|
| Author |
Message |
HAY MAKER
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 8307
Location: Texas
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: A CONSUMERS OPINION? |
 |
|
> To: Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
regulations@aphis.usda.gov
Re: Docket No. 03-080-1
To the above named agency:
This is regarding Docket No. 03-080-1, the matter
of reopening beef trade with Canada. I am writing to
urge you not to reopen the trade border with Canada.
I understand that USDA has released a proposed rule to
open the border with Canada. This proposed would allow
the importation of certain live cattle, ruminant
products and by-products by designating Canada as a
“minimal BSE risk country.”
How can it be considered
"minimal risk" when we know that there have been two
cases of mad cow in Canada in the last few months?
I currently raise cattle in partership with my father,and I lease cattle pasture to another and am the fifth generation of a cattle
ranching family, which has been primarily a cow/calf
operation. Opening the border will simply increase
consumer fear, hurt the beef industry and beef
consumption, resulting in fewer cattle, and fewer
cattlemen who might want to lease my land.
As a consumer, and my confidence in the beef
supply is gravely shaken. Please STOP trade with
Canada. I also hope that strict rules, laws, or
whatever it takes are implemented to STOP
unconscionable practices such as feeding animal parts
to cattle and slaughering sick ("downer") animals for
food. Such practices make me and a lot of other
consumers wonder when common sense and decency left
the inventory of the big producers and meat packers.
We have trading partners (Japan and Korea, for
example) that want the meat we send to them to be
labeled US product. Now is the perfect time, and we
shouldn't wait, to fully fund country-of-origin
labeling (COOL), because U.S. consumers deserve the
same opportunity as Japan and Korea - the opportunity
to CHOOSE U.S. beef if they (we) so desire.
Also, the closing of the Canadian border and the
corresponding rise of cattle prices in the U.S. just
shows how the Canadian cattle were captive supplies
and were being used to manipulate U.S. cattle markets!
Since the Canadian cattle have stopped coming over
the border, captive supplies have decreased and our
cattle prices have risen.
Since more and more cattle under 30 months of age are
being discovered as BSE positive animals (Japan has
now found two - one at 23 months and one at 21 months
- while Great Britain has found over ten cases under
30 months of age in the last 18 years), and since the
World Organization for Animal health (OIE) does not
consider Canada a “minimal BSE risk country” as APHIS
is proposing (because Canada has not had its feed ban
in place for the required 8-year period), we need our
rules, laws, and trading practices to be updated NOW
to protect our food supplies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: "Since the Canadian cattle have stopped coming over
the border, captive supplies have decreased and our
cattle prices have risen."
I would love to hear the spitting sputtering explanation for that parroted R-CALF line.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bull Burger
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 212
Location: Fruited Plains of western SD
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: A CONSUMERS OPINION? |
|
|
| HAY MAKER wrote: |
> To: Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
regulations@aphis.usda.gov
Re: Docket No. 03-080-1
To the above named agency:
This is regarding Docket No. 03-080-1, the matter
of reopening beef trade with Canada. I am writing to
urge you not to reopen the trade border with Canada.
I understand that USDA has released a proposed rule to
open the border with Canada. This proposed would allow
the importation of certain live cattle, ruminant
products and by-products by designating Canada as a
“minimal BSE risk country.”
How can it be considered
"minimal risk" when we know that there have been two
cases of mad cow in Canada in the last few months?
I currently raise cattle in partership with my father,and I lease cattle pasture to another and am the fifth generation of a cattle
ranching family, which has been primarily a cow/calf
operation. Opening the border will simply increase
consumer fear, hurt the beef industry and beef
consumption, resulting in fewer cattle, and fewer
cattlemen who might want to lease my land.
As a consumer, and my confidence in the beef
supply is gravely shaken. Please STOP trade with
Canada. I also hope that strict rules, laws, or
whatever it takes are implemented to STOP
unconscionable practices such as feeding animal parts
to cattle and slaughering sick ("downer") animals for
food. Such practices make me and a lot of other
consumers wonder when common sense and decency left
the inventory of the big producers and meat packers.
We have trading partners (Japan and Korea, for
example) that want the meat we send to them to be
labeled US product. Now is the perfect time, and we
shouldn't wait, to fully fund country-of-origin
labeling (COOL), because U.S. consumers deserve the
same opportunity as Japan and Korea - the opportunity
to CHOOSE U.S. beef if they (we) so desire.
Also, the closing of the Canadian border and the
corresponding rise of cattle prices in the U.S. just
shows how the Canadian cattle were captive supplies
and were being used to manipulate U.S. cattle markets!
Since the Canadian cattle have stopped coming over
the border, captive supplies have decreased and our
cattle prices have risen.
