Speer: OFF Act: Easy Out For Naysayers

Preoccupation With NCBA / Packer: My previous column focused on the OFF Act coalition; specifically, the perils of inviting Mercy for Animals (and other activist groups) into the fold. Shortly thereafter these comments arrived in my inbox: 

Let’s double-click on some of the broader themes.     

First, and foremost, the reader misses the crux of the column.  His email consisted of 223 words.  NCBA was mentioned 6 times, packers were referenced 3 times, but not one mention of the actual column.  Perhaps I should address the essence of the column from a different direction. 

HSUS/ KLC: Let’s back up to summer, 2013.  In good faith, the Kentucky Livestock Coalition (KLC) intentionally opened lines of communication with HSUS.   KLC subsequently hosted an open forum with Paul Shapiro (HSUS VP, Farm Animal Protection).  At the time, I described the effort in a column as an “…intent [to] facilitate a better understanding and drive more effective dialog going forward.” 

However, good intentions were NOT reciprocated by HSUS.   Eight months later (February, 2014) HSUS held a press conference at the state capital in Frankfort revealing an undercover video from one of the state’s large swine operations.  It was intended to disparage the farm’s efforts to combat porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) – as directed by their veterinarian.  HSUS misrepresented the video footage and alleged the farm was violating state law (which it wasn’t). 

I addressed the fallout, referencing my direct communication with HSUS, in a later column.  Most important, HSUS touted its desire, “to ‘work’ with producers and animal agriculture but then turned around and attempted to pick them off.” 

R-CALF Column:    That brings us to R-CALF’s most recent defense of OFF Act efforts; the group explains, “it is time for members of Congress to listen to those they truly represent, the people whose passion and time is centered on their fields and pastures…”. 

However, it’s worth restating the core principle from my previous column: “Passage of the OFF Act would ultimately position the signatory activist groups – with the stated objective of ending animal agriculture – as stakeholders in Farm Bill policy going forward.”

How can we expect Congress to represent America’s farmers and ranchers when the OFF Act has them standing side by side with activist groups?  It’s impossible to reconcile.  

Checkoff:  Second, the reader’s comments misrepresent how the Checkoff works: “Why shouldn’t I be able to choose where my Checkoff money goes?”   In fact, he can.   The entire decision-making process, both at the state and national level is driven by producers. 

After all, it’s called the Cattlemen’s Beef Board because producers are the decision-makers.  Be proactive, jump in, and get involved.   

Email #2: I received other communication about the column.  However, one respondent (who ranches full time) especially grabbed my attention.  He succinctly summarizes the heart of the first email.  That is, the inexplicable preoccupation with NCBA and endorsement of a partnership with MFA.  In doing so, he ultimately invokes some of Theodore Roosevelt’s enduring wisdom for life (The Man in The Arena): 

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY.  The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship.  He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz.