Ask Van Dyke

[cowsense]

You also have a list of sellers and what they have consigned. It seems logical that the length of the investigation is because of trouble tracing the feeders back beyond the sale barn at purchase. Canadian authorities have proven their protocols worked correctly at the border and positivily proved the origin of these slaughter cattle; those of you that question this should be prepared to offer bonifide proof of northern cattle being illegally in S. Dakota! Until then it's just another cheap propaganda promotion against Canadian producers.

 

[Bill]

This is pretty sad. Mr. Van Dyke is telling his side of the story, but since it affirms what the R-CALF members here have been saying all along and paints R-CALF in a positive light, he's all but being called a liar! :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: With all the BS and half truths you, Oldtimer and others posted on this site to further the R-Calf agenda and you wonder why someone may even question this?

What's this painting R-Calf in a positve light crap? When I was on here a few days ago you R-Klowns were chirping about R-Calf NOT EVEN BEING INVOLVED!!!!!!!

Quote me correctly Bill. Van Dyke said essentially the same thing I did days ago. Some prominent R-CALF members were involved TRYING TO HELP THEM GET THEIR MONEY, but R-CALF as an organization did not take a position on this incident. I wished they had. But it remains true that R-CALF was not involved in any way more than I already said.

It paints R-CALF in a positive light because some R-CALF members showed a genuine concern for this producer's well-being.

Personally, I wish that R-CALF had done more than just personal involvement by some members. But as I also pointed out, not everybody at R-CALF sees this the same way. EXCEPT FOR GETTING THE GUY PAID. (Which has been done).

Quote you correctly? I didn't even mention your name.

 

[nenmrancher]

I have read these post with interest and the one thing everyone seems to have ignored or maybe I just havent seen this question asked. Could it be possilbe that the packer saw the opportunity to cheat a customer out of some money and got their fingers caught in the cookie jar when the Van Dykes started asking questions? Not near as exciting as what everyone else is thinking but I think its a possibility that might need to be looked at, dont ya think.

 

[mwj]

Van Dyke,

Thank you for putting your input into this forum. It is valuable to see what is happening to real producers instead of depending completely on news reports and hypotheticals.

You might get a few questions seem like they are attacking you. Think of it this way: it just gives you a lot of experience in dealing with those type of people/questions.

Again, thanks for sharing your continuing story.

Let me ditto that. I appreciate your willingness to share the truth (some are still going to call it your version). The fact is that a forum like this tends to be a very brutal place to do so. But one of the reasons I stick around is because it gives you a good sense of the worst you will face elsewhere. After this, the rest of the world is easy.

I was told some of the details of your story at the R-CALF convention by some of the people that helped you guys. They were actively involved in working on getting you the money even while they were there. On the second day of the convention I was glad to hear that the money had been Fed-exed to you.

I had kept back some of the details as far as posting on this forum, because when I heard that USDA and Swift were going to say there was just a mix up at the plant (which I heard the same day I heard you were getting your money) there were some who wanted to let USDA hang themselves with a false report before hitting the public with the overwhelming evidence you have, specifically the pictures and several family members recognizing the cattle and the tags in the pictures.

You have done an excellent job of fleshing out details that I heard back on Jan 17th and 18th. These things will go public even more than they have.

I agee van dyke, thanks for telling us here what went on. MWJ I would have said the same as van dyke. The sale barn discription is not very discriptive. I wouldnt' even count it as a discription. If I lost a cow I wouldn't ask the neighbors if they'd seen a blk str . I'd ask them if they'd seen a big headed wooly kind of black steer with one horn and a pop eye come through here.

He is the one that said no description was given and NOT to read anything into his post's :roll: He did not answer when I asked him if he could ID any cattle for his insurance agent in case of theft and never recieved any reply so I have no clue if he has any ID for his own records. I did think it odd that he changed his ID practices(branding) because of mud :roll: If you are going to bring yourself to a public place to prove your point you need to bring proof not theory. I guess I need to go read up on the initial story and see if anything has been cleared up. I want to confirm that he had the names of the sellers they bought calves from since he said they did not raise any to cloud the number of calves bought and sold.

 

[Econ101]

I have read these post with interest and the one thing everyone seems to have ignored or maybe I just havent seen this question asked. Could it be possilbe that the packer saw the opportunity to cheat a customer out of some money and got their fingers caught in the cookie jar when the Van Dykes started asking questions? Not near as exciting as what everyone else is thinking but I think its a possibility that might need to be looked at, dont ya think.

