This week I am at the Wyoming Annual Farm Bureau Convention, held in Cheyenne. Since my work is no longer a conflict of interest with being personally affiliated with select organizations, I have enjoyed increasing my involvement in Wyoming Farm Bureau through running and being elected to the Wyoming Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee.
My personal belief is it's a necessary act of community service to serve on boards, committees, in public office, etc... It's through personal involvement that you see your community become what you want, how you create positive change that you believe in, and is critical to the future of communities. It's also how you make others aware of issues pertinent and relevant to you and your lifestyle. My family has a long standing history of involvement for these reasons, and I'm excited to increase mine in upcoming months and years.
The thoughts I just mentioned are relevant at the local, county, state, regional, national or international level. That's the beauty of being involved. I am also a very strong believer in grassroots organizations, which are those where local members make policy, and pass it locally, then present it at the district, state, and national meetings, should it pass at each previous step. Grassroots organizations are how local people get local issues heard at a national level by government and other entities through a large and unified voice. This is the opposite of the federal government creating an idea, then passing it down to the local communities they know nothing about. Grassroots is how things should happen.
The American Farm Bureau Federation is the largest farmer and rancher based grassroots organization in the U.S. today, and as I type this, policy is being passed at the state level that has already been voted on at the local and district meetings. These are the ideas, concerns, changes and improvements Wyoming people want to see happen on more issues than you can count. Through creating policy, the people involved lobbying for Farm Bureau at the state or national level have a resource they can refer to on any number of issues to see just what the people back home think on a subject. Then they can use that policy to accurately represent member needs.
For example, policy was passed today that states Wyoming Farm Bureau supports population control of wild horses through various means including sterilization, humane euthanization, etc... (those aren't the exact words, which in policy exact words are very important, but that gives you the general idea).
With that policy in place, the Farm Bureau lobbyists can refer to it any time there is legislation that encompasses the wild horse, and speak from the point of the organization supporting population control. If there wasn't policy, the lobbyists wouldn't know what the majority of members thought on some issues, and may not represent accurately.
The other side is, having a huge organization with members from every state in the union gets a lot more attention at state or national legislatures than one farmer, or rancher, with a concern or idea.
Savvy?
It's all quite fascinating, and so very important to the future of our country. I encourage anyone who has ever said, "they should do that, or do it that way," to go join the organization you were referring to, and become a part of making it the way you want and believe it should be.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Political Issues - GIPSA Rule
As I've already mentioned we covered a number of topics while in Washington D.C. My plan is to present a number of those issues to you while they're still fresh in my mind.
Up first is the proposed GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) Rule, which USDA is currently working on.
The 2008 Farm Bill required re-writing and clarification of certain aspects of the GIPSA Rule, and the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was the entity in charge of this rule, so they got the task of re-writing it. The GIPSA website states the goal of the regulation is to level the playing field between packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors, and the nation's poultry growers and livestock producers.
The result of the USDA's first draft was varied and outspoken. During the public comment period, 60,000 comments were submitted, voicing everything from strong support to rigorous opposition of the rule. I attended one of a series of USDA/DOJ public workshops on the topic, where a number of panels comprised of members of the livestock industry spoke on the issue, and where producers from across the country spoke passionately for and against it based on the impact it would have on their operation and their neighbor's operations.
Right now everyone is waiting for the USDA to release the final rule after making changes based on the 60,000 public comments. The USDA has three choices of how they can proceed upon completing the writing phase. First, they can release a final rule, period, the end. Second, they can present a proposed final rule with an additional public comment period. Third they can submit a reproposal of the entire rule. They also have the option of doing a combination of the three. For example, they can choose specific parts to be released as final, and make others open for another public comment period.
Many of the congressional delegation are in opposition of continued funding of the rule, because they don't like the idea of the USDA being able to come out with a final rule without anyone getting any additional say in the matter, especially with this being such a sensitive issue. Without funding the rule would die where it is now until the next budgeting session (I think, until sometime in the next session).
Others are in support of keeping the bill fully funded until we see what the final rule, or proposed rule is, then taking action if there is anything they're in opposition of.
The argument with that is if the rule is passed without additional comment, the only way to make changes is through a challenge or new legislation (and perhaps others), all of which can take several years. During that entire time the rule would stand as released.
You can read an outline of the original proposed rule here.
This is an important issue to all members of the livestock industry because it is a rule designed to level the marketing playing, and will have impacts (both good and bad) on all sectors . I encourage you to read up on it, and stay updated on it.
We were able to speak with USDA GIPSA Administrator Dudley Butler on the issue while in D.C., and he said, "If both sides come out a little mad and a little happy, I think will have done a good job."
Up first is the proposed GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) Rule, which USDA is currently working on.
The 2008 Farm Bill required re-writing and clarification of certain aspects of the GIPSA Rule, and the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was the entity in charge of this rule, so they got the task of re-writing it. The GIPSA website states the goal of the regulation is to level the playing field between packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors, and the nation's poultry growers and livestock producers.
The result of the USDA's first draft was varied and outspoken. During the public comment period, 60,000 comments were submitted, voicing everything from strong support to rigorous opposition of the rule. I attended one of a series of USDA/DOJ public workshops on the topic, where a number of panels comprised of members of the livestock industry spoke on the issue, and where producers from across the country spoke passionately for and against it based on the impact it would have on their operation and their neighbor's operations.
Right now everyone is waiting for the USDA to release the final rule after making changes based on the 60,000 public comments. The USDA has three choices of how they can proceed upon completing the writing phase. First, they can release a final rule, period, the end. Second, they can present a proposed final rule with an additional public comment period. Third they can submit a reproposal of the entire rule. They also have the option of doing a combination of the three. For example, they can choose specific parts to be released as final, and make others open for another public comment period.
Many of the congressional delegation are in opposition of continued funding of the rule, because they don't like the idea of the USDA being able to come out with a final rule without anyone getting any additional say in the matter, especially with this being such a sensitive issue. Without funding the rule would die where it is now until the next budgeting session (I think, until sometime in the next session).
Others are in support of keeping the bill fully funded until we see what the final rule, or proposed rule is, then taking action if there is anything they're in opposition of.
The argument with that is if the rule is passed without additional comment, the only way to make changes is through a challenge or new legislation (and perhaps others), all of which can take several years. During that entire time the rule would stand as released.
You can read an outline of the original proposed rule here.
This is an important issue to all members of the livestock industry because it is a rule designed to level the marketing playing, and will have impacts (both good and bad) on all sectors . I encourage you to read up on it, and stay updated on it.
We were able to speak with USDA GIPSA Administrator Dudley Butler on the issue while in D.C., and he said, "If both sides come out a little mad and a little happy, I think will have done a good job."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)