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

Contingency plan?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
CCA working on contingency plan
by Rae Groeneveld


The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) is developing a contingency plan in the event the American border closes to shipments of boxed boneless beef.

"We keep making the analogy of a fire house. If the building is burning you don't want be buying the fire truck at that time," reasoned John Masswohl Director of Industry Relations with the CCA. "You hope you never need to use it but it is best to have a plan."

Boxed beef has been allowed into the U.S. since September of 2003 when the USDA released a list of products that could be imported from Canada. That was the first step in re-accessing the American market following the complete border closure in May of 2003, when the first case of BSE was discovered in Alberta.

The protectionist farm group R-Calf has recently filed papers with a Montana court calling for a halt to Canadian beef imports. Their arguments will be part of the court hearings in late July where Justice Richard Cebull will determine whether the American border re-opens to live Canadian livestock imports, stays closed to live animal trade, or closes further to boxed beef imports.

Masswohl believes there really is no case to stop Canadian boxed beef from entering the U.S. but with the success R-Calf has had in getting Justice Cebull to rule in their favor, he wants to be prepared in the event the worst happens.

The CCA has been in discussions with the federal government on ways to limit the impact of a closed American border to boxed Canadian beef.

"We're talking to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency about the possibility of emergency harvest facilities if the existing packers decide they cannot process all of the animals that go through."

Work is also increasing to get Canadian beef into other export markets such as Taiwan, Egypt, and Japan. Masswohl says they are also considering meeting BSE testing requirements necessary to get beef into countries like Japan.

"Japan has said all along they would take tested beef and that is something that fits into our contingency plan. If we have got a lot of product to move we have to seriously consider BSE certification for market purposes."

America currently takes about 400 thousand tones of boxed beef from Canada each year.

Masswohl notes Canada has an ally if the border closes. He claims Mexico has committed to stop purchasing the same amount of U.S. beef as the U.S. would normally buy from Canada. Mexico would then replace their lost U.S. imports with Canadian beef.
===============================================
We have been sitting with closed borders for 2 YEARS and now the CCA says that Japan would have taken tested Canadian beef all along???????????
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:) No excuses for CCA Bill, but who the hell in Canada was going to test beef for BSE for export markets. THE PACKERS IN CANADA ARE PROFITTING PROFUSELY AND DO NOT NEED ONE LITTLE BIT OF HINDERENCE.

Sorry for hollering. Just spent the last 4 hours with two of our Canadian Industry group leaders pushing the BSE testing envelope while they have the notion in their heads.

We can reach the Japanese market with BSE tested OTM beef at a comparable price to domestic North American, but we can't reach it until we can reach capacity to slaughter, and wean the packers in Canada from the boxed beef hog trough.

Show down time is near.......... I only wish that more Canadian plants, and in particular Canadian Producer packing plants were closer to completion.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Show down time is near.......... I only wish that more Canadian plants, and in particular Canadian Producer packing plants were closer to completion.

If testing had been approved I believe some of these plants would be closer to completion. It also would have been one less hurdle for BIG-C to jump.

I agree showdown time is close and I hope this isn't just more idle talk from our Canadian "industry leaders".
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
I remember reading in the paper a while back that Andy Mitchell gave notice to the Liberal caucus members that testing is a distinct possibility as part of a contingency plan. Sounds like all they need is for the right button to be pushed. Total cutoff of boxed beef is likely that button....

So now the stakes are a little higher for the court in Montana eh?

Close the border to boxed beef, Canada starts testing, and then what happens to the American exports to Japan? I guess America starts testing too. Like it or not. Japan will not take untested beef from North America once we start testing. The precedence will have been set.

