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

Another question for SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

obviously usda says thirty months is sound science because they feel that is a good safeguard and what they think should be offered to american consumers. the twenty month threshold is an enticement for japan to open their border. actually i think all otm's in canada should be tested to establish the health of our herd to export markets and if any significant market wants additional testing we should give it to them. my argument with r-calf is that they have been much more inconsistent than anybody and they want canada shooting at a moving target in order to satisfy american import standards. the rule making procedure down there is designed in a manner which pretty much guarantees that canada can be kept out almost indefinitely. that is why i wish our powers that be would tell washington to go to hell, we'll sell our beef, energy and wood elsewhere and when the states find a reason to negotiate in good faith they can come and talk.
 
I read where 96% of the trade between USA and Canada is problem free.
 
HERE is the same PROBLEM ,its just in TEXTILES Exports to the U.S. heighten industry fears.YOU can PUT in the WORD (BEEF) for textile and (BRAZIL)for CHINA to make another story for the cattle industry without COOL.

WASHINGTON China has exceeded all predictions on textile exports to the United States since the lifting of global quotas in January, according to industry figures released Wednesday, confirming fears of American textile manufacturers.

In January, China shipped more apparel in certain categories, like cotton trousers, than it had in the previous year and a half, according to a U.S. textile makers group. But an importers' group suggested this ballooning might be partly a one-time phenomenon.

Predictions that China would flood the world market with cheap textiles had already inflamed trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, in part because of concern that the Chinese unfairly subsidize their industry and sell their goods at below-production costs, undermining U.S. producers.

In the first month of this year, 12,200 jobs were lost in the U.S. apparel and textile industries, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The countdown to the era of a quota-free market was looked on with fear by developing countries as well as the United States. Poorer countries in Asia with big textile operations, like Cambodia, are lobbying in the U.S. Congress to win special consideration and prevent China from dominating the world's textile trade.

But apparel and textiles are China's biggest export earner and China was prepared to take full advantage of the lifting of global quotas.

"This isn't like the Y2K crisis, where everyone was afraid of a computer meltdown that never happened," said Cass Johnson, president of the National Council of Textile Organizations, a U.S. trade group that is pressing the Bush administration to impose immediate limits on Chinese imports. "This is happening, and the consequences are frightening."

Using figures from China's customs office, the textile group calculated that China is selling a cotton knit shirt at $1.71, down 45 percent from the $3.12 it sold for last year. Those low prices helped drive up imports of cotton knit shirts by 1,836 percent, it said.

The National Retail Federation had predicted the opposite. In documents submitted to court to block the administration from imposing limits on Chinese imports, the U.S. retailer's trade association said it did not anticipate major changes in sourcing from any direction in 2005 for the shirts and nearly every other product that had been limited by quotas.

Those statements were used to persuade the U.S. Court of International Trade to prevent the administration from imposing safeguards to prevent a surge in Chinese exports.

Don Brasher, president of Global Trade Information Services in Columbia, South Carolina, which tracks and releases trade figures from around the world and was the first to publish China's trade statistics, said this upsurge should come as no surprise.

"Were going from a quota regime to a quota-free regime, and China's one of the most competitive producers," Brasher said. "What do you expect?"

Brenda Jacobs, the Washington trade counsel to the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, said she was wary of the Chinese figures and would wait to see the U.S. trade figures, scheduled to be released Friday.

"I just don't know what to expect. There will be shifting of production," said Jacobs, whose group supported the lifting of quotas. "But put this in context - there were a lot of companies that held off shipping goods in December in order to be sure they would not be caught in the quota system."
 
Sandhusker: "A few months ago your line was that the Japanese "caved" into our demands - now Japan set their own age threshold?"

Japan abandoned their "test them all" negotiation position and acknowledged the science of BSE testing that suggests that prions are seldom detected in animals under 30 months of age let alone animals under 20 months of age. THAT IS A FACT!

Japan has also set their threshold at 21 or 24 months of age. THAT TOO IS A FACT!


What do you expect from USDA, "sorry, we are not willing to send you cattle under 21 - 24 months of age. YOU TAKE OUR CATTLE UNDER 30 MONTHS OR YOU DON'T GET ANY because Sandhusker is concerned that we would be changing our science by accepting your offer to take cattle under 21 - 24 months of age".

What a ridiculous argument!

WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE SCIENCE, JAPAN SIMPLY SET A LOWER THRESHOHLD THAN WE DID.

What is so damn difficult to understand about that?????

The fact that you would debate something so trivial as this shows just how desperate you really are.


Sandhusker: "A few months ago we were to reject Japan's request for testing because was not based on "sound science", now we don't make their decisions for them?"

Yeh, AND YOUR POINT IS..................????????????????????


SH (previous): "Japan is obviously "overly cautious" due the amount of BSE that has been found in their country."

Sandhusker (in response): "Wow, we agree on something. How many times did I say exactly that, but you scoffed at those words because bring overly cautious was not following "sound science"?"

