The California Cattle Council has gotten the greenlight from cattle producers and the state.
On Monday, April 8, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) announced that the referendum to create the California Cattle Council passed with 68 percent of the votes cast. An additional $1/head assessment will be collected on every head of cattle at the point of sale. The collected funds will be used by the council, within a framework set by the CDFA, for research and public outreach on issues related to the state’s live cattle industry.
According to the CDFA, the council is authorized to:
• Conduct research related to improving industry efficiency and sustainability, best management practices, assistance with regulatory compliance, and the nutritional qualities of beef;
• Keep track of public consumption patterns of products derived from the California cattle industry;
• Develop educational and communication programs for consumers related to the state’s cattle industry; and
• Present facts to government agencies (domestic and foreign) related to the use and consumption of products of the state’s cattle industry.
Dave Daley, chair of the California Cattle Council’s campaign and immediate past president of the California Cattlemen’s Association, told WLJ that, “It’s not just beef promotion—the Beef Council does a good job of that—this is about live cattle issues as well; environmental issues, open space, fire, grazing, and all the things that we need to do a better job communicating to the general public. We can now do that with these kind of resources.”
He additionally summarized three key points about the council:
“All the money stays in California; it can work on live cattle issues, that was secondary; and third is we’ve worked in a refund provision. So, for those people who are not in favor of this, it gives them an opportunity to say, ‘I want my dollars back.’ Or even for those people who are in favor of it, it gives us a self-check in terms of how the council operates.”
Plans and timelines
Before anything else can happen with the California Cattle Council, the first board of directors must be created. According to the CDFA, it must consist of three range cattle producers, three cattle feeders, three dairy producers, one processor, and one public member, as well as an alternate for all 11 positions.
Nominations for these positions are being accepted through May 22. You may nominate yourself or others. Nomination information and forms can be found online at cdfa.ca.gov/go/cattle or by calling CDFA’s marketing branch at 916-900-5018.
Once the council’s board members are appointed by the California Secretary of Food and Agriculture, the board will set priorities and goals for the council.
“It’s going to be up to that first council to sit down and ask, ‘Where is the biggest bang for our buck? Where can we do the most good immediately that shows an impact, not only to our cattle producers, but also to the general public about what we do in this business?’” explained Daley.
He said he’d heard wide-ranging ideas from producers about what the council should pursue—everything from ag in the classroom to bringing legislators to the ranches—when he was working on the campaign.
“People have had lots of great ideas, more than the $3.5 million we’re going to collect would ever fund,” he said.
Collection of the additional $1/head assessment for the California Cattle Council could begin as early as mid-summer, according to Daley, though he said nothing was certain. He hoped that project implementation might begin as early as late fall or next year at the latest.
Money matters
Much like the Beef Checkoff Program, the $1/head assessment for the California Cattle Council is to be paid by the seller and “collected from the seller or from the seller’s account and paid to the council by each operator of a stockyard, livestock auction market, or slaughter facility,” according to the text of the referendum, now California law.
“Assessments that are not collected in the manner provided in this subdivision shall be collected from the seller by the Bureau of Livestock Identification at the time that brand inspection fees are collected.”
Assessment funds are due to the council “on or before the 15th day of the month next succeeding the month in which the cattle and calves are sold.”
Failure to pay the assessment could result in a civil liability action. Penalties could include up to $100/head fine for each head of cattle sold without paying the assessment. The text of the referendum states that “The person also shall be liable for the total amount of fees due and the costs of a civil suit, including attorney’s fees.”
Producers can get their money back if they submit a refund claim to the council within 90 days. The council is required to refund claimed assessments within 60 days.
Resistance remains
Of course, not every California producer voted in the referendum, and not everyone who voted was in favor of the California Cattle Council.
Steve Lyle, director of public affairs for the CDFA, told WLJ that the department sent out 18,980 ballots and they had a 19 percent participation rate, suggesting about 3,600 ballots were returned. Of those, 32 percent of respondents voted against it.
Deb Cockrell, a producer of Modoc County, CA was one of those nay votes. She described herself as very pro-producer, very eager to support the California cattle industry, and more than willing to donate. She stressed that she is not so much opposed to the California Cattle Council program itself as to the fact the assessment will be legally required.
“I was on the fence for a long time which way to go,” she told WLJ. “The more I put things together and thought about it, I realized it’s just another forced fee—another cost out of the producer’s pocket.”
She pointed out that California brand inspection fees have recently increased and described the additional $1/head as yet another potential economic burden on producers already facing uncertain markets.
“If you sell 500 calves, that’s $500 dollars out of your pocket when, in a down market time, you’re lucky to break even and a lot of people will have a $20, $30 loss per head. And then they have to come up with an additional fee.”
She acknowledged the refund system but does not see it as practical.
“I feel [the assessment] should be a voluntary donation. A little box on the brand inspection—’yes, we will donate’ or ‘no, not at this time’—instead of going through the full process of a forced fee, having to pay, then having to go through the hassle of asking for it back.”
Daley acknowledged the fact some producers are not happy. He issued a call to action to the as-yet unformed California Cattle Council:
“With 32 percent of people not voting in favor, I think it’s incumbent on that cattle council to work to secure their support and not to ignore them. They need to work really hard on that.” —Kerry Halladay, WLJ editor
