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

ban to be lifted

Help Support Ranchers.net:

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Location
OK
Filed at 12:33 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration intends to lift all mad cow disease-related restrictions on Canadian cattle in the next year, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday.

The restrictions, in place since Canada's first case of the disease was disclosed in 2003, were eased earlier this year to allow younger cattle to enter the United States.

A prohibition has remained on Canadian animals older than 30 months; levels of infection from mad cow disease are thought to increase with age. Industry officials argue that rules for how cattle are slaughtered would keep the disease from ever entering the human or animal food supply.

The department said it is writing a rule that would lift remaining restrictions on Canadian cattle. Ron DeHaven, administrator of the department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said the rule will be proposed in six to eight months.

Since discovering its first case in May 2003, Canada has turned up two more cases. The United States discovered two additional cases, one in a cow that was imported from Canada and one in a Texas-born cow. Since the ban was eased, Canada has shipped more than 333,803 cattle into the U.S.

More Articles in National >
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
I ll believe it when I see it :roll: Im quite sure R-laugh will have some BS to try and stop this rule from being implemented 8)
 

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Location
OK
I faintly recall reading a news commentary/opinion piece pretty far
back that had the following theory:

Drug companies have big bucks to give to the politicians
Drug companies really hate having canadian drugs ordered
by usa consumers
Drug companies gave big bucks to the pols
Bush and company traded the Canadian govt:
Canadians restrict drugs from going into the usa...
USA opens the border for beef

Are both sides appearing to keep that bargain, if in fact that
bargain was made?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
After the flurry of deals this administration made to get CAFTA passed, you really wonder how far they will go with their "deals".
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Sandhusker said:
After the flurry of deals this administration made to get CAFTA passed, you really wonder how far they will go with their "deals".

God forbid that one bargaining chip would be something that should be a non-issue anyway, eh buddy?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Sandhusker said:
After the flurry of deals this administration made to get CAFTA passed, you really wonder how far they will go with their "deals".

God forbid that one bargaining chip would be something that should be a non-issue anyway, eh buddy?

I hardly call arbitriciously abandoning what the USDA testified to Congress was our first line of defense against BSE to be a non-issue.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
OK Jeanne said:
I faintly recall reading a news commentary/opinion piece pretty far
back that had the following theory:

Drug companies have big bucks to give to the politicians
Drug companies really hate having canadian drugs ordered
by usa consumers
Drug companies gave big bucks to the pols
Bush and company traded the Canadian govt:
Canadians restrict drugs from going into the usa...
USA opens the border for beef

Are both sides appearing to keep that bargain, if in fact that
bargain was made?

That sounds right to me OK Jeane. For the most part the conglomerates contol our/their Congress through their lobbying and donations. When a fine is imposed, it is usually that proverbial drop in the bucket , either way the costs are passed back to the working man, The Bush administration is certainly no exception when it comes to making deals with the conglomerates.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Sandhusker said:
After the flurry of deals this administration made to get CAFTA passed, you really wonder how far they will go with their "deals".

God forbid that one bargaining chip would be something that should be a non-issue anyway, eh buddy?

I hardly call arbitriciously abandoning what the USDA testified to Congress was our first line of defense against BSE to be a non-issue.

Quoted from Leo McDonnell off an internet radio Broadcast of a ICON meeting
So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don’t worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue.
If your firewalls made finding BSE in the US native herd a non issue what is the issue of importing cattle? If those firewalls Leo was spouting about that will protect the US consumers from the risk of BSE why can't those same firewalls protect them and the US herd from imported cattle?
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
The first line of defense is how cattle are handled at the packing plant.

After all you have BSE too. :shock: Remember? :shock:

We are of the same status. Therefore the standards set at your packing plants to handle SRM's etc. should already be in place to address the fact that you have BSE too. :shock: Remember? :shock:

That being done, whether the cattle come from our country or yours should make no difference, because they are being slaughtered and handled in an appropriate manner for a country of minimal BSE risk.

They are already handled in such a manner in our country. How about yours?

Perhaps this is the issue R-Calf should be spending their energy on? :!: Not trying to fight off what are potentially the best allies they could have in their quest to defeat the evil corporations who are bent on world domination. :wink: There are thousands of cranky cattle producers in Canada who would love to have a kick at Tyson, but instead we spend our resources trying to jump over hurdles and roadblocks set up not by big business, but by those supposedly working for the 'little guy'. If they are working for the little guy, then why is their number one target littler guys? :?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "If your firewalls made finding BSE in the US native herd a non issue what is the issue of importing cattle? If those firewalls Leo was spouting about that will protect the US consumers from the risk of BSE why can't those same firewalls protect them and the US herd from imported cattle?"

Tam, we don't have the same firewalls anymore - we lost the first and strongest one that dealt with imports. That is what I was getting at. We were sold out for the AMI.

As far as US consumers are concerned, finding that BSE cow here was a non issue. Beef consumption was not adversely affected for any period of time.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Kato said:
The first line of defense is how cattle are handled at the packing plant.

After all you have BSE too. :shock: Remember? :shock:

We are of the same status. Therefore the standards set at your packing plants to handle SRM's etc. should already be in place to address the fact that you have BSE too. :shock: Remember? :shock:

That being done, whether the cattle come from our country or yours should make no difference, because they are being slaughtered and handled in an appropriate manner for a country of minimal BSE risk.

They are already handled in such a manner in our country. How about yours?

Perhaps this is the issue R-Calf should be spending their energy on? :!: Not trying to fight off what are potentially the best allies they could have in their quest to defeat the evil corporations who are bent on world domination. :wink: There are thousands of cranky cattle producers in Canada who would love to have a kick at Tyson, but instead we spend our resources trying to jump over hurdles and roadblocks set up not by big business, but by those supposedly working for the 'little guy'. If they are working for the little guy, then why is their number one target littler guys? :?

I disagree that we have the same status- as would any statistician. You have had 4 cases in a herd 1/7th the size. You can't sweep hard math under the carpet.

R-CALF is spending energy on this issue. We have noticed our standards being compromised time and time again (and guess who always profits from these compromises :? ) R-CALF is calling for the FDA's lax standards to be ignored in favor of a ban on feeding ruminant parts to any animal. We're calling for a ban on table scraps and the feeding of chicken manure. We're calling for SRM removal standards to be lower than nobody else's. Our target is not the little guy. Our single largest target is agency capture. You fix that and a whole lot of other problems get fixed as well.

If you Canadians want to have a kick at Tyson, you need to sit back and figure out where your problems are really coming from. It's not R-CALF. Take a good hard look at what Ottowa is/has been doing. Your government waived a Contempt of Parliament charge at Cargill & Tyson and they more or less told your government to pack sand. That alone should tell you a whole lot about what is wrong up there.

You're right, we could do more together on this, but some of you can't get over the border deal and see that it is not the war for R-CALF, but just a battle.

Your government allowed you to be come dependant on us, and allowed your packing industry to fall into US hands. When the inevitable problem spawned by letting other's control your destiny surfaced, Ottowa didn't have the courage to wean themselves from the US. Why didn't they go to that very lucrative Asian markets and say, "What do you want, let's do business"? Instead, they whined to Washington and prostituted your industry to the AMI. There's your problem, Kato.

Just like we BOTH need to fix our agency capture problems, if you get Ottowa working for Canadians you won't care what R-CALF says or does - we'll just be another trade organization in another country who's actions don't have much effect on you.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Statistics not withstanding, we do have the same status. We are in the same category of BSE risk and that is the fact. We may have found more animals in a smaller herd, but that brings up the old question of who was really looking, and who was just going through the motions. Yada yada yada, that argument will go on forever.... :?

My point is that there are grassroots producers on both sides of the border who are dealing with the same problem of being at the mercy of big business. This isn't just cattle, this is all sectors of agriculture these days. We are at the bottom of the pile, last to get paid, and yet we are the very ones who make all the profit up the chain possible.

How does this situation come to be? Easy. Divide and conquer. It's been going on for years now. We're busy scrapping amongst ourselves and are totally diverted from the real problem, while those who hold the power rake in the money. The political power in Canada is centered in the East, where big business rules. Out here in the West, elections are over and decided before our polls even close. It's easy to say that we need to get Ottawa to stick up for us, but it's not so easy to make that happen. We've got an election coming up soon that may or may not change that, but we can hope.

Many years ago in Canada, the grain farmers were being plundered by big grain companies. They finally snapped, got their act together, and formed the prairie grain pools. These were co-operatives, owned by the producers, and worked extremely well. Any profits made went back to the members, and the profit margins were no higher than necessary. These co-ops were incredibly successful for a long time, but sadly, many of the grain farmers have forgotten the past. Over the past few years, one by one they have fallen into the hands of private corporations, and guess what? It's happening again. Who'd a thought? :???:

Are we doomed to repeat past mistakes? Or can we put things in perspective, stick together, and make changes that can do us all some good?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "R-CALF is spending energy on this issue. We have noticed our standards being compromised time and time again (and guess who always profits from these compromises ) R-CALF is calling for the FDA's lax standards to be ignored in favor of a ban on feeding ruminant parts to any animal. We're calling for a ban on table scraps and the feeding of chicken manure. We're calling for SRM removal standards to be lower than nobody else's."

WHAT???

Leo McDonnell: "So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don’t worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue."

Leo also said we have the safest beef in the world. Now how can we have these firewalls in place for a native case of BSE and the safest beef in the world if we have all these problems that you say need to be fixed Sandman?

Aren't you and Leo on the same page?

Who's lying here? Is it R-CALF today or R-CALF yesterday? LOL!



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I'm afraid you are out to lunch on this BSE issue Sandhusker. If you look at what you are saying, it is the same as what everyone is saying when it comes to BSE.

Whatever makes me or my company the most money is the RIGHT science.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
In case you have refused to notice, our firewalls are being dismantled. They have a serious flaw - they are a hinderance to packers maximizing profits.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "In case you have refused to notice, our firewalls are being dismantled. They have a serious flaw - they are a hinderance to packers maximizing profits."

Another totally assinine statement. SRM removal is costing PRODUCERS money because packers pay according to the value of the entire carcass.

What a narrow minded view of this industry you have.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "In case you have refused to notice, our firewalls are being dismantled. They have a serious flaw - they are a hinderance to packers maximizing profits."

Another totally assinine statement. SRM removal is costing PRODUCERS money because packers pay according to the value of the entire carcass.

What a narrow minded view of this industry you have.


~SH~

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Ask a British beef producer who loses money when the firewalls aren't up. :!: Everyone, that's who. SRM removal costs money, but it's less than what it could potentially cost if it isn't done.

BTW, what firewalls are being dismantled?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Kato said:
Ask a British beef producer who loses money when the firewalls aren't up. :!: Everyone, that's who. SRM removal costs money, but it's less than what it could potentially cost if it isn't done.

BTW, what firewalls are being dismantled?

The first one - closing the border to BSE positive countries. USDA told Congress this was a crucial first step to keeping BSE out of here. Guess it's not so crucial now?

The FDA's recommendations are another.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CULT mantra: "The first one - closing the border to BSE positive countries. USDA told Congress this was a crucial first step to keeping BSE out of here. Guess it's not so crucial now?"

That's right Sandman it's not so crucial now due to increased BSE surveilance, banning the slaughter of downer cows, SRM removal on OTM cattle, and the ruminant feed ban. BSE standards need to reflect the measures that have been taken to address the situation. You only live in the past when it supports your import banning bias.

When you take a view past the import pipe, you realize that we cannot impose unnecessary restrictions on Canada and not expect that to impact how other countries treat the U.S.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top