JUST BECAUSE JAPAN IS "OVERLY CAUTIOUS" DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE OUR POSITION TO THE WORTHLESS 100% TESTING OF UTM CATTLE THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY ADVOCATED!!!!

Thank God you are not in charge of foreign trade negotiations!


Sandhusker: "There is till a problem here that you skirted. The USDA claims to use "sound science" as their guide. If "sound science" states the magic age to be 30 months, 20 months, whatever, it should apply universally. All other things being equal (cattle used for human consumption), there can be only one age if science is being strictly adhered to. My original question to you, and I directed this question to you solely because you seem to back the USDA regardless (that and I enjoy squabbling with you) remains unanswered."

If Japan says, "21 - 24 months of age and younger", WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE IN THE MATTER??????

You either send them 21 - 24 months of age and younger OR YOU DON'T EXPORT TO JAPAN!!!!

That doesn't mean the science has changed or USDA has changed their position. It means that USDA sends cattle 21 - 24 months of age and younger to Japan or they don't.

Your argument here is so ridiculous.


~SH~
 
Sandhusker: "My problem with the USDA is that they say one thing, then do another. They've made a stand on using "sound science" as if it is an absolute, but then in their actions, they treat as if it is negotiable. How can you claim that you are using "sound science" when you set the age limit at 30 months for Canada and also say you are using the same "sound science" when you set the age for Japan at 20 months?"


No your problem is that you have no common sense.


WE DID NOT SET THE AGE FOR JAPAN AT 21 or 24 MONTHS, JAPAN SET THEIR AGE THRESHOLD AT 21 - 24 MONTHS!!!!!

USDA DID NOT CHANGE THEIR POSITION!!!!!!

They either abide by the 21 - 24 month rule THAT JAPAN SET or they don't send Japan any cattle.

Good grief!



~SH~
 
SH...Japan has also set their threshold at 21 or 24 months of age. THAT TOO IS A FACT!

Scott please post your source on that FACT, because I have never seen and read it anywhere. All I can find is "up to 20 months".

Quote...A governmental expert panel agreed last month to accept a U.S.-proposed method for verifying cattle ages. The two nations had remained at odds over the verification method although they reached an agreement in October to resume imports of beef from animals aged up to 20 months. Japan had demanded testing all slaughtered cattle.

Another quote...The resolution urges Japan to abide by its obligations under the October agreement to resume imports of beef from animals aged up to 20 months, and urges the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to use import retaliatory economic measures if Japan fails to do so.
 
Once again Sandhusker, is USDA the ONLY govt entity negotiating, or are others involved? Is the deal-making solely at the discretion of USDA? Or not?

MRJ
 
Tommy said:
SH...Japan has also set their threshold at 21 or 24 months of age. THAT TOO IS A FACT!

Scott please post your source on that FACT, because I have never seen and read it anywhere. All I can find is "up to 20 months".

Quote...A governmental expert panel agreed last month to accept a U.S.-proposed method for verifying cattle ages. The two nations had remained at odds over the verification method although they reached an agreement in October to resume imports of beef from animals aged up to 20 months. Japan had demanded testing all slaughtered cattle.

Another quote...The resolution urges Japan to abide by its obligations under the October agreement to resume imports of beef from animals aged up to 20 months, and urges the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to use import retaliatory economic measures if Japan fails to do so.

The A-40 designation for age is what is being discussed with Japan.
A-40 average age is 15 months, with a range from 12 to 17 months.
This would supposedly guarantee the ages of cattle to be below 20 months.
 
Japan's negotiation position has changed. First it was 100% testing. Then I read 24 months than I read 21 months.

If it's 20 months NOW, fine but that doesn't change the basic premise that Japan's position is not our position.



~SH~
 
SH:"Japan's negotiation position has changed. First it was 100% testing"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA negotiating position has changed, and changed, and changed. First it was 30 months, then it was 24 months, then it was 21 months, now it's apparently 17.

Japan's position is still 100% testing, it's the law in Japan. They have agreed only "in principle" to accept US beef. The law is in effect until Parliament changes it. Whenever that may be.
 
~SH~ said:
Japan's negotiation position has changed. First it was 100% testing. Then I read 24 months than I read 21 months.

If it's 20 months NOW, fine but that doesn't change the basic premise that Japan's position is not our position.



~SH~

~sh~ (note the sh gets littler as the arguments dissolve)-- USDA told us from day one that they would do nothing unless it was based on sound science-- No testing any cattle for Creekstone to export even if the Japanese would take them -- Now they come back and tell us it is "sound science" that says under twenty month beef is safe and it is worth us to pay the extra dollars to have inspectors certify that what they ship to Japan is 20 months or younger to guarantee Japanese consumers safety-- But the "other sound science" says under 30 month beef from Canada is safe for the US consumer (we hope- but science doesn't back it anymore) -- Those inconsistencies with USDA's policy and science and the absolute unkowns about BSE has left a big gap in the USDA"s "sound science argument... It is what will lead a Judge to close off the border completely to all imports in the near future....
 
