• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

American Farm Bureau

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Powerful U.S. Farm Groups Take Action To Re-Open Trade with Canada


(April 22, 2005) The American Farm Bureau (AFB), one of the strongest voices in U.S. agriculture, has joined the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and other concerned groups in legal action to re-open the U.S. border to Canadian cattle. The AFB, NCBA, 18 state farm bureaus, 29 state cattle organizations, National Pork Producers Council and individual U.S. cattle producers filed an amicus curiae “friend of the court” brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule to re-open the border to live Canadian cattle and an expanded list of beef products.

“Having these influential voices in U.S. agriculture file this brief sends a powerful message to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. government that the U.S. has nothing to fear and much to gain from re-opening trade with Canada,” says Stan Eby, President of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA). “The CCA met regularly with these groups to ensure they understood the facts and based their decisions on science, not fear-mongering.”

The AFB stated in a news release, “The Agriculture Department fully investigated all aspects of Canada’s science-based system to control and prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) before it issued a rule that would have re-opened the U.S. border to Canadian cattle, and a District Court judge from Montana erred when he blocked USDA from implementing the rule…”

The news release goes on to state, “Instead of affording the agency (USDA) the deference it was due, the court rejected the agency’s explanation for its decision, disregarded the scientific evidence and expert opinion on which that decision was based and repeatedly substituted its judgment for that of the agency. The District Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction (to block the USDA rule) should be vacated.”
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
and a District Court judge from Montana erred when he blocked USDA from implementing the rule

Cebull is probably getting used to being in this situation!
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Here's another one.

Dozens of U.S. groups support Canada in mad cow legal battle



WASHINGTON (CP) - Dozens of cattle and farm groups representing the majority of U.S. ranchers are supporting Canada in a legal battle to reopen the border. In a court brief filed Thursday, the groups said a Montana judge was wrong to prolong the cattle ban based on a lawsuit from a protectionist ranchers' group, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America.
In March, just days before the border was supposed to open, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Cebull granted R-CALF's request to temporarily extend the ban until a full hearing in July.

The group claims Canada's cattle and beef products are unsafe after the discovery of several mad cow cases.

The U.S. government is appealing the injunction in a bid to resume trade in the interim but no appeal date has been set.

"We can only assume one of two things happened at the District Court hearing." said Mike John, president-elect of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the U.S. industry's largest group.

"Either the plaintiff, R-CALF, provided the court with flawed information, or the defendant, the Department of Justice on behalf of U.S. Department of Agriculture, inadequately defended the science," said John.

"Either way, U.S. cattle producers will not let R-CALF or USDA be the only voices representing the science that supports beef is safe from BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)."

The so-called friend of the court brief was also endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, 29 state cattle organizations, 18 state farm bureaus, the National Pork Producers Council and individual independent cattlemen.

Collectively, the states represented by the co-signers represent more than 85 per cent of U.S. cattle farms and ranches and 75 per cent of the country's cattle, said John, while the farm bureau represents 5.6 million farm families.

The cattlemen's association didn't want the only industry voice at the appeal court to be that of an "activist minority group with an isolationist agenda," said John.

"R-CALF's legal actions, public statements and paid consumer advertising have consistently strayed from the science and questioned the safety of U.S. beef in order to prevent science-based beef trade."

The legal brief said the U.S. Agriculture Department fully investigated all aspects of Canada's science-based system to control and prevent BSE before deciding to reopen the border to younger cattle, thought to be at lowest risk for contracting the disease.

It said Cebull erred by blocking the department's decision and disregarded the scientific evidence that shows there's a low risk of BSE being introduced into the United States, given Canada's low incidence rate, active surveillance program, import controls and a feed ban on materials thought to cause the disease.

The brief said R-CALF must show the department was arbitrary, capricious, abused its discretion or was otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Judging by the amount of work done by officials to guarantee safety, "R-CALF's burden is a heavy one," said the brief.

The U.S. beef ban began in May 2003 after Canada's first mad cow case. And while processed beef products from younger animals have again crossed the border, cattle have not.

The ban has devastated the Canadian industry, costing ranchers some $7 billion Cdn.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Will these same folks take the EU, Japan, Korea, etc... to court also? Haven't they "strayed from the science"?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Will these same folks take the EU, Japan, Korea, etc... to court also? Haven't they "strayed from the science"?

Nope, just mislead and convinced by R-calf, that they should not trust food safety in North America.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Is American Farm Bureau and the Canadian Farm Bureau ran by the same company?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Maple Leaf Angus said:
rancher said:
Is American Farm Bureau and the Canadian Farm Bureau ran by the same company?

I dunno. Good question.




Cargill, maybe?

Ya think? Maybe we could get Agman to find out for us.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
As far as I'm concerned, and I'm a member of the damn orginazation, all Farm Bearu is anymore, is an insurance company. I tell my agent that all the time. But you got to belong to get the insurance.

At one time I think it was a pretty good farm orginization. But in the last few years I can't see how they've helped the ag sector much.

Kind'a like NCBA. They were pretty good untill they joined forces with the feeders and packers. And don't chew my butt MRJ.

It's purely my opinion and I've already heard all the arguments. I don't think ANY orginization can be all things to all people. And I see nothing wrong with have several, that fit the different segments of an industry. They ought to be able to come together and join forces on anything that comes up and effects more than one segment. Kind'a like the different state orginazations.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
[quote=Jinglebob.
It's purely my opinion and I've already heard all the arguments. I don't think ANY orginization can be all things to all people. .

I rarely chew on anyone who doesn't lie about something I know the facts about.

How, in good conscience, though, can you malign so many good people, many of them in fairly near proximity to you, who are "running" (by virtue of their dedicated participation and service to) Farm Bureau? Guess it is just popular to bad mouth "big" outfits.

What makes you think NCBA is "trying to be all things to all people"? The reason NCBA makes room for people in other segments of the cattle/beef industry is so that we can learn from each other. Those other segments involved in NCBA are a miniscule fraction of the membership, therefore DO NOT dominate the organization.

MRJ
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,901
Reaction score
226
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Jinglebob: "they ought to be able to come together and join forces"...

You mean like the Democrats and Republicans have come together to join forces for the good of the country?

Ain't gonna happen my friend, no matter how you slice it. You are gonna have to choose one over the other. Can't ride both horses.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Faster horses said:
Jinglebob: "they ought to be able to come together and join forces"...

You mean like the Democrats and Republicans have come together to join forces for the good of the country?

Ain't gonna happen my friend, no matter how you slice it. You are gonna have to choose one over the other. Can't ride both horses.

That is what we keep telling NCBA about the packers, you can't ride both horses, so you had better pick what horse you want.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher, how does it serve the cattleman to make an enemy of the packer, never to work with him on common problems?

The e coli problem is a great success story where NCBA worked with packers and retailers and others across the industry spectrum to drop the incidence of e coli dramatically from 2003 to 2004. Some checkoff money was used, considerable amounts of money were put in by the other segments participating, and those entities also had the costs of implementing systems to cut the problem so dramatically in such a short time.

How can anyone believe it is better for ranchers and their organizations to constantly attack packers, retailers, and others in the beef production segment of the industry than to occasionally work with them to increase beef demand?

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top