FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Last updated:

08/13/2008

Hit Counter

folks have

visited this site

God Bless America!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 30, 2008

For more information contact Margaret Nachtigall at:

605-342-0429 or margaret.sdsga@midconetwork.com

www.southdakotastockgrowers.org

S.D. Stockgrowers Done with Brand Inspection Contract

As of today, the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association (SDSGA) will no longer oversee the brand inspection program for the state of South Dakota . The S.D. Brand Board chose not to renew the contract with the Stockgrowers, and will take over brand inspection duties as of tomorrow, says SDSGA Vice President Kenny Fox , Belvidere , S.D.

“The Brand Board has not contacted us to tell us who they have hired as inspectors. Livestock owners should contact the Brand Board in order to line up a brand inspector or call the Governor’s office for any questions or concerns they might have,” he said. Fox said the phone number to the Brand Board office is: 605-773-3324 and the phone number to the Governor’s office is: 605-773-3212.

SDSGA President Larry Nelson said the Stockgrowers are grateful to Jim Reed who has dedicated 16 years to the cattle industry as South Dakota ’s Chief Brand Inspector, and spent many more years as a full time brand inspector in various towns. They also appreciate Brand Inspection Administrative Assistant Cathy Banning who has spent 18 years overseeing the office. “I don’t know of a more conscientious and diligent pair than those two. They work like a well-oiled machine…recording and filing brand inspection data, managing brand inspectors across the state and finding rightful owners for livestock holds. I credit those two individuals greatly for the success this brand inspection program has enjoyed these past sixteen plus years. They are the type of people that often go unnoticed because they do their jobs so efficiently and quietly. They will leave some large shoes to fill.”

Additionally, Nelson said the Stockgrowers appreciate all of the other brand inspectors who have served the industry. “This program would not have been successful without the full time inspectors or the many, many local and part time inspectors and shippers’ agents. Many of these folks were basically donating their time and resources in an effort to make sure that the brand inspection program worked.”

Former Brand Board member Lyndell Peterson, Hermosa , S.D. , is another individual who deserves recognition, says Nelson. “Lyndell recently resigned from the Brand Board because he didn’t agree with their takeover of the inspection program. But he has spent the last three years or more trying to ensure that the Brand Board will carry out their legal responsibilities in a sensible manner. He has always been an ally to the cattle industry, but as a member of the Brand Board he went above and beyond in an effort to bring a common sense point of view to their meetings.”

Fox said that the other brand board members stated that they didn’t agree with the Stockgrowers’ politics, and didn’t like the fact that the Stockgrowers were spending their profit from the brand inspection program to further their political agenda. “They might not have agreed with our stance on political issues, but that was a poor reason to not renew the contract. We were entitled to use our profits in any way we chose. We earned that money honestly, carrying out a contract that both sides agreed to.” Besides that, Fox said that the Stockgrowers are the largest cattle organization in the state, which indicates that their political positions are widely supported. “We stand strong on important issues for independent producers – I don’t believe there are very many ranchers or farmers in South Dakota who disagree with our politics.” Fox said a handful of the issues they’ve worked on recently include: Country of Origin Labeling, property rights – helping with a lawsuit against state because the state would not carry out their duties of controlling prairie dogs, also standing up for property owners on the non-meandering lakes issue that affected Northeastern South Dakota; opposing the eminent domain law (SB 174); opposing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS); continually fighting to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle after Canada’s BSE problem was exposed; helping inform people of the hunting lockout; and supporting open fields legislation.

“Our political agenda will not change and the Stockgrowers will not slow down our efforts to better the cattle industry. With or without the brand inspection contract, we will represent producers on local, state and national cattle industry issues just the same as always,” said Fox.

Signatures gathered across the state indicate very strong support for the Stockgrowers’ continued administration of the brand inspection program, said Fox. “Over 1,200 brand owners signed their names in favor of the Stockgrowers, while just 2 brand owners said they would prefer that the Stockgrowers didn’t run the program.” Those are some pretty strong statistics. And they aren’t just Stockgrower members – they are brand owners across the state.

