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

explain this hat

Help Support Ranchers.net:

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
The following is a reprint from the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation by Steve Dittmer on April 6, 2005.

AFF Cattle Editorial: R-CALF's Bullard Misses the Points; Buzzwords Don't Paper Over Gaps

In a guest opinion column in the March 28, 2005 issue of Western Livestock Journal, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard illustrated R-CALF's continuing lack of understanding of the beef industry beyond the ranch gate. And in typical liberal activist group (LAG) style, he hammered their buzzwords over and over, lest us less intelligent folks not get his points.

In a 12-paragraph letter, he used the buzzwords "independent," as in cattleman or business six times, "multi-national packer" four times and "relax," "lower," or "set well below," as in import standards, five times. The idea - as perfected by Washington, D.C. activist-groups - is that if you repeat a buzzword often enough - whether true or not - it will become part of the "conventional wisdom" and enter the lexicon of the media. Bullard evidently continues to use techniques picked up from R-CALF's LAG associates.

As for "independent," R-CALF evidently drums a rancher out of the organization if he/she becomes successful enough to buy another ranching operation. If a cattle feeder becomes successful enough to buy another feedyard, then one must assume he jumps from the already iffy status of a cattle feeder to a definite bad guy. We're not sure whether leasing another ranch or feedyard counts against you or not.

"Multi-national corporation" is a long-time LAG epithet applied to any company that is not strictly a "mom and pop" company. R-CALF just adapted it to packers, making a term for them that is a double negative, "multi-national" and "packer." R-CALF has never suitably explained how the vast U.S. retail and foodservice industry would manage to efficiently assemble the over 20 billion pounds of beef it buys annually from the biggest four packers now. R- CALF wants to replace the four majors with hundreds of small packers - a mind boggling efficiency obstacle for the industry we have today. R-CALF railed in its suit against the USDA about the environmental impact of those semi-trucks hauling cattle in from Canada. Wonder how the EPA would like handling the environmental headaches of 200-300 new packing plants?

As for lowering standards, R-CALF has referenced the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) as the authority on animal health issues. That's fine, as far as it goes. Trouble is, the OIE does not set standards, as R-CALF has claimed. Further, the OIE does not recommend countries ban meat imported - with SRMs removed - from countries with low or high BSE risk, contrary to R-CALF's implication.

In addition, there are no standards recognized for importing meat from minimal- or low-risk BSE countries. The U.S. is trying to set standards as precedent for trade, based on nearly 20 years of science. R-CALF wants trade only with countries who have never had a BSE case. They have not explained how many years they want the rest of the world to sit around and wait until it's okay to trust science and begin trading. Or how they would justify keeping imports out if ever a BSE case was discovered in the U.S. or export again ever.

I also cannot confirm the import figures Bullard quotes in his column. Bullard claims 5 billion pounds of imported beef into the U.S. in 2002, the year he uses. My charts from USDA/ERS and from U.S. Commerce Dept. both show 3.2 billion pounds, a 35- percent lower figure and less than 12 percent of total production. More importantly, for the year, he doesn't mention at all the net beef imports - imports minus exports - was roughly 750 million pounds or just 2.8 percent of the total beef supply.

Of course, for the last two years, that net figure has risen because of the closure of export markets. And no group's work has done more to keep that net figure worse longer than R-CALF. Bullard has stated the U.S. has been doing just fine without exports, so Japan's concern with the U.S. policy toward Canadian cattle and international perception of beef safety must not worry him.

Just as importantly, Bullard said that the U.S. competitive edge in maintaining market share is that it, "holds itself to the highest health and safety standards." I disagree. Consumers buy beef primarily because of the high quality, taste and convenience. Safety and wholesomeness is assumed, a given, the price of admission.

To operate in the belief that consumers' primary buying motivation is not the high quality and convenience of the product is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of marketing - domestically or internationally. Consumers buy quality and benefits. How many consumers buy the model of television they do because they believe it won't shock them when they plug it in? How many select the recliner they do because they think they're less likely to fall off it?

Safety and wholesomeness is a critical, built-in assumption the U.S. must safeguard. That is the reason for the careful methodical evaluation of science and process that has gone on. But beyond the importance of the actual safety is the consumer perception of safety. And R-CALF has been attempting to damage that perception, not protect it, all for the sake of a turf war strategy.