So what's it gonna be?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
If Canada started testing cattle today the Pacific Rim would be wide open for you folks. Of course you would have to adhere to "sound science" or "best available science" or "junkscience" and draw straws to see what SRM's would be removed for what country. :wink:

I would like to see it happen just to see what the next USDA, NCBA, AMI consolidation would do. They have all had their heads up their rear-ends so long they would need welding goggles to see in daylight.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
I would like to see it happen just to see what the next USDA, NCBA, AMI consolidation would do. They have all had their heads up their rear-ends so long they would need welding goggles to see in daylight.[/quote]

Now that's a good 'un! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Boys will be boys and make your little jokes. Meanwhile, the world goes on, the cattle business goes on, and your narrowly focused point of view is going to miss out on the trends and changes coming in the cattle industry. Who will you and LMA/Rcalf/NFU blame when that happens?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
OK, Mike and JB, so what do either of you know about the real workings of NCBA? Have either of you ever attended a meeting, or read anything positive about the organization, or do you just take as gospel what the anti-NCBA people say? Do you really believe that to talk to packers means an organization is controlled by them? That is amazing!

MRJ
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
MRJ

I belonged to the orginization when they first came together with the feeders and packers. I suppose they have done some things that are good. But like so many orginizations, if you ain't got a lot of money, it's hard to get to all of the national meetings. And when you get there, if you are of the minority, you are pooh poohed, or treated like the bastard at the family reunion.

I wasn't commenting on what he said about YOUR orginization, but the last comment he made, which I thought was very funny. You seem to read too much into what sometimes is written.

In another thread your insinuated that I am a member of r-calf when I have never stated that. But after some of the negative comments I've been reading on here, it sure would be tempting to take their side!

I get the national rag, BEEF and read the articles. Seems to me that whenever there is a disenting viewpoint, NCBA is quick to claim that the person who disagrees is a crackpot or wacko.

I don't agree totally with any orginization, but do agree with all orginizations, on certain viewpoints. I don't think we have to have a "one size fits all" group.

If you were offended by my finding humor in what someone else wrote about your beloved NCBA, maybe you better get a tougher skin. If you would like to discuss this further, I believe you can find my number in the book.

My point is that you are not winning any converts nor is anyone else on this site who takes offense at the slightest sign of humor and poking fun at ANY group. Lighten up a little. Life is too short and we will all be dust and our small vioce on this site is not a f--- in a whirlwind, to those who make the decisions that will rule our lifestyle and jobs.
 

whiteface

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Jingle, you have humor and a deeper side, I like you! Have a good day all and thanks for reading from Canada! BTW, I thought it was funny too and most of us Canadians are rooting for an NCBA victory out of this!
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,776
Reaction score
1
Location
East north east of Soapweed
I thought it was funny :lol: And I don't give a rats behind one way or another, because we are a nobody in the cattle world and what ever happens we will adapt. 8)
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,981
Reaction score
78
Location
Big Muddy valley
reader (the Second) said:
Mike said:
If Canada started testing cattle today the Pacific Rim would be wide open for you folks. Of course you would have to adhere to "sound science" or "best available science" or "junkscience" and draw straws to see what SRM's would be removed for what country. :wink:

I would like to see it happen just to see what the next USDA, NCBA, AMI consolidation would do. They have all had their heads up their rear-ends so long they would need welding goggles to see in daylight.

I'm guessing Agman is associated with AMI, the way he took strong offense at the welding goggles remark... I just realized there was a connection between this remark and a response he made.


reader could you point out agmans response?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
whiteface said:
Jingle, you have humor and a deeper side, I like you! Have a good day all and thanks for reading from Canada! BTW, I thought it was funny too and most of us Canadians are rooting for an NCBA victory out of this!

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I too am rooting for whatever or whoever gets this mess straightened out. I think it is all part of the cycle and we will see lower prices in a year or two. I have been considering selling my cows, but they are so few and not of a popular breed, and I really just use them to raise beef to sell locally and as leaders and "settlers" for my stocker cattle. But it would be nice to sell some at the top for a change! :lol:

I haven't taken sides on the border issue as I can see both sides. And I don't think any arguments I would make, would make any difference.

I would like to see more non-partisianship between all. All have some good ideas, but it seems like regular politics. "If your for I have to be against" and all of that crap. Hopefully calmer heads will prevail and I would imagine it will all get settled and there will be oppurtunities for some and loss for others. I'm sure there will be some good come out of all of this. But then, I'm kind of an optimist! :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Jinglebob said:
MRJ

I belonged to the orginization when they first came together with the feeders and packers.

