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

An R-CALF member to Canadians

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I've been brooding on this for a while, I've made a few posts on this topic, but I've just got to say something. First of all, two facts that are the foundation of my arguement;

1) You don't trust the USDA and their testing. I can't count the number of posts from Canadians stating "There has to be more than what they're finding", "They're not testing the right ones", "They're covering cases up", etc..... I don't need to give specific examples, we all know what I'm talking about.

2) You do not have an effective feed ban. I'm sorry, but when half of your cases are post ban - the last one being born 5 years after the ban was put in - your ban is not effective. Undeniably, there are problems and nobody in their right mind would bet that no more cases will be found.

Now here's the deal; If the border was opened to OTM, that last 4 year old positive case of yours could of been shipped to the US, plus any number of cases just like her that haven't been found yet. Then, it would be up to the USDA to find her - the very same USDA that you are telling us are not testing right, hiding cases, etc....! R-CALF wants the border closed because we don't trust the USDA - SAME AS YOU - and we get virtually crucified, called bad names, and on and on.

Folks, that's nonsense.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Sandhusker, Exactly why is it that you, as an R-calf member, don't trust the USDA??
Do you believe they have been "covering cases up" or "not testing the right ones"?
If R-calf's main beef (pun intended) is with the USDA, why then, was one of their first actions, after they were formed, to file a dumping case against Canada? This pre-dated BSE by 4 or 5 years.
As far as the post feed ban cases go,and I've said this before, you get "science" to say that BSE is DEFINITELY caused by contaminated feed and I can easily certify that my herd is BSE-free. Not one animal on the place has ever been fed anything other than home grown hay and grain.
"Science" has not and will not say that......so are the post-ban cases showing up because of an ineffective feed ban or are they spontaneous? Good question.
What will R-calf's position be if and when post-ban cases show up in the domestic US herd?
 

Denny

Well-known member
And if the cow was shipped here and we found it had BSE the Canadian's on here would have said we switched the tag or she aquired the disease as she crossed the border.So in turn the U.S.A. would have had another BSE case.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tim and Murgen, you missed my point. My point is that you have BSE in the cattle that will be shipping down here if the border is opened to OTM, and then the responsibility of finding them will be up the the folks who you say can't/don't test right. R-CALF is thinking the same thing you are, and you are justified but we are a-holes. It's hypocracy.
 

elwapo

Well-known member
Heres someone that does believe in canadian beef.

Canadian Government Meets Japanese Demands to Restore Beef Trade (07/20/06 07:55)

OMAHA (DTN) -- It took a lot of work behind the scenes to convince Japan to reopen its market to Canadian beef, reports Embassy Magazine.

Three years ago Japan banned beef imports from Canada. The move cost the Canadian beef industry $85 million in annual losses and had far reaching implications for the export of Canadian beef to other markets around the world. It wasn't until December 2005 that Japan agreed to reopen its market to Canadian beef by allowing animals proven to be under 21 months of age to enter. Another stringent pre-condition imposed on Canada was that every single cow put to the slaughter had to be tested for BSE before it entered the Japanese market. On the surface, it appeared simple: Comply with the conditions and the Japanese market will be opened to you.

But behind the scenes a lot of work, unnoticed by the public, was done to convince Japan to resume buying beef from Canada, says the story posted on embassymag.ca.

"It involved a lot of calls by our ambassador and lots of visits," says Fran??ois Rivest, a Trade Commissioner at the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo. "The process required the sharing of information about Canada's beef safety measures," he says, stressing that success was due to quickly agreeing to Japan's requests.

Canada accounts for 5 percent of Japan's beef imports. After the BSE scare Canadian beef exports fell to zero. But though the Japanese beef market is now open, exports are nowhere near the levels they were before the onset of BSE in 2003, says Embassy Magazine.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tim and Murgen, you missed my point. My point is that you have BSE in the cattle that will be shipping down here if the border is opened to OTM, and then the responsibility of finding them will be up the the folks who you say can't/don't test right. R-CALF is thinking the same thing you are, and you are justified but we are a-holes. It's hypocracy.

Let me get this straight So your saying that the U.S.D.A is unable to find b.s.e with its testing program
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
frenchie said:
Sandhusker said:
Tim and Murgen, you missed my point. My point is that you have BSE in the cattle that will be shipping down here if the border is opened to OTM, and then the responsibility of finding them will be up the the folks who you say can't/don't test right. R-CALF is thinking the same thing you are, and you are justified but we are a-holes. It's hypocracy.

Let me get this straight So your saying that the U.S.D.A is unable to find b.s.e with its testing program

That's not what I said. I'm saying that the Canadians who are bashing R-CALF because we're doubting the USDA are the same ones who doubt the USDA themselves.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Fair enough Sandhusker, but here's what we Canadians are saying:

1) You guys already have BSE and fall into the same risk category. If you close the borders due to our 'unsafe' beef, then you should also stop selling your own beef and quit trying to export. To do otherwise is hypocrisy, since we're in the same risk category. In other words, its just as likely that a US cow will have BSE, have its MBM processed into feed, and spread BSE.

2) If our feed ban is ineffective, so is yours, since they were the same feed bans, until we strengthened ours.

3) Downer cattle aren't allowed across the border.

4) If your organization is unhappy with the way the USDA is doing things, spend the money to sue them and make them do things the proper way. Quit wasting money on stopping our livestock from entering the US. Now that the border has opened up here, we're finally able to concentrate on other things, such as opening up other markets, BSE research, changes to tracking, etc etc. Close the border down again, all that stops while we fight to have it reopened.

5) The only people winning from a closed border is the packers.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Fair enough Sandhusker, but here's what we Canadians are saying:

1) You guys already have BSE and fall into the same risk category. If you close the borders due to our 'unsafe' beef, then you should also stop selling your own beef and quit trying to export. To do otherwise is hypocrisy, since we're in the same risk category. In other words, its just as likely that a US cow will have BSE, have its MBM processed into feed, and spread BSE.

My reply; I don't see how we can be in the same category. You have 8? cases now in a herd 1/7 the size of ours. 4 were post ban, we have no post ban. If we're in the same category, the categories are as loose as a spring cow pie.

The USDA says our BSE is of a totally different type - might just be the spontaneous type. To say we are in the same boat implies the USDA is full of it again.

As far as I'm concerned, the export/import requirements are up to the folks writing the check.

2) If our feed ban is ineffective, so is yours, since they were the same feed bans, until we strengthened ours.

My reply; You have post ban cases to prove yours is ineffective. To date, we have found none. Just because we have the same ban means nothing if the problems are caused not by the way the ban was set up, but because of somebody violating it.

3) Downer cattle aren't allowed across the border.

My reply; Who is considering a 4 year old to be a downer? I'll bet she was infected but not showing symptoms 6 months ago.

4) If your organization is unhappy with the way the USDA is doing things, spend the money to sue them and make them do things the proper way. Quit wasting money on stopping our livestock from entering the US. Now that the border has opened up here, we're finally able to concentrate on other things, such as opening up other markets, BSE research, changes to tracking, etc etc. Close the border down again, all that stops while we fight to have it reopened.

My reply; Where ya been? Sueing them to make them do things properly is what we've been trying to do! That's exactly what this whole case before Cebull is about. We're taking them to court because we're trying to make them do it properly - properly being opening it because the science says to open it and not because Tyson says to open it. If everything stops, it will because your industry foolishly is dependent upon one other country, and that is primarly because you let our packers take over. That's your problem, not ours. We've got plenty of our own to deal with.

5) The only people winning from a closed border is the packers.

My reply; I don't know about that. They seemed to do pretty well when the border was closed. They even got a good chunk of Canadian tax-payer money.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) My reply; I don't see how we can be in the same category. You have 8? cases now in a herd 1/7 the size of ours. 4 were post ban, we have no post ban. If we're in the same category, the categories are as loose as a spring cow pie.

2) The USDA says our BSE is of a totally different type - might just be the spontaneous type. To say we are in the same boat implies the USDA is full of it again.

3) My reply; You have post ban cases to prove yours is ineffective. To date, we have found none. Just because we have the same ban means nothing if the problems are caused not by the way the ban was set up, but because of somebody violating it.

4) Where ya been? Sueing them to make them do things properly is what we've been trying to do! That's exactly what this whole case before Cebull is about. We're taking them to court because we're trying to make them do it properly - properly being opening it because the science says to open it and not because Tyson says to open it. If everything stops, it will because your industry foolishly is dependent upon one other country, and that is primarly because you let our packers take over. That's your problem, not ours. We've got plenty of our own to deal with.

5) The only people winning from a closed border is the packers.

My reply; I don't know about that. They seemed to do pretty well when the border was closed. They even got a good chunk of Canadian tax-payer money.

1) Work the numbers back though Sandhusker. We've also tested a much higher percentage (not sheer numbers as is often quoted. Thats meaningless) than you guys have. According to the USDA, there should be 7 - 10 cases of BSE in the US. We've found 8 cases in Canada. Perhaps thats all we had/have. Until RCalf can offer solid proof that our beef is unsafe or dangerous, there is no reason for the border to be closed.

