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

Democracy R-Calf style.

Bill

Well-known member
I finally found a report on the R-Klan convention but it is from their 2005 convention.

R-CALF convention addresses three key issues for members

Members criticize USDA's handling of BSE, COOL

By Holly Martin

When members of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America met for their annual convention in Denver, three issues dominated the discussions--BSE, COOL and Animal ID. On the top of that list was bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the Canadian border opening.

R-CALF USA leadership strongly criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's handling of BSE situation with Canada.

Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA chief executive officer said, "We found some very serious errors on the part of (USDA)--making assumptions not supplied by science or even contrary to science."

But USDA Undersecretary Bill Hawks disagreed.

"It is absolutely important that we use good science to make those decisions," he said.

Hawks, who addressed the group as a part of R-CALF USA convention, acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and said USDA has been working to establish rules based on facts.

During a BSE panel discussion, Tony Cox, who's firm has studied the BSE situation in Canada, criticized the terminology "low risk" used by USDA when referring to BSE cases.

Cox said, "What does 'low' mean? Does 'low' mean the same thing to USDA, Canada and Japan?"

A statistician by trade, Cox told the group he views 'low' to mean one in a million, but the actual rate has been 1 in 3,000 among tested animals.

"If it were one in a million, we wouldn't be finding them at this rate," Cox said.

R-CALF USA members called upon the USDA to postpone the March 7 date for reopening of the Canadian border.

"The reality is they have a problem with BSE. We have been searching here and we haven't found one case," said Texas cattleman Chuck Kiker, referring to increased surveillance in the U.S. with no domestic BSE cases being found.

He asked Hawks to discuss the situation with new Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns. "Ask him to close the border to all imports of beef and cattle."

Leo McDonnell, president and founder of R-CALF USA, criticized those in the industry that have pushed for reopening the border with Canada. "Do they really believe that lowering the standards will help us regain our export markets?" he said.

When speaking to reporters, Bullard said Canada should not even qualify as a minimal risk country, according to OIA standards. In order to qualify for minimal risk, a country can have up to two cases per million head of adult cattle and have a feed ban in place for eight years. Canada has only had the feed ban in place for seven years. "Canada has never qualified for minimum risk," he said.

Two of the resolutions passed later in the week addressed the BSE issue. One called for a ban on all animal protein in feed and the other calls for Canada to be retracted as a minimal risk country. Both issues will be presented to the entire membership on a mail-in ballot for approval.

COOL remains a battleground

While BSE has been in the forefront of many beef producer's minds, other issues continue to require attention, accord to Bullard. "We have to put in your hands the tools to compete in the domestic and foreign marketplace," he said speaking to the R-CALF USA membership.

One of those tools, Bullard said, is country-of-origin labeling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued its interim final rule for COOL on fish and shellfish.

Bill Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator for Agricultural Marketing Service, explained the law to cattlemen in an effort to help them understand how the beef COOL rules may be written.

He stressed that the program was meant to be a retail labeling law and much of the criticism of the COOL rules stem from not understanding that point.

R-CALF USA has been a major supporter of COOL, but has also been critical of how some of the rules have been written.

Another member of the COOL panel, Margaret Bryan Curole, owner of Ruth's Retail, criticized the final rules for the seafood program.

"Consumers remain in the dark about where their food comes from," she said.

Curole, who is a domestic shrimper based in Louisiana, says the rules have too many loopholes that allow foreign shrimpers to capitalize on Americans' insatiable appetite for shrimp. For instance, shrimp that has been cooked or lightly dusted with breading is exempt from the law.

But Sessions said USDA was charged with writing the rules according to COOL legislation. The law exempted processed food from being labeled.

He noted many of the producer's original concerns were addressed with the changes made in the interim final rule. It was estimated that seafood COOL legislation would cost $159 million, but after listening to comments, changes were made to reduce the costs to $89 million.

Under the new changes, record keeping has been changed to "one up and one down." In other words, it is only necessary to those in the chain to keep track of where their product came from and where it goes. In addition, records are only required to be kept for one year.

One Kentucky cattlemen expressed concern that USDA allowed outside interests and the executive branch to influence the way the rules were written.

Danni Beer, COOL chairman for R-CALF USA and South Dakota cattle producer, told members the organization continues to fight against attempts to permanently derail country-of-origin labeling. The issue remains high on the priority list for R-CALF USA.

Divided on Animal ID

The most divisive issue discussed by members was the implementation of a nationwide animal ID program.

Some affiliate groups, particularly from brand law areas, view animal ID as an added cost and unnecessary. Other groups, such as Kansas Cattlemen's Association are working on a pilot project for the U.S. Animal Identification Program.

Valerie Ragan, with Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, stressed the need for a nationwide, mandatory system. She told of a herd of cattle that needed to be traced for an animal disease that was sold at one auction facility.

"It took us four years to locate them all. We had to do paper trails," she said. Before they were all found, the cattle had infected 14 herds.

Ragan pointed out that the ID system is not just for diseases we know today. New and emerging diseases can quickly spread, she said, pointing to avian influenza and West Nile Virus. Both of these diseases were virtually unknown a few years ago.

"Emerging disease are the type that we need to find quickly," she said.

Australian cattle producer John Carter warned the group, "Don't be railroaded into a democratic nightmare like they have been in the U.K." Carter said the cost to U.K. cattle producers is over $40 per head. He stressed that American cattlemen should keep questioning the system to ensure the bureaucracy of the system does not become prohibitive.

Underscoring the opposing views on ID was a resolution introduced by a group of South Dakota and North Dakota members opposing mandatory ID. An amendment was offered by a group of Kansas cattlemen supporting pilot programs with the USAIP. R-CALF USA members vetoed the amendment, but approved the resolution in opposition to mandatory animal ID.

Holly Martin can be reached by phone at 620-227-1806, or by e-mail at [email protected]

Date: 2/3/05

I thought we were told that all R-Klan decisions went back to the memberships in the form of a mail in vote? R-Klan members VETOED the amendment put forward by Kansas? Was that the executive who disallowed, rejected or banned the resolution and wouldn't send it out to the membership?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
I thought we were told that all R-Klan decisions went back to the memberships in the form of a mail in vote? R-Klan members VETOED the amendment put forward by Kansas? Was that the executive who disallowed, rejected or banned the resolution and wouldn't send it out to the membership?

Resolutions must pass a vote at the convention before they are presented to the whole membership for a vote.

Resolutions may be introduced through a committee or by individuals for consideration by the convention attendees. It must get a majority vote of the attendees before it goes to membership for approval.

In the story the correct word to have been used would be "voted down" the amendment. A majority at the convention did not approve.

Hope this clears it up.
 

Bill

Well-known member
ocm said:
Bill said:
I thought we were told that all R-Klan decisions went back to the memberships in the form of a mail in vote? R-Klan members VETOED the amendment put forward by Kansas? Was that the executive who disallowed, rejected or banned the resolution and wouldn't send it out to the membership?

Resolutions must pass a vote at the convention before they are presented to the whole membership for a vote.

Resolutions may be introduced through a committee or by individuals for consideration by the convention attendees. It must get a majority vote of the attendees before it goes to membership for approval.

In the story the correct word to have been used would be "voted down" the amendment. A majority at the convention did not approve.

Hope this clears it up.

When a select few screen or disallow what goes to the general membership for a vote I would say veto is an appropriate word.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
If you don't like it, Bill, cancel your membership.

Who holds the membership you wave around Sadhusker? You or the bank?

We know you don't Bulleeeeeeeeeeeeve enough to bother taking a couple of days off from behind the desk to attend their convention. Do you at least support them with your own money or is that of your banking customers?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Bill said:
ocm said:
Bill said:
I thought we were told that all R-Klan decisions went back to the memberships in the form of a mail in vote? R-Klan members VETOED the amendment put forward by Kansas? Was that the executive who disallowed, rejected or banned the resolution and wouldn't send it out to the membership?

Resolutions must pass a vote at the convention before they are presented to the whole membership for a vote.

Resolutions may be introduced through a committee or by individuals for consideration by the convention attendees. It must get a majority vote of the attendees before it goes to membership for approval.

In the story the correct word to have been used would be "voted down" the amendment. A majority at the convention did not approve.

Hope this clears it up.

When a select few screen or disallow what goes to the general membership for a vote I would say veto is an appropriate word.

It's not a select few. It's every member who wishes to attend the policy develpment meeting at the convention. No member is excluded.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill- I wouldn't worry about it-- From the newly released USDA contracted survey it sounds like R-CALF's policies follow the beliefs of not only a high majority of R-CALF members - but also a high majority of the beliefs of the US cattlemen nationwide....Did you see that 92% want USA born, raised, and slaughtered beef promoted... I'd call that a majority- eh....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
We hear all the time about how superior R-CALF is because every member gets to vote by "Mail in ballot".

What do they only get to vote on the resolutions PASSED by the convention or the resolution brougth to the convention?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Bill- I wouldn't worry about it-- From the newly released USDA contracted survey it sounds like R-CALF's policies follow the beliefs of not only a high majority of R-CALF members - but also a high majority of the beliefs of the US cattlemen nationwide....Did you see that 92% want USA born, raised, and slaughtered beef promoted... I'd call that a majority- eh....

Great now the USDA has the right to tell that 92% of US cattlemen if want us to label it you are going to have to prove to us where these cattle are born and raised. :wink: Are you ready to that OLDTIMER????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Bill- I wouldn't worry about it-- From the newly released USDA contracted survey it sounds like R-CALF's policies follow the beliefs of not only a high majority of R-CALF members - but also a high majority of the beliefs of the US cattlemen nationwide....Did you see that 92% want USA born, raised, and slaughtered beef promoted... I'd call that a majority- eh....

Great now the USDA has the right to tell that 92% of US cattlemen if want us to label it you are going to have to prove to us where these cattle are born and raised. :wink: Are you ready to that OLDTIMER????

