling of the Eighth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the program is not government speech and is unconstitutional. Such a ruling would be a victory for America’s independent cattle producers, and all those who believe in the rule of law.

Attending the hearing were LMA President Randy Patterson; former LMA President, and named plaintiff in the checkoff case, Patrick K. Goggins; former LMA President Jim Schaben, Jr.; chairman of LMA’s Government and Industry Affairs Committee Albert Epperly, and LMA CEO Mark Mackey.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected this spring.

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2004

LMA sees no consumer benefit, but major negative industry impact, from announcing ‘inconclusive’ BSE test results

There is no consumer benefit, but there is a major negative impact on the livestock industry, when inconclusive BSE test results are announced, Livestock Marketing Association President Randy Patterson said.

On Thursday, Nov. 18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it had received an “inconclusive” test result showing an animal had tested positive for mad cow disease (BSE).

Almost immediately, Patterson said, LMA members reported consignors withdrawing their cattle from sale; the cattle futures market went limit down on some contracts, although they rebounded somewhat later in the day; and Wall Street saw a decline in the share prices of businesses like McDonalds Corp. and Wendy’s Corp.

“Because the suspect animal did not enter the food or feed chain, there is no consumer health concern,” Patterson said Nov. 19. But the announcement Thursday “will cast a pall over the market until confirmatory test results are received, and it could be well into next week before that happens,” he said.

Patterson pointed out that last summer USDA, after hearing industry protests, changed its announcement policy. The new policy allows the agency to announce inconclusive test results after two screening tests show the animal to be positive – that was the situation Nov. 18.

“But the fact remains that the new policy allows the market to be disrupted, with no consumer benefit. And that’s basically unfair to the livestock industry – the biggest sector of America’s biggest industry, agriculture,” he said.

LMA is urging producers and marketing businesses who’d like to comment on USDA’s announcement policy, to call USDA Secretary Veneman’s office, 202-720-3631.

For Immediate Release
October 18, 2004

Producer-funded and run beef checkoff not ‘government speech’ and is unconstitutional, LMA tells U.S. Supreme Court

The national mandatory beef checkoff is funded by, credited to, and run by beef producers, not the federal government. It therefore is not “government speech,” and must be struck down as unconstitutional, Livestock Marketing Association recently told the U.S. Supreme Court.

LMA’s brief, filed with the Court, asked it to affirm a 2003 ruling by the Eight Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court found the checkoff was not government speech, and therefore violated producers’ First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

In its ruling, the Eighth Circuit upheld a similar decision, issued in 2002 by the federal district court in South Dakota.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case December 8. A decision is expected next year in the seven-year battle over the mandatory, $1 per head fee paid by cattle producers.

LMA’s brief strongly countered the defendants’ argument that the checkoff is government speech. “The beef promotion program is funded not from Congressional appropriations, but by mandatory payments that all members of the beef industry must make to their respective state beef industry associations,” it said. In fact, the brief noted, the Supreme Court has “never recognized a government speech defense” unless the speech in question was funded by taxpayers.

Furthermore, the program is not government speech because the government’s control over the program is minimal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture “loosely oversees compliance with the (Beef Act’s) conditions, but it does not initiate, create, devise, compose, fund or implement any of the Board’s activities,” the brief, filed Oct. 15, noted.

The program itself is run by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, whose members are “private industry representatives approved in slate fashion by the Secretary (of Agriculture); the Operating Committee, the entity directly responsible for selecting the (program’s) messages, is evenly divided between Beef Board members and members of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, over whose appointment USDA has no discretion.

“More to the point,” the brief continued, the Beef Board “represents itself as being entirely industry-controlled.” Its publications describe it as a “‘producer-controlled independent Board,’” and the beef checkoff as an “‘industry-run program,’ run by and accountable to cattlemen.”

That representation not only shows the checkoff is not a government program, “but also bears heavily on one of the most important factors affecting the applicability of any ‘government speech’ defense,” LMA’s brief said, “whether the speech would likely be attributed to the government or indeed to the private persons who are forced to pay for it.”

There’s no question that the latter is the case, the brief said, because the Beef Board uses the credit line, “emblazoned across each television and print advertisement,” that the ads “‘are funded by America’s Beef Producers.’”

The ads also bear the copyright of NCBA and the Beef Board, and the government is not mentioned, the brief noted.

LMA’s case will be argued before the Supreme Court by Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Professor Tribe successfully argued the Supreme Court case that struck down the mushroom checkoff as unconstitutional. This decision has provided the controlling legal precedent for LMA’s lower court victories.

LMA’s position was supported in seven “friend of the court” briefs filed by more than 70 farm and ranch organizations, including the National Farmers Union (NFU), several state Farmers Union organizations, the Campaign for Family Farms, agribusinesses, agriculture commodity importers and the Washington Legal Foundation.

For Immediate Release
August 20, 2004

Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe Joins LMA Legal Team; Will Argue Checkoff Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

LMA President Randy Patterson today announced that Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, has joined LMA’s legal team in its litigation over the beef checkoff.

Professor Tribe will argue LMA’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the appellate decision that found that the mandatory checkoff violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Professor Tribe has written the leading treatise on the Constitution and has argued 36 cases before the Supreme Court, including United States vs. United Foods, in which the Court struck down the mushroom checkoff program as unconstitutional. This decision has provided the controlling legal precedent for LMA’s lower court victories.

In making this announcement, Patterson said, “LMA is pleased and excited that an advocate of Professor Tribe’s stature and ability will present our case to the Supreme Court. LMA has been extremely satisfied with the lower court decisions in our favor in the checkoff litigation, and with the attorneys – Phillip Olsson, Ronald Parsons and Scott Heidepriem – who have brought us this far so successfully.

“These attorneys recommended enlisting Professor Tribe to present LMA’s argument to the Supreme Court. We have every confidence that with his participation, the First Amendment rights of U.S. cattle producers will continue to be vindicated.”

Patterson also praised the work of LMA members across the country, “who got into this battle on behalf of their producer customers, and LMA’s officers and directors, who’ve kept this case on course for six years.”

Oral arguments in the case are expected later this year with a decision by next summer.

For Immediate Release
July 2, 2004

LMA Executive Committee criticizes USDA’s announcing unconfirmed BSE results, citing ‘devastating impact’ on market

Citing its devastating impact on livestock producers, the cash and futures market, Livestock Marketing Association’s executive committee has sharply criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s policy of announcing inconclusive test results for mad cow disease.

“There is no justification for USDA’s current policy, considering what it’s done to America’s livestock producers,” said LMA President Randy Patterson. “And this is not a food safety issue – USDA policy keeps the meat from suspect animals from going into the human food supply. It is inexcusable that test results that haven’t been confirmed are allowed to affect the market so negatively.”

Patterson pointed out that as of July 1, inconclusive results on two animals have been widely reported. “Immediately after these announcements, the livestock futures market and the cash market have taken terrific beatings.

“And while these markets have rebounded, they never seem to recover to pre-announcement levels. What is happening is that these unnecessary announcements are ratcheting down the overall market.”

Patterson, from Anthony, Kan., said the “bottom line is that food safety and the beef consumer are being protected by USDA’s aggressive new testing policy. What isn’t being protected is the always-volatile market for cattle – a market that provides a livelihood for the millions of Americans involved in the livestock industry.

LMA will communicate its views to the appropriate agency officials, including Secretary Ann Veneman, Patterson said.

“The consumer is not being helped, and producers are being hurt by announcing inconclusive test results. It’s time that USDA change this clearly unfair policy,” he said.

For Immediate Release
June 21, 2004

LMA’s new president cites marketing’s role in soaring prices; Board urges ‘caution’ in adopting ID technology

BILLINGS, MONT. – Livestock Marketing Association’s new president, Randy Patterson, Anthony, Kan., took office here recently, and then reminded his fellow market owners of their important role in soaring livestock prices.

“When prices reach the levels we’ve seen over the past few months, all eyes are on the markets,” said Patterson, who owns two marketing businesses and a trucking firm. “And that’s because the market is made, at livestock markets.”

Shrinking cattle numbers and increased beef demand have a role in higher prices, he said. “But they’re not the only (factor)…don’t forget the work we’re all doing every day – bringing together buyers and sellers in an open, competitive arena.

“That’s the best way to get the best price, and we prove it to the industry every time we have a sale,” Patterson told attendees at LMA’s June 17 annual meeting.

Taking office along with Patterson, for 2004-2006, are Vice President Jim Santomaso, Sterling Livestock Commission Co., Sterling, Co.; Chairman of the Board, and immediate past president, Billy Perrin, Durant Stockyards, Durant, Okla.; Treasurer and LMA CFO Vincent Nowak, and Secretary and LMA CEO Mark Mackey.

Nowak and Mackey are ex-officio officers and non-voting members of the LMA Executive Committee.

New directors for the marketing trade association are David Macedo, Tulare Sales Yard, Inc., Tulare, Calif.; Pat Goggins, Public Auction Yards, Billings; E. H. Fowler, Central Missouri Sales, Sedalia, Mo.; Bobby Smith, Fairview Sale Barn, Fairview, Okla.; David Fowler, Sulphur Springs Livestock and Dairy Auction, Sulphur Springs, Texas; Steve Bartholomew, Washington County Sales Co., Inc., Fayetteville, Ark., and T. Phil Harvey, Mid-Georgia Livestock Market, Inc., Jackson.

In other action, the LMA Board of Directors passed a resolution urging markets and producers to “take a cautious approach to adopting animal ID technology and information systems that are not fully evaluated and proven through sound, empirical studies.”

The resolution also accepted the U.S. Animal Identification Plan’s (USAIP) Market/Processor Work Group report “as LMA’s guiding principles in the further development, implementation and evaluation” of the proposed national livestock identification program, now called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

The resolution, adopted after a spirited debate, noted that the Work Group report “largely reflects the market sector’s concerns and issues” about a national identification system, and the report had LMA member input.

That report makes several recommendations for the final shape of the ID program. These include:

• Animals moving through markets should be “read” only one time to indicate an animal has been at a given premises on a given date. Additional readings should be required only if there is adequate technology available that will not slow down the marketing process, and reading at the market does not cause “excessive negative economic impact” on the markets.
• A long-term economic study should be required as a part of any ID pilot project being funded. The study should determine the economic impact of any ID program “on all levels of producers and stakeholders associated with the ID system being tested.
• The owner/operator of the livestock’s premises of origin should be responsible for applying the ID devices. This tagging could occur “at authorized tagging stations or auctions if available, but responsibility would still reside with the premises owner/operator,” the report said.
• All cattle should be individually identified. Allowing cattle to move under a group/lot ID “would cause major inequities in the marketing arena,” the report notes.

In addition to urging its members and producers to take a cautious approach, the board resolution also said that until the NAIS pilot/implementation projects “are well-established, evaluated and economic impact studies completed,” the ID program “should remain voluntary.”

Under recent by-law changes, to give LMA members a voice in board policy, the resolution will be presented to the members. For the resolution to be overturned, a majority of at least 30 percent of members must vote “no.”

