NADeFA Election

If you have not read the new standards put forth by the USDA, I suggest you do so. They apply to each any every deer farmer, no matter your location.



Sample for your view:



(5.4) Shooter Animal Surveillance



All shooter animals 12 months or older harvested by hunters as well as natural mortalities on hunter (shooter) premises must be made available for testing if the hunt facility is enrolled in the Approved State CWD HCP.



Any cervids 12 months or older that have been sent to hunt facilities from separate enrolled herds and have remained on the owner’s enrolled herd inventory must be tested for CWD at time of death or harvest in the hunt facility and test results reported to the Approved State.



In such cases where clinically normal animals are harvested over time on hunt facilities, there may be allowance for reporting groups of animals that have been killed over a specified time period. The delayed notification must include the identification numbers of the animals involved and the actual or estimated time and date of death.



Approved States may have additional CWD testing and surveillance requirements that exceed the national program minimum requirements.

This year WI has changed their CWD testing rules to say that only 50% of the animals harvested at a hunting facility needed to be tested. Not sure how that lines up with what Rhonda posted.



As to the board thing, hey every board has their rules and if a nominee doesn't fit the criteria for whatever reason so be it. The rules need to be changed or lived with. This decision probably had nothing to do with anyone personally. Maybe there were issues in the past when one person was doing too many things and that is why they put the rule in place - don't know. There are many qualified people out there and I'm sure there is a good selection. It is a board not one person. I believe Shawn does the best he can and I know he puts on a ton of miles traveling every year. I understand what he was saying about states doing their own thing - the State Dept. of Agriculture or whomever is first going to listen to their own constitutents, not someone from outside. The state has to be the one pushing an issue and NADEFA can support them, provide guidance and show up for support, but they can't do it for them.



I sincerely hope something gets resolved in the Iowa case. We need to have indemnity payments back or else they have to find a way for folks to get some cash out of a herd with a CWD positive. Who can afford to simply walk out and put down all their animals for nothing???? No one!!!!

Wild Rivers, The Federal Rules are the minimum. Wisconsin will have to comply with the federal to stay compliant, otherwise Wisconsin can't export to other states. We went through better rule changes this year in Minnesota, but some of them will go away under the new federal rule.



The board thing, it's really simple, you just follow the bylaws.

Gary

Tim....we are offering up solutions....and one of them is....We the members should choose who represents us on the board at NADefa.......meaning we should be able to vote for all of the people that apply for the positions not a Solicited group....there is no doubt in my mind you guys as well as the state orgs have worked very hard to work for this Industry and that's why I have supported them year after year through memberships and donations.......but I think we have been done an injustice with the decision the NADefa board made by not allowing Charly and whom ever else was slashed from the list to be voted for the Board......not a good decision and I have not heard a good response yet other than a list of things that have been done in the past that we all appreciate .....otherwise we wouldn't keep paying are dues year after year.....we need to know what's going to happen this year.....and so far........the decision of the board to not allow Charlies call to help...does not bode well with many.........this is no longer about a who can point fingers better game.......we are all scared.....we all have skin in the game whether it be big or small.........things need to change.....and we want the best players to be in the game......and you guys have just taken one of them out of it.........this year is more crucial than any other......and there is no place for bad decisions.......we are all hurt by them........

Shawn and Tim, I am not trying to insult you or NADEFA. If you go back in my posts last year, I suggested to all breeders to join NADEFA, because I saw the rules as a challenge we would have to be united to deal with.



Shawn, I have been asked questions by my members. As a director of our state association, I take it as my duty to get answers to them. I don't think they are too sensitive for the public to view. I am not trying to embarrass anyone here.



My first question was, when was the annual meeting. Thank you for your answer. " It's during the thursday lunch at the Conference". I have looked all through the magazine and couldn't find it, and I got no response back from my email to the office.



As far as Charly's nomination. You said it was a decision of the board. When I have any questions, I always go back to the bylaws. And yes I have read the bylaws. The bylaws state, "Active members can hold office". Would you please point out to me where in the bylaws the board has the authority to screen or reject candidates? Why can he serve on the Cervid Livestock Foundation and not the board?



"As for the Federal Rule - Where was I last summer?" I did send in a large comment to USDA. I saved a copy, I'll send it to you if you would like a copy.

I had plans to attend the conference in N.C. last summer. I think I even talked to you about it. My wife was in an accident and broke her pelvis and hip, she was layed about for 3 months so I had to change a lot of my summer and fall plans and had to scratch that trip. I noticed only 1 director out of 17 attended. What's up with that?



"Where was I last summer?" Ask our President John Beam how much time I put in on the Minnesota rule changes. Ask Dr. Anderson how much time we put in negotiating our new rules. We where successful in changing some our rules on Minnesota. I have seen the attitude change in Minnesota on the state cervid committee over the last 2 years. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Hartman have been a pleasure to work with, and I think they really considered our recommendations. I am glad to see Dr. Hartman appointed to the working group committee. He is very fair and I truly thinks he wants to make it reasonable for us to farm deer.