[JB, do you really believe a token seat or two on a large board means the packers control NCBA? Why do you think packers are at NCBA meetings? I KNOW they are there so both packers and ranchers can learn more about how the other operates. How many ranchers do you know who know anything about packers other than what they hear from the cheerleaders who claim packers are out to "make us serfs on our own land" we hear about every week on our radios in SD? MRJ]

I suppose they have done some things that are good. But like so many orginizations, if you ain't got a lot of money, it's hard to get to all of the national meetings. And when you get there, if you are of the minority, you are pooh poohed, or treated like the bastard at the family reunion.

[Where did you get an idea that people "in the minority" are treated badly???? Those in "the minority" most likely are different people on each vote! Kinda hard to keep track of who they are to "pooh pooh" and "treat them like bastards", I'm sure! There are a lot of people who put attending the meetings as a priority.....over attending the National Finals, for instance....or who can only afford to attend occasionally, or go to conventions instead of much of any vacation. That is a matter of personal preference because one can have an effect on policy in NCBA without ever attending a national meeting by participating in county or state organization, at least members of SD Cattlemen members have affected policy that way. I doubt there are very many people attending who just have money to throw around. They seem, for the most part willing to make sacrifices at home to be able to participate because they believe it is important to their business. I also know it isn't difficult to stay at the less expensive hotels near the main convention hq. hotel. I know that prices for rooms are negotiated to the lowest possible rates and attempts, such as partial business sponsors for meals and workshops to help keep costs low as possible for attendees. One needs to consider the value of what can be learned and applied to individual ranching operations when looking at the costs. MRJ]

I wasn't commenting on what he said about YOUR orginization, but the last comment he made, which I thought was very funny. You seem to read too much into what sometimes is written.

[Point taken. MRJ]

In another thread your insinuated that I am a member of r-calf when I have never stated that. But after some of the negative comments I've been reading on here, it sure would be tempting to take their side!

[Did I do that, or did I equate your comments with theirs, or with people who support them? Do you see any philosophical divide between the two organizations? I do, and because of that, I do not understand how dismantling the system that has made the US cattle/beef industry the envy of the world is going to help the small cattle producer. Nor do I understand the anger against "big business" when many of the people behind R-CALF are among the nations biggest cattlemen and auction owners. I do believe that cattle producers will benefit from controlling more of their own destiny via alliances that serve them well. I firmly believe that LMA is using OUR Beef Checkoff as a weapon to stop such alliances in order for them to keep busy selling our calves to our neighbors who need stockers, then to the feeders, with the attendant problems of cattle being co-mingled and stressed from too many trips through the sale barns. MRJ]

I get the national rag, BEEF and read the articles. Seems to me that whenever there is a disenting viewpoint, NCBA is quick to claim that the person who disagrees is a crackpot or wacko.

[Really??? Have you ever seen NCBA leaders or staff say that???? I have seen them make reasonable, well documented arguments to show why NCBA members make the decisions we make, but never have I read anything like you claim! MRJ]

I don't agree totally with any orginization, but do agree with all orginizations, on certain viewpoints. I don't think we have to have a "one size fits all" group.

[Nor do I. I know there are some people who have cattle who would not benefit from NCBA membership because they do not want to operate in todays beef industry, and their choice is fine with me. But I will not remain quiet when others attack NCBA unjustly, or lie about the Beef Checkoff! MRJ]

If you were offended by my finding humor in what someone else wrote about your beloved NCBA, maybe you better get a tougher skin. If you would like to discuss this further, I believe you can find my number in the book.

[Guess there is something wrong with me. I do not enjoy humor that is intended to harm or put down a person or organization. There is a difference in good humored "poking fun at" and mean spirited "humor" intended to cause problems. MRJ]

My point is that you are not winning any converts nor is anyone else on this site who takes offense at the slightest sign of humor and poking fun at ANY group. Lighten up a little. Life is too short and we will all be dust and our small vioce on this site is not a f--- in a whirlwind, to those who make the decisions that will rule our lifestyle and jobs.