2) All BSE had to be "spontaneous" at one point or another. Various strains of any virus or bacteria come about because of the mutation of another organism, virus, or bacteria. All it means in the US's case is that the cause can't be determined right now. I'd be more scared of that than knowing where it come from.

3) This may be semantics, but violations of a feed ban does not render the ban itself ineffective. Someone could have just as easily violated the ban in your own country.

4) I'm not talking about opening the border, but rather your country's own testing procedures and feed ban. Correct me if I'm wrong, but its RCalf's contention that a Canadian animal with BSE will likely be missed, and then, due to your own poor feed ban, enter the food chain where it will infect other animals. Don't you think it would be better to have an effective ban and effective testing in place, just in case the scientists are wrong, and BSE is much wider spread in the US than is currently believed?

5) I may be over tired, but I think we're saying the same thing here.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
1) Work the numbers back though Sandhusker. We've also tested a much higher percentage (not sheer numbers as is often quoted. Thats meaningless) than you guys have. According to the USDA, there should be 7 - 10 cases of BSE in the US. We've found 8 cases in Canada. Perhaps thats all we had/have. Until RCalf can offer solid proof that our beef is unsafe or dangerous, there is no reason for the border to be closed.

Reply; I disagree totally. The evidence suggests more BSE cases are in Canada. I think the burden is on you to prove your beef is safe.

2) All BSE had to be "spontaneous" at one point or another. Various strains of any virus or bacteria come about because of the mutation of another organism, virus, or bacteria. All it means in the US's case is that the cause can't be determined right now. I'd be more scared of that than knowing where it come from.

Reply. True, but according to the USDA, our BSE is different that yours - we don't have what you have. Thus, the arguement that "you have it too" is out the window because we don't have it , too ("IT" meaning your strain")

3) This may be semantics, but violations of a feed ban does not render the ban itself ineffective. Someone could have just as easily violated the ban in your own country.

Reply; How can it be effective if it is violated? True, somebody may of violated it just today down here, but we have no post ban cases to show for it.

4) I'm not talking about opening the border, but rather your country's own testing procedures and feed ban. Correct me if I'm wrong, but its RCalf's contention that a Canadian animal with BSE will likely be missed, and then, due to your own poor feed ban, enter the food chain where it will infect other animals. Don't you think it would be better to have an effective ban and effective testing in place, just in case the scientists are wrong, and BSE is much wider spread in the US than is currently believed?

Reply; Are you sure you haven't been getting all the R-CALF membership updates? :lol: What you have suggested is exactly what we're trying to do.

5) I may be over tired, but I think we're saying the same thing here.

Reply; Yeah, but it beats watching reality TV. :lol: :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) Reply; I disagree totally. The evidence suggests more BSE cases are in Canada. I think the burden is on you to prove your beef is safe.

2) Reply. True, but according to the USDA, our BSE is different that yours - we don't have what you have. Thus, the arguement that "you have it too" is out the window because we don't have it , too ("IT" meaning your strain")

3) Reply; How can it be effective if it is violated? True, somebody may of violated it just today down here, but we have no post ban cases to show for it.

4) Reply; Are you sure you haven't been getting all the R-CALF membership updates? :lol: What you have suggested is exactly what we're trying to do.

1) We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we have proven it safe. We've found the transmission route, now all that needs to be done is to find out which ranches bought from the trucking company that violated the feed ban and ensure they are BSE free.

2) I could be wrong on this one, but isn't your strain simply a mutated version of ours? Heck, the Alabama/Texas heat could have done it.

3) Laws are violated every day. Does this mean they're ineffective? Heck no. No matter how airtight a law or procedure is, someone, somewhere will violate it for their own gain. That doesn't make that law/procedure ineffective. When your packing plant sent banned materials to Japan by accident, does that mean their procedures were ineffective? I don't think so. Someone just got lazy. Rules and regulations only go so far, then the human factor comes into play. We'll never regulate the human factor.

4) I don't know how much money RCalf has, but it sure seems, from a Canadian perspective, that they're spending much more money trying to shut down a border, rather than trying to get the USDA to tighten testing procedures and implement a proper feed ban.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
) We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we have proven it safe. We've found the transmission route, now all that needs to be done is to find out which ranches bought from the trucking company that violated the feed ban and ensure they are BSE free.

Reply; Is that trucking responsible for all of the post ban cases? If not, you've just cornered one chicken. How many are still out?

2) I could be wrong on this one, but isn't your strain simply a mutated version of ours? Heck, the Alabama/Texas heat could have done it.

Reply; Your guess is as good as anybody's.

3) Laws are violated every day. Does this mean they're ineffective? Heck no. No matter how airtight a law or procedure is, someone, somewhere will violate it for their own gain. That doesn't make that law/procedure ineffective. When your packing plant sent banned materials to Japan by accident, does that mean their procedures were ineffective? I don't think so. Someone just got lazy. Rules and regulations only go so far, then the human factor comes into play. We'll never regulate the human factor.

Reply; Violations make the law something you don't bet your life or livelyhood on, which is what you're asking us to do if you tell us to take your cattle and at the same time say the USDA isn't testing right, covering up, etc..... As producers, why take the chance? You look at what we stand to gain verses what we can lose and it's a no brainer.

4) I don't know how much money RCalf has, but it sure seems, from a Canadian perspective, that they're spending much more money trying to shut down a border, rather than trying to get the USDA to tighten testing procedures and implement a proper feed ban.

Reply; Shutting down the border would make the USDA take away our reasons for closing it - some of those reasons being what you just suggested. We could get several birds in one shot.

I"m heading to the big city tomorrow for the weekend. One of my college buddies finally got married. He's 43 and shes in her 20s. I always knew he was the smartest one of our bunch........
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) Reply; Is that trucking responsible for all of the post ban cases? If not, you've just cornered one chicken. How many are still out?

2) Reply; Shutting down the border would make the USDA take away our reasons for closing it - some of those reasons being what you just suggested. We could get several birds in one shot.

1) I could be wrong, and someone correct me if I am, but I'm certain that all our post-feedban positives have stemmed from one source.

2) Y'lost me here. How does shutting down the border increase effectiveness of your feed ban or make the USDA tighten testing? The USDA has said between 7 and 10 cases of BSE exist in the USA. How will closing down the border help you catch those cases? And how will closing down the border help to change your feedban, should 1 (or more) of those 7-10 cases slip through?

Rod
 

the chief

Well-known member
4) I don't know how much money RCalf has, but it sure seems, from a Canadian perspective, that they're spending much more money trying to shut down a border, rather than trying to get the USDA to tighten testing procedures and implement a proper feed ban.


Rod, I can understand why you think this way. It is called the "selective hearing" problem. You hear ONLY what you want to hear and you focus so much on what is bothering you that you do not see anything else going on. DOn't worry, all humans do it.

When the Canadians realize that USDA and NCBA are more likely to injure your industry than RCalf is, you will get better. Why do I say that? Because NCBA and USDA take their direction from what is good for the PACKER, not the producer :shock:
 

TimH

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tim and Murgen, you missed my point. My point is that you have BSE in the cattle that will be shipping down here if the border is opened to OTM, and then the responsibility of finding them will be up the the folks who you say can't/don't test right. R-CALF is thinking the same thing you are, and you are justified but we are a-holes. It's hypocracy.

Oh, Now I get it Sandhusker!! R-Calf is only opposed to opening the border to OTM's. I guess that's why they didn't oppose the re-opening to boxed beef and then UTM's.........wait a minute??? :roll: ...........

I, for one, never called you a-holes. Dolts, clowns and club calf dorks, yes. But not a-holes. :D
OK, Poopy Pants??? :D :D :wink:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
the chief said:
1) Rod, I can understand why you think this way. It is called the "selective hearing" problem. You hear ONLY what you want to hear and you focus so much on what is bothering you that you do not see anything else going on. DOn't worry, all humans do it.

2) When the Canadians realize that USDA and NCBA are more likely to injure your industry than RCalf is, you will get better. Why do I say that? Because NCBA and USDA take their direction from what is good for the PACKER, not the producer :shock:

1) Not selective hearing in this case Chief. When RCalf opposes the USDA with regards to your feed ban and your testing, I fully support the opposition. When you try to close the border, again, I can't support your views. But we rarely read about anything BUT border closures.

2) Never said the USDA, or the NCBA, weren't going to hurt the industry by supporting packers. Quite the opposite in fact. I haven't been in many anti-packer threads lately, but look back and you'll see how much I dislike what the multi-nationals are doing to our industry.

Rod
 

don

Well-known member
the problem some canadians have with r-calf is that r-calf agrees with and uses usda's spin when it suits them and disagrees when it comes to others so it isn't a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. r-calf likes it when usda talks about having the safest food in the world(certainly debatable and then sues usda when usda uses its safety standards to attempt to open the border. bullard talks about the safest beef in the world: who made the rules to establish that standard - usda? then when usda says by its standards canadian beef is safe r-calf gets in a huff. r-calf is weasels with the ethics equivalent to the morals of an alley cat. that's why it can't win - nobody will respect it.
 
Top