We also had a day a the capital. Being an unpaid director, I think I have done my best.



Federal Rule -- You said the sky did not fall in under the federal rule, but our situation did not improve. The program standards are being reworked, but there are things in the standards that will cripple the industry. Yes Shawn, I am probably one of the few that has read the rules. There are a lot of issues in these standards that concern me. Too many to go into here on this site. I urge everyone to through these rules, as it will effect everyone!



I am very concerned that we will not get any improvement on these rules. That's why I support the ACA. I think we are going to have to play hardball with USDA on this.



In my opinion the Federal Rules are a disaster for the cervid industry. In Minnesota, and most states, we where better off without the Federal Rule. We operated all these years without the Federal Rule, but no-one has explained to me what benefit the Federal Rule brings to the industry.



In the past I have served 3 consecutive terms on a national cattle association board, and was very active with them. So I feel for your board members, I was burnt-out.



In the 1990's the Cattlemens Association [the industry] contributed a large part of the money to USDA for the indemnification. I wonder if that is what the USDA is hoping our industry will do. Being some of the same people I dealt with in the BSE crisis are the same ones we are working with now.



I had cattle quarantined on my farm. As bad as it got with BSE, I felt I was treated better raising cattle than I ever have raising deer. Raising deer I feel like I am treated as a criminal. I think the problem with the how the USDA treats us is that the wildlife agencies have had to much input into our rules process. I for the life of me can't figure out why they are even on the standards group, let alone having equal representation that our industry has.



My heart really goes out to the Brakke's. I know how bad it got in our situation, let alone the value of the hundreds of animals they own.



I am trying to help improve the rules in Minnesota. Some of the same people I worked with in the cattle industry in the early 1990's are still at the Board of Health that we work with now on the deer.



As far as the financial reports. There wasn't one in the last magazine, so I looked back on the last two and found them. Shawn, bar graphs and pie charts just don't cut it. If this all you have been giving the membership I can see why there is a lot of complaints. Shawn, it's all about transparency. What you are providing them makes it look like your hiding something. That's why you need to provide full financials to the members, again transparency.



Shawn, You made a comment about Kurt [who I have never met], not being a member and supporting NADEFA. The question you should ask yourself is " Why is he not a member, and what can we do to get him to join?' We need breeders like Kurt to join and be active.



I may be new to NADEFA, but from why I have seen and heard, I think NADEFA has some sole searching to do. Shawn, I hope you take my comments as constructive criticism, we would all like to see NADEFA succeed. If members don't think they have input or there isn't transparancy in the association, your growth will stagger, people won't join, and they will go out and do there own thing.



As for Charly, I think the board should reconsider and put him back on the ballot. I know you feel he is intimidating, but in dealing with the government on these rules, I want intimidating on our side. Charly did an excellent job on 60 minutes. We haven't even addressed those issues coming after us. We have an asset here , we need to us it.



Gary

I have been serving as president of our state association for the past 4 years now. (Illinois) . We have always had a good working relationship and support from NADeFA and from Shawn. There are a lot of things the states can and should handle on a local level by working closely and being proactive with state officials. We just recently had a situation come up that could have been very detrimental to our right to allow individuals to start new hunting preserves here.

We were able to handle the situation and I was in communication with Shawn frequently and he couldn't have been more supportive. As far as all the other stuff goes I will not comment on it on here without being as well as informed as I can be, which I'm not yet I don't believe. Thanks Greg

Tim Condict said:

As usual with a thread on here, nothing is ever discussed that was meant to be. I have fielded about 20 calls and a few emails in support of NADeFA. They don't want to post here because of the way so many attack each other. I can get very honest with many of you if you want. I did forget Roger who was always there. If you guys want a generalized truth, here it is. The state associations get their butt kicked because you guys on here complaining weren't up at your state capitols getting your rules right and educating your state lawmakers before problems started. Its not by good luck or accident that we have the best rules in Oklahoma. We done the work early and often. We have contributed money to many other states and we are one of the smallest deer farming states in the nation. We are proud of what we have accomplished and deer farming is growing like crazy here. Preserves are going in by the dozens. I have preached it over and over, explained exactly how we done it and never seen any other state take our advice. If you want to point fingers, point them at yourselves for not doing the work until its to late. Frankly we are about sick of trying to help. I also get sick of hearing people say they want to help but just don't know what to do. Neither did we but we done it anyway. An old saying we use down here is grab a root and growl. In other words shut up and pull some weight. I also agree that we are only testing ourselves out of business and promoted the idea of trying to shut down the CWD standards talk 4 years ago. We have farmers that can't sell deer because of a disease thats spread by crows. Give me a break. If the government can support the Muslims in Egypt then they should damn sure be able to help a few hard working American farmers with indemnity. I am as sick of it as anybody in the world, but so is all the NADeFA board and Shawn. We have been taken over by the government in every aspect of our lives and you guys want to point fingers at a group of volunteers that have worked their butts off for you and done the best they know how. You should be embarrassed and should be on here offering up solutions.

