BEEF Imports- UP

[Big Muddy rancher]

Bill, "Get out of your padded Banker's chair and from behind the monitor where you find sanctuary and see if you can send a letter or email or make a post denouncing the US feed ban loopholes without ONCE mentioning the Canadian border. :roll: But then that obviously isn't your agenda"

So you know that I haven't done exactly as you've "suggested" in any of my letters/email/conversations the last few years?

Then you must have one on file or in the archives on this site to show us that challenges USDA to close the US feedban loopholes WITHOUT mentioning imports or the Canadian border. There was not one mention of any of your "conversations" in my post so don't try even try to go there with your twisting ways.

A fellow once told me that Bankers and Lawyers were cut from the same cloth and the more posts you make the more it sees appropriate.

Who are you that I've got to provide copies of my correspondence with my Senators?

A fellow once told me that some people were just idiots and that the world needed ditch diggers, too.

What did SH used to say? OH YEA Your TREE'D SANDHUSKER. :lol:

 

[Bill]

:roll: Once again Sadhusker has nothing to back up his claims. :roll:

Don't ever think you are more important than you really are Sadhusker!
I have seen some ditch diggers with a hell of a lot more saavy and ambition than a few Bankers I have crossed paths with. I also know that many will agree which we could use more of.

 

[Sandhusker]

Then you must have one on file or in the archives on this site to show us that challenges USDA to close the US feedban loopholes WITHOUT mentioning imports or the Canadian border. There was not one mention of any of your "conversations" in my post so don't try even try to go there with your twisting ways.

A fellow once told me that Bankers and Lawyers were cut from the same cloth and the more posts you make the more it sees appropriate.

Who are you that I've got to provide copies of my correspondence with my Senators?

A fellow once told me that some people were just idiots and that the world needed ditch diggers, too.

What did SH used to say? OH YEA Your TREE'D SANDHUSKER. :lol:

I'm treed? :lol: :lol: The discussion has degenerated to the point that Bill thinks I need to provide copies of my letters to my Senators, he's throwing around juvinile taunts and insults, you can't stick to one story, and I'm treed? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[don]

it's fun to watch sandhusker wallowing around in a crap pile of his own making. he better go back to his constitutional arguments. lol.

 

[Silver]

Don, I don't pretend to know a lick about Canada's Constitution, why do you pretend you know anything about ours? I've drawn you a picture the best I could, you must share the same bloodlines as Tim.

Silver, I have REPEATEDLY asked Canucks to explain how importing your older cattle wouldn't spread BSE via the holes in our feed ban, and you all suddenly get strangely quiet. Question was the only one who took the challenge, and his arguement was that I had to prove you had BSE! Now, if you think you have an explaination, you have the floor. Let's hear it, Silver.

Sandhusker, being a banker you should be a little better at basic math. I'll try to lay it out for you in a simple manner even you can understand:

If you actually knew your incidence of bse down there (which you don't) it's quite safe to say that it is AT LEAST the same as ours. If the incidence is the same (which is the most likely scenario) , we can export cattle to you until you quit eating american beef altogether and your risk wont change. If our incidence of bse is lower than yours (which is a reasonable assumption) then even if you do import the odd case, your overall incidence/risk goes down.

Kapiche???

I thought not :roll: (Well, I know you do understand it, but you have an axe to grind so will never admit it) :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Once again, it is impossible to get an answer that addresses the question.

Silver, "If you actually knew your incidence of bse down there (which you don't) it's quite safe to say that it is AT LEAST the same as ours. If the incidence is the same (which is the most likely scenario) , we can export cattle to you until you quit eating american beef altogether and your risk wont change. If our incidence of bse is lower than yours (which is a reasonable assumption) then even if you do import the odd case, your overall incidence/risk goes down."

I do know something about numbers, and I know the numbers you're throwing around; "At least the same", "most likely" the same..... are just biased estimates. Biased estimates, in my book, are worthless.

Some REAL numbers are being used by the CDC. They say your infection rate is 26 times higher. 26 is a real number, "at least the same" is not. The question now is who do I believe, the CDC who's job it is to know disease, who doesn't really have a dog in this race, and brings actual math or an individual with no background at all on the science who's trying to sell his product and uses terms like "most likely"? Do I believe the automotive engineer who says, "That car isn't safe to drive" or do I believe the used car salesman who says, "She's a beauty, take you anywhere."

So now I have Question saying that it must be proven that Canadian BSE can cross the border and Silver that says the CDC is wrong and "most likely" the infection rate is the same, thus it won't matter where the beef comes from. Let me give you guys some advice, if ranching doesn't pan out for you, don't go into trail lawyering.

 

[don]

cdc's numbers are suspect because you have never run a credible testing program down there and so garbage in garbage out. the rest of the world knows what's going on it seems that only americans are in the dark.