If less than 30 percent of the membership votes, the resolution will stand.

For Immediate Release
June 21, 2004

Canadian auctioneer – and expectant father – Dan Skeels wins LMA’s 41st annual Auctioneer Championship

BILLINGS, MONT. – Dan Skeels, who said he “never guessed this day would come,” won Livestock Marketing Association’s 41st annual World Livestock Auctioneer Championship held here June 18. Skeels, 32, of Rimbey, Alberta, won the top title following competition at the Public Auction Yards. He was sponsored by Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Company, Ltd., Ponoka, Alberta. He is only the second Canadian auctioneer to have won the world title. The first was Steve Liptay of Bowmanville, Ontario, in 1976.

On June 18, 2004, Dan Skeels, middle, Rimbey, Alberta, was named 2004 World Livestock Auctioneer Champion. Matt Lowery, left, Burwell, Nebraska, was Reserve Champion and Al Wessel, right, Long Prairie, Minnesota, was Runner-up Champion.

Named reserve world champion this year – for the second straight year – was Matt Lowery, Burwell, Neb. He was sponsored by the Gordon Livestock Market, Inc., Gordon, Neb.; Bassett Livestock Auction, Inc., Bassett, Neb.; Ericson Spalding Livestock Market, Inc, Ericson, Neb.; Valentine Livestock Auction, Valentine, Neb.; Kneuppel Livestock & Order Buying, Inc., Bonduel, Wisc.,; and Burwell Livestock Market, Inc. Al Wessel, Long Prairie, Minn., the reigning Canadian International Livestock Auctioneer Champion, took the runner-up world champion title. He was sponsored by Tri-County Livestock Auction, Motley, Minn., and Buschelle Enterprises, which operates several livestock markets in Minnesota and North Dakota. This year marked the eighth time Skeels has entered the WLAC, conducted each year to spotlight the livestock auctioneer’s continuing vital role in competitive livestock marketing. His highest finish came in 1999, when he was named reserve world champion. Skeels has finished among the top 10 finalists six times. He has been auctioneering for 15 years, and succeeds Jon Schaben, Dunlap, Iowa, the 2003 champion. Skeels had another reason to be nervous and excited, while waiting for the winners to be announced, he told the WLAC awards banquet. His wife “is 9 ½ months pregnant” with their second child, he said. With wife Karen listening on a telephone, Skeels told the banquet, “I’ll dedicate 365 days to promoting” livestock marketing and the industry. Finishing second for the second straight time didn’t bother Lowery, 28. “It’s a pleasure to be picked,” he said, adding, “I’m going to stay in the contest.” Contestants can pursue the world title until they win it. Contest rules prohibit only the world champion from re-entering. At 51, runner-up world champion Wessel has the most experience in the profession, 31 years. “I started right out of high school,” he said. Wessel took the reserve world title in 2000. About his third-place finish this year, he said, “I don’t consider myself to have lost at all, when you’re picked along with (Skeels and Lowery).” The three titlists emerged from a field of 10 finalists. The remaining seven were Lance Cochran, Medford, Okla.; Justin Dodson, Welch, Okla.; Trent Stewart, Redmond, Ore.; Ron Kreis, Adamsville, Ohio; Brian Little, Wann, Okla.; Dustin Focht, Stillwater, Okla.; and Tom Frey, Creston, Iowa. Cash awards from LMA of $5,000 went to Skeels, $2,000 to Lowery, and $1,000 to Wessel. Skeels also won a championship diamond ring from the host market, along with a custom sculpture and leather jacket from LMA. The world champion also took home the golden microphone award from the Missouri Auction School; the golden gavel award from the World Wide College of Auctioneering, and a Winchester Model 1892 presentation grade lever action rifle from Star Insurance Company. Lowery and Wessel were awarded Waterford crystal from LMA. LMA also presented the champions and finalists with custom-made belt buckles. The 31 semi-finalists took home leather work gloves branded with the LMA logo. The contest began with the semi-finalists all selling several drafts of cattle. The ring-side judges, all market owners, scored them on vocal clarity and quality, bid-catching ability, and their talent at keeping the sale moving. The top 10 scorers then entered the finals, again selling more cattle. The judges used the same criteria they used in rating the semi-finalists. The semi-finalists each were judged during a simulated news conference on their skill as a spokesman for the marketing sector. These scores were added to the scores they made selling cattle. The combined score is a factor both in who goes to the finals, and who wins the three world titles. The 42nd annual WLAC will be held next June at the Tulsa Stockyards, Tulsa, Okla.

For Immediate Release
June 3, 2004

LMA hosting 1st national gathering of livestock marketers to discuss proposed ID program, June 17 in Billings, Mont.

The first national gathering of livestock marketers to discuss the “nuts and bolts” of the proposed national livestock identification program, and its impact on their businesses, will occur at Livestock Marketing Association’s annual meeting, June 17 – 18, in Billings, Mont.

“There are many questions yet to be answered about the ID program, but it’s time to update marketers on its current status, and let them get answers to their questions, from an expert panel,” said LMA President Billy Perrin.

Neil Hammerschmidt, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s animal identification coordinator, will provide an overview of the program, now called the National Animal Identification Program (NAIS). He is with the veterinary services section of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Other participants in the panel discussion on NAIS will be representatives of computer hardware and software firms, identification tag manufacturers, and Jim Akers, of the Kentucky Beef Council (KBC).

The KBC has run pilot programs through livestock markets using current ID technology. Akers will discuss those programs during the afternoon session on July 17.

Several ID technology firms are participating in LMA’s first-ever trade show, held in conjunction with the annual meeting.

“There is no question the marketing sector will be a linchpin in the operation of any successful national ID program,” Perrin said. “That’s why we are continuing to work to make sure the program is workable and affordable for producers and markets, and designed so that it doesn’t slow down the pace of livestock commerce.”

LMA is represented in the program’s development by three members and two staff members.

Another vital topic for America’s livestock marketers is the impact on their businesses of environmental regulations. Ron Harris, the Maryland deputy state conservationist with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, will discuss concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations, their impact on livestock markets, and how market owners can comply with them. His presentation will also be Thursday afternoon.

“We urge all marketing businesses to join us in Billings,” Perrin added. “Livestock identification and environmental regulations will have a tremendous impact on the way marketing businesses do business in the near future, and Billings is the place for marketers to find out what they need to know – and do – today.”

The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Grand Montana. For registration information, contact Linda Garner at LMA, 800-821-2048.

For Immediate Release
May 24, 2004

LMA Statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s Action Concerning Beef Checkoff

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 24, agreed to hear the defendants’ appeal of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the beef checkoff is unconstitutional. Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin issued the following statement:

“The U.S. Supreme Court typically hears cases when federal statutes are ruled unconstitutional when requested to do so by the government. Therefore, the Court’s decision to review the beef checkoff case is not unexpected.

“We remain confident that our position will eventually prevail, a position upheld by four federal judges in two separate federal courts. It is worth noting that the defendants’ principal defense, the surprising claim that the checkoff is ‘government speech’ and thus immune from First Amendment challenge, has also been roundly rejected by three other separate federal appeals courts in challenges to the pork, dairy and the Louisiana alligator checkoffs.

“A commodity checkoff program is not above the law, and it cannot strip America’s cattle producers of their Constitutional rights. That position is at the heart of this case, and it will be upheld again.”

For Immediate Release
March 22, 2004

Semi-finalists named for LMA’s 41st annual Auctioneer Championship, June 18 in Billings, Mont.

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Thirty of North America’s top livestock auctioneers are moving on to the semi-finals of Livestock Marketing Association’s 41st annual World Livestock Auctioneer Championship (WLAC). It will be held June 18, at the Public Auction Yards in Billings, Mont.

The 30 emerged from a field of 40 contestants, all of whom submitted videotape entries. These 40 videotapes, of the contestants working actual livestock sales, were judged by a panel of market owners at LMA’s offices here, on March 20.

The 30 semi-finalists, as picked by the judges, are: Charlie Baker, Calera, Okla.; Ted Baum, Elgin, Neb.; Dan Clark, Winner, S.D.; Lance Cochran, Medford, Okla.; Chuck Cozzitorto, Hilmar, Calif.; Eli Detweiler, Jr., Ruffin, N.C.; Doug Dietterle, Meadow, S.D.; Justin Dodson, Welch, Okla.; Daniel Enyeart, Dalton, Mo.; Steve Faria, Merced, Calif.;

Dustin Focht, Stillwater, Okla.; Tom Frey, Creston, Iowa; Kent Korte, Metropolis, Ill., Ron Kreis, Adamsville, Ohio; Lynn Langvardt, Clay Center, Kan.; Brian Little, Wann, Okla.; Matt Lowery, Burwell, Neb.; David Macedo, Tulare, Calif.; Chance Martin, Red Deer, Alta., Canada; Andrew McDowell, Mulberry Grove, Ill.;

Don Oberg, Lacombe, Alta., Canada; Jim Pennington, Bakersfield, Calif.; Randall Pryor, Woodbine, Iowa; Paul Jason Ramirez, Tucson, Ariz.; Jay Romine, Mt. Washington, Ky.; Larry Schnell, Dickinson, N.D.; Randy Searer, Sidney, Mont.; Dan Skeels, Rimbey, Alta., Canada; Rick Stahl, Opheim, Mont., and Trent Stewart, Redmond, Ore.

Contest rules require that all contestants be sponsored by an LMA-member business. The semi-finalists’ sponsors are:

Baker, Durant Stockyards, Durant, Okla.; Baum, Elgin Livestock Sales, Inc., Elgin, Neb., West Point Livestock, Inc., West Point, Neb., Central Nebraska Commission Co., Broken Bow, and Sheldon Livestock Sales, Inc., Sheldon, Iowa; Clark, Winner Livestock Auction Co., Winner, S.D., Presho Livestock Auction, Presho, S.D.; Cochran, Tulia Livestock Auction, Tulia, Texas, Beaver River Stockyards, Beaver, Okla., Texhoma Livestock Auction, Texhoma, Okla., Pratt Livestock, Inc., Pratt, Kan.;

Cozzitorto, Turlock Livestock Auction Yard, Turlock, Calif., Cattlemen’s Livestock Market, Inc., Galt, Calif.; Detweiler, Farmers Livestock Market, Inc., Salem, Va.; Dietterle, Lemmon Livestock, Inc., Lemmon, S.D., Faith Livestock Commission Co., Faith, S.D., St. Onge Livestock Co., Ltd., St. Onge, S.D.; Dodson, Parsons Livestock Market, Parsons, Kan.; Enyeart, Central Missouri Sales Co., Sedalia, Mo.; Faria, Cattlemen’s Livestock Market, Inc., Galt, Calif.; Focht, Anthony Livestock Sales, Anthony, Kan., Cherokee Sales Co., Cherokee, Okla.;