[BTW, the major point of my objections was not the so called joke, but the false statements about NCBA and/or the Beef Checkoff. I'm not so much trying to win converts, as to make sure people understand the difference between the facts about NCBA and the Beef Checkoff and the lies and innuendo being spread by those who would destroy them. MRJ]
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
MRJ
Gotcha! Loud and clear.

I think there are those who worry about mis-appropriation of funds when there is that much funding available. We read about CEO's and others who have wasted trust funds and retirement accounts. Your doing a good job of arguing your side, but have you posted any proof that there is no colusion and who is held accountable. I'm not worried, but otheres may be.

I have no problem with a checkoff and in fact think we should all pay more, but I do have a problem with how we set it up and how the money is spent. Oh, well, we'll know more next time! :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Jinglebob said:
MRJ
Gotcha! Loud and clear.

I think there are those who worry about mis-appropriation of funds when there is that much funding available. We read about CEO's and others who have wasted trust funds and retirement accounts. Your doing a good job of arguing your side, but have you posted any proof that there is no colusion and who is held accountable. I'm not worried, but otheres may be.

[What would you accept as "proof"? I know there is stringent accounting for staff time by what they are working on, whether for Checkoff projects, or for the policy division of NCBA, or for the Federation of State Beef Councils. There is system to keep everything separate and accounted for. Audits are made by indepent agencies. IF there was any inclination to do what some claim, and slip things through illicitly, we all know there are many who would love to find something upon which to build a scandal to bring down NCBA, so there is additional incentive over and above the scrupulous accuracy leadership strives for. I have posted similar comments previously. I suppose I could trouble the staff to give us chapter and verse of the details, but with all the "watch-dogs" trying to find fault and failing that is good enough scrutiny for me. Whatever you say. MRJ]

I have no problem with a checkoff and in fact think we should all pay more, but I do have a problem with how we set it up and how the money is spent. Oh, well, we'll know more next time! :lol:

I'm interested in what you see as problems with "how we set it up and how the money is spent". What would you change and how? Do you have a copy of the Checkoff law?

It is pretty hard to keep people well informed when they hear and read almost daily the false charge that NCBA has control of Checkoff money. They have to do the work outlined in the contract then apply for reimbursement of the funds spent. People seem to fail to understand that the CBB has control of the money, and that not all, maybe actually very few members of CBB are NCBA members, since they come from many state cattle organizations. As I've stated often, the complexity of the groups was purposely designed to assure a broad representation of and participation by as many grass-roots cattle producers as possible. I have seen state organizations begging for people to serve on the Beef Industry Council.

MRJ
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
MRJ" I'm interested in what you see as problems with "how we set it up and how the money is spent". What would you change and how? Do you have a copy of the Checkoff law? MRJ[/quote said:
We should have left a broader avenue for use of the money, ie; lobbying and useing the money to prove or disprove scientific theories and other options. We also should have had it up for re-newel every 5 years to see if the body of cattle people thought the money was being spent on worthwile projects, by the right people. After all, it is our money.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Jinglebob said:
MRJ" I'm interested in what you see as problems with "how we set it up and how the money is spent". What would you change and how? Do you have a copy of the Checkoff law? MRJ[/quote said:
We should have left a broader avenue for use of the money, ie; lobbying and useing the money to prove or disprove scientific theories and other options. We also should have had it up for re-newel every 5 years to see if the body of cattle people thought the money was being spent on worthwile projects, by the right people. After all, it is our money.

[I'm very certain there is no way ANY checkoff type funds can be used for lobbying. I have serious doubts that all the checkoff money spent in a year would go far enough for that, and I don't know how much is spent on research, but it is no small amount, I'm sure. I really wish you would do some computer research. You just might be surprised, and maybe even pleased with what the money is spent for.

Certainly, it is our money. And just as certainly it is cattle producers representing literally dozens of beef producer organizations across the nation who decide how the money will be spent.

Check with the SD BIC to find out which projects they have influenced on the national level. Some of our directors are so determined to spend as much as possible in the state, I fear they will lose our strong influence on the national level, though.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top