Since more and more cattle under 30 months of age are
being discovered as BSE positive animals (Japan has
now found two - one at 23 months and one at 21 months
- while Great Britain has found over ten cases under
30 months of age in the last 18 years), and since the
World Organization for Animal health (OIE) does not
consider Canada a “minimal BSE risk country” as APHIS
is proposing (because Canada has not had its feed ban
in place for the required 8-year period), we need our
rules, laws, and trading practices to be updated NOW
to protect our food supplies. |
A consumer? Says he/she raises cattle.
Haymaker, you better study this chart some more:
http://www.imagehosting.us/himages/ihnp-291306.gif
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24735
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: A CONSUMERS OPINION? |
|
|
| Bull Burger wrote: |
| HAY MAKER wrote: |
> To: Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
regulations@aphis.usda.gov
Re: Docket No. 03-080-1
To the above named agency:
This is regarding Docket No. 03-080-1, the matter
of reopening beef trade with Canada. I am writing to
urge you not to reopen the trade border with Canada.
I understand that USDA has released a proposed rule to
open the border with Canada. This proposed would allow
the importation of certain live cattle, ruminant
products and by-products by designating Canada as a
“minimal BSE risk country.”
How can it be considered
"minimal risk" when we know that there have been two
cases of mad cow in Canada in the last few months?
I currently raise cattle in partership with my father,and I lease cattle pasture to another and am the fifth generation of a cattle
ranching family, which has been primarily a cow/calf
operation. Opening the border will simply increase
consumer fear, hurt the beef industry and beef
consumption, resulting in fewer cattle, and fewer
cattlemen who might want to lease my land.
As a consumer, and my confidence in the beef
supply is gravely shaken. Please STOP trade with
Canada. I also hope that strict rules, laws, or
whatever it takes are implemented to STOP
unconscionable practices such as feeding animal parts
to cattle and slaughering sick ("downer") animals for
food. Such practices make me and a lot of other
consumers wonder when common sense and decency left
the inventory of the big producers and meat packers.
We have trading partners (Japan and Korea, for
example) that want the meat we send to them to be
labeled US product. Now is the perfect time, and we
shouldn't wait, to fully fund country-of-origin
labeling (COOL), because U.S. consumers deserve the
same opportunity as Japan and Korea - the opportunity
to CHOOSE U.S. beef if they (we) so desire.
Also, the closing of the Canadian border and the
corresponding rise of cattle prices in the U.S. just
shows how the Canadian cattle were captive supplies
and were being used to manipulate U.S. cattle markets!
Since the Canadian cattle have stopped coming over
the border, captive supplies have decreased and our
cattle prices have risen.
Since more and more cattle under 30 months of age are
being discovered as BSE positive animals (Japan has
now found two - one at 23 months and one at 21 months
- while Great Britain has found over ten cases under
30 months of age in the last 18 years), and since the
World Organization for Animal health (OIE) does not
consider Canada a “minimal BSE risk country” as APHIS
is proposing (because Canada has not had its feed ban
in place for the required 8-year period), we need our
rules, laws, and trading practices to be updated NOW
to protect our food supplies. |
A consumer? Says he/she raises cattle.
Haymaker, you better study this chart some more:
http://www.imagehosting.us/himages/ihnp-291306.gif |
BB- People that raise beef can't be consumers? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tam
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 8696
Location: Sask
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How can it be considered "minimal risk" when we know that there have been two cases of mad cow in Canada in the last few months? |
I thought Canada could have 2 per year per million OTM animals, of which we have 5.5 million and still be minimal risk according to the OIE 11 per year
| Quote: |
| I currently raise cattle in partership with my father,and I lease cattle pasture to another and am the fifth generation of a cattle ranching family, which has been primarily a cow/calf operation. |
I thought this was a consumer now I read he is a 5th generation rancher but I guess he is a consumer right Haymaker
| Quote: |
| Opening the border will simply increase consumer fear, hurt the beef industry and beef consumption, resulting in fewer cattle, and fewer cattlemen who might want to lease my land. |
“Simply increase fear” thanks to R-CALF “hurt the beef industry” Thanks to R-CALF “resulting in few cattle and cattlemen who might want to least MY LAND. Again I thought you said this was a CONSUMER Looks to me as if he has something to loss and is out to protect it with what ever will justify the end result.
| Quote: |
| As a consumer, and my confidence in the beef supply is gravely shaken. |
Could this be because of the R-CALF lies?
| Quote: |
| I also hope that strict rules, laws, or whatever it takes are implemented to STOP unconscionable practices such as feeding animal parts to cattle and slaughering sick ("downer") animals for food. Such practices make me and a lot of other consumers wonder when common sense and decency left the inventory of the big producers and meat packers. |
Just what industry does he fear Canada, we’ve had feed ban since 1997 and according to USDA it is robust and has Good compliance too. And Canada doesn’t accept downers for food that is why our three cases didn’t make it into our food chain.
| Quote: |
| Also, the closing of the Canadian border and the corresponding rise of cattle prices in the U.S. just shows how the Canadian cattle were captive supplies and were being used to manipulate U.S. cattle markets! |
The numbers
Cash bought--65.4%
Grid cattle----15.5%
Contract -----8.4%
packer owned-10.7%
Enough said
| Quote: |
World Organization for Animal health (OIE) does not consider Canada a “minimal BSE risk country” as APHIS
is proposing |
That is strange as the CFIA told the Canadian ranchers that if we didn’t tested 30,000 4Ds to find the true prevalence we would have to test 100 times as many healthy animals or we would loss our minimal risk status according to OIE rules.
| Quote: |
| we need our rules, laws, and trading practices to be updated NOW to protect our food supplies. |
By OUR rules I take it he means US rules. What rules is he talking about the feed ban rules, the SRM removal rule, the no downers in the human food chain rule, the aggressive surveillance rule which one does he mean as I thought the USDA did handle these things it is the US beef industry that is having a problem with the rules and complying to them. As for TRADING PRACTICES the USDA is trying to set rules following the science that the rest of the world seems to believe it is just to bad R-CALF and one Federal Judge think they know more that the OIE’s expert scientists
You got a really live non bias consumer here Haymaker 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bull Burger
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 212
Location: Fruited Plains of western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| BB- People that raise beef can't be consumers? |
Come on Oldtimer, you must realize that 97% of beef consumers do NOT raise cattle or lease pasture.
So, what do you think of the charts?
BB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24735
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bull Burger wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| BB- People that raise beef can't be consumers? |
Come on Oldtimer, you must realize that 97% of beef consumers do NOT raise cattle or lease pasture.
BB |
Last I looked I produced and I consumed.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bull Burger
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 212
Location: Fruited Plains of western SD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
Last I looked I produced and I consumed..... |
OT, that's true. But you R-CALFers need to understand that "consumers who are ALSO producers" are way different than the "consumers" who we target the vast majority of our production to. If you don't understand this difference, there is no need for this discussion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
HAY MAKER
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 8307
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bull Burger wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
Last I looked I produced and I consumed..... |
OT, that's true. But you R-CALFers need to understand that "consumers who are ALSO producers" are way different than the "consumers" who we target the vast majority of our production to. If you don't understand this difference, there is no need for this discussion. |
And MR BOOL BOOGER if you dont under stand that Texas is full of ranchers that are consumers you need to read more and post less...............good luck PS where did you come from and when are you going back?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
HAY MAKER
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 8307
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
ruby astleford
01/02/2004 05:37 PM
To:
regulations@aphis.usda.gov
cc:
bcc:
Subject:
Docket No. 03-080-1
To: Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3 C71
4700 River Road Unit 11Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
As cow/calf producers, we are VERY concerned about the APHIS`s proposed reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle and beef products, especially now, inlight of the BSE infected cow found Dec 23 , in the US , wearing a Canadian tag. We are concerned that APHIS-USDA wants to re-open the border because, in their view, these Canadian BSE cases are a North American problem. This is NOT a North American issue, it is two
seporate issues. Us and Canada.
It is an absolute insult to us and our industry to state otherwise, and we highly oppose any action that threatens the health of the UNITED STATES cattle herds and tarnishes our reputation as UNITED STATES cattle producers.
Not only by opening the Canadian border, we as producers are exposed to BSE (obviously) but also creating a captive supply of continuous beef/live cattle which is and has been used aginst our domestic supply to lower and minipulate our US cattle markets. Sence the Canadian Cattle stopped being imported over the boarder, Captive supplies have decreased, and our Cattle prices rose dramatically. Simple elimantry math.
With BSE discovered and that the animal was fortunately wearing a canadian tag for quick identification and origin, WHAT MORE PROOF do you need thatimplementing country of origin labeling should be manditory--not only for the reputation of the US cattle industry, but for the choice and protection of the U S consumer. Japan and Korea, our two main trade partners have made it perfectly clear they want US beef only, and labeled as such.
Please consider the above,
Leo and Rm Astleford
White River SD
USDA is suposed to stand for United States Department of Ag, not North American:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bull Burger
Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 212
Location: Fruited Plains of western SD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
HAY MAKER
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 8307
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK MR BOOGER IM game maybe you can explain the difference between a consumer and a consumer producer?And be careful because a lot of these Texas house wife consumers that you think are NAIVE probably know more about cattle than you do................good luck PS WHERE DID YOU COME FROM AND WHEN ARE YOU GOING BACK?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