Frey, Creston Livestock Auction, Inc., Creston, Iowa, Unionville Livestock Market, Unionville, Mo.; Korte, Kentucky-Tennessee Livestock Market, Inc., Guthrie, Ky., Eastern Livestock Co., LLC, Providence, Ky., Kentuckiana Livestock Market, Inc., Owensboro, Ky.; Kreis, Muskingum Livestock Sales, Inc., Zanesville, Ohio; Langvardt, Clay Center Livestock Sales, Clay Center, Kan., LaCrosse Livestock Market, LaCrosse, Kan., J.C. Livestock Sales, Inc., Junction City, Kan.; Little, Tulsa Stockyards, Inc., Tulsa, Okla., South Coffeyville Stockyards, South Coffeyville, Okla.;

Lowery, Ericson-Spalding Livestock Market, Ericson, Neb., Valentine Livestock Auction, Valentine, Neb., Bassett Livestock Auction, Bassett, Neb., Burwell Livestock Market, Burwell, Neb., Knueppel Livestock and Order Buying, Inc., Shawano, Wisc., Gordon Livestock Market, Inc., Gordon, Neb.; McDowell, Farmers Livestock Marketing Association, Greenville, Ill.; Macedo, Tulare Sales Yard, Inc., Tulare, Calif., Superior Stampede Cattle Co., Inc., Visalia, Calif.; Martin, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta., Canada; Oberg, Vold, Jones and Vold; Pennington, Cattlemen’s Livestock Market, Inc., Galt, Calif., Chino Livestock Market, Inc., Chino, Calif.;

Pryor, Leonard Cattle Co., Springfield, Neb.; Ramirez, Marana Stockyards, Marana, Ariz.; Romine, Blue Grass Stockyard, Lexington, Ky.; Schnell, Stockmen’s Livestock Exchange, Dickinson, N.D.; Searer, Miles City Livestock Commission Co., Miles City, Mont.; Skeels, Vold, Jones and Vold, Ponoka, Alta., Canada; Stahl, Glasgow Stockyards, Inc., Glasgow, Mont.; Stewart, Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Inc., Madras, Ore.

These 30 will battle it out in Billings for the world title, and two runner-up titles. Winners will receive thousands of dollars in awards, along with a variety of merchandise prizes.

The 31st semi-finalist is Al Wessel, Long Prairie, Minn., Canada’s current International Livestock Auctioneer Champion. The Canadian champion is traditionally given a “bye” into LMA’s contest.

Wessel is sponsored in the LMA contest by the seven markets of Minnesota-based Buschelle Enterprises.

LMA sponsors the annual contest to salute the auctioneer’s traditional, and continuing vital role in the competitive marketing system.

For Immediate Release
February 27, 2004

LMA directors can’t support current ID plan; ‘too many unanswered questions’

The board of directors of Livestock Marketing Association has voted not to support the proposed U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) as it’s currently written.

The board, which met recently in Monterey, Calif., discussed the plan in depth, “and believes there are too many unanswered questions, particularly how the plan will impact our producer customers and our businesses,” said LMA President Billy Perrin.

He noted that at a Feb. 24 Congressional hearing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s top economist, Dr. Keith Collins, said, “As we have reviewed this issue, we have been struck by the number of difficult policy questions that must be resolved in order to move ahead with a national program.”

“We agree with Dr. Collins,” Perrin said, “and because we’re the marketing choice for thousands of producers every day, we’re seeking answers for them, as well as our members.”

LMA’s concerns have been communicated to the USAIP Steering Committee and cover a variety of topics including:

• Developing proper security measures to protect the ID information.
• Funding the plan.
• Unreasonable implementation dates.
• Will the same identification standards imposed on U.S. livestock also be required of imports?

While the board’s discussion of the plan covered these and other topics, Perrin said the board was particularly concerned about livestock that show up on sale day without an ID tag.

He noted that according to the latest government figures, America’s livestock markets handled over 50 million head of cattle, hogs, pigs, sheep and goats in 2001.

“We cannot and will not be responsible for tagging these livestock. Markets often sell several thousand animals in one day, and the additional personnel and time it would take to tag even a portion of these livestock would slow down the sale to an intolerable degree,” he said.

“The marketing sector sells time. One of our strengths is the way we move livestock, efficiently and expeditiously, from one buyer to the next. The longer a sale takes, “ Perrin noted, “the more likely livestock are to become stressed, bumped and bruised – and that’s unacceptable to us and our customers.”

The directors stressed that the issue of who will tag the livestock is just one of their many concerns, Perrin said. “There has been little mention of the cost of the reconfiguration most markets will have to undertake, to read, record and transmit individual ID numbers. We’re talking about adding additional chutes, plus many employees.”

The board also directed LMA to continue its involvement with the joint government-industry task force that’s developing the USAIP. Currently, two LMA staff members serve on this task force.

And a number of market owners will serve on the plan’s new marketing-processor working group, focusing on the concerns to these two sectors.

“We will keep our concerns before the task force, and over time, offer what we believe are workable solutions,” Perrin said. “And we must have these solutions before we sign off on the plan.”

For Immediate Release
February 24, 2004

LMA Board names new CEO, CFO

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association’s Board of Directors has appointed veteran employee Mark Mackey as chief executive officer. At its recent meeting in Monterey, Calif., the Board also named Vincent Nowak as new chief financial officer.

LMA President Billy Perrin said the appointments “mark a new and exciting direction for LMA. We are dedicated to providing innovative leadership and new services for our members. We will also be working more closely with the broad range of industry groups who believe a competitive livestock economy is the best way to enhance profitability for all of us.

“Mark is the man who can provide us with that leadership,” Perrin said.

Mackey began working for LMA in 1983, as a regional executive officer, servicing members in Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska. Most recently he was LMA’s vice president for member sales and services.

He attended Kansas State University on an athletic scholarship and graduated in 1982 with a bachelor’s degree in animal science with an emphasis on business.

Married for 14 years, Mackey is the father of four children. He and his wife, Shelly, and family reside in Bucyrus, Kan., where he and his wife are very active in their community, church, athletics, school and 4-H activities.

A Kansas native, Mackey grew up in an LMA-member family. His family has successfully operated a dairy cattle replacement dealers’ business for 59 years, along with a ranching and feeding operation, and a dairy.

Mackey said, “During my tenure with LMA, there have been many new marketing schemes that have come and gone, and all of them had the goal of re-inventing livestock marketing and replacing livestock auction markets.

“That never happened, and as a result, livestock markets today are as viable a marketing option as they’ve ever been. I am honored to accept this position with LMA, and to be involved with America’s livestock market owners and operators, the champions of true price discovery.”

Nowak joined LMA in 1997 as finance manager. He graduated in 1973 from Kansas State with a bachelor’s degree in economics. A certified public accountant, Nowak is married and has two children.

LMA is the national trade association for North American livestock marketing businesses, providing a broad range of services, including industry representation and commercial services.

For Immediate Release
February 9, 2004

LMA official urges ‘caution’ in considering proposed national animal ID program

OKLAHOMA CITY – The key word in considering the proposed national animal identification program is “caution,” an official of Livestock Marketing Association said here Feb. 6 at the annual meeting of the Oklahoma Farmers Union.

“Caution,” said Nancy Robinson, vice president for government and industry affairs, “in moving too quickly on a plan that has been insufficiently evaluated through pilot studies and other research measures.

“Caution, when approached by companies and entities with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the plan. Caution,” she continued, “when anyone tells you, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.’”

And caution, she said in LMA’s first public statement about the joint industry-government proposal, “that you don’t underestimate your power to have a voice in how and when the national ID plan is implemented.”

LMA’s concerns about a program that will identify each animal in commerce take on industry-wide importance, given the volume of livestock the marketing sector handles each year.

Robinson noted that according to the most recent government statistics, America’s livestock markets handled over 50 million head of cattle, hogs, pigs, sheep and goats in 2001. Dealers and order buyers handled another 55 million head.

“Given these numbers, you can well imagine why the weight of managing an animal identification program through our market facilities appears nearly impossible,” she said.

She pointed out the marketing sector, and “livestock auction markets in particular, have a long history of being the pivotal point for livestock ID programs for animal health and disease surveillance, monitoring and trace back.”

These market ID programs, “which have been critical in protecting the health of the national herd and thus protecting the financial investments of millions of farmers and ranchers, have often come at a heavy price to livestock markets in added costs for facility upgrades, additional workers and workers benefits, and compliance with burdensome regulatory requirements.

“Therefore,” Robinson said, “LMA is unlikely to support (the proposed program), as envisioned by the U.S. Animal Identification Plan, without some assurance that public funds will be available to substantially subsidize the costs of implementing and maintaining the system at livestock auction markets and other marketing facilities, such as buying stations, dealer holding pens, etc.”

LMA has other concerns, which it has raised with the Plan’s Steering Committee. These include:

• The necessity for proper security measures to protect the ID information “from abuse and misuse by those outside as well as inside the livestock industry.”
• Will the information obtained through the ID system be kept “out of the hands of other government or law enforcement entities not associated with regulating animal health or disease?” If not, then producers “have a right to know this when deciding whether or not they will support anything more than the current plan, which is being touted as an animal disease surveillance and trace back system only.”
• Will importing countries be similarly required to provide a premise ID and an electronic tag containing an individual animal ID for livestock animals into the United States? Given the integration of the Canadian and Mexican livestock industries, and the recent discovery of mad cow disease in an animal imported from Canada, “it makes sense to us that the same ID standards be required of our trading partners, as we require of our domestic industry.”
• LMA is concerned that the implementation timeline for “this very complex, intricate plan is so aggressive that it will be imposed on us before it can be reasonably and cost-effectively implemented.” Robinson also warned that with a number of Washington lawmakers “hot to trot out ID as an election year issue, and public interest/consumer groups using the issue to ratify their own agendas, you can count on there being a lot of political pressure to make this plan happen before its time.”

For Immediate Release
January 12, 2004

LMA wants ‘immediate investigation’ by USDA into ‘arbitrary’ decision to stop taking applications for livestock risk insurance

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association is asking U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman “for an immediate investigation and public explanation” of the circumstances surrounding the Dec. 23 decision, by USDA’s Risk Management Agency, to stop taking applications, for specific coverages, for Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance.

LMA called that decision “abrupt, arbitrary and unfair,” and said it “undoubtedly has affected the future viability of LRP.”

A letter to Veneman from LMA President Billy Perrin said, “It is particularly upsetting, to us and to those whose applications for LRP coverage had been filed with the Agency, that RMA cited the finding of mad cow disease in Washington state as the reason for the suspension.”

The LRP was marketed, Perrin noted, “to producers from the very outset as a way to protect against the kind of severe market price fluctuations that we have seen since the announcement of the BSE finding.

“The seemingly arbitrary suspension of this risk protection program in the face of a possible catastrophic event in the cattle industry clearly turns the idea of risk management insurance on its head.”

LMA, through its affiliated insurance agency, “had worked hard to introduce LRP to producers and educate them about how this program could become an effective risk management tool,” Perrin wrote.

In addition to the investigation and public explanation, Perrin also asked for the legal authority behind the abrupt suspension. “The producers, who were affected by this suspension, and those who market LRP to them, deserve no less.”

For Immediate Release
November 16, 2003

LMA will take ‘Leadership Role’ in shaping new Beef Promotion, Research, Education Program, President says

GREENSBORO, N.C. – Once Livestock Marketing Association wins its legal battle with the mandatory beef checkoff, the trade association “intends to take a leadership role in shaping the future of beef promotion, research and education in this country,” LMA President Billy Perrin said here Nov. 15.

“Yes, we are still in court over the checkoff,” Perrin told a meeting of the North Carolina LMA. Reminding his audience that two federal courts have found the checkoff to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, Perrin noted, “The Supreme Court of the United States is the last stop for supporters of the current program. Of course, there’s no guarantee their appeal will even be heard by the Court.”

The bottom line, he said, is “We believe we will finally prevail.”

LMA’s role in the future of beef promotion is a logical one, Perrin said. “That’s because LMA has always supported, and today supports, the goals behind the current checkoff. We were one of the first and strongest supporters of that program.”

LMA supported it so strongly because “We believed it would help the industry, and in some ways, it did. But it became a program we couldn’t support – and that’s why we took the action we did.”

The Oklahoma market owner said the marketing sector has had a vital role in checkoffs, going back “well beyond the current program. Our members have been the unpaid ‘bankers’ for the beef checkoff for decades, going all the way back to the voluntary program under the National Live Stock and Meat Board.”

And, Perrin said, “It’s widely known that America’s livestock markets have always collected the majority of dollars for the beef checkoff. So as we enter a new era of checkoffs, let’s be clear about the past: markets have been an indispensable part of their operation.

“And let’s be clear about the future: no new, voluntary program can succeed unless it has the backing and support of America’s livestock markets.

“That’s not bragging, that’s just fact.”

Perrin said it was too early to go into the details of any new program, “beyond the basics: it’ll have to be voluntary, it’ll have to be put in place by a majority of cattlemen voting, and it’ll have to be easy to get refunds.”

Beyond these basics, Perrin said, “We have a whole range of concerns that we’ll be bringing up – not only on behalf of markets, but representing the thousands and thousands of America’s grassroots producers that we serve every day of the year.”

He promised, “You’ll be hearing more about our concerns in the weeks and months ahead.”

Of immediate concern to LMA, he said, is the move by more and more states starting to pass their own checkoff laws, as they see the “end coming for the mandatory checkoff.”

LMA has been working in Texas and Oklahoma to shape state legislation. “As we will at the national level, at the state level, we are working to make sure any new legislation addresses the concerns of markets and grassroots producers.”

He urged all producers, and state marketing associations, to get involved “in this important issue. If there’s going to be a beef promotion program in your state, you should be at the table when it’s put together.

“That’s where LMA will be when a new national beef program is developed,” he pledged.

For Immediate Release
October 17, 2003

LMA pleased at Appeals Court refusal to rehear decision on beef checkoff

Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin said he was pleased the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals felt a rehearing by the entire Court of its earlier 3-0 decision, which found the beef checkoff unconstitutional, is unnecessary.

The 8th Circuit on Oct. 17 denied a petition for rehearing filed by the defendants in this case, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., and two South Dakota cattlemen.

“Two federal courts have now reviewed this issue and have found the checkoff violates producers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Perrin said. “We hope that the government will now allow this decision to take effect.”

According to Perrin, the Court’s final order, implementing their decision, can be expected very soon. “We should know then whether producers will have to continue funding this illegal program.”

For Immediate Release
September 8, 2003

LMA demands TCFA president apologize for saying markets see COOL as a way to make money

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association is demanding an apology from the president of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association for his recent comment that market operators may be supporting country-of-origin labeling (COOL) because it will put more money into their pockets.

LMA President Billy Perrin, in a letter to TCFA President Richard McDonald, called those comments “completely unfounded and uncalled for…nothing could be further from the truth, and you know it.”

Perrin commented on remarks McDonald made in a July speech before the International Beef Industry Congress in Calgary, Alberta. In its August issue, Canadian Cattlemen magazine reported that, “McDonald suspects auction market operators may be backing (COOL) because they stand to gain by tacking on service charges to verify country of origin on calves as they pass through their yards.”

Perrin wrote that LMA and the markets supporting COOL take that position “because we support U.S. producers, and a great number of those producers, who are our customers, support COOL.” The law, he said, “will establish a brand for our superior meat products with U.S. consumers…(and) provide the American consumer with the information they want and need about the source of their food.”

McDonald’s claim that markets see COOL as a moneymaker “not only is baseless in the extreme, but it literally defies common sense,” Perrin said. It is, however, part of a continuing campaign by opponents of COOL, he said.

“For months now, you and the other opponents of COOL have used every scare tactic possible to move producers and market operators away from their support of COOL. One particularly scary scenario that you have cast about is the huge recordkeeping burden that COOL will place on U.S. producers and livestock markets,” he continued.

So if “your recordkeeping concerns prove true,” Perrin wrote McDonald, “then we can hardly understand how COOL becomes a moneymaker for the markets. Moreover, Richard, you are perfectly aware that livestock markets are highly sensitive to placing any new costs on their consignors, for fear of driving them off.”

Despite his efforts to discredit markets’ motives in supporting COOL, McDonald “did an excellent job of making LMA’s argument, that COOL would be very simple to implement, and the regulatory burden on producers and marketers considerably reduced, if USDA would simply require all imported animals to retain their country of origin through to slaughter.”

McDonald made that point when he said, according to the magazine, that Canada “already ha(s) a source verification system in place…(and) when your feeder cattle come across the line it’s pretty easy to ID them as being from Canada…and the fed cattle coming south for immediate slaughter, it’s easy to keep track of them and, of course, any beef you ship to the U.S. today is already labeled as imported.”

“The TCFA and LMA have had policy differences in the past, but we have always been able to disagree without being disagreeable. Your comments in Canada were completely unfounded and uncalled for,” Perrin wrote. “An apology to LMA and livestock market operators supporting COOL is in order.”

For Immediate Release
July 8, 2003

LMA praises Appeals Court decision on beef checkoff as ‘affirming producers’ First Amendment rights

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin said today’s 8th U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision, affirming that the beef checkoff is unconstitutional and unenforceable, “also affirms all American beef producers’ First Amendment, free-speech right.”

The 8th Circuit rejected the Cattlemen’s Beef Board’s assertion that its promotion and advertising programs were “government speech,” and thus immune from LMA’s first amendment challenge.

The Appeals Court agreed with Federal District Court Judge Charles Kornmann that the beef checkoff is, “in all material respects, identical to the mushroom checkoff,” which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2001.

“We conclude,” the Appeals Court said, “that the government’s interest in protecting the welfare of the beef industry by compelling all beef producers and importers to pay for generic beef advertising is not sufficiently substantial to justify the infringement” on producers’ First Amendment free speech right.

Noting the Appeals Court statement that, based on its findings, “no remaining aspects of the (Beef) Act can survive,” Perrin said, “Hopefully, this decision will bring finality to this long-running dispute.”

Note to Editors/Broadcasters: the Appeals Court decision is available at www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022769P.pdf. You must have Acrobat Reader to read it.

For Immediate Release
June 23, 2003

LMA President Perrin cites successful member business practices, challenges marketers to provide better service

LEXINGTON, KY. – Using examples of Livestock Marketing Association members who have found innovative ways to serve their customers, LMA President Billy Perrin recently challenged all marketing businesses to find opportunities to do the same.

“Service is the name of the game, and the need will be different next year than it is this year,” he told LMA’s recent annual meeting, held here.

In addition to Perrin, Hugo, Okla., LMA’s officers for 2003-2004 are Charles Messer, Western Carolina Livestock Market, Inc., Asheville, N.C., vice president; Ed Frost, LMA’s chief executive officer and secretary; Gary Smith, LMA’s chief financial officer and treasurer; and Pat Goggins, Public Auction Yards, Billings, Mont., chairman of the board.

Frost and Smith serve as ex-officio, and non-voting officers.

Directors are Randy Patterson, Anthony Livestock Sales Co., Anthony, Kan.; Steve Bartholomew, Washington County Sales Co., Inc., Fayetteville, Ark.; Jim Santomaso, Sterling Livestock Commission Co., Sterling, Colo.; Gary Miller, Northwestern Livestock Commission Co., Hermiston, Ore.; Max Olvera, Cattlemen’s Livestock Market, Inc., Galt, Calif.;

Other directors: Herman Schumacher, Herreid Livestock Market, Inc., Herreid, S.D.; Mike Tasler, Atkinson Livestock Market, Atkinson, Neb.; David Fowler, Sulphur Springs Livestock and Dairy Auction, Sulphur Springs, Texas; Hatch Smith, Llano Livestock Auction, Llano, Texas; Albert Epperly, Springlake Livestock Market, Inc., Moneta, Va.;

Also, E.H. Fowler, Central Missouri Sales, Sedalia, Mo.; Jack Green, Roanoke Stockyards, Inc., Roanoke, Ala.; John Willis, Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc., Lake City, Fla.; Ken Hurlburt, Fort Macleod Auction, Fort Macleod, Alberta; and T. Phil Harvey, Mid-Georgia Livestock Market, Inc., Jackson, Ga.

Success stories cited by Perrin at the June 13 meeting included:

• The Sulphur Springs, Texas, Livestock and Dairy Auction once had over 100,000 dairy cattle within 50 miles of the market, but today there’s about half that many. “Stockers and feeders were a natural replacement for the dairy producers,” and the market “went after the trade of those producers” with pre-conditioned cattle sales, Perrin said. David Fowler “will tell you that this pre-conditioning sale is the greatest thing that ever happened” to them.
• In Dunlap, Iowa, the Schaben family three years ago weren’t selling fed cattle at their market. “They recognized the need (for) farmer feeders in their region who needed service. They started a fed cattle sale and last year sold over 60,000 head of them,” Perrin said.
• The Holton Livestock Exchange, Inc., Holton, Kan., was the first market to participate in LMA’s Vaccinated and Certified Calf (LMA-VACC) program in October 2000 and has had several sales since. “If you want to know more about the success of this (preconditioning) program, talk to (market owner) Dan Harris.”
• In Lexington, the Blue Grass Stockyards is one of several LMA members which have “taken advantage of modern technology and now serves the needs of (their) producers by adding video and Internet sales,” Perrin said.

The “bottom line…is that there is no substitute for innovation and creativity.”

On a personal note, Perrin said he has “purchased and operated four livestock markets in my lifetime – every one of them having been previously owned and operated by ‘experts.’” Despite that, “ways were found to improve the service we had to offer, and the reward was increased profits.”

For Immediate Release
June 17, 2003

LMA’s 2003 Auctioneer Champ, Jon Schaben, credits his market’s auctioneer as great career influence

LEXINGTON, KY. – Jon Schaben, winner of the 2003 World Livestock Auctioneer Championship here June 14, says he doesn’t have to look far to find someone who’s greatly influenced his career.“I’m lucky,” he told the WLAC awards banquet, “I get to listen to the best livestock auctioneer in the country, Gary Rupiper.” Rupiper is the regular auctioneer at the Schaben family’s Dunlap Livestock Auction, Dunlap, Iowa. And at this year’s 40^th annual contest, sponsored by Livestock Marketing Association, Schaben’s inspiration was also part of the competition.Both auctioneers were among the 37 semi-finalists who competed during an actual sale at the Blue Grass Stockyards.

