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

Cattle trade may resume soon

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
U.S. gov't expects cattle trade to resume soon
Canadian Press

CALGARY — The U.S. government expects to be successful next week in overturning a lower court ruling that has delayed its plans to reopen the border to live Canadian cattle.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said Saturday that the four month-old injunction preventing the border from reopening was "ill considered" and not based on scientific facts.

"We're pressing hard, the Justice Department is appealing that injunction seeking to get that injunction removed, and I trust that we'll be successful in those efforts," Snow said in Calgary at the end of two days of bilateral trade talks between top finance officials in Canada and the U.S.

The appeal is slated for July 13 in Seattle and will be followed "very, very closely" by the Canadian government, federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said Saturday.

Live Canadian cattle have been banned from the U.S. for more than two years since mad cow disease was first found on an Alberta farm. But both governments agree that enough safeguards are currently in place to resume trade.

Canada's beef industry, which has already suffered more than $7 billion in export losses, is deeply concerned about the Seattle appeal and another court hearing in Montana on July 27 where a protectionist ranchers group is trying to get the border closed permanently to all Canadian beef exports.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Cebull, the same judge who prevented the border from re-opening in March, is scheduled to hear a plea by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund. The group is expected to argue that Canada's three cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy - the scientific name for mad cow disease - prove that northern herds are unsafe.

But Goodale said Saturday that the discovery last month of BSE in a cow that was born and raised in Texas showed that the border should be immediately reopend to live Canadian cattle.

"We believe that with the most recent developments in the United States, the rationale behind the judgment of Judge Cebull has absolutely evaporated - there is no justification for that position," said Goodale, who was also speaking in Calgary.

"And from the Canadian perspective, the injunction upon the (U.S. Department of Agriculture) as imposed by the court in Montana ought to be immediately removed."

The ban on live Canadian cattle has also been hard on the U.S. packing industry, which used to slaughter thousands of Canadian-raised cows.

In anticipation of the two court hearings later this month, the American Meat Institute has increased its lobbying efforts to get the border reopened. The institute warns that numerous U.S. packing plants could be permanently shut down if the border closes for good.

Meanwhile, Canada's agriculture ministers wrapped up three days of talks Friday aimed at having contingency plans in place in case Judge Cebull orders the border closed to not only live cattle but also the approximately 30,000 tonnes of packaged meat heading to the U.S. monthly.

While short on details, the emergency aid program is expected to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and ready to be rolled out quickly in the event of a negative ruling.

Over two days of meetings, Snow and Goodale talked about a variety of North American and global trade issues. The two also toured northern Alberta's oilsands, where technological advances and proximity to U.S. markets is expected to triple production over the next decade from the current one million barrels daily.
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
r-calf and their crooked judge will not be able to fight off the might of the US government. The government wants the border open, so it will open.[/b]
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
What was "ill considerd and not based on scientific facts" was the opening of the border! One thing that really torked Judge Cebull off was that the USDA did not follow a logical process on whethor not they shold even open the border. They just closed their eyes and did it. They admitted there was a risk, but when pressed they tried to BS the court claiming it was low, with no definition of what low was! Whether or not we have BSE here doesn't change that.

If the administration wants the border open, fine. Do it right. Do some homework and tell us why it is justifiable to change a long-standing health policy because of economic reasons.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
What was "ill considerd and not based on scientific facts" was the opening of the border! One thing that really torked Judge Cebull off was that the USDA did not follow a logical process on whethor not they shold even open the border. They just closed their eyes and did it. They admitted there was a risk, but when pressed they tried to BS the court claiming it was low, with no definition of what low was! Whether or not we have BSE here doesn't change that.

If the administration wants the border open, fine. Do it right. Do some homework and tell us why it is justifiable to change a long-standing health policy because of economic reasons.
That is now a moot point. History.
Whether or not we have BSE here doesn't change that.
BSE in found in a homegrown, born and bred in the USA does change the arguement substantially. Risk is and has been equal for some time between the two countries. New Zealand IS exporting to Japan and has now opened its border to Canadian beef so that arrow is now taken away from R-Calfs quiver as well.

Better get the 'ol boys to start setting up the blockades so you can get some more publicity and then explain to the US consumers why you really want the border to remain closed. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I disagree. That is not a moot point or history. Examine your everyday life. If your kid has a cold and you see them out in the rain, what do you do? Do you allow them to remain out there because, hey, they're already sick? It's a moot point?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
I disagree. That is not a moot point or history. Examine your everyday life. If your kid has a cold and you see them out in the rain, what do you do? Do you allow them to remain out there because, hey, they're already sick? It's a moot point?
Oh I forgot you would wisk them in form the rain, lock your kid in their room, seal it off and then leave the house to tell everyone how sick and diseased it has become. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I disagree. That is not a moot point or history. Examine your everyday life. If your kid has a cold and you see them out in the rain, what do you do? Do you allow them to remain out there because, hey, they're already sick? It's a moot point?
Oh I forgot you would wisk them in form the rain, lock your kid in their room, seal it off and then leave the house to tell everyone how sick and diseased it has become. :roll:

No, I would realize the risk is there - not just that he will get sick, but that he would get sicker. Having identified the risk, I would act accordingly.

What would you do if you saw the Dr. for an ailment and he recommended surgery. You ask him the risk and he says, "I can't really say, but I'm sure it is low. What would you do, Bill?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
I disagree. That is not a moot point or history. Examine your everyday life. If your kid has a cold and you see them out in the rain, what do you do? Do you allow them to remain out there because, hey, they're already sick? It's a moot point?
Oh I forgot you would wisk them in form the rain, lock your kid in their room, seal it off and then leave the house to tell everyone how sick and diseased it has become. :roll:

No, I would realize the risk is there - not just that he will get sick, but that he would get sicker. Having identified the risk, I would act accordingly.

What would you do if you saw the Dr. for an ailment and he recommended surgery. You ask him the risk and he says, "I can't really say, but I'm sure it is low. What would you do, Bill?

Well that is maybe what a over protective parent would do. But most would see that if the child took the precautionary measures IE dressing for the weather, it would do the child alot of good to get some fresh air.

Tell us Sandhusker when it is flu season in the US do you lock yourself in the house and wait it out or do you take the precautionary measure of getting a flu shot and go about the daily chore of going to work knowing the risk of getting sick is much lower because you had the shot.

If you saw a docter and he told you that you had to have surgery and he told you he had studied your problem and even though he had done the surgery many times before there was still a slight chance something could go wrong as NO SURGERY IS WITHOUT RISK. Would you go home build a wall around yourself with the help of some friends and live and maybe die of the problem. Or would you take a change and let the docter do his work and solve the problem so you go on to live a long life.

Life is about taking chances and if the precautionary measures are taken like wearing proper clothing while out in the rain, taking a flu shot in flu season or the docter going to medical school and studing so he can save your life, are taken we should go on with life and live it.

The Canadian beef industry has taken the precautionary measure just like the properly dressed child, the person that got the shot and the Docter that went to med school, but no you would rather not take our beef just like you lock you kid up in the house, stay home from work during flu season and die because you didn't take the chance on the docters skills. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "Tell us Sandhusker when it is flu season in the US do you lock yourself in the house and wait it out or do you take the precautionary measure of getting a flu shot and go about the daily chore of going to work knowing the risk of getting sick is much lower because you had the shot."

Do you get a flu shot, Tam. If so, by doing it you are recognizing a risk of getting the flu. Medicine can tell you that the chances of getting the flu will drop from one is so many chances to whatever. The USDA can't do the same.

Tam, "If you saw a docter and he told you that you had to have surgery and he told you he had studied your problem and even though he had done the surgery many times before there was still a slight chance..."

Whoa, Tam. In this case, the Dr. (USDA) has never done the surgery (opened to a BSE positive country). In fact, this Dr. is 0-22! :wink:

Tam, "Would you go home build a wall around yourself with the help of some friends and live and maybe die of the problem. Or would you take a chance and let the docter do his work and solve the problem so you go on to live a long life."

In this case, why do I have to take a chance? I don't need your beef.

Tam, "Life is about taking chances..."

Yes, but the wise ones measure the chances - determine risk/reward. The USDA knows the reward to the AMI, but failed to do any homework on the risk to US consumers and producers. I've pointed out before, more study goes into draining a swamp than what the USDA put into determining the risk of opening the border. That is CRAP.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,022
Reaction score
8
Location
west of Soapweed
. I've pointed out before, more study goes into draining a swamp than what the USDA put into determining the risk of opening the border. That is CRAP

THat's a good one liner, but what is there to study? First, we're only talking about Canadian live fed beef wherethere is ZERO bse. I understand the temtaton to exploit USDA minutia to employ protectionism, but at what point do we come clean?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Brad S said:
. I've pointed out before, more study goes into draining a swamp than what the USDA put into determining the risk of opening the border. That is CRAP

THat's a good one liner, but what is there to study? First, we're only talking about Canadian live fed beef wherethere is ZERO bse. I understand the temtaton to exploit USDA minutia to employ protectionism, but at what point do we come clean?

There has to be something to study. Why did we have the border closing policy in the first place? What has changed since then? The USDA testified that there was risk involved, what is it? How high/low?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Brad S said:
. I've pointed out before, more study goes into draining a swamp than what the USDA put into determining the risk of opening the border. That is CRAP

THat's a good one liner, but what is there to study? First, we're only talking about Canadian live fed beef wherethere is ZERO bse. I understand the temtaton to exploit USDA minutia to employ protectionism, but at what point do we come clean?

I agree Brad the BSE cases that have been found are all in OLDER CATTLE, PRE FEED ban age. The animals we are talking about are under 30 months. If there is a genuine risk of death in our 30 month and under cattle and beef how can R-CALF claim the US 30 month and under beef is the safest in the world. Is R-CALF going to come clean about the risk of both countries beef being minute or are they going to stand on the statement they have made in the past which is ALL beef coming from a country affected by BSE is tainted and unsafe.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,022
Reaction score
8
Location
west of Soapweed
So how about only keeping the border closed to culls since we know the fed beef is clean. Then we can study the hell out of BSE before we open the border to culls.
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
Brad, that is exactly Canada's position. At no time have we ever said that we wanted to ship culls to the US. We realise that there is a minute risk in older cattle, so we would not expect them to be accepted until all the questions are answered.[/b]
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,153
Reaction score
28
Location
BC
The ironic part of the whole thing is that the border is not really closed, we still export the beef. I have a hard time understanding what makes the risks lower if the meat is dead when it gets there rather than still walking. What kind of message does that send?
In any case, I hope the border stays open in it's present form only. If at some point the US would like to import certain cuts from older cattle so be it, but I think live cattle trade should be a thing of the past.
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
Silver said:
The ironic part of the whole thing is that the border is not really closed, we still export the beef. I have a hard time understanding what makes the risks lower if the meat is dead when it gets there rather than still walking. What kind of message does that send?
In any case, I hope the border stays open in it's present form only. If at some point the US would like to import certain cuts from older cattle so be it, but I think live cattle trade should be a thing of the past.

Try telling that to a cow-calf producer. They are getting ripped off by the packers and the government refuses to make the hard decisions.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Tell us Sandhusker when it is flu season in the US do you lock yourself in the house and wait it out or do you take the precautionary measure of getting a flu shot and go about the daily chore of going to work knowing the risk of getting sick is much lower because you had the shot."

Do you get a flu shot, Tam. If so, by doing it you are recognizing a risk of getting the flu. Medicine can tell you that the chances of getting the flu will drop from one is so many chances to whatever. The USDA can't do the same.

First I take my chances I don't get the shot. That said, no matter what medicine tells you your odds are in contracting the flu it is only a guess as they have no idea about what else I do to protect myself from it.
And locking myself in the house all winter is not one of the things I would do.
Tam, "If you saw a docter and he told you that you had to have surgery and he told you he had studied your problem and even though he had done the surgery many times before there was still a slight chance..."

Whoa, Tam. In this case, the Dr. (USDA) has never done the surgery (opened to a BSE positive country). In fact, this Dr. is 0-22! :wink:

I would think that after observing other Dr.s (IE governments) for two decades deal with the same problem (ie BSE) maybe he (the USDA) should have observed enough that he (the USDA) should be able to take the knife and do the job especially when the professor (ie the OIE) is standing looking over his shoulder. And if he can't then maybe he should not be dealing with even the tiny little scrapes on your kids knee. Would you care to tell us what you mean by 0-22 :wink:? :roll:

In this case, why do I have to take a chance? I don't need your beef.
really is that why US imports have increase by 22 % while US exports were cut by 83%. The big question is do you need your export markets back? You show you don't trust our beef why should any of your export markets or domestic consumer trust yours remember the Texas cow Sandhusker. You are in the Same kind of boat as we are. Only Ours isn't being weighted down with R-CALF lies.

Tam, "Life is about taking chances..."

Yes, but the wise ones measure the chances - determine risk/reward. The USDA knows the reward to the AMI, but failed to do any homework on the risk to US consumers and producers. I've pointed out before, more study goes into draining a swamp than what the USDA put into determining the risk of opening the border. That is CRAP

The problem is the MAJORITY feels their rewards for accepting a very small minute risk would be the effect having your export markets back would have on their bottom line. But R-CALF the minority protectionist group is willing to sell just to the domestic market knowing that historically the domestic market is the cheaper market. This fact is proven by the billions you have lost since you lost your export markets. What kind of Banker are you? Do you ever invest in something that may have a little more risk but has the potentual of returning billions in return ie your EXPORT MARKETS. And do you believe in majority rules why should a minority bunch of protectioist have the right to stop the majority from investing when they believe they will be the big winners?

Getting back to the medical argument for a minute Sandhusker if you had a child that was sick and hospitalized with a non contagious medical problem would you pay for a private room and keep your child isolated from the rest of the kids in the hospital that have the same problem only allowing him to watch the other kids in the ward playing or would you see there was little chance of any of them causeing your kid to get sicker and allow him to stay in the ward where he will be able to play and have company for the long lonely nights? I as an adult have been in a hospital and believe me those nights would have been alot eazier to handle if I had had some company. And I only opted for the private room because there was no room in the womens ward and I didn't really want to stay in the mens ward where one of the guys walked around with his rode open and the nurses caught him peeing on the floor.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, forget doctors, trade, whatever. This deal is very simple.

The USDA is reponsible for overseeing food safety and agricultural animal health. They are to make rules, regulations, and enforce the same to protect US consumers and the herd. They are, in effect, managing risk.

There is a risk to importing Canadian product. The USDA even testified to that. Yet, they could not tell the judge to what degree of risk there was. Tam, knowing that degree of risk is their job! How the heck can you manage risk if you don't even bother to quantify it?

That's all I am asking. All I want is the USDA to do their flipping job! I do not want them to get into the habit of just "winging it" because there is money involved. Do the homework, calculate the chances, and MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION! If that is protectionist, so be it.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,174
Reaction score
408
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Tam, forget doctors, trade, whatever. This deal is very simple.

The USDA is reponsible for overseeing food safety and agricultural animal health. They are to make rules, regulations, and enforce the same to protect US consumers and the herd. They are, in effect, managing risk.

There is a risk to importing Canadian product. The USDA even testified to that. Yet, they could not tell the judge to what degree of risk there was. Tam, knowing that degree of risk is their job! How the heck can you manage risk if you don't even bother to quantify it?

That's all I am asking. All I want is the USDA to do their flipping job! I do not want them to get into the habit of just "winging it" because there is money involved. Do the homework, calculate the chances, and MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION! If that is protectionist, so be it.



Sandhusker you say you want the USDA to do their job. Well Inspecting meat and putting the USDA stamp that says it is safe to eat in the USA is their job. R-CALF does not want the USDA to put their stamp on imported meat. Is it to be expected that imported mwat is not safe? Or not inspected? Could it be safer then USA beef because it is imported?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Tam, forget doctors, trade, whatever. This deal is very simple.

The USDA is reponsible for overseeing food safety and agricultural animal health. They are to make rules, regulations, and enforce the same to protect US consumers and the herd. They are, in effect, managing risk.

There is a risk to importing Canadian product. The USDA even testified to that. Yet, they could not tell the judge to what degree of risk there was. Tam, knowing that degree of risk is their job! How the heck can you manage risk if you don't even bother to quantify it?

That's all I am asking. All I want is the USDA to do their flipping job! I do not want them to get into the habit of just "winging it" because there is money involved. Do the homework, calculate the chances, and MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION! If that is protectionist, so be it.
Of course there is risk to importing Canadian product and it's the same risk as found in US cattle and beef. We have been telling you that for over 2 years. Now that it has been again identified in the US herd you want something to study ...anything to study in a desperate attempt to prolong your attack on the Canadian beef producer.
 

Latest posts

Top