Click to expand...

Thank you Tim!!!! Very well said!

ddwhitetails said:

Mike with all due respect...if they left just one (which they did) person off the voting list that applied in the proper way...then that is an injustice to US the members of NADefa.......we should be able to vote for every person that applies for the purpose of being a board member or what ever position on NADefa......if they (The Board) alter the list even in a little way....it is WRONG....in my opinion! That is where things cross the line.....this organization only exists because of the Deer Farmers.......without us they are dissolved! They need to respect the rights of everyone that's sends in their check every year to support THEM and yes they support us..absolutely ...But THAT'S WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR!......again no disrespect here...just my opinion!

Click to expand...

Do not worry about dis-respecting me thats for sure. I do not have any answers i guess and i dont know Charly except all the good i have read that he has done for us. My question would be that if Charly is a paid employee working for us in one program and board=Good Thing and Shawn is a paid employee working for us in another program and board= Good Thing. Would the two counter act each other if they were involved in the same board? Would we lose some power we have at each position? Now we have power in two directions for the same cause!

Who Schedules NADEFA Conference Events? And Can someone please explain why our membership meeting is one time in a four day convention for 1hr during a 1hr lunch break? So we get to eat...listen to introductions...then do attending members get an open floor for Q&A With the Board? But directly following that 4 HOURS has been set aside for a "Corn Hole Competition" Than another 4 HOURS of "Corn Hole" on Friday. As it stands...

Membership Meeting 1 Hr (maybe)

EHD Dicussions 3 Hrs (Biggest Cervid Killer Ever)

Corn Hole 8 Hrs

"Numbers Never Lie"

Just an Observation But.....I'm sure I'll hear it for this POST......Also the reason to post on this forum?? Simple...... Look at the number of views and the posts.



Why is it that we are accused of attacking the board members and Shawn when we ask questions about decisions being made by the board. Don't We have that right as members? Or did we lose that too? I'm Sure I dropped a few spots on the Christmas List!

Tim Just tried to call you on the cell# in the directory. Just rang no voice mail. Mine is 734-320-7182 if you get a chance Thanks Steve

I think WE all need a hug

Tim....Enjoyed the converstion today. I see we agree on other things as well. One being Jim Moses....He is a Sound Choice Also!! I encourage others to research Jim. I think you will find him to be Forward...Honest...and "To The Point" or Not To Much Sugar in his answers! lol

Tim I guess my biggest concerns centers around what you mentioned....PAID GUY....I think many have a higher expectation of involvement for that "one paid employee". At a $170,000 base salary I guess some expect more. Rough guess he has been paid $700,000-$1,000,000 since hired ...Dont know if that is completely accurate but rough guess...not having access to detailed financials make it hard to know exactly. For that kind of money I would expect every issue to be in the up most priority. As many have stated some are very happy with the involvement but you also many who are not ....very disappointed. I am not just casting stones here but stating facts.....call state leaders and ask the question. Many are afraid to say anything because a fear of retaliation.

Dave (Rooster)



I am an ILDFA board member and I count Charley as a friend not only to myself but the ILDFA board.

I'm not happy with the NADeFA's decision to not let him run for the board. Shawn explained the situation to me at the Top30 in a very polite and professional manner. Now I Do Not agree with the boards stance and think it is a load of bull, but it is in the bylaws for them to do this. Again I don't agree, but that's how it works. I even talked to Charley about it and he knows were I stand on the issue.



Now in this conversation Charley told me to still support NADeFA and help them stand In this time of uncertainty in the industry. I am a member and I will continue to be.



At this time Shawn has been helping the ILDFA with an issue that has come up with a bill in IL attacking our hunting preserves. As a Board Member and a Deer Farmer in IL I appreciate what Shawn has done.



I read your post above and I understand your frustration and the questions you are asking. I would be more than happy to talk with you about these issues anytime you would like.



Actually I would like to ask you to join the ILDFA and HELP us protect your farm. You see I have a problem with individuals that like to stir crap up but wont even join the associations they are complaining about.



Please don't just yap in the sideline, come be part of the team.

My purpose is not to "stir crap" it was to state the obvious that some are privileged to ....if you are OK with status quo keep going in the same direction but some / many are not happy with status quo.

The bylaws by no means direct them to do what they did ...they could redo the bylaws to address the issue but currently nothing states he can not run.

I contribute more than many of you know or I care to share...I ask that everyone look at what is being shared on here by "some" and really understand the meaning versus looking for underlining purpose. I am a true believer of a united front but its needs to be a united front with transparency and equality.