Fox also mentioned that the Brand Board, after publicly scolding the Stockgrowers and their inspectors, is now planning to operate the brand inspection program using most of the same inspectors and will be basing their budget on the Stockgrowers’ old budget. “How ironic that the inspectors who, a few years ago were accused by the state of all sorts of wrongdoing are now mostly the same inspectors who the state asked to work for them. We defended our inspectors from day one, as we believed they were doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, plus we had always reprimanded any of our employees who had intentionally done anything wrong,” said Fox. “And another major complaint we’ve heard from this brand board is that we didn’t budget our income and expenses appropriately, but now that they will be running the program, they are using our budget as a basis for the coming year’s finances. It just proves how baseless their complaints, accusations and implications have been all along.”

“I hope that producers who have problems or concerns will contact the state Brand Board, the governor’s office or their legislators and tell them what they believe is the problem, and how they’d like to see it fixed. We as producers are the owners and financiers of this program, and it is our responsibility, as an industry, to ensure that it remains successful,” Fox said.

- # # # -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2008

For more information contact Margaret Nachtigall at:

605-342-0429 or margaret.sdsga@midconetwork.com

www.southdakotastockgrowers.org

S.D. Stockgrowers Contract Proposals Denied; S.D. Brand Board to Take over Program Soon

The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association (SDSGA) offered three different brand inspection contracts to the S.D. Brand Board, but all were rejected, says SDSGA President Larry Nelson, Buffalo , S.D.

“The Stockgrowers have managed brand inspection for over 100 years and it’s always been our goal to provide a quality service at a reasonable price. We had hoped that this could continue, in order that producers could continue to depend on an efficient and effective program at the lowest cost possible. The Brand Board denied the three different proposals we suggested and have instead decided to manage the inspection program in-house. So now it is up to them to provide a system that works on the ground, without overcharging the very people who fund the program – cattle producers,” said Nelson.

According to Nelson, the Stockgrowers made significant steps to try and appease the Brand Board. “We offered to lower the administration fee by 25% while at the same time giving all of our full time inspectors a raise. In this day and age, I’d like to see another contractor who is willing to lower their administrative fee that substantially.”

Additionally, Nelson said that the Brand Board wanted the Stockgrowers to transfer inspection data to the Brand Board on a regular basis, and make significant changes in the hold reporting process. “We were willing to make concessions on all of these areas. We discussed ways to make it work for them and for us – we made an effort to move their direction on all of their major issues.” But Nelson says the Brand Board was not so willing to budge, and refused that proposal.

Nelson said the Stockgrowers’ final proposal was to revert back to the contract they’ve operated under for decades – a more risky but simple way of handling the program. “We offered to run the program for eighty cents - the current brand inspection fee. We would accept the losses, if there were any, and any profit would be ours as well. This would have relieved the Brand Board from any financial responsibility, while maintaining the $.80 inspection fee – a win-win for producers and the Brand Board.”

According to Nelson, the Brand Board rejected all proposals and is now discussing raising the fee by almost 20% in order to keep the program in the black.

SDSGA Past President Bill Hutchinson, White River , S.D. , said at one point, the Brand Board mentioned a two percent implementation fee for the Stockgrowers. “We don’t think anyone out there is going to run this program for nothing, and two percent is practically nothing. It is a little hard to keep a straight face when you are sitting across the table from a lawyer holding a seat on the Brand Board, telling you that two percent profit is plenty.”

Hutchinson said he’s frustrated with the situation because the Stockgrowers have never heard an outcry from the public. “The people who fund and use the inspection program – cattle producers – don’t have any major complaints about the way things were being done. I don’t understand how or why the Brand Board would take such drastic steps and risk ruining such a successful program when there are no real problems with the current system.”

As a brand inspector and a cattle producer, Hutchinson says his main concern is to maintain a good working inspection program. “I just don’t think that a Brand Board-run inspection program will benefit producers, but I guess I’ll just have to wait and see.”

SDSGA Past President Rick Fox, Hermosa , S.D. , says that taxpayer money has never been needed to keep the brand inspection program going. “The Stockgrowers have always managed the program in such a way that the inspection fee paid by producers has been enough to keep the program afloat. And yet those very producers have had very little opportunity to provide input into this situation. It should really be up to producers to determine the future of brand inspection.”

Kenny Fox, Belvidere , S.D. , who serves as the Stockgrowers’ Vice President agrees. “The producers should have a say. The feasibility study that the Brand Board funded suggests that a survey of producers should be conducted. I agree – producers fund and use this program and they should have some input.”

The current contract expires July 1, 2008, which will be the S.D. Brand Board’s first day of carrying out the brand inspection program.

- # # # -