Mike: "USDA negotiating position has changed, and changed, and changed."

Since when have negotiations ever been constant?

USDA's position didn't change on the safety of UTM cattle, they are simply responding to Japan's position.


Mike: "First it was 30 months, then it was 24 months, then it was 21 months, now it's apparently 17."

That's Japan's position, not the USDA's.


Mike: "Japan's position is still 100% testing, it's the law in Japan."

If Japan's position is 100% testing, why are the negotiating age verification?


Mike: "They have agreed only "in principle" to accept US beef."

Ahhh.....ok? LOL!



OT,

Japan says 20 months. USDA says 30 months. Isn't it better for the U.S. to ship 20 month and under cattle rather than none????

I guess you R-CULT clones are so desperate to blame something on USDA that you convince yourself that Japan's position has become USDA's position.

It's amazing what the human mind can convince itself of when the need to blame is so overpowering.

Hence, "CULT"!


~SH~
 
Is it just me, or is SH's arguements trying to justify the USDA's actions mirror our arguments that we were making months ago on allowing testing?

Before, we were to reject Japan's demands as they were unreasonable and against "sound science". Now, Japan is allowed to negotiate and make demands and we accept their positions.

Months ago, we argued it was better to submit to testing than send no beef at all. Now SH tells us, " Isn't it better for the U.S. to ship 20 month and under cattle rather than none????"

We tried to tell SH that we were not holding any cards as we made demands of them. Today Mr. Huber says, "If Japan says, "21 - 24 months of age and younger", WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE IN THE MATTER??????"

Contratulations, SH, you're finally coming around! You're only 8 months or so behind, but you're making progress! :clap: Of course, during the time that it took you to catch up with us we have left a couple billion on the table, allowed our competition to establish a beach head, and still haven't set a date to ship a roast, but hey, you rabid anti R-CALFers are a little slow anyway. :p


[/u]
 
Sandhusker: "Is it just me, or is SH's arguements trying to justify the USDA's actions mirror our arguments that we were making months ago on allowing testing?"

It's just you and your ability to pretend you have a valid argument.


Sandhusker: "Before, we were to reject Japan's demands as they were unreasonable and against "sound science". Now, Japan is allowed to negotiate and make demands and we accept their positions."

Lets see, assuming that the Japanese Parliament would even allow it, we establish a presidence that 100% testing assures safety and absorb those costs when science has not revealed any detectable prions in cattle under 20 months of age.

YEAH BABY, NOW THERE'S A REAL BRAINSTORM!!!!! LET'S LIVE A LIE AND PRETEND THAT 100% TESTING IS SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT!!!

Hell, that's the R-CULT way. The end justifies the lie!

Let's compare that to potentially exporting cattle less than 20 months of age WHICH MOST SLAUGHTER CATTLE IN THE U.S. ARE, WITHOUT TESTING (JAPAN'S POSITION).

Hmmmmm?????? WHAT SHOULD WE DO????????


I can only hope that you are getting adequate blood flow to your brain.


The thought that anyone would trust you for financial advice is frightening.



~SH~
 
Lets see, assuming that the Japanese Parliament would even allow it, we establish a presidence that 100% testing assures safety and absorb those costs when science has not revealed any detectable prions in cattle under 20 months of age.
Gee,NOW that sound science has developed a BSE test that can test any age group in 2-3 hrs. with 100% accuracy with no false Positives WHAT you GONE to DO SH .Scream HELP or FIND a new name to give speaches on this board.
 
MRJ said:
Once again Sandhusker, is USDA the ONLY govt entity negotiating, or are others involved? Is the deal-making solely at the discretion of USDA? Or not?

MRJ

MRJ, when you read articles on the negotiations, what government agency(s) are providing the spokesmen?
 
SH,"Lets see, assuming that the Japanese Parliament would even allow it, we establish a presidence that 100% testing assures safety and absorb those costs when science has not revealed any detectable prions in cattle under 20 months of age. "

First of all, you know that Creekstone management said the Japanese had offered to pay for the tests and you have not offered any evidence that suggests Creekstone is wrong. I won't use the word "liar" as loosely as you do as I think those are fighting words, but when you know full well the offer and then you say we would have to "absorb those costs" is definetely less than honest.

Secondly, it is absolutley rediculous to claim 100% testing is "establishing a precidence" and to not recognize that agreeing to an exclusive age limit would be doing the exact same thing. What is that saying about animals over the age limit? :shock:

In one of your past blanket defenses of the USDA, you once tried to tell us that if we test for the Japanese, we'll have to test for everybody. Following that rationale, why won't "everybody" demand the same deal we offered Japan now? :shock:

You tried to tell us that if the US consumers ever got wind that we were giving Japan a deal that we weren't giving them, there would be hell to pay. Are we giving US consumers the same deal as offered Japan? :shock:

Defending this bunch without thinking sure has put you in a tight spot. I'm sure you will pretend that is not the case, but those of us who have read your posts over the months know the tune. :p
 

Latest posts

Top