Schaben then became one of the 10 finalists. He was sponsored by his family’s market, where he is a partner, and succeeds 2002 champion John Korrey, Iliff, Colo.

The reserve world champion is Matt Lowery, Burwell, Neb. He was sponsored by Ericson Spalding Livestock Market, Inc., Ericson, Neb.; Burwell Livestock Market, Inc.; Bassett Livestock Auction, Inc., Bassett, Neb., and Knueppel Livestock & Order Buying, Inc., Shawano, Wisc.

The runner-up world champion is Randy Searer, Sidney, Mont., sponsored by Miles City Livestock Commission Co., Miles City, Mont.

The remaining seven finalists were Ronnie Kreis, Adamsville, Ohio; Trent Stewart, Redmond, Ore.; Justin Dodson, Welch, Okla.; Lance Cochran, Medford, Okla.; Dan Skeels, Rimbey, Alberta, Canada; Eric Duarte, Beatty, Ore., and Kent Korte, Metropolis, Ill.

Schaben, 37, said growing up in the livestock marketing industry meant that “a good day off was sorting cattle” with his father and two brothers.

He told the banquet audience, composed primarily of owners and operators of livestock markets, “I will not take a step (as champion) without keeping competitive livestock marketing in mind…I think it’s absolutely the key to our industry’s survival.”The cattle industry, he said, “does not want to go the way of the hog, or the chicken,” two highly integrated sectors.

This was Lowery’s fifth time in the contest. Last year he was named runner-up world champion. He said he was “very pleased” with his finish this year, and wasn’t expecting to be named reserve champion. He is 27.

Third-place finisher Searer, 39, had his best finish in his four times in the contest. “It was great to make the top ten. Finishing third is a bonus,” he said.

Cash awards from LMA of $5,000 went to Schaben, $2,000 to Lowery, and $1,000 to Searer.

Schaben also won a championship diamond ring, from the host market; a custom sculpture and handmade M.L. Leddy boots from LMA. Lowery and Searer received Waterford crystal from LMA.

Schaben also took home a Browning Citori 12-gauge shotgun from Star Insurance Co., Southfield, Mich.; the Golden Gavel award from the World Wide College of Auctioneering, Mason City, Iowa; the Gold Microphone Award from the Missouri Auction School, and a one-of-a-kind western hat, carved from apple wood, from S&B Cattle Co., Lexington.

The three champions and other seven finalists were presented custom-designed belt buckles from LMA.

The semi-finalists were presented personalized clocks from the host market, and a custom leather portfolio from LMA.

The contest began with the semi-finalists each selling several drafts of cattle.The ring-side judges, all market owners, scored them on vocal clarity and quality, bid-catching ability, and talent at keeping the sale moving.

The top 10 scorers then entered the final round, each selling more cattle. Judges used the same criteria they used in the semi-finals to judge the finalists.

The finalists were also judged individually during a simulated news conference, on their skill as a spokesman for the marketing sector.

LMA sponsors the annual contest to salute the professional auctioneer’s continuing vital role in the free-enterprise, competitive livestock marketing system. The 41^st annual WLAC will be held next June at Public Auction Yards, Billings, Mont.

For Immediate Release
May 15, 2003

LMA objects to USDA proposal seeking confidential information about pork checkoff payers

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) is objecting “in the strongest possible terms” to a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal to require marketing businesses to provide the agency with confidential information about customers who’ve paid the pork checkoff.

LMA said USDA’s proposal, apparently to determine the number of U.S. producers, flies in the face of recent rulings by the courts and Congress. Both bodies have declared that producer information is to be held “in the strictest confidentiality,” LMA told USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

The proposal would also impose “unreimbursed cost burdens on LMA members,” and would cause those businesses “a very large administrative headache,” LMA said in a letter to AMS.

The proposal arises from the settlement of litigation between USDA and the National Pork Producers Council, over the pork checkoff. The settlement could lead to a referendum on the checkoff.

But, LMA pointed out, the checkoff has been ruled unconstitutional by a Michigan federal district court. And pending the outcome of the appeal of that decision, “any referendum about the future of the program is a moot point,” LMA said.

The proposal, LMA said:

• Doesn’t say how the information submitted would be protected from release. In a January, 2000 decision involving the pork checkoff, the Eighth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited the National Pork Board from obtaining comparable information – the names and addresses of petitioners for a checkoff referendum. Separately, the Congress indicated that producer information submitted under the mandatory price reporting program is to be held “in the strictest confidentiality by the Department.”
• Does not define the information to be submitted. It merely “specifies that it would include names, addresses, and ‘any other information deemed necessary to identify persons from whom assessments were collected.’”

LMA said USDA “has severely underestimated the time required of markets and dealers to collect and transfer this information,” particularly of those businesses without electronic record keeping capability.

Marketing businesses “would derive nothing from this effort other than a very large administrative headache, the diversion of staff resources from their principal business and a sizable amount of money out of their pockets,” LMA said.

Like USDA and the Pork Board, which are “fully compensated for their work on behalf of the checkoff,” marketing businesses “should be compensated for their time and expense as well,” LMA said.

The letter was also sent to John Graham, Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of the federal Office of Management and Budget.

For immediate release
May 9, 2003

LMA President Perrin praises independent COOL study, calls for adoption of ‘presumption of U.S. origin’ to slash paperwork burden

KANSAS CITY, MO. - A new, independent study of country of origin labeling (COOL), says Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin, shows that the benefits of COOL substantially outweigh its cost, consumers want it, and there’s a key to virtually eliminating the paperwork burden on the livestock industry.

That key, the marketing sector leader said, is for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to adopt a ‘presumption of U.S. origin’ for covered commodities,” the marketing sector leader said.

Perrin praised the new study, conducted by agricultural economists and law professors from five universities, “for dispelling the doom and gloom scenarios about the impact of COOL, being promoted by packers and other opponents.”

The study, released May 8, strongly criticizes USDA for its initial estimate that it would cost nearly $2 billion in the first year for record keeping and other tasks.

Perrin echoed the words of one of the authors of the study, Dr. John Van Sickle of the University of Florida, who called this figure “outrageously inflated, with the real costs being 90 to 95 percent less.”

Consumers want COOL for a variety of reasons, including concern over food safety, Perrin noted, citing the study. “And just as importantly for those of us who produce livestock, the study shows that consumers are willing to pay for COOL – for beef alone, that figure is more than $3.5 billion,” he said.

Because America’s livestock markets serve thousands and thousands of producers every day, “We are extremely concerned about the potential paperwork burden under COOL,” Perrin said. “ Fortunately, USDA may be backing away from the idea of requiring ‘independent, third-party audits’ to determine country of origin.

“We are pleased this study validates what we, and others, have been advocating: presume the covered commodity is U.S. produced, unless it’s identified otherwise.”

If that presumption is used, the study notes, the record keeping burden for livestock producers “is likely to be very low.”

That’s because, Perrin pointed out, producers currently maintain a variety of records about their livestock – for tax purposes, health rules and other programs, that are sufficient to show the origin of their livestock.

“Any auditor can glean sufficient information from these records to determine whether producer representations are accurate as easily as a tax or accounting auditor can verify the propriety of tax or financial documents,” the study said, adding, “Thus, we envision no new record keeping necessary for livestock producers.”

Legally and logistically, adopting the “presumption of U.S. origin” makes more sense than USDA’s approach – to assume all covered products are of foreign origin unless labeled otherwise, Perrin said, and to require third-party verification of origin.

This study “shows all of us that the way is clear to give consumers and the majority of producers what they want: COOL, and in a way that won’t burden everyone in the production and marketing chain,” Perrin said. “All producers and interested consumers should urge USDA to make ‘presumption of U.S. origin’ the cornerstone of effective, workable COOL regulations.”

The independent study can be accessed via a link at www.americansforlabeling.org. This is the website for Americans for Country of Origin Labeling Coalition, of which LMA is a member.

For immediate release
May 6, 2003

COOL can be implemented to prevent recordkeeping burden on producers, markets, LMA tells USDA

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association strongly supports country of origin labeling (COOL), and believes it can be implemented so that a paperwork and recordkeeping burden can be kept off the backs of livestock producers and marketers.

That was the message brought to a U.S. Department of Agriculture “listening session,” held here May 6, by Nancy Robinson, LMA vice president for government and industry affairs.

In testimony prepared for the session, Robinson said LMA supports COOL “because we support U.S. producers, and U.S. producers want COOL.” They want it, she said, “because it will establish a brand for their superior meat products with U.S. consumers.”

At the same time, “we believe COOL can be implemented so that there is little additional cost, or overly burdensome recordkeeping” for producers and marketers.

The best, most efficient way for USDA to minimize the regulatory burden would be to require all imported animals retain their country of origin identifying information through to slaughter. “All livestock without this identifying information would be considered born and raised in the USA,” she said.

This system “would eliminate much of the burden on U.S. producers who overwhelmingly raise cattle born” in the U.S. And it would make producer self-certification, “which transfers the recordkeeping burden from the producer to the livestock market and dealers, largely unnecessary,” she said.

She cited four particular questions marketing businesses have about COOL. First, will the legislation require a significant amount of new recordkeeping, for consignors and markets, and what will it cost?

Second, as a result of the letters being sent by packers to markets and producers, “Is USDA going to allow the packers to drive implementation and enforcement of this program?”

Third, how will livestock without a record of origin prior to implementation of the mandatory labeling rules be handled? And fourth, will COOL require a national system of individual animal identification?

As for retailers and packers “establishing their own extra-legal COOL requirements,” LMA hopes that as the mandatory labeling rules are drafted, USDA will firmly establish rules “prohibiting retailers and packers from putting a greater burden on their suppliers than is required by the COOL law and regulations.”

LMA recommends establishing a “grandfather” clause to handle those animals that exist in the U.S. before implementation of mandatory COOL, Robinson said. That will allow them to go through the system without affecting their value.

“For USDA to do otherwise and possibly harm the market for U.S. producers would be unconscionable,” Robinson said.

Concerning mandatory livestock identification, USDA maintaining the country of origin of livestock imported into the U.S. would take care of any need for a national ID system, she testified.

LMA is convinced that COOL “is a meaningful step toward giving the American consumer more information about the source of their food. We simply ask that USDA not take what could be a very significant boost for U.S.- produced commodities, and turn in into a recordkeeping monstrosity intended to fail.”

LMA represents some 800 livestock markets, dealers, order buyers and related businesses throughout North America.

For immediate release
April 28, 2003

Livestock, farm coalition says federal review of Packers, Stockyards Act should focus on ‘competition, competition, competition’

A coalition of livestock and farm groups said the government’s review of the Packers and Stockyards Act and regulations should focus on “competition, competition, and competition.”