 

[HeyNow]

What's trail lawyering and is their a big demand for it in the US? :lol:

Need options incase this beef thing doesn't workout.You know the infestation of BSE in all Canadian beef :???:

 

[Yanuck]

cdc's numbers are suspect because you have never run a credible testing program down there and so garbage in garbage out. the rest of the world knows what's going on it seems that only americans are in the dark.

Be fair, don't lump all Americans together!

 

[Sandhusker]

cdc's numbers are suspect because you have never run a credible testing program down there and so garbage in garbage out. the rest of the world knows what's going on it seems that only americans are in the dark.

You're saying the CDC doesn't have the abilty to distiguish good data from bad?

 

[Silver]

Once again, it is impossible to get an answer that addresses the question.

Silver, "If you actually knew your incidence of bse down there (which you don't) it's quite safe to say that it is AT LEAST the same as ours. If the incidence is the same (which is the most likely scenario) , we can export cattle to you until you quit eating american beef altogether and your risk wont change. If our incidence of bse is lower than yours (which is a reasonable assumption) then even if you do import the odd case, your overall incidence/risk goes down."

I do know something about numbers, and I know the numbers you're throwing around; "At least the same", "most likely" the same..... are just biased estimates. Biased estimates, in my book, are worthless.

Some REAL numbers are being used by the CDC. They say your infection rate is 26 times higher. 26 is a real number, "at least the same" is not. The question now is who do I believe, the CDC who's job it is to know disease, who doesn't really have a dog in this race, and brings actual math or an individual with no background at all on the science who's trying to sell his product and uses terms like "most likely"? Do I believe the automotive engineer who says, "That car isn't safe to drive" or do I believe the used car salesman who says, "She's a beauty, take you anywhere."

So now I have Question saying that it must be proven that Canadian BSE can cross the border and Silver that says the CDC is wrong and "most likely" the infection rate is the same, thus it won't matter where the beef comes from. Let me give you guys some advice, if ranching doesn't pan out for you, don't go into trail lawyering.

Just the answer I expected from you Sandhusker.... almost to the word. You are welcome to believe whatever propaganda you wish. You obviously wish what you say to be true so common sense will never prevail.
Has the CDC done some testing the rest of the world is unaware of? I thought not. They are working with the numbers thrown at them.

At any rate, if ranching doesn'n pan out for me I'll be sure to steer clear of trail lawyering. I figger the trails around here kin jes look after their own selves.

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "Has the CDC done some testing the rest of the world is unaware of? I thought not. They are working with the numbers thrown at them."

And you're telling me that they don't know what they're looking at, but you do. :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that about believing what you wish?

 

[Silver]

Silver, "Has the CDC done some testing the rest of the world is unaware of? I thought not. They are working with the numbers thrown at them."

And you're telling me that they don't know what they're looking at, but you do. :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that about believing what you wish?

:lol: :lol:

I'm trying to get on side with your reasoning here.... I guess it goes something like this:
Country A and country B decide to crack down on drunk drivers. Country A targets bar parking lots, tests drivers at the scenes of accidents, and stops cars driving in a suspiciousmanner. Country B thinks it's international image would be better if it's drivers were seen to be safer so it only tests drivers between the hours of 3 pm and 6 pm on stretches of highway at least 30 miles from the closest bar, only in highly visable areas, and for the first 3 yrs of the programme use a test that is suspect.

Now, according to stats, country A has a comparativly higher incidence of drunk driving.

But the stats don't lie.

Use your head.

 

[TimH]

Maybe a little history will clear this up........

Prior to 2003, thousands of CDN cows went to slaughter every year, in the US. The inedible offal of these cattle entered the US feed chain and some was, presumably, fed to cattle(legally prior to '97,the year that identical feed bans were brought in in Canada and the USA).
American cattle consumed tons of this feed. And yet not one case of "typical" BSE has been detected in an American cow.
WHY NOT??? You would think that if at least a few head of those cattle born prior to '97 would have came up positive. None, nada,zip.Amazing.

There are several possible explanations for this........Bse isn't transmissable through feed. This is of course heresy.
OR, American cattle are somehow immune to BSE.
OR, The USA's testing program targeted the wrong cattle and skewed the results.Possible.
OR, it is the result of Divine Intervention, maybe even a friggin' miracle.

 

[Silver]

Maybe a little history will clear this up........

Prior to 2003, thousands of CDN cows went to slaughter every year, in the US. The inedible offal of these cattle entered the US feed chain and some was, presumably, fed to cattle(legally prior to '97,the year that identical feed bans were brought in in Canada and the USA).
American cattle consumed tons of this feed. And yet not one case of "typical" BSE has been detected in an American cow.
WHY NOT??? You would think that if at least a few head of those cattle born prior to '97 would have came up positive. None, nada,zip.Amazing.