Bullard is correct in his assessment of the United States beef industry as the most successful in the world. But it never got so big and successful by:

Continually attacking and denigrating other essential players in that successful beef chain;
Publicly assaulting the credibility of U.S. consumers' guarantor of beef safety, the USDA or
Attempting to force international trade policy to be conducted on the basis of protectionism and prejudice rather than verified science and policies fostering economic growth.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Ever heard the term. That guy 'is all Hat and no cows'. Gues that applies to you Mr. Hat. Maybe you should get on your ten speed bike and ride out of the city and see if you can find a nice farmer who has some cows (be careful, cows and horses and sheep look different from each other). Ask him if you can take some pictures of his cows so you can post them on the site. If you do that I might actually believe that you know what a cow looks like. :wink:
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Hat said:
SASH said:
Ever heard the term. That guy 'is all Hat and no cows'. Gues that applies to you Mr. Hat. Maybe you should get on your ten speed bike and ride out of the city and see if you can find a nice farmer who has some cows (be careful, cows and horses and sheep look different from each other). Ask him if you can take some pictures of his cows so you can post them on the site. If you do that I might actually believe that you know what a cow looks like. :wink:

Let's see your massive herd. You're such a loser you pathetic pile of crap.

You weren't the 'head' boy in your class were you. Hat's mom says 'I don't understand why Hat's knees are always so dirty, he doesn't even play sports' :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
reader (the Second) said:
Despite Agman's love for Dittmer, in my opinion he comes off time and time again as a paid hack.

I'm with you, Reader. I wonder why all the press releases from this "foundation" all are anti-RCALF rants? :? A one-man "foundation" that is set up to take "donations" is a big red flag to me - and not the cool kind of big red flags that have a big white "N" in the middle. :wink:
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Hat said:
SASH said:
Hat said:
Let's see your massive herd. You're such a loser you pathetic pile of crap.

You weren't the 'head' boy in your class were you. Hat's mom says 'I don't understand why Hat's knees are always so dirty, he doesn't even play sports' :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're a filthy minded Canuck. I hope you get the boot.


:p :p :p :) :) :)
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
reader (the Second) said:
Despite Agman's love for Dittmer, in my opinion he comes off time and time again as a paid hack.

Response....Refute his comments if you can.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Hat said:
It's a bunch of BS, an editorial from some guy who wants to see his name in print and see you Canucks shake your pom pom's. It's a clearly biased editorial with absolutely no facts. sw must stand for SLOW WIT.

Actually there are lots of facts.

Which ones are incorrect HAT.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
reader (the Second) said:
Despite Agman's love for Dittmer, in my opinion he comes off time and time again as a paid hack.

Response....Refute his comments if you can.

You mean these comments?;

AFF, "Banned would be:
Alliances of ranchers, feeders, breed associations, packers and retailers,
Branded beef, Packer/feeder contracts and grids.
A group in the drastic minority like R-CALF that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass has to find some way to get leverage. "

Do you seriously think these comments can not be refuted? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
MR, do you mean he is a want to be debater instead of something else that ends in bater? :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
reader (the Second) said:
Despite Agman's love for Dittmer, in my opinion he comes off time and time again as a paid hack.

The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation's (Dittmer's) purpose is stated as "To promote free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain." Yet, every article on the site is an anti-R-CALF piece. Don't you think a "foundation" with such a stated purpose would have more to write about than bashing R-CALF? :wink: Wouldn't there be other issues concerning free market principles? :wink:

It's pretty easy to see through that "foundation". :p
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Don't you think a "foundation" with such a stated purpose would have more to write about than bashing R-CALF? Wouldn't there be other issues concerning free market principles?

Depends on who he feels is attacking "free market principles" the most of late!
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
HAT,


You wouldnt know the meaning of country life, cattle ranching or small communities. Stay in your University dorm and keep reading and learning about countrylife! Oh and dont forget to wash after you play with the sheep! BAH!
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
Hat said:
It's a bunch of BS, an editorial from some guy who wants to see his name in print and see you Canucks shake your pom pom's. It's a clearly biased editorial with absolutely no facts. sw must stand for SLOW WIT.

It is best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool
Than to open your mouth and leave no doubt.

I don't think anyone deserves to be called names. I hope yo' momma gives yo' a spankin' :twisted: :twisted:
 

Les

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
784
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta
Hat says astroglide is used motor oil
hat says gertie is his favorite farm animal
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
VROOM VROOM gertie. "keep your motor running" Hat's theme song.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
N. can you admit it is probable that Dittmer is addressing the group most often in the news currently with "news" that can very well be detrimental to the US cattle/beef industry?

Were it PETA, CSPI, Consumers Union, Carol Tucker Formans, outfit, or any other anti-animal ag group in the news, he very likely would be focused on those attacks on the food production industry.

Dittmer appears to be addressing the most vocal groups who seem to be trying to tear down our food production industry from within, which the current BSE scare mongering may very well accomplish, if it is successful.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top