That is the foremost concern to most producers, livestock markets and independent feeders, the 11-member coalition recently told the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).

In a letter to GIPSA, the coalition said it won’t wait for the outcome of GIPSA’s review “to initiate  our own legislative and regulatory improvements whenever and wherever possible to enhance, promote and renew competition in the livestock industry.”

To do so, the coalition supports a seven-point agenda that calls for, among other things:

• Legislation to ban packers from owning livestock.
• Legislation and administrative actions to establish minimum standards to address “contract abuses” in contracts between producers and processors.
• Legislation requiring a fixed base price in formula price contracts and agreements. This would aim at bringing “greater competition and transparency in the marketing of livestock.” The legislation would also require the contracts and agreements to be traded “in open, public markets,” and would guarantee a minimum cash or spot market value.
• Legislation to permit state-inspected products to enter interstate commerce.

Clarification of GIPSA’s authority to act against packers giving “undue preferences” through preferential pricing. The clarification “should make clear that preferential pricing…is justified only for real differences in product value, or actual and quantifiable differences in acquisition and transaction costs.”

The coalition’s letter followed a meeting it had with GIPSA officials in Kansas City last December. At the meeting, hosted by Livestock Marketing Association, GIPSA officials outlined a three-stage review process.

The coalition’s letter criticized the agency’s intention to put competition issues last in this process. “If competition issues are relegated to last place rather than first place…the anti-competitive practices already prevalent in much of the feeding and packing industry will flourish, and many producers and independent feedlots may be forced out of business before the review process is complete.

“Therefore, we strongly urge the Agency to consider taking up the competition issues in the first stage of their review, rather than holding it to last,” the coalition wrote.

At the December meeting, the coalition offered GIPSA several suggestions “of greatest concern” about how the agency might better enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and regulations. These included:

Requiring feedlots to reveal to their producer customers their relationship as an agent of the packer.

The need for more forceful enforcement of the antitrust laws.

The need for GIPSA to encourage competition through incentives and/or severe enough penalties to encourage greater compliance and enforcement.

The need for the agency to obtain more information and understanding of the variability of contract arrangements in determining what new laws or regulations are needed to protect livestock sellers.

Protecting witnesses from coercion or harassment from packers charged in an enforcement action, in order to encourage their coming forward to testify or issue a complaint.

The coalition also asked for a meeting with USDA Secretary Ann Veneman and GIPSA Administrator Donna Reifschneider to discuss the issues and concerns addressed in the letter.

Members of the coalition, in addition to LMA, are National Farmers Union; R-CALF USA; Organization of Competitive Markets; Western Organization of Resource Councils; National Farmers Organization; Oklahoma Farmers Union; Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; South Dakota Stock Growers Association and the Missouri Stock Growers Association.

For immediate release
March 24, 2003

38 contestants headed to Kentucky for LMA’s 40th anniversary World Livestock Auctioneer Championship

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association has announced the 38 semi-finalists for the June 14 World Livestock Auctioneer Championship to be held at Blue Grass Stockyards, Lexington, Ky.

The June contest will be the 40th anniversary of the nation's premier competition for livestock auctioneers, and several thousand dollars in prizes and merchandise will be awarded.

Thirty-seven semi-finalists were selected under new contest entry procedures. The 38th, Jon Schaben of Dunlap, Iowa, is the reigning Canadian International Livestock Auctioneer Champion. The Canadian champion traditionally is given a "bye" into the semi-finals.

Here are the 37, in alphabetical order, followed by their hometowns:

Jeremy Anstine, Holden, Mo. Charlie Baker, Calera, Okla. Ted Baum, Elgin, Neb. Clay Bickford, Lewiston, Idaho Leroy Blackburn, Russellville, Mo. Mike Brown, Bethel, Ohio Dan Clark, Winner, S.D. John Cline, Onaga, Kan. Lance Cochran, Medford, Okla. Ronnie Colyer, Ten Mile, Tenn. Chuck Cozzitorto, Hilmar, Calif. Bill Decker, Milford, Ill. Justin Dodson, Welch, Okla. Eric Duarte, Beatty, Ore. Dean Edge, Rimbey, Alta., Canada Dustin Focht, Stillwater, Okla. Ronald Knopp, Watertown, Tenn. Kent Korte, Metropolis, Ill. Ron Kreis, Adamsville, Ohio

Brian Little, Wann, Okla. Matt Lowery, Burwell, Neb. David Macedo, Tulare, Calif. Chance Martin, Red Deer, Alta., Canada Andrew McDowell, Mulberry Grove, Ill. Danny Mouser, Columbia, Ky. Don Oberg, Lacombe, Alta., Canada Patrick Prather, Richmond, Ky. Peter Raffan, Armstrong, B.C., Canada James (Jimmy) Robinson, McCormick, S.C. Ryan Rogers, McCook, Neb. Lonnie Rudd, Wilder, Idaho Gary Rupiper, Templeton, Iowa Larry Schnell, Dickinson, N.D. Randy Searer, Sidney, Mont. Dan Skeels, Rimbey, Alta., Canada Trent Stewart, Redmond, Ore. Al Wessel, Long Prairie, Minn.

The semi-finalists will sell cattle during an actual sale and be judged on vocal clarity, quality, bid-catching talent, and ability to keep the sale moving. Ten finalists will then be selected and return to the auction block for more selling. The three world titlists will be announced the evening of the 14th at an awards banquet.

The semi-finalists’ sponsor(s):

Anstine, Anstine Enterprises d/b/a Kingsville Livestock Auction, Kingsville, Mo.; Baker, Durant Livestock Market Co., Inc., Durant, Okla.; Baum, Elgin Livestock Sales, Inc., Elgin, Neb., Central Nebraska Commission Co., Broken Bow, Neb., West Point Livestock, Inc., West Point, Neb., and Sheldon Livestock Sales, Inc., Sheldon, Iowa; Bickford, Lewiston Livestock Market, Inc., Lewiston, Idaho; Blackburn, Olean Livestock Market, Inc., Eldon, Mo.; Brown, Farmers Stockyards, Inc., Flemingsburg, Ky.;

Clark, Winner Livestock Auction Co., Winner, S.D., and Presho Livestock Auction Co., Presho, S.D.; Cline, Manhattan Commission Co., Inc., Manhattan, Kan.; Cochran, Pratt Livestock, Inc., Pratt, Kan.; Colyer, East Tennessee Livestock Center, Inc., Sweetwater, Tenn.; Cozzitorto, Turlock Livestock Auction Yard, Inc., Turlock, Calif.; Decker, Decker’s Livestock, Inc., Milford, Ill.;

Dodson, Parsons Livestock Market, Inc., Parsons, Kan., and Fort Scott Livestock Market, Inc., Fort Scott, Kan.; Duarte, Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Inc., Madras, Ore.; Edge, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta.; Focht, Anthony Livestock Sales Co., Anthony, Kan., and Cherokee Sales Co., LLC, Cherokee, Okla.; Knopp, Dickson Livestock Center, Inc., Dickson, Tenn.; Korte, Kentucky-Tennessee Livestock Market, Inc., Guthrie, Ky., and Kentuckiana Livestock Market, Inc., Owensboro, Ky.;

Kreis, Muskingum Livestock Auction Co., Zanesville, Ohio; Little, Tulsa Stockyards, Inc., Tulsa, Okla., and South Coffeyville Stockyard, Inc., South Coffeyville, Okla.; Lowery, Ericson Spalding Livestock Market, Inc., Ericson, Neb., Burwell Livestock Market, Inc., Burwell, Neb., Bassett Livestock Auction, Inc., Bassett, Neb., and Knueppel Livestock and Order Buying, Inc., Shawano, Wisc.; Macedo, Tulare Sales Yard, Inc., Tulare, Calif.; Martin, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta.; McDowell, Farmer’s Livestock Marketing Assn., Greenville, Ill.; Mouser, Boyle Stock Yards, Danville, Ky.; Smith County Commission Co., Inc., Carthage, Tenn.;

Oberg, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta.; Prather, Washington County Livestock Center, Springfield, Ky., and London Farmers Livestock Market, Inc., London, Ky.; Raffan, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta.; Robinson, Kingsport Livestock Auction Corp., Kingsport, Tenn., and Farmers Livestock Market, Saluda, S.C.; Rogers, Midwest Livestock Commission, McCook, Neb.; Rudd, Treasure Valley Livestock Auction, Caldwell, Idaho, and Twin Falls Livestock Commission Co., Twin Falls, Idaho; Rupiper, Dunlap Livestock Auction, Dunlap, Iowa, Green City Livestock Market, Inc., Green City, Mo., and Herreid Livestock Market, Inc., Herreid, S.D.;

Schaben, Dunlap Livestock Auction, Dunlap, Iowa; Schnell, Stockmen's Livestock Exchange, Inc., Dickinson, N.D.; Searer, Miles City Livestock Commission Co., Miles City, Mont.; Skeels, Vold, Jones & Vold Auction Co., Ltd., Ponoka, Alta.; Stewart, Central Oregon Livestock Auction, Inc., Madras, Ore.; Wessel, Tri-County Livestock Auction, Motley, Minn., Rich Prairie Livestock Exchange, Inc., Pierz, Minn., Fergus Falls Livestock Auction Market, Inc., Fergus Falls, Minn., Bagley Livestock Exchange, Bagley, Minn., and Winger Livestock, Inc., Winger, Minn.

LMA stages the annual contest to spotlight North America’s top livestock auctioneers and to show their continuing vital role in competitive livestock marketing.

For immediate release
March 6, 2003

LMA, R-CALF USA urge producers to ignore ‘misinformation’ about COOL

Livestock producers must resist the onslaught of misinformation aimed at weakening their support for country of origin labeling (COOL), say Livestock Marketing Association and R-CALF USA.

That misinformation includes packers demanding that producers initiate a record keeping system and third-party audits to verify the origin of their livestock; and wildly exaggerated estimates of the cost of complying with COOL.

LMA and R-CALF said producers should keep these facts in mind:

• About the current status of COOL: It is voluntary, until the fall of 2004. And currently, there is no known retailer who has requested an origin label, under the voluntary guidelines.

• About record keeping demands: There are NO rules available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how mandatory COOL will be implemented at the farm/ranch, feedlot or livestock market. That means that demands made by packers, or anyone else at this point, are strictly their own and do not have the force or effect of law or regulation.
• About producer record keeping: Most producers will already have production and sales records that show their livestock was born and raised in the U.S., or a foreign country, if that is the case.
• Producers should also remember that 1) COOL specifically prohibits USDA from using a mandatory identification system for purposes of verifying the country of origin of a covered commodity; 2) Over 90% of U.S. producers do not import or handle foreign cattle; and 3) USDA’s own Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has already reported, “there are labeling practices now in use that could serve as…models for (COOL)….systems have already been put in place by slaughter plants to accommodate such certification programs.”
• About so-called “unmarketable” livestock: Opponents of COOL are alleging that without “auditable records” on livestock born prior to the mandatory COOL, these animals will be unmarketable, or marketed at heavily discounted prices. This is a ridiculous allegation. No one at the federal level has indicated anything resembling this scenario is likely to occur.
• Furthermore, it is unimaginable that USDA or this industry would allow millions of animals to become unmarketable, or of lesser value, simply because they were born before implementation of mandatory COOL.
• About the cost of complying with COOL: USDA’s initial $2 billion estimate has too many flaws in it, to be covered briefly. These include: USDA assumed there are currently no product tracking mechanisms in place for processors, wholesalers, etc.; this estimate was prepared only after consulting with opponents of COOL; the estimate included all two million farmers and ranchers in the U.S., without considering that many of these operations do not raise the commodities covered under COOL.

“It is unfortunate that the opponents of COOL are spending more time talking about why COOL cannot work than helping USDA and livestock producers figure out how it can work,” said LMA President Billy Perrin. “If producers stay united behind COOL we can make this program work to the benefit of the livestock industry and consumers,” pledged Leo McDonnell, R-CALF president.

Officials of LMA and R-CALF pledged they will continue working with USDA, and the industry, to develop effective, workable and affordable methods to implement COOL.

For immediate release
Feb. 14, 2003

Federal Appeals Court to hear ‘government speech’ argument March 10 in beef checkoff case

The appeal of Livestock Marketing Association’s suit challenging the constitutionality of the beef checkoff has been scheduled for argument on March 10, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8^th Circuit.

Oral arguments before a three-judge panel are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., in St. Paul, Minn. The principal issue raised on appeal by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and an intervenor, Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., is their argument that the checkoff program constitutes government speech, and is therefore not subject to First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and association.

The defendants are appealing the June, 2002 decision by Federal District Court Judge Charles Kornmann. In his decision, Kornmann ruled the checkoff was “unconstitutional and unenforceable.” In rejecting the defendants’ “government speech” argument, the District Court said, “Common sense tells us that the government is not ‘speaking’ in encouraging consumers to eat beef. After all, is the ‘government message’ therefore that consumers should eat no other product or at least reduce the consumption of other products such as pork, chicken, fish or soy meal? The answer is obvious.”

LMA officials noted that the week of March 10 will be a significant one for commodity checkoffs. In addition to the beef checkoff appeal on the 10^th, on the 14^th oral arguments in a challenge to the constitutionality of the pork checkoff will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

A principal argument raised by defenders of the pork checkoff in that appeal is that the checkoff is also “government speech.”

For immediate release
Feb. 12, 2003

LMA, COALITION CRITICIZE USDA COST ESTIMATE FOR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

Livestock Marketing Association is joining with a coalition of 100 farm, rural and consumer groups in telling Congress that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cost estimate for complying with country of origin labeling, for fresh meat and produce, “is unsupportably high and based on flawed assumptions.”

The coalition, Americans for Country of Origin labeling, told Congress Feb. 11 that the $1.9 billion USDA estimate is misleading Congress, and undermining support for labeling.

The coalition also said the estimate fails the consider how the measure will benefit consumers, and ignores government regulations and industry practices that already cover most of the expenses associated with country of origin labeling.

LMA believes U.S. producers produce the best meat in the world, and consumers deserve to be told where the meat they buy is grown and raised. Country of origin labeling for various food products is already required in some states, and the cost of these programs has been very modest.

For immediate release
Jan. 13, 2003

In the battle to maintain and foster industry competition, ‘It’s us versus them,’ LMA President Perrin tells Kentucky cattlemen

BOWLING GREEN, KY. – In the major battle facing today’s livestock industry, maintaining and fostering competition, Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin said here recently, “Let me make it as clear as I can make it…it’s us versus them.”

Us, he told the Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association on Jan. 10, are those groups and producers who support competitive marketing.

“Them,” he said, are easy to spot. “Anyone who tells you to bypass your local marketing business is not looking out for your interests.

“Whether it’s a university professor, a government bureaucrat, or a person driving the latest bandwagon for some new marketing scheme: if there’s no competition in their system, it’s not for you,” Perrin said.

In remarks titled “Straight talk from a marketing perspective,” the Oklahoma marketing veteran was blunt about “the enemies of competitive marketing.”

“I don’t care if they call it an alliance, marketing on a grid, selling direct to a packer buyer, or asking you to invest your cattle and money in some other kind of captive supply arrangement: advocates of these methods are working at cross purposes with those of us who believe in true competition and true price discovery.”

An alliance, he said, “is nothing more than a 50-cent word for ‘vertical integration.’ When you join one of these alliances, or whatever they’re calling them in your town, you’re giving up your marketing power to, in the end, the packers.”

There’s been lots of talk in the past few years about “marketing alternatives,” he said, but there is only one sector devoted to maintaining and restoring competition, and that’s the marketing sector.

Perrin, who served a term as chairman of the Oklahoma Beef Industry Council, said he wanted to “deal with a perception some people have about the marketing industry, that we don’t like change – that we want to maintain the status quo.

“Nothing could be further from the truth! The true innovations in marketing have come from the people in marketing. Just look at the folks behind video, satellite, and now, Internet marketing…virtually all of these folks have a livestock marketing background.”

And don’t forget the many traditional markets, he said, which offer their customers a choice: sell at the market or consign your cattle to a video seller.

“So the next time you hear someone say, ‘Markets are just afraid of the future,’” Perrin said, “don’t believe it. (We) aren’t afraid of the future…we’re leading the way into it.”

The future for the big packers, Perrin said after reciting the now-familiar statistics about their size and market share, is pretty clear. They “are getting bigger. And what does that mean for all of the rest of us in the livestock industry?”

It means, he said, fewer producers and “less price competition. Just ask our friends in the fed cattle business. They’ll tell you they’ve got about a half-hour window each week to take the bid…often from just one packer buyer…or let the cattle sit for another week.”

Packer concentration “is steadily resulting in less true price discovery. It is allowing the very few to determine the economic fate of the many…and it is eroding the social and economic base of our rural economy.”

Most producers, however, still have a choice when it comes time to market their livestock, Perrin said.

“You can participate in a process that establishes prices in a competitive manner. Or you can sell direct, or through an alliance, or some other scheme, direct to ‘them.’”

By selling competitively, through a market, video or Internet marketing business, a producer is actively supporting his operation and the future of his industry. “You’re working to keep your industry free and independent.

“Or,” he emphasized, “you can make that other marketing choice and chip away at that freedom and independence. So the next time you have livestock to market, I’d like you to remember my question: which side are you on?”

For immediate release
Oct. 28, 2002

Livestock Marketing Association News Advisory

Michigan Federal District Court Judge Richard A. Enslen did more than rule that the pork checkoff is unconstitutional, in his Oct. 25 decision.

He also struck down the government claim that the pork checkoff is “government speech,” and thus not subject to the First Amendment.

As you know, the government is making the same claim in the current challenge to the beef checkoff. All the briefs in this case have now been filed with the Eighth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and they can be found on our website, www.lmaweb.com Click on Beef Checkoff Lawsuit Update to find them.

And read, particularly, the Department of Justice’s brief, where you’ll find incredible statements like the following that go against how this checkoff was sold – and is still being sold -- to producers:

• “There is no question that the Secretary remains ultimately responsible for the content of the speech generated though the beef checkoff program, acting as the final arbiter of what speech will be permitted.” (P. 19).
• “…the fact that producers pay the assessment does not mean that they, and not the Secretary, bear ultimate responsibility for the speech. Those producers pay assessments required by the government and collected either by or at the direction of the government, facing a government action if they do not comply.” (P. 19)
• “To the extent the (Beef) Board and the Operating Committee represent cattle producers, they play an important role in proposing, developing and approving checkoff-funded projects. But the Secretary retains ultimate authority over every project funded with checkoff dollars.” (P. 20).

Here’s the question no one on the Beef Board has ever answered: if the above three statements were posted at every auction market, feedlot and café in cattle country, does the Board think producers would pass this program today?

Isn’t it time someone got an answer?

Reply briefs were filed with the U. S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit appealing the decision of the South Dakota District Court declaring the beef checkoff unconstitutional. The defendants and plaintiffs appeal briefs are now available below.

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read the following briefs. If you need to download a free copy of Acrobat Reader, please go to the Adobe web site and follow the instructions.

LMA Appeals Court Brief
Intervenors Appeal Brief
Intervenors Reply Brief
DOJ Appeal Brief
Government's Final Reply Brief

For immediate release
Sept. 10, 2002

LMA moving to new offices Oct. 4

Livestock Marketing Association will move its Kansas City, Mo., headquarters to a new office building on Oct. 4, 2002.

The new address is 10510 NW Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, Mo., 64153-1278. The one-story building is about one mile north of LMA’s current offices.

All current phone numbers and staff e-mail addresses will remain the same, including LMA’s toll-free number, 800-821-2048.

For additional moving updates, visit LMA’s website, www.lmaweb.com.

For immediate release
July 16, 2002

HISTORY OF LMA’S CAMPAIGN TO OBTAIN A PRODUCER REFERENDUM ON THE BEEF CHECKOFF

1998
February: Citing continuing producer unrest over the direction and administration of the beef checkoff, LMA’s Board of Directors overwhelmingly votes to seek a producer referendum on whether the program should continue. “Let those who pay, have the final say,” LMA President William E. Irons, Jr., says.

April: LMA notes that in a 1989 magazine interview, Fred Johnson, former chairman of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB), said, “I don’t think it’s too much to expect a producer who’s paying for a program to be allowed to say whether he likes it or not, every five years. Having carte blanche to spend cattlemen’s money for 10 years or whatever is unconscionable.”

May: Petitions asking for a referendum become available for producers to sign, at LMA member businesses nationwide. Many producers contact LMA to offer their support. Typical is Billingsley, Ala., producer Bobby Hayes, who says he strongly believes in a periodic vote. “In a democracy, we can vote. In this thing (the checkoff) you don’t have any say” about whether it should continue.

According to the Beef Promotion and Research Act, calling for a referendum takes signatures from a minimum of 10% of eligible producers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that means LMA must gather about 117,000 signatures.

July: LMA criticizes the CBB’s decision to spend almost $3 million on so-called “producer communications.” LMA says this spending is an illegal attempt to keep producers from signing LMA’s petitions. (A federal judge later agreed with LMA’s position, and ordered the CBB to halt the illegal ads. His decision was not appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the CBB.)

1999
February: LMA’s Board of Directors offers the CBB a proposal to end the petition drive. The proposal asks the CBB to agree to an immediate producer vote and periodic votes. LMA says if producers reaffirm the checkoff in its current form, it will abide by that decision. The CBB rejects the proposal.

November: LMA submits to USDA nearly 146,000 signatures of producers wanting a referendum. Of the total, about 126,000 were collected during a continuous, 12-month period required by USDA. The additional 20,000-plus signatures are submitted to “further demonstrate the extraordinary support for a referendum,” says LMA President Jim Schaben, Jr.

December: USDA’s “Research and Promotion Task Force” releases its report on commodity checkoffs. Among its 21 recommendations: hold producer referendums “at least every five years.” Secretary Dan Glickman endorses all 21 recommendations. President Schaben says LMA is “very pleased” Glickman agrees with LMA’s position on the need for periodic producer votes.

2000
February: LMA praises Glickman’s decision to call for a referendum on the pork checkoff. Glickman says it’s a “bedrock democratic principle” to allow producers to vote on the program. LMA urges Glickman to apply that same principle to the beef checkoff.

June: LMA again protests the CBB’s continued spending on illegal “producer communications” programs. LMA points out the massive, documented increase in such spending since LMA began its referendum campaign: total checkoff funds budgeted by the CBB, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the state beef councils “comes to nearly $7.2 million,” says President Schaben. “This represents nearly 44% of the $16.3 million budgeted for producer communications since the checkoff began 13 years ago.”

September: USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, which has taken no action on LMA’s signatures for 10 months, says it will turn the verification process over to a private accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

December: LMA files suit in South Dakota federal district court to compel USDA to immediately order a referendum on the checkoff. LMA, calling the suit a “last resort,” is joined in the case by the Western Organization of Resource Councils and individual producers. The lawsuit also challenges the use of “producer communication” funds to promote the program to producers paying the dollar checkoff.

PwC sends survey validation forms to beef referendum petitioners in mid-December. PwC rushes to complete the validation process in order to get out-going USDA Secretary Glickman a report by Jan. 15.

2001
January: Secretary Glickman, claiming there are insufficient signatures, declines to order a beef checkoff referendum. LMA says the validation process was “grossly flawed, and legally improper.” A hearing on LMA’s suit seeking a checkoff vote is held Jan. 25, before Federal District Court Judge Charles Kornmann. Kornmann issues a preliminary injunction against certain CBB “producer communications” advertising.

February: Kornmann’s final decision and order on producer communications advertising is released. He sharply criticizes producer-funded advertisements which, he says, were intended “to perpetuate the existence of the (CBB) and the checkoff itself…these messages were designed to discourage producers and public officials from questioning the activities of the Board, either through a referendum or some other method.” He reserves judgment, pending a hearing, on LMA’s claim that the signature validation process is invalid, but says the CBB and USDA “completely ignored the law” when they failed to get federal Office of Management and Budget approval for validation surveys sent to selected petition signers.

June: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that forcing mushroom producers to pay for advertising is invalid under the First Amendment.

July: Judge Kornmann asks both sides in the beef checkoff lawsuit for their views on the mushroom case, and its application to the pending suit. Both sides tell the Court, in writing, that the constitutionality question involving the beef checkoff “needs to be resolved prior to proceeding” with LMA’s request for a referendum.

August: LMA and the other plaintiffs in the case file an amended complaint, asking the federal court to declare the beef checkoff is unconstitutional, because it violates producers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

2002
January: Judge Kornmann conducts a three-day trial on LMA’s suit. On the constitutionality question, the CBB maintains that the beef checkoff is government speech – reversing how the program has always been promoted to producers – and not subject to the First Amendment. LMA disputes that position, noting the program is entirely funded by producers, even to the point that USDA is reimbursed for their expenses in administering it. LMA and the other plaintiffs argue that the beef checkoff violates their First Amendment rights by compelling them to promote foreign beef products, which they believe to be inferior to U.S. beef, as part of the program’s generic beef advertising program. The plaintiffs also object to being compelled to associate, via the mandatory checkoff, with CBB and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association activities with which they disagree.

June 21: Judge Kornmann rules the checkoff and Beef Promotion and Research Act are “unconstitutional and unenforceable.” He throws out the defendants’ arguments that the checkoff is “government speech,” and he rules producers cannot be compelled to support a program with which they disagree. LMA President Billy Perrin says LMA is “gratified the Court chose to uphold the Constitutional rights of beef and dairy producers paying the mandatory” checkoff.

July 10: The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals grants the defendants’ request for a stay of Judge Kornmann’s ruling that checkoff collections cease as of July 15. LMA remains confident the Judge’s decision is a correct statement of the law. The Appeals Court, LMA says, obviously wanted to maintain the status quo until it could fully review the Judge’s decision.

Click here for The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann's decision on the beef checkoff suit.

For immediate release
June 21, 2002

Federal judge rules beef checkoff ‘unconstitutional and unenforceable’; LMA gratified producers’ rights upheld

KANSAS CITY, MO. – Livestock Marketing Association President Billy Perrin said, “We are gratified the Court chose to uphold the Constitutional rights of beef and dairy producers paying the mandatory beef checkoff. The decision affirms a producer’s right to free speech, and the right to promote his own product.”

Perrin’s comments came after South Dakota Federal District Court Judge Charles B. Kornmann ruled June 21 that the Beef Promotion and Research Act and checkoff “are unconstitutional and unenforceable” because they violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Kornmann enjoined any further collection of the $1 per head checkoff after July 15.

Perrin said key elements of the Court’s ruling include:

...Beef producers cannot be compelled to finance advertising programs with which they disagree. The Court said the Constitution requires that beef advertising be paid for “only from assessments paid by producers who do not object to advancing the generic sale of beef and who are not coerced into doing so against their wills.”

Several individual plaintiffs in LMA’s lawsuit objected to checkoff-financed advertising, claiming the ads made no distinction between U.S. and foreign beef.

...Claims made by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and the government, that checkoff programs constitute government speech, are contradicted by several years of so-called “producer communications.”

The Court found that “All of these so-called ‘producer communications,’ which were prepared with checkoff funds, stress to the producers that the Beef Board is a ‘producer-controlled, independent Board.’ They stress to the producers that the beef checkoff is an ‘industry-run program,’ that ‘cattlemen run the program,’...

“Nowhere in any of the ‘producer communications,’” the Court found, “does it even hint that the Board is accountable to the (U.S. Department of Agriculture) or that the speech being paid for by the producers is that of the federal government.”

In a further rejection of the defendants’ “government speech” argument, the Court said, “Common sense tells us that the government is not ‘speaking’ in encouraging consumers to eat beef. After all, is the ‘government message’ therefore that consumers should eat no other product or at least reduce the consumption of other products such as pork, chicken, fish or soy meal? The answer is obvious.”

The Court’s ruling, Perrin said, “confirms that producers will be able to use their money to promote the beef they produce, in the way they want, in association with people whose beliefs they share. It’s now up to the industry to come together to discuss a voluntary program, which we can all support.”

LMA began a petition drive in 1998, to obtain a producer referendum on the checkoff. LMA later filed a lawsuit in South Dakota federal district court challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s process to validate those petitions.

The matter became a constitutional challenge to the checkoff following the Supreme Court’s decision last year ruling that the mushroom checkoff was unconstitutional.

For Immediate Release
May 24, 2002

Former Oklahoma BIC Chairman Billy Perrin elected LMA’s new president

OMAHA, NEB. – Oklahoman Billy Perrin, a market owner who’s led his state’s Beef Industry Council, is Livestock Marketing Association’s president for 2002-2003. Perrin, of Hugo, will be taking office here June 7, at LMA’s annual meeting.

Joining Perrin in leading LMA for the next year will be President-elect Charles Messer, Western Carolina Livestock Market, Inc., Asheville, N.C.; Vice President Randy Patterson, Anthony Livestock Co., Anthony, Kan.; Treasurer Steve Bartholomew, Washington County Sales Co., Inc., Fayetteville, Ark.; and Secretary Jim Santomaso, Sterling Livestock Commission Co., Sterling, Colo.

Newly-elected directors, serving three-year terms, will be Gary Miller, Northwestern Livestock Commission Co., Hermiston, Ore.; Herman Schumacher, Herreid Livestock Market, Inc., Herreid, S.D.; and Albert Epperly, Springlake Livestock Market, Inc., Moneta, Va.

T. Phil Harvey, Mid-Georgia Livestock Market, Inc., Jackson, Ga., was elected to a one-year term as director-at-large.

Perrin owns the Southern Oklahoma Livestock Auction in Ada. He’s had 25 years experience in Oklahoma marketing in Hugo, Idabel and at the Tulsa Stockyards.

A past chairman of the Oklahoma Beef Industry Council, Perrin is also a former board member of the U.S. Meat Export Federation and is a director of the Oklahoma Farmers Union.

Married and the father of two daughters, he enjoys spending time with his three grandchildren.

In connection with the annual meeting, on June 8 LMA will conduct the 39th annual World Livestock Auctioneer Championship. The “World Series” of the auctioneering profession will be held at the Dunlap Livestock Auction, Dunlap, Iowa.

April 9, 2002

Mr. Michael Roberts
President
McDonald’s U. S. A.
McDonald’s Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60523

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Through various news accounts, we understand that the McDonald’s Corporation intends to begin using imported beef, under a limited test, in your ground beef patties in McDonald’s restaurants in the Southeast. On behalf of our 800 member markets, order buyers and dealers and the tens of thousand beef producers who market their animals through our livestock markets each week, we wish to express our great disappointment with your decision to look to our foreign competitors for your beef supply.

Some months ago, the Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) joined with other beef industry groups to implement a somewhat onerous producer certification program demanded by the McDonald’s Corporation to assure that the domestic beef supply was meeting the highest standards of food safety and quality. LMA member markets and America’s beef producers entered into this process not always understanding its necessity or utility. Nevertheless, they proceeded to implement the program because it was in the best interest of the consuming public. Now, that certification program becomes all but meaningless in the eyes of many in the beef industry and is likely to be cast aside by many markets and producers who now feel abandoned by the McDonald’s Corporation decision to use imported beef in its hamburgers.

We can appreciate the realities of the marketplace and the price and supply demands that face your business in the coming years. Nevertheless, we believe our domestic beef supply remains the safest and best in the world and that if the demand is there the supply will follow at a price commensurate with our safe and wholesome product. Thus, we remain hopeful that your test of imported beef will remain just that and not become a regular use of foreign beef in McDonald’s hamburgers.

The McDonald’s Corporation has taken particular pride in the past in marketing its hamburgers as U.S. beef and American consumers have responded to it by making McDonald’s the nation’s leading hamburger restaurant. That marketing tool still has relevance today for the American consumer as well as the domestic beef industry and we hope you will not abandon it.

Sincerely,
Pat Goggins
President

March 15, 2002

Statment by Livestock Marketing Association opposing language in the Farm Bill establishing commodity programs as government speech

LMA is condemning a “back door” effort by commodity groups to insert language into the federal farm bill establishing checkoff programs as “government speech.” This is a clear attempt by several major trade groups, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Milk Producers Federation, to try and circumvent pending litigation challenging the constitutionality of these programs.

The commodity groups are attempting to get the government speech language into the House-Senate Conference Committee’s final version of the farm bill. Instead of offering the amendment in the clear light of day where it could be debated, these groups are now trying to go in the back door. They clearly do not believe in the democratic process, in which producers have a right to self-determination, free speech and taxation without representation.

Instead, they are attempting to impose on all producers their particular point of view of what constitutes what is good for all of them.

LMA is contacting the Senate and House conferees and urging them to reject this blatant attempt to shelter checkoffs from any accountability for their activities.

This provision is not a small, technical amendment to existing l