Kato
Well-known member
Feeder cattle - no brand no export. 8)
Ask Van Dyke
- Thread starter Van Dyke
- Start date
PORKER
Well-known member
What is in question is the story about Jan Van Dyke owning those cattle. Tam, VanDyke already signed a document that he purchased those calves in Feb.2006 and had invoice papers from the sale barns to boot.
The question is WHO delivered those Canadian feeders to the sale barns? Was it someone that received those Canadian calves on a sealed truck to feed and then cut out those calves for some reason or other and sold them .Could be they were rustled from one of those feedyards. What needs to be done is to go back to the farm or ranch of origin according to each tag. Then Do a traceup. What is known that one TAG had Horn written on it. Yes when the pictures show up ,VanDykes will have covered all bets.
The question is WHO delivered those Canadian feeders to the sale barns? Was it someone that received those Canadian calves on a sealed truck to feed and then cut out those calves for some reason or other and sold them .Could be they were rustled from one of those feedyards. What needs to be done is to go back to the farm or ranch of origin according to each tag. Then Do a traceup. What is known that one TAG had Horn written on it. Yes when the pictures show up ,VanDykes will have covered all bets.
mwj
Well-known member
'' Porker I am almost pos. that I owned the one with the horn tag :wink: I raised it from a pup I will have to check and see if it is still around . I donot have a pictire or any other proof but I think it is the same one. If you would send me a picture I think I could tell :roll: ''
Vandyke seems to lack the same in his story as I do in mine and that is proof. The man said he had the pictures to prove trhe fact so all he has to do is post them or admit that he was mistaken. That sounds real simple to some people.
Vandyke seems to lack the same in his story as I do in mine and that is proof. The man said he had the pictures to prove trhe fact so all he has to do is post them or admit that he was mistaken. That sounds real simple to some people.
PORKER
Well-known member
Reread Quote;VanDyke already signed a document that he purchased those calves in Feb.2006 and had invoice papers from the sale barns to boot. This was given to the USDA.Swift paid off on those Canadian Feeder cattle too.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Just what the hell is wrong with some of you? This man comes here on his own, tells his story and says ask away. What he gets is "are you here to dance", "son of Van Dyke", etc... What a bunch of low-rent schmucks! I'm embarassed for you folks!
don
Well-known member
sandhusker perhaps you could politely ask van dyke to provide proof that the usda/swift explanation is incorrect and thus he wouldn't be subjected to the rude schmucks that you find so embarassing (go back and read some of the threads between you and sh!). my guess is that there is a greater chance of cattle being mixed in a slaughter plant than of illegal cattle landing in van dyke's feedlot. if you and yours are so offended by the skepticism just prove the skeptics wrong with hard evidence of where van dyke's cattle came from. trace them back to the border and publicize the heck out of it until something has to be done. talk to phyllis and maybe she'll get some action.
PORKER
Well-known member
Swift pays South Dakota cattleman after two months
Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 2:41 PM
by Peter Shinn
Audio related to this story
AUDIO: Peter Shinn reports (1 1/2 min MP3).
Jan Van Dyke of Wessington Springs, South Dakota, took a load of slaughter-ready cattle to a Swift plant in Nebraska last November after feeding them out. But Swift wouldn't pay for seven head because they had Canadian ear tags, nor would the company pay for the offal from the cattle Van Dyke had delivered.
Van Dyke was out more than $11,000 and USDA began investigating how he was able to buy Canadian feeders at auction, feed them out and then sell them to Swift unwittingly. Then on Monday, more than two months after the initial incident, Swift finally paid Van Dyke. Van Dyke continues to insist the cattle he took to Swift did have what appeard to be Canadian ear tags in them.
But Rick Fox, President of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, told Brownfield it appears USDA must have decided that Swift somehow confused Van Dyke's cattle with some Canadian cattle it already had at that plant.
"Apparently that must be what they're saying, because Swift is the one that paid him," Fox said. "But I know I've talked with Mr. Van Dyke and he's pretty adamant that these cattle were on his place."
But Fox hastened to add that he had no official word from USDA that their investigation into the matter is complete. And Fox said the apparent mix-up brings into question how USDA is enforcing its minimal risk rule which allows young Canadian cattle into the U.S. According to Fox, it's a big deal because USDA is now proposing to allow older Canadian cattle into America. And Fox said South Dakota cattlemen are worried about it.
"The real big concern now going on out in ranch country here now is these cull cows that are going to start coming in out of Canada," said Fox. He said a USDA economic analysis of its proposed minimal risk rule expansion suggested an influx of 610,000 older Canadian cattle in the first year after the rule takes effect.
Fox added many South Dakota cattlemen are concerned about USDA's apparent inability to track Canadian cattle after they enter the U.S., given the multiple cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) that have been detected in Canadian cattle. "The prion, you know, is kind of like Superman - it's indestructible," Fox said. "So if one of these prions come in here, it's here in the United States forever."
A public comment period on USDA's proposal to allow older Canadian cattle into the United States is open right now. The fact is that there is no system to easily trace Canadian cattle once they cross the border into the United States. South Dakota State Veterinarian Dr. Sam Holland told Brownfield last week he's recommended to USDA more than once that such a tracking system be implemented. Holland said that's important not so much from the perspective of BSE, which is not high communicable, but in order to help control highly contagious animal diseases like FMD, should one inadvertently be introduced into the U.S. via a Canadian animal.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 2:41 PM
by Peter Shinn
Audio related to this story
AUDIO: Peter Shinn reports (1 1/2 min MP3).
Jan Van Dyke of Wessington Springs, South Dakota, took a load of slaughter-ready cattle to a Swift plant in Nebraska last November after feeding them out. But Swift wouldn't pay for seven head because they had Canadian ear tags, nor would the company pay for the offal from the cattle Van Dyke had delivered.
Van Dyke was out more than $11,000 and USDA began investigating how he was able to buy Canadian feeders at auction, feed them out and then sell them to Swift unwittingly. Then on Monday, more than two months after the initial incident, Swift finally paid Van Dyke. Van Dyke continues to insist the cattle he took to Swift did have what appeard to be Canadian ear tags in them.
But Rick Fox, President of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, told Brownfield it appears USDA must have decided that Swift somehow confused Van Dyke's cattle with some Canadian cattle it already had at that plant.
"Apparently that must be what they're saying, because Swift is the one that paid him," Fox said. "But I know I've talked with Mr. Van Dyke and he's pretty adamant that these cattle were on his place."
But Fox hastened to add that he had no official word from USDA that their investigation into the matter is complete. And Fox said the apparent mix-up brings into question how USDA is enforcing its minimal risk rule which allows young Canadian cattle into the U.S. According to Fox, it's a big deal because USDA is now proposing to allow older Canadian cattle into America. And Fox said South Dakota cattlemen are worried about it.
"The real big concern now going on out in ranch country here now is these cull cows that are going to start coming in out of Canada," said Fox. He said a USDA economic analysis of its proposed minimal risk rule expansion suggested an influx of 610,000 older Canadian cattle in the first year after the rule takes effect.
Fox added many South Dakota cattlemen are concerned about USDA's apparent inability to track Canadian cattle after they enter the U.S., given the multiple cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) that have been detected in Canadian cattle. "The prion, you know, is kind of like Superman - it's indestructible," Fox said. "So if one of these prions come in here, it's here in the United States forever."
A public comment period on USDA's proposal to allow older Canadian cattle into the United States is open right now. The fact is that there is no system to easily trace Canadian cattle once they cross the border into the United States. South Dakota State Veterinarian Dr. Sam Holland told Brownfield last week he's recommended to USDA more than once that such a tracking system be implemented. Holland said that's important not so much from the perspective of BSE, which is not high communicable, but in order to help control highly contagious animal diseases like FMD, should one inadvertently be introduced into the U.S. via a Canadian animal.
PORKER said:
We are to all of a sudden believe a signed document from some unknown SD feeder, that has claimed but has nothing and nobody to back his story up, over the Export papers that were processed and SIGNED by a CFIA vet after he inspected the cattle ready for export. Of which were inspected by the USDA vet and SIGNED off on at the Port of Entry when that vet inspected the same fat cattle. Papers that the CFIA and the USDA admit exsist and are where found at the proper places.
Did you not read Dr. Sam Hollands comments to the media? He says the Paper trail is complete and the proper information was released by the USDA. Is he going to go on record if he believed anything in that signed document of Van Dykes. Do you think Senator John Thune would have not returned Van Dykes calls if he even remotely thought these 7 cattle could keep this border closed. This is a Senator that is looking for legitimate reasons to prolong the border closure. What about all the other Senators in surrounding States that are looking for ways to stop Rule Two. Why haven't they issued Press releases on this? The only one issuing Press releases is SDSGA. WHY. Because it is a done deal to everyone else and the SDSGA and R-CALF are trying to use it to stir the pot because of Rule Two.
So he has invoices from some cattle he bought at a SD sale Barn CAN HE PROVE THEY ARE THESE CATTLE? If the invoices says Blk feeder cattle sporting CCIA tags and a CAN brand then maybe he can but if the invoice says Blk feeders, they could be ANY BLACK FEEDER CALVES. :roll:
Yes Swift paid out but that only means Swift paid him for the number of cattle that he brought in. Some where along the line Van Dykes cattle went through undetected do to the great ID system you have. and were processed and Swift paid him. That is not to say these 7 cattle were VAN DYKES. Swift took the lose as they were cattle legally imported by SWIFT on Nov 28 from Canada in a SEALED truck to the Swift plant, at least that is what the SIGNED DOCUMENTS FROM THE USDA, THE CFIA AND THEIR VETS SAY. :wink:
PORKER
Well-known member
Back in November we recieved a call from Swift asking us if we had any knowledge of Canadian cattle on our load. They said that all of their expected Canadian cattle were accounted for and that they had found some unaccounted cattle on our load. Swift then told us that all 43 cattle on the load were subject to being condemned. That is a real hit thinking that you lost almost $50,000. They told us that all the carcasses were pulled from the line and were hanging in a seperate cooler until they could account for all of the cattle.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
They said that all of their expected Canadian cattle were accounted for and that they had found some unaccounted cattle on our load.
But then they changed their story...... after 40 odd days.... yeah, that makes sense... :roll:
But then they changed their story...... after 40 odd days.... yeah, that makes sense... :roll:
WHAT A HYPOCRITE :shock:Sandhusker said:
I think most if not all of us have on more than one occasion been embarrassed by YOU and your treatment of other posters but hey I guess this is just another cases of DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO. Right SANDHUSKER :roll: warning your "What a bunch of low rent schmucks" comment is going to haunt you and cheerleading session for days if not months. :wink:
Would you prefer we call him Mr JAN VAN DYKE JR. or maybe JUNIOR for short. :wink:
He came on here claiming he was going to clear things up and I have more red flags flying over his "story" now than I did before he said ask away. If you want the truth to come out then stop piping off and let Junior answer the hard questions WITHOUT YOURS AND YOURS INTERFERANCE. :x He can either answer the questions his "STORY" bring to mind or he can hide behind your skirt, which will it be Sandhusker? The later will convince NOBODY. :wink:
Red Robin
Well-known member
I think Mr. Van Dyke would be fine no better than you know him.Bill said:
nenmrancher
Well-known member
I still have to wonder if this whole mess didnt start out as way for swift or maybe even a employee at the plant to make a little money at the expense of someone else. Only to have their fingers caught in the cookie jar so to speak when the owner they tried to cheat started asking questions. Now it has become such a over blown emotional mess that the truth no matter what it is will never come out and be belived regardless of who was right and who was wrong. Do we know for sure that son of van dyke is who he says he is. No more so than we know for sure who anyone on here is. One thing is for sure it has brought out the mean and nasty sides of several people. Right now as someone who has read and followed this with some curiosity I have to say I dont belive either side in this matter. Why because I think the truth is some where in between what is being said by both sides. Everyone is using this issue to further divide the industry and most likely dont even care one way or the other what the truth is, they just want to justify and push their vision for the future of the industry with this mess.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Van Dyke,
I'm sorry you have found yourself in the middle of this political nightmare. On one side you have R-CALF and SDSGA using your hard luck as another excuse to try to stop Canadian imports and blame USDA.
On the other side, you have Canada who have just seen their cattle markets crash partially because of R-CALF's short sighted political motives to use bse as a catalyst to try to stop Canadian imports based on their ignorance of the global beef market.
I'm glad you were able to get your money.
Isn't it interesting that R-CALF is so critical of USDA for their inability to track these cattle yet they themelves claim they don't want to be burdened with traceback when traceback would be required to enforce the Country of Origin Labeling Law they embrace? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Thanks for your input and please consider the political motivations behind the comments and try not to take them personally.
Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD
~SH~
I'm sorry you have found yourself in the middle of this political nightmare. On one side you have R-CALF and SDSGA using your hard luck as another excuse to try to stop Canadian imports and blame USDA.
On the other side, you have Canada who have just seen their cattle markets crash partially because of R-CALF's short sighted political motives to use bse as a catalyst to try to stop Canadian imports based on their ignorance of the global beef market.
I'm glad you were able to get your money.
Isn't it interesting that R-CALF is so critical of USDA for their inability to track these cattle yet they themelves claim they don't want to be burdened with traceback when traceback would be required to enforce the Country of Origin Labeling Law they embrace? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Thanks for your input and please consider the political motivations behind the comments and try not to take them personally.
Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
You're claiming others have political motivations behind their comments? :roll:
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Come on Sadhusker your being a low rent scmuck.Your not adding anything constructive. Why don't you E-MAIL USDA and ask a few questions? Don't let everybody else get the glory.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
They don't tell Van Dykes. Why would they tell me?
mwj
Well-known member
I have a question for the cheerleaders from the schmuck section. If the person that is suposed to clear this up says fire away and ask questions is it ok for a someone to ask them? If and when they make conflicting statements is it ok to quote them and ask questions? If the person says ''none'' should we believe them? If the term ''none'' is changed to ''brief'' should we belive them? If they say they have ''proof'' but show none should we believe them? You all seem to think questions are ok if it is about the usda, or other groups that you are not in favor of :roll: Could you please post a list of people that we can not ask questions of?
I have an Idea why don't we have Sandhusker, Oldtimer, ocm and a few other make up a list of questions we are allowed to ask Mr. ? Van Dyke. When finished they could PM each of us with their schmuck proof questions and we will fire way. Kind of like they do at R-CALF RFD-TV programs that are staged to answer the producers questions!!!!! :wink:
I know I'll be waiting to see what watered down, one sided question they will allow me to ask. :wink: How about the rest of you?
I know I'll be waiting to see what watered down, one sided question they will allow me to ask. :wink: How about the rest of you?