That was one of my initial thoughts--what did they do with the cattle and who saw them doing it. It should be the responsibility of the USDA to condemn those cattle and dispose of them instead of the packer doing it themselves and trying to shaft the feeder.l

If Swift can't get their cattle straight until publicity hits, how do we know they were straight on their "disposal"?

Who gave them the right to "dispose" of these cattle anyway? Did the USDA delegate this authority to them? If they can not prove this is the case, they should have paid the man earlier.

 

[Sandhusker]

You also have a list of sellers and what they have consigned. It seems logical that the length of the investigation is because of trouble tracing the feeders back beyond the sale barn at purchase. Canadian authorities have proven their protocols worked correctly at the border and positivily proved the origin of these slaughter cattle; those of you that question this should be prepared to offer bonifide proof of northern cattle being illegally in S. Dakota! Until then it's just another cheap propaganda promotion against Canadian producers.

What seems logical to me is that Swift could account for all Canadian cattle on thier property, like they originally told Van Dyke's. What is illogical is that they had to call the USDA and then changed their story. Another thing this illogical is that it took the USDA two months to track cattle that hadn't even been in country for 24 hours. Come on, folks, you brag about border protocols, paper trails etc... but accept that Swift could not access that paper trail and that it took the USDA 2 months to do it? Somehow that is less questionable than a secret R-CALF plot???? :shock:

This is not any shot against Canadians. If you believe R-CALF has some covert operation going, the USDA was the target. However, the story the USDA has put out is more damaging to them AND a packer than what the conspiracy nuts think R-CALF was trying to do!

 

[Econ101]

Let me ditto that. I appreciate your willingness to share the truth (some are still going to call it your version). The fact is that a forum like this tends to be a very brutal place to do so. But one of the reasons I stick around is because it gives you a good sense of the worst you will face elsewhere. After this, the rest of the world is easy.

I was told some of the details of your story at the R-CALF convention by some of the people that helped you guys. They were actively involved in working on getting you the money even while they were there. On the second day of the convention I was glad to hear that the money had been Fed-exed to you.

I had kept back some of the details as far as posting on this forum, because when I heard that USDA and Swift were going to say there was just a mix up at the plant (which I heard the same day I heard you were getting your money) there were some who wanted to let USDA hang themselves with a false report before hitting the public with the overwhelming evidence you have, specifically the pictures and several family members recognizing the cattle and the tags in the pictures.

You have done an excellent job of fleshing out details that I heard back on Jan 17th and 18th. These things will go public even more than they have.

I agee van dyke, thanks for telling us here what went on. MWJ I would have said the same as van dyke. The sale barn discription is not very discriptive. I wouldnt' even count it as a discription. If I lost a cow I wouldn't ask the neighbors if they'd seen a blk str . I'd ask them if they'd seen a big headed wooly kind of black steer with one horn and a pop eye come through here.

He is the one that said no description was given and NOT to read anything into his post's :roll: He did not answer when I asked him if he could ID any cattle for his insurance agent in case of theft and never recieved any reply so I have no clue if he has any ID for his own records. I did think it odd that he changed his ID practices(branding) because of mud :roll: If you are going to bring yourself to a public place to prove your point you need to bring proof not theory. I guess I need to go read up on the initial story and see if anything has been cleared up. I want to confirm that he had the names of the sellers they bought calves from since he said they did not raise any to cloud the number of calves bought and sold.

mwj,

You are just showing your goofy side here. If he bought them from the sale barn the investigator needs to ask the sale barn those questions, not Van Dyke, if the investigator thinks the question was relevant. Why you would "require" this kind of answer from him is more of an interrogation than an investigation.

No one can "prove" anything on this forum, as I have said before.

Stop sitting in for SH.

I don't know Van Dyke, but I think he is just trying to state the facts from his perspective. If you think more investigating needs to be done for you to accept what he is saying, please get a job as an investigator and ask the right questions to the right people. Meanwhile, stop trying to bully a new person on this board.

 

[mwj]

I would like to say READ THE WORDS as they are, don't fabricate something different from what you are reading. Read and reread the posts to make sure you comprehend before typing something. This is part of the reason why stuff gets blown out of proportion. Too many times when a debate isn't going your way, emotion gets in the way. If anybody should show emotion over this whole story shouldn't it be me? None of you were harmed or stood loss. I WAS!!!! I was just trying to clear up some of the questions that were being asked because some of the stuff wasn't in media reports, but I you are going to attack me then I will quit posting.

Here you go Econ he is the one that said''READ THE WORDS'' I did and he said no description was given and I took him at his word since he said he was here to clear things up. So you are saying I should not believe what he says :shock: I have a stake in this deal as long as I have cattle and I would like to see it cleared up and not punted around like a football.

 

[Sandhusker]

I would like to say READ THE WORDS as they are, don't fabricate something different from what you are reading. Read and reread the posts to make sure you comprehend before typing something. This is part of the reason why stuff gets blown out of proportion. Too many times when a debate isn't going your way, emotion gets in the way. If anybody should show emotion over this whole story shouldn't it be me? None of you were harmed or stood loss. I WAS!!!! I was just trying to clear up some of the questions that were being asked because some of the stuff wasn't in media reports, but I you are going to attack me then I will quit posting.

Here you go Econ he is the one that said''READ THE WORDS'' I did and he said no description was given and I took him at his word since he said he was here to clear things up. So you are saying I should not believe what he says :shock: I have a stake in this deal as long as I have cattle and I would like to see it cleared up and not punted around like a football.

What kind of description are you wanting?

 

[Econ101]

I would like to say READ THE WORDS as they are, don't fabricate something different from what you are reading. Read and reread the posts to make sure you comprehend before typing something. This is part of the reason why stuff gets blown out of proportion. Too many times when a debate isn't going your way, emotion gets in the way. If anybody should show emotion over this whole story shouldn't it be me? None of you were harmed or stood loss. I WAS!!!! I was just trying to clear up some of the questions that were being asked because some of the stuff wasn't in media reports, but I you are going to attack me then I will quit posting.

Here you go Econ he is the one that said''READ THE WORDS'' I did and he said no description was given and I took him at his word since he said he was here to clear things up. So you are saying I should not believe what he says :shock: I have a stake in this deal as long as I have cattle and I would like to see it cleared up and not punted around like a football.

mwj, if the man said there was no description of the cattle on his purchase records from the barn, do you have any proof that it is not so? If you do, present it. If you believe it to be true and think it is some kind of violation then take it up with the lady filling out the paperwork at the sale barn. Maybe you could get a training job training the people who fill out those forms.

If Swift had a problem with the cattle, they should have expressed that problem before they accepted delivery, not taken the cattle and then disposed of them on their own.

If you have a stake in this issue more than Van Dyke, please let us all know. I am all ears.

 

[mwj]

I would like to say READ THE WORDS as they are, don't fabricate something different from what you are reading. Read and reread the posts to make sure you comprehend before typing something. This is part of the reason why stuff gets blown out of proportion. Too many times when a debate isn't going your way, emotion gets in the way. If anybody should show emotion over this whole story shouldn't it be me? None of you were harmed or stood loss. I WAS!!!! I was just trying to clear up some of the questions that were being asked because some of the stuff wasn't in media reports, but I you are going to attack me then I will quit posting.

Here you go Econ he is the one that said''READ THE WORDS'' I did and he said no description was given and I took him at his word since he said he was here to clear things up. So you are saying I should not believe what he says :shock: I have a stake in this deal as long as I have cattle and I would like to see it cleared up and not punted around like a football.

mwj, if the man said there was no description of the cattle on his purchase records from the barn, do you have any proof that it is not so? If you do, present it. If you believe it to be true and think it is some kind of violation then take it up with the lady filling out the paperwork at the sale barn. Maybe you could get a training job training the people who fill out those forms.

If Swift had a problem with the cattle, they should have expressed that problem before they accepted delivery, not taken the cattle and then disposed of them on their own.

If you have a stake in this issue more than Van Dyke, please let us all know. I am all ears.

I have the very same stake as he does in this since I am in the cattle buisness!! He was paid for the cattle so he is out nothing. He is the one that made the statement and that is not my problem. He said he did not brand because of mud that is not my problem. He does not tag his cattle for id that is not my problem. If crap gets stired that causes consumers to have unjustified fear of buying the product I raise you damn right I have a problem with it! If he still has money owed to him I am sure he has been in touch with swift about it.

 

[mwj]

Did you know that it was actuallly 8 head of cattle that were condemned and went to the landfill. On our photos that were provided by Swift of the 43 cattle that were supposed to be on our load 8 head had Canadian ear tags that you can visibly see and one of those eight had an electronic tag. When we received our first check from Swift they had paid us for all but 7 head. That is where the mix-up began between some reports. Initially Swift had condemned 8 when the first check came, but we were paid for 36 head. That means we had a loss of only 7 cattle. Don't ask me how, or why Swift paid us for 1 Canadian fat that went to the landfill, but they did. We were happy just to get paid for part of the load. The 7 head that we never got paid for is where the whole battle began.

Were these pictures taken as they were unloaded or in the pen. This is just what Econ was talking about. If you have pictures that puts you in the catbird seat. If you have such proof I can not see how your case would not be a slam dunk.

 

[mwj]

A little security camera could have solved this whole thing.

Expand on your camera ideal. Where did you want cameras at and do you think it would be of high enough quality to determine Canadian cattle?

You say the swift pictures show the tags so it must not take a very special camera to show the tags.

 

[Sandhusker]

I've got some questions for you mwj;

Why couldn't Swift account for the Canadian cattle? Why couldn't they check their own paperwork, compare the tags and have the whole deal settled in half an hour?

Why did it take the USDA so long to track those cattle? Aren't there double copies at the border? Swift supposedly brought the cattle in themselves, wouldn't they have the papers what would clear up the deal quickly?

 

[Econ101]

Here you go Econ he is the one that said''READ THE WORDS'' I did and he said no description was given and I took him at his word since he said he was here to clear things up. So you are saying I should not believe what he says :shock: I have a stake in this deal as long as I have cattle and I would like to see it cleared up and not punted around like a football.

mwj, if the man said there was no description of the cattle on his purchase records from the barn, do you have any proof that it is not so? If you do, present it. If you believe it to be true and think it is some kind of violation then take it up with the lady filling out the paperwork at the sale barn. Maybe you could get a training job training the people who fill out those forms.

If Swift had a problem with the cattle, they should have expressed that problem before they accepted delivery, not taken the cattle and then disposed of them on their own.

If you have a stake in this issue more than Van Dyke, please let us all know. I am all ears.

I have the very same stake as he does in this since I am in the cattle buisness!! He was paid for the cattle so he is out nothing. He is the one that made the statement and that is not my problem. He said he did not brand because of mud that is not my problem. He does not tag his cattle for id that is not my problem. If crap gets stired that causes consumers to have unjustified fear of buying the product I raise you damn right I have a problem with it! If he still has money owed to him I am sure he has been in touch with swift about it.

So how much of your own money was at stake in this story? Stop blowing smoke. If you were really interested in the reputation of the beef business and Canadian cattle, you would insist on every packing plant that takes Canadian cattle to have separate holding pens and slaughter floors for them or not allowing them to take Canadian cattle.

Stop giving a producer a hard time because he doesn't do things the way you think they should be done. He was the victim in this, not the perp.

Tell me what consumers have been stirred about this and not all the other Canadian beef that has come over in boxes or don't even use that excuse.

Your comments are a perfect example of why market power exists when there are few players who can really identify their interests rather than the many who are diverse and divided.

As homework, just so you know how ridiculous you sound, please go and describe all the cattle you had 47 days ago (or whenever you had more than ten) and tell me how those descriptions would differentiate your cattle from all the other cattle in the U.S. to an insurance man who doesn't want to pay a claim---and oh, if your local sale barn does not include the tag, the brand, or any other identifier, don't use them either.

I would like to see how you answer your own goofy and obnoxious questions to the satisfaction of this board as you have asked of Mr. Van Dyke.

 

[mwj]

I've got some questions for you mwj;

Why couldn't Swift account for the Canadian cattle? Why couldn't they check their own paperwork, compare the tags and have the whole deal settled in half an hour?

Why did it take the USDA so long to track those cattle? Aren't there double copies at the border? Swift supposedly brought the cattle in themselves, wouldn't they have the papers what would clear up the deal quickly?

It is not the problem of the speed of the trace. The thing that I am hearing that I wonder about is the implication that something is being covered up!!!!!!!! Do you ever have things go slower at the bank than you would like them to? Does the bank examiner ever come in from time to time to see how things are going. Are your books ever audited by anyone? Does this mean your bank is crooked :roll:

 

[TimH]

I've got some questions for you mwj;

Why couldn't Swift account for the Canadian cattle? Why couldn't they check their own paperwork, compare the tags and have the whole deal settled in half an hour?

Why did it take the USDA so long to track those cattle? Aren't there double copies at the border? Swift supposedly brought the cattle in themselves, wouldn't they have the papers what would clear up the deal quickly?

Sandhusker, The title of this thread is "Ask Van Dyke". He took the time to join the forum and offered to answer any questions people had. I believe he even said "Fire Away!!".
He also continues to claim that the USDA and or Swift are basicly lieing and that the CDN cattle WERE at his place.
We've seen the info that USDA has released to the press saying that the cattle were NEVER at his place.Let's see his side of the story.
I don't understand why you and Econ are attempting to answer for him. Why not let him answer the questions? If those cattle were at his place,somebody ,somewhere broke the law. I would like to find out who and how.

 

[Econ101]

I've got some questions for you mwj;

Why couldn't Swift account for the Canadian cattle? Why couldn't they check their own paperwork, compare the tags and have the whole deal settled in half an hour?

Why did it take the USDA so long to track those cattle? Aren't there double copies at the border? Swift supposedly brought the cattle in themselves, wouldn't they have the papers what would clear up the deal quickly?

It is not the problem of the speed of the trace. The thing that I am hearing that I wonder about is the implication that something is being covered up!!!!!!!! Do you ever have things go slower at the bank than you would like them to? Does the bank examiner ever come in from time to time to see how things are going. Are your books ever audited by anyone? Does this mean your bank is crooked :roll:

Holding a man's money after you have already taken delivery of goods, telling you don't owe him until he makes a ruckus, and not being held accountable in any way for the mistake is what is crooked, mwj. Looking at the underlying reasons for the "mistake" is only reasonable.

Why aren't you just as interested in making sure the producer's interests are protected, and not just the packer's?

 

[Sandhusker]

I've got some questions for you mwj;

Why couldn't Swift account for the Canadian cattle? Why couldn't they check their own paperwork, compare the tags and have the whole deal settled in half an hour?

Why did it take the USDA so long to track those cattle? Aren't there double copies at the border? Swift supposedly brought the cattle in themselves, wouldn't they have the papers what would clear up the deal quickly?

It is not the problem of the speed of the trace. The thing that I am hearing that I wonder about is the implication that something is being covered up!!!!!!!! Do you ever have things go slower at the bank than you would like them to? Does the bank examiner ever come in from time to time to see how things are going. Are your books ever audited by anyone? Does this mean your bank is crooked :roll:

The speed of the trace IS a problem! How can it not me? It's supposed to be a simple deal! What the heck took so long? Why couldn't Swift figure it out themselves? Those are bigger questions than how descriptive a sale barn ticket was.

We get examiners in on a regular basis. When they ask a question, you don't get two months to answer. You MIGHT get an afternoon.

 

[mwj]

Did you know that it was actuallly 8 head of cattle that were condemned and went to the landfill. On our photos that were provided by Swift of the 43 cattle that were supposed to be on our load 8 head had Canadian ear tags that you can visibly see and one of those eight had an electronic tag. When we received our first check from Swift they had paid us for all but 7 head. That is where the mix-up began between some reports. Initially Swift had condemned 8 when the first check came, but we were paid for 36 head. That means we had a loss of only 7 cattle. Don't ask me how, or why Swift paid us for 1 Canadian fat that went to the landfill, but they did. We were happy just to get paid for part of the load. The 7 head that we never got paid for is where the whole battle began.

Were these pictures taken as they were unloaded or in the pen. This is just what Econ was talking about. If you have pictures that puts you in the catbird seat. If you have such proof I can not see how your case would not be a slam dunk.

Here you go Econ now is your chance to prove your camera theory 8) He has the proof of what his cattle looked like because swift sent him pictures maybe he could even post a couple so we could see those tags they remember :roll: Do you have info that he did not get paid for his cattle. What do you figure he was shorted, the interest on the money from the delay of check. If I could not id my cattle I sure as the devil would not scream that someone else got them screwed up :wink: