Cattlemen's Group Wrangles With Its Former Allies

[Anonymous]

Randy: "You and your proof and lies and false statements can take a flying leap."

You haven't proven me wrong on anything and you certainly can't prove that I lied on anything. The truth I present just doesn't happen to fit your need to blame.

Randy: "My statements are not lies, just statements that cannot be proven wrong by you."

Your statement that packers benefitted on both sides of the border is absolutely untrue and I can prove that with Tyson's actual financial statements.

Randy: "Cargill and Tyson enjoyed the salmon run and made gains on both sides of the border."

They did not make gains on both sides of the border. The cattle that were confined to Canada were no longer available in the U.S. That isn't hard to figure out. Their financial statements prove their losses during this time period.

Randy: "Some of it was cash flow, some of it was competitive advantage, and some of it was government cheques."

You have no idea what they made. By your own admission, you don't have to prove anything. That goes without saying because some of your statements are so ridiculous that it's obvious you can't back them.

Randy: "Tell me how that is a lie. Tell everyone how I am bwaming the packers by making these statements."

I'm not going to say you are lying about these things because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it is not your intent to mislead. I just don't think you know any better.

You are wrong that they benefitted on both sides of the border and you are wrong that they wanted the border to stay closed.

The proof is in their financial statements, their words, and their actions in court.

What did you bring to back your view? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Why jump on Tam? You want the Canadian producers to fund Big C when you are so certain packers are making all this money. What gives with that hypocrisy?



~SH~

 

[Tam]

Tam, here's some quotes for you;
"I refuse to prove every statement I make unless it's convenient for me."
"I'll post the rest of the information I have as I get around to it or as I feel like it"
"I refuse to back every little statement that I make"

You want to guess who those gems came from? HINT; It wasn't Randy.

I know exactly who they came from But when push comes to shove SH backed his statements and you provided nothing to the contrary, but OPINIONS. I'm done with this unless you can bring something to PROVE the US plants didn't lose more than the Canadian plants made, in the time frame of the duration of the border closure like SH originally bet. We all know Randy won't help you because he said

I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

Can I prove that Cargill and Tyson made more in their Canadian plants than they lost in America due to the closed border - NO.

And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you,

 

[Anonymous]

Blackjack: "if i remember the ami were worried about the loss in usa packing house capacity cause of the closed border ."

How does that support Randy's position Blackjack?

Randy claims that Tyson and Cargill wanted the border to stay closed when they filed an amicus brief in support of the opening of the border.

How much did that affect our capacity in the U.S. you ask?

Capacity in all packing plants was down to 74%. 35% in Tyson's plants in the NW where they relied more heavily on Canadian cattle. Not all of this decline is attributed directly to Canadian cattle but it was a significant factor.

Sandman: "You want to guess who those gems came from?"

What's your point?

You never back anything so why would you expect others to back everything?



~SH~

 

[Tam]

Quote:
Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.


Well note to all, Randy will not be proving any of his claims so don't bother reading anything he post if you care about the truth backed up by facts.
Quote:
And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill.


Randy can you tell us just how many dollars you have collected for Big C coffers with your OPINIONS that you have no intention on backing up with facts if question about the them?

Quote:
If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.


But the next time we will all know your claims are just, making statements, and showing opinions with nothing backing them. Thanks for the warning.

You're the hero Tam.

Why don't you write editorial in the Western Producer and the Cattlemen Tam, telling everyone what a con man Randy Kaiser is. That statement about BIG C was a pretty low blow, and I think you better back off.

If you don't like what I say don't read it.

I don't really like to talk nasty to a woman so I will stop now.

Sorry Randy but I'm relieved to say that the Canadian producers saw though you and Big C without my help or you would be building a Checkoff funded slaughter plant. You would be competeing with the big boys with checkoff funds while running the slaughter plants that got their own funding from INVESTORS out of business.

"If you don't like what I say don't read it." Geez this sounds like something an R-CALFer would say Randy, in fact I think Haymaker said it about and article he posted about R-CALF and how they should be given credit for the three most profitable years in the cattle industry. I questioned the truth of the article and he said "if you don't like it don't read it". I quess that is one way of not having to prove your claims, only let people that agree with you read what you say. :wink:

 

[rkaiser]

Yer right Tam, Canadian ranchers saw right through BIG C. Saw right throught the fact that none of us have taken a single cent out of producers pockets, and none of us ever will. The smaller plants with money from insulated ranchers like yourself are the way to go.

How did you get to where you are Tam. Daddy's money? Or was it your Husbands Daddy's money. Don't get me wrong, I respect the fact that ranches have spanned generations and survived the years. But I detest the loud mouthed, know it all folk that this process spawned. Somehow knowing everything about the industry when, if truth be known, they would have been dead in the water if it were not for the handout from Papa.

What was it that the producers saw through. Did they see your sales pitch better. To benefit you and the other group of primary shareholders in a so called producer owned plant. Get off your high horse gal, the BIG C plan is and will always be a way for ALL producers to benefit from post slaughter while creating competition for the big boys in Canada which is minimal to say the least. Cry about BIG C possibly taking something that you might recieve Tam and then support Tyson and Cargill as if nothing is wrong with the system. Why would you risk Daddy's money on a small processing plant if there is nothing wrong?

Now go ahead and cut and paste the parts of my post that tick you off, just like SH (you've learned well). You do nothing but moan and complain about Rcalf and anyone who would like to see changes to the industry. I have never seen a post of yours yet that does anything else.

I do not support the protectionist policies of Rcalf or the tactics they used to keep cattle out of the USA, but I also believe that Rcalf is used in a lot larger game by your beloved packers and nothing you can say to discredit myself or BIG C will change that. And I have pulled no hundred dollar memberships from anyone's pocket with statements like that. People don't change their minds that easily. If you think producers will never support the BIG C concept, it will have nothing to do with people like me questioning the motives and actions of multinational companies like Cargill and Tyson.

Be happy that you have what you have Tam, but don't think for a moment that Cargill and Tyson gave you that. Go thank Daddy, or maybe Daddy in law. And thank him well.

 

[blackjack]

...sh...looks like randy can take care of himself... what randy wrote pretty well summed up the time line of events that happened here in canada...


...sh...sorry i have forgot the date the amicus brief was released... just my opinion but if tyson and cargill had felt threatened the border was going to close to the boxed beef ... i think it was good business on their part to then want the border open...

... sh... how has swift came through the past two years financially... from a canadian perspective a person would a assume tyson and cargill had a big advantage on the playing field...

 

[rkaiser]

Nice to have some common sense from somebody blackjack.

Not packer blaming, just making some very ligitimate observations.

 

[mrj]

Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.

Sure Tyson and Cargill lost a few bucks when the border first closed. Then they collected a government cheque. Did it pay all their losses, probably not. Did the government cheque pay for the losses to the producer, definately not.

Might have been a few days here and there throughout the salmon run that things got light, but overall times were good for Tyson at Brooks and Cargill at High River.

Ad this to the my opinion (almost said fact there) that their competition was at a distinct disadvantage and you have a very profitable time for Tyson and Cargill in Alberta, in more ways than one.

Any lieing so far.

Can I prove that Cargill and Tyson made more in their Canadian plants than they lost in America due to the closed border - NO. Just as you cannot prove that they lost more in their American plants than they did in Canada due to the closed border. And we haven't even discussed the competitve advantages over other companies.

Thus my statement that Cargill and Tyson had no real will to cause the border to open. They always knew it could not last forever and therefore kept the public comfortable with the ever famous Amicus Brief.

And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or

any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill.

{Poor rkaiser, it is sad that you do not understand that some people (speaking only for MRJ here, but believe it applies to the others you mention so "kindly" as well) are not simply "packer lovers" as you love to claim, but are in fact, lovers of accuracy and truth/honesty. It would be nice if the axiom that guilt must be proven by the person making charges or claims against individuals and businesses, but apparently that is too much to ask of some people. MRJ}

(thanks for teaching me how to spell Cargill correctly Agman, now my Packer Bwamin can at least be literatly correct.)

If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.

 

[mrj]

Quote:
Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.

Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.


Well note to all, Randy will not be proving any of his claims so don't bother reading anything he post if you care about the truth backed up by facts.
Quote:
And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill.


Randy can you tell us just how many dollars you have collected for Big C coffers with your OPINIONS that you have no intention on backing up with facts if question about the them?

Quote:
If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.


But the next time we will all know your claims are just, making statements, and showing opinions with nothing backing them. Thanks for the warning.

You're the hero Tam.

Why don't you write editorial in the Western Producer and the Cattlemen Tam, telling everyone what a con man Randy Kaiser is.

{That statement about BIG C was a pretty low blow, and I think you better back off}

[Randy that reads very much like a threat to Tam. Is it? Also, shouldn't anyone raising money from their fellow ranchers for any project insist on absolute fiscal accountability and crystal clear detail on how/where that money is spent? I'm not saying you are guilty of lack of such accountability, but obviously one of your own Canadian ranchers hasn't seen evidence of such accountability. Isn't that a lot like the R-CALF system of "accounting" for how the vast sums they have collected is spent? Just curious, since I really do not care how R-CALF might squander the money donated to them. Just like to see financial accountability on general principles, because it is the moral thing to do. MRJ]

If you don't like what I say don't read it.

I don't really like to talk nasty to a woman so I will stop now.

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ
Poor rkaiser, it is sad that you do not understand that some people (speaking only for MRJ here, but believe it applies to the others you mention so "kindly" as well) are not simply "packer lovers" as you love to claim, but are in fact, lovers of accuracy and truth/honesty.
-------------------------------

I always love when you "accuracy, truth, and honesty people" speak- yet you MRJ support a group (NCBA) that promotes along with USDA and the Packers the biggest retailing fraud being perpetrated on the consumers of the US-- the relabeling and mislabeling of imported beef and passing it all off as a US product with the USDA stamp.... If it was any other product, garments, electronics, steel, etc. the retailer would be arrested- but in the Big Money Packer bought world of beef its actually sanctioned by the government...NCBA saw and challenged the fraud 5 years ago- and then sold out....

So MRJ don't give us your ACCURACY, TRUTH AND HONESTY speech...

 

[Anonymous]

You use this same stupid wore out argument over and over.

#1. If consumers want source verified beef THEY CAN BUY IT!

#2. USDA "INSPECTED" has never meant "US BEEF" to anyone outside the realm of this industry's chronic complainers, like you, who need a new "flavor of the month" complaint.

If you R-CULTers are so concerned about proving beef origination WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST MANDATORY ID???

HYPOCRITES!


~SH~

 

[mrj]

MRJ
Poor rkaiser, it is sad that you do not understand that some people (speaking only for MRJ here, but believe it applies to the others you mention so "kindly" as well) are not simply "packer lovers" as you love to claim, but are in fact, lovers of accuracy and truth/honesty.
-------------------------------

I always love when you "accuracy, truth, and honesty people" speak- yet you MRJ support a group (NCBA) that promotes along with USDA and the Packers the biggest retailing fraud being perpetrated on the consumers of the US-- the relabeling and mislabeling of imported beef and passing it all off as a US product with the USDA stamp.... If it was any other product, garments, electronics, steel, etc. the retailer would be arrested- but in the Big Money Packer bought world of beef its actually sanctioned by the government...NCBA saw and challenged the fraud 5 years ago- and then sold out....

So MRJ don't give us your ACCURACY, TRUTH AND HONESTY speech...

{OT, you perfectly illustrate my point: you make outrageous claims...."relabeling and mislabeling of imported beef".........yet offer NO PROOF that is done!

Where have you found beef labeled "Product of USA" by anyone......and found it to actually be "product of Canada......or any other nation"?

Where have you ever seen a claim that "USDA Inspected" means anything other than that the product was inspected by USDA to determine the safety of the product?

There are beef products labeled with farm or ranch of origin available for those who want them........the consumer driven, private enterprise solution to your government mandated fraud called COOL!

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

You use this same stupid wore out argument over and over.

#1. If consumers want source verified beef THEY CAN BUY IT!

#2. USDA "INSPECTED" has never meant "US BEEF" to anyone outside the realm of this industry's chronic complainers, like you, who need a new "flavor of the month" complaint.

If you R-CULTers are so concerned about proving beef origination WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST MANDATORY ID???

HYPOCRITES!


~SH~

SH - I use this because M-COOL and NCBA's sell out was the biggest divider of the cattle industry...But it did show many cattlemen where NCBA's allegiances lay- and when they backed the beef industry it proved it wasn't with the cattle industry......


So did NCBA LIE to us when they released all the polls five years ago showing that 80% of consumers wanted Country of Origin Labeling?

Were the NCBA leaders that testified in Congress that consumers were being duped LIARS? Did they LIE when they testified it was important to the US cattle industry to identify, label and market US beef?

Is NCBA DECEIVING us because they support not allowing USDA grade stamps on imported beef?

I did vote for Mandatory ID- but it would not even be needed now to identify the beef sold in the US- since all imported live cattle and beef are marked......All that is needed is a government that says you have to tell the truth.......

 

[Murgen]

I have a question OT? Maybe a stupid question, but here goes.

If a US manufacturer of clothes buys material in say, China, and imports that material, to cut, sew and market clothing, does the tag read "Made in the USA"? Or "Made in China"?

What are the regulations and laws concerning this?

If a US company buys Canadian crude oil and refines it in one of it's US refineries, is it labelled "product of USA" or "product of Canada"

If a US company buys Canadian raw lumber and builds a house in the USA, is it labelled "product of USA" or "product of Canada"

If a company buys durum wheat from Canada, and makes pasta, is the box of noodles marked with "product of USA", or with "product of Canada"

I could go on, but I think you get my point!

 

[rancher]

I have a question OT? Maybe a stupid question, but here goes.

If a US manufacturer of clothes buys material in say, China, and imports that material, to cut, sew and market clothing, does the tag read "Made in the USA"? Or "Made in China"?

What are the regulations and laws concerning this?

If a US company buys Canadian crude oil and refines it in one of it's US refineries, is it labelled "product of USA" or "product of Canada"

If a US company buys Canadian raw lumber and builds a house in the USA, is it labelled "product of USA" or "product of Canada"

If a company buys durum wheat from Canada, and makes pasta, is the box of noodles marked with "product of USA", or with "product of Canada"

I could go on, but I think you get my point!

IT should read product of Canada and USA, or made in USA from Canadian materials

 

[Anonymous]

Murgen- If an importer brings in a product (say a sweater) Labeled Product of Canada- but then cuts off that labeling and puts on a US label and pass's it off to consumers as a US made product- they are prosecuted.....EXCEPT WITH MEAT....

Get my point..........

 

[Murgen]

No, I don't OT, we're talking about raw product, with the same quality, sfety as raw product in the US. the US companies buy the raw product, have it inspected by your agencies, and further process it.

When have you ever heard of the auto industry not importing cars or parts, due to safety concerns with parts made in Canada?

Won't don't you start a group called "RCAR", and see how far it goes?

 

[mrj]

You use this same stupid wore out argument over and over.

#1. If consumers want source verified beef THEY CAN BUY IT!

#2. USDA "INSPECTED" has never meant "US BEEF" to anyone outside the realm of this industry's chronic complainers, like you, who need a new "flavor of the month" complaint.

If you R-CULTers are so concerned about proving beef origination WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST MANDATORY ID???

HYPOCRITES!


~SH~

SH - I use this because M-COOL and NCBA's sell out was the biggest divider of the cattle industry...But it did show many cattlemen where NCBA's allegiances lay- and when they backed the beef industry it proved it wasn't with the cattle industry......


So did NCBA LIE to us when they released all the polls five years ago showing that 80% of consumers wanted Country of Origin Labeling?

Were the NCBA leaders that testified in Congress that consumers were being duped LIARS? Did they LIE when they testified it was important to the US cattle industry to identify, label and market US beef?

Is NCBA DECEIVING us because they support not allowing USDA grade stamps on imported beef?

I did vote for Mandatory ID- but it would not even be needed now to identify the beef sold in the US- since all imported live cattle and beef are marked......All that is needed is a government that says you have to tell the truth.......

{OT, the cattle producer members of NCBA understand that the cattle industry IS A SEGMENT of the beef industry! They are quite strongly tied together, and if a person wants to be successful in either, he darn sure better understand that they need to work together! You and your friends persist in telling ranchers they will be more successful if they hate the packer and retailer and do what they can to harm them. That is as ludicrous as it would be to support any other segment in harming the ranching segment of this industry.

NCBA has had a strong belief and practice that honesty and accuracy are crucial to being a viable organization. It is disingenious of you to accuse leaders and/or staff of lying to anyone, much less of duping consumers.

Polls can be useful......if one understands the answers people give. It has been quite clear that people often give what they believe are the expected answers to questions......and there are times when their answers do not reflect their actions.

Policy positions made and taken by NCBA members do change, sometimes it seems to me, too quickly and with too little study and thought. Those times, fortunately are rare, but also require quick change in policy. That may be difficult for some people outside the organization to understand. However, the members of NCBA do have the right to change policy, and we do have a right to set our own policy according to what we believe is best for our industry, without consulting you or other organizations. That, I believe, is really what is bothering some of you.

MRJ

 

[rancher]

That may be difficult for some people outside the organization to understand. However, the members of NCBA do have the right to change policy, and we do have a right to set our own policy according to what we believe is best for our industry, without consulting you or other organizations. That, I believe, is really what is bothering some of you.

MRJ

That may be difficult for some people outside the organization to understand. However, the members of R-calf do have the right to change policy, and we do have a right to set our own policy according to what we believe is best for our industry, without consulting you or other organizations. That, I believe, is really what is bothering some of you.

Rancher

 

[Murgen]

That may be difficult for some people outside the organization to understand. However, the members of R-calf do have the right to change policy, and we do have a right to set our own policy according to what we believe is best for our industry, without consulting you or other organizations. That, I believe, is really what is bothering some of you.

Rancher

You know Rancher, on this you are right. Lobby for funds, try to change laws etc. That's what the US system of Government, laws, etc. have been formed on. But don't get too down in the mouth when other organizations or individuals point out your groups lies and deception. Changing policy won't get you anywhere, changing your business plan might though!

I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to study the history of one of the corporations hated by RCALF?

More than 60 years have passed since John Tyson drove his battered truck to Chicago to deliver a load of 500 Arkansas chickens.

Tyson heard that chickens were bringing a better price in northern markets, so he cashed in his savings and borrowed the rest of the money he needed to finance the trip. He sold the birds for a profit of $235, $220 of which he wired home to pay on his debts and buy another load of birds.

Out of that trip sprung the foundations of a company that would revolutionize the poultry industry. We invite you to walk through time and discover how the world's largest poultry company rose out of the soil of Northwest Arkansas. http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/AboutTyson/

Isn't this the ultimate goal of RCALF, to create a business atmoshere, where a rancher with business skills and innovative processes can prosper. I think you have the climate, and ranchers are doing it in your country, RCALF members are just becoming a welfare state, where they expect everything to be done for them, through government regulations and stealing from those who have worked to get what they have.

Here's another example of a person, who has seen change in consumer buying patterns for what they are worth and has created a company that is thriving, without government regulations.

In the Beginning
In the early 1980's, a small number of idealistic, passionate folks were working to change the world by changing the way food was produced. The prior generation had seen the emergence of highly processed foods, and new terms had entered the lexicon- terms like "factory farms," "TV dinners," "junk food," and "fast food."

Indeed, farming had changed. Small family farms were consolidated. Production speed and volume increased. And there was increasing use of "advanced" techniques that involved antibiotics, hormones, pesticides and herbicides.

In the middle of all this was a handful of folks who believed that food should be produced in a way that was healthier for the land, the farmers, and all of us who eat the food.

These folks found different ways to bring their food to market. Some partnered with renowned restaurants to feature locally grown foods or with natural food stores. Most of it was small in production, regional in distribution.

Others found a way to make the venture a success by bringing natural foods to the mainstream, working with grocery distribution networks already in place. This is the path Laura's Lean Beef pursued, led by founder, president and CEO Laura Freeman.

Incorporated in 1985, Freeman established her niche as "the healthy beef." Twenty years later, Laura's Lean Beef Company is the most successful natural lean beef company in the country, with fresh beef in more than 4,700 grocery stores nationwide.

Imagine that, a company that has started during the time period that "concentration" has impeded your ability to incur profits. Look outside the box, you will find the opportunites to succede. Blaming won't get you anywhere.

"Bringing others down to average, will only create a lower average!", and that's a quote, by me!