There are several possible explanations for this........Bse isn't transmissable through feed. This is of course heresy.
OR, American cattle are somehow immune to BSE.
OR, The USA's testing program targeted the wrong cattle and skewed the results.Possible.
OR, it is the result of Divine Intervention, maybe even a friggin' miracle.

You hit the nail right on the head. Only the foolish and the malicious could think otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe a little history will clear this up........

Prior to 2003, thousands of CDN cows went to slaughter every year, in the US. The inedible offal of these cattle entered the US feed chain and some was, presumably, fed to cattle(legally prior to '97,the year that identical feed bans were brought in in Canada and the USA).
American cattle consumed tons of this feed. And yet not one case of "typical" BSE has been detected in an American cow.
WHY NOT??? You would think that if at least a few head of those cattle born prior to '97 would have came up positive. None, nada,zip.Amazing.

There are several possible explanations for this........Bse isn't transmissable through feed. This is of course heresy.
OR, American cattle are somehow immune to BSE.
OR, The USA's testing program targeted the wrong cattle and skewed the results.Possible.
OR, it is the result of Divine Intervention, maybe even a friggin' miracle.

Or US cattlemen/feed producers honored the feedban :wink: :lol:

Remember the US put in a voluntary feedban way back in the 80's when the UK first started having the "madcow" problem-- and altho it wasn't official law until 1997- they refused to give import permits to feed/cattle from those areas starting way back in the late 80's--same time the US cattle associations asked the feed producers/suppliers to remove any MBM from cattle feed...

 

[rkaiser]

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

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "Has the CDC done some testing the rest of the world is unaware of? I thought not. They are working with the numbers thrown at them."

And you're telling me that they don't know what they're looking at, but you do. :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that about believing what you wish?

:lol: :lol:

I'm trying to get on side with your reasoning here.... I guess it goes something like this:
Country A and country B decide to crack down on drunk drivers. Country A targets bar parking lots, tests drivers at the scenes of accidents, and stops cars driving in a suspiciousmanner. Country B thinks it's international image would be better if it's drivers were seen to be safer so it only tests drivers between the hours of 3 pm and 6 pm on stretches of highway at least 30 miles from the closest bar, only in highly visable areas, and for the first 3 yrs of the programme use a test that is suspect.

Now, according to stats, country A has a comparativly higher incidence of drunk driving.

But the stats don't lie.

Use your head.

I see. You and don have insight on the USDA's and Canada's testing that the CDC doesn't. You know what was tested and they don't. Based on all the information you have and they don't have, and using the deductive reasoning and mathematical formulas you have and they don't, you can difinitively say that Canada's infection rate is not 26 times higher than the US as the CDC says (with their insufficient knowledge of what is really going on) and instead you correctly put it as "about the same". Riiiiiiiiiiight. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I suppose NASA has got the wrong fix on their tile problems and you and don have that correctly figured out, too. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Silver, "Has the CDC done some testing the rest of the world is unaware of? I thought not. They are working with the numbers thrown at them."

And you're telling me that they don't know what they're looking at, but you do. :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that about believing what you wish?

:lol: :lol:

I'm trying to get on side with your reasoning here.... I guess it goes something like this:
Country A and country B decide to crack down on drunk drivers. Country A targets bar parking lots, tests drivers at the scenes of accidents, and stops cars driving in a suspiciousmanner. Country B thinks it's international image would be better if it's drivers were seen to be safer so it only tests drivers between the hours of 3 pm and 6 pm on stretches of highway at least 30 miles from the closest bar, only in highly visable areas, and for the first 3 yrs of the programme use a test that is suspect.

Now, according to stats, country A has a comparativly higher incidence of drunk driving.

But the stats don't lie.

Use your head.

I see. You and don have insight on the USDA's and Canada's testing that the CDC doesn't. You know what was tested and they don't. Based on all the information you have and they don't have, and using the deductive reasoning and mathematical formulas you have and they don't, you can difinitively say that Canada's infection rate is not 26 times higher than the US as the CDC says (with their insufficient knowledge of what is really going on) and instead you correctly put it as "about the same". Riiiiiiiiiiight. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I suppose NASA has got the wrong fix on their tile problems and you and don have that correctly figured out, too. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well we do know that NASA uses the CANADA ARM when it need to fix something in space.

 

[Silver]

So now the CDC is the Holy Grail of stats? And I was allways under the impression stats were only as good as the numbers used.
I guess if you were in Iraq when the information minister was telling everyone the americans were being beaten back (because after all, it was his JOB to know these things) you'd have been soaking up every word he said.
Funny.... W.H.O stats and guidelines mean nothing to you. In fact there's a long list of information you choose to ignore on a regular basis to carry on your little vendetta of hate against honest producers across the line.
Are you even a producer? Do you know which end the feed goes in and which end it comes out?

If you want to know about the space shuttle, call a NASA scientist.
If you want to know about the beef industry, call a banker.
:roll: