cattleman, you're gonna have bigger problems than BSE

[Sandhusker]

BMR has to hide in the shadow of big brother to get his ice cream.

Do you think he is going to answer that question Sandhusker?

Judging by his response the last several times that I've asked that question - no. Digging into a real issue would take away from his time needed to lob rediculous accusations at R-CALF.

Refresh me sandhusker which report are you talking about? One that says the packers made money off of the BSE disaster payment? Gee another poorly designed government plan,it's in the past lets not make that mistake again.
Real issues are production limiting dieases, land use policies that are detrimental to ranching, Government policy and trade issues. The SSGA and most mainstream cattle organizations deal with these problems on a continual basis. We don't spend all our time haveing Roll over auctions raising money to pay lawyers to disrupt trade with our neighbours.

I'm talking about the report on what was to be an audit of the packer's books to check for shenanigns against Canadian producers. You don't remember that "audit" that was compiled by law clerks instead of real auditors? The "audit" where these clerks, who are not qualified to do audits in the first place, were not allowed to actually inspect the packer's books, but instead compiled the information from public sources? Canadian producers are claiming that they were hosed by the packers, and your government gives you this? This isn't a "real issue"? :roll:

Every single "audit" that was performed was a joke. Due to the ineptitude of our courts, actual financial auditors were never allowed to inspect the actual books of the packers. Rather, law clerks, who are NOT qualified to make inspections, compiled summary numbers and then provided these summary numbers to the financial auditors. In every case, each of the audit documents stated this disclaimer. Just for curiosity sake, I checked the independent American audits that were performed. They either used public data, or the data compiled by the law clerks in Canadian Competition bureau's audit.

 

[Tam]

Judging by his response the last several times that I've asked that question - no. Digging into a real issue would take away from his time needed to lob rediculous accusations at R-CALF.

Refresh me sandhusker which report are you talking about? One that says the packers made money off of the BSE disaster payment? Gee another poorly designed government plan,it's in the past lets not make that mistake again.
Real issues are production limiting dieases, land use policies that are detrimental to ranching, Government policy and trade issues. The SSGA and most mainstream cattle organizations deal with these problems on a continual basis. We don't spend all our time haveing Roll over auctions raising money to pay lawyers to disrupt trade with our neighbours.

I'm talking about the report on what was to be an audit of the packer's books to check for shenanigns against Canadian producers. You don't remember that "audit" that was compiled by law clerks instead of real auditors? The "audit" where these clerks, who are not qualified to do audits in the first place, were not allowed to actually inspect the packer's books, but instead compiled the information from public sources? Canadian producers are claiming that they were hosed by the packers, and your government gives you this? This isn't a "real issue"? :roll:

Every single "audit" that was performed was a joke. Due to the ineptitude of our courts, actual financial auditors were never allowed to inspect the actual books of the packers. Rather, law clerks, who are NOT qualified to make inspections, compiled summary numbers and then provided these summary numbers to the financial auditors. In every case, each of the audit documents stated this disclaimer. Just for curiosity sake, I checked the independent American audits that were performed. They either used public data, or the data compiled by the law clerks in Canadian Competition bureau's audit.

Oh you mean the report that recommended the Competition Bureau do a independent investigation into the packer profits :idea: which resulted in the Competition Bureau filing a report that stated

The Bureau found no evidence of any communication among packers to coordinate reductions in cattle prices, which would be contrary to the conspiracy provision of the Act. Dr. Love's overall findings also do not indicate market conduct and pricing that suggest collusion.

In addition, the Bureau found no evidence of a practice of anti-competitive acts undertaken by beef packers, or wholesale or retail grocers, contrary to the abuse of dominance provision of the Act. The Bureau received allegations against beef packers of refusal to deal, the use of captive supply to drive down cattle prices and margin squeezing. Other allegations included strategic bidding among packers to depress cattle prices, black listing or boycotting of auction houses, cattle producers or feedlots attempting to sell cattle, and reducing prices offered for cattle by an amount equivalent to government aid. The Bureau took these allegations very seriously and each complaint was thoroughly examined to gather and assess all relevant information. Evidence collected during the Bureau's examination did not support these allegations, except for an isolated incident of boycotting that the Bureau found did not have a harmful effect on competition and that ceased after the Bureau intervened.

An independent investigation that took the allegations very seriosrly found no evidence to back up the claims. They even brought in experts from Texas A&M to have a look see. But I guess we are to over look their reports and see it through your eyes are we Sandhusker. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Tam, if you can not see through this sham you are not qualified to be in any leadership position in the beef industry.

Maybe the sheep industry could use ewe.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, how the heck an any kind of audit, report, whatever be done if you don't look at the packer's books? Of course they could find nothing with the information they had, because they didn't look anyplace that would reveal any of that information! Is it possible to count how many cows are in a pasture if you are not allowed to look in that pasture? How can you be so gullible?

 

[Econ101]

Tam, How can you be so gullible?

Of course, Tam, if you read the OIG report on GIPSA, you would see this is how the administration is handling its regulatory responsiblities.

The more you know.....