Tag and brand all imports as they are supposed to be doing now... Then enforce it... Pretty simple
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
If you don't like it, Bill, cancel your membership.

Who holds the membership you wave around Sadhusker? You or the bank?

We know you don't Bulleeeeeeeeeeeeve enough to bother taking a couple of days off from behind the desk to attend their convention. Do you at least support them with your own money or is that of your banking customers?

It's in my name, but SH paid for it.
 

nebraskadave

Active member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
If you don't like it, Bill, cancel your membership.

Who holds the membership you wave around Sadhusker? You or the bank?

We know you don't Bulleeeeeeeeeeeeve enough to bother taking a couple of days off from behind the desk to attend their convention. Do you at least support them with your own money or is that of your banking customers?

It's in my name, but SH paid for it.




Sandhusker....are you gonna return the favor and pay for SH's membership?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nebraskadave said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Who holds the membership you wave around Sadhusker? You or the bank?

We know you don't Bulleeeeeeeeeeeeve enough to bother taking a couple of days off from behind the desk to attend their convention. Do you at least support them with your own money or is that of your banking customers?

It's in my name, but SH paid for it.




Sandhusker....are you gonna return the favor and pay for SH's membership?

I thought about it, but I don't want them to have to put up with him, they're nice folks at the office.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "It's in my name, but SH paid for it."

From a bet that Sandcheska contributed absolutely nothing to.

The only way Sandcheska can win a bet is if someone proves themselves wrong on a technicality, admits they were wrong, and willingly pays up.

Can't beat honestly like that can you?

You'd think the idiot would have learned something about integrity from the whole thing. Rather, slippery slimy Sandcheska, in his true deceptive form, turned around and claimed my original statement was false when the same data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 proved my original statement correct. How can anyone be any slimier?

You didn't see him question the data that proved me wrong did you?

I wouldn't give you $.05 for Sandcheska. If I knew he would still question my original statement, he would have never got the $100 because he wants it both ways. A true parasite!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "Fine, I'll bet you $500 that your original statement was wrong too. You'll pay my dues for 10 years."

YOU ARE ON!

Prove my original statement wrong and send me my $100 back since you are questioning the data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 to the tune of $500.

Your hypocrisy is beyond belief.

How can you have any friends being so deceptive and so dishonest?

BRING THE PROOF THAT PROVES MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT WRONG!

For those who didn't read the original bet, my original statement was that Tyson lost more money in their Boise and Pasco plants while the Canadian border was closed than they made in their Lakeside plant in Canada.

Proving me wrong on that would be the very first time you ever backed your position with supporting facts.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Your statement can not be proven, which has been explained to you several times already. You can't possibly know what you're stating as fact, you're just blowing hot air. Tyson doesn't break out the individual plant's results for common schmoes like you. I doubt they would do so even for institutions unless some were on the block. Also, financial results are posted in complete quarters, they don't start and stop in mid month. Therefore, you can't possibly match individual plant financials with the dates the border was closed. What you are stating as fact is clearly only your hyperbiased opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "Your statement can not be proven, which has been explained to you several times already. You can't possibly know what you're stating as fact, you're just blowing hot air. Tyson doesn't break out the individual plant's results for common schmoes like you. I doubt they would do so even for institutions unless some were on the block. Also, financial results are posted in complete quarters, they don't start and stop in mid month. Therefore, you can't possibly match individual plant financials with the dates the border was closed. What you are stating as fact is clearly only your hyperbiased opinion."

You can't have it both ways. Using your argument above, there is no way that I could have been proven wrong on calendar year 2004.

SEND MY $100 BACK YOU DAMN HYPOCRITE!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandcheska: "Your statement can not be proven, which has been explained to you several times already. You can't possibly know what you're stating as fact, you're just blowing hot air. Tyson doesn't break out the individual plant's results for common schmoes like you. I doubt they would do so even for institutions unless some were on the block. Also, financial results are posted in complete quarters, they don't start and stop in mid month. Therefore, you can't possibly match individual plant financials with the dates the border was closed. What you are stating as fact is clearly only your hyperbiased opinion."

You can't have it both ways. Using your argument above, there is no way that I could have been proven wrong on calendar year 2004.

SEND MY $100 BACK YOU DAMN HYPOCRITE!


~SH~

YOU bet that YOU could prove it. YOU couldn't. YOU lost. YOU must of forgot what YOU proposed. On behalf of R-CALF, I thank YOU for your donation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "YOU bet that YOU could prove it. YOU couldn't. YOU lost. YOU must of forgot what YOU proposed."

If I couldn't prove that Boise and Pasco lost more money in calendar year 2004 than Lakeside made, SEND ME MY MONEY BACK.

If I couldn't prove I was right, I couldn't prove I was wrong either.

You can't have it both ways you hypocrite!

If the data was not good enough to prove my original statement right, it couldn't prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 either.

Keep sliming and slithering your way around your pathetic hypocritical antics you weasel.


~SH~
 
Top