HEY BOYS

[Econ101]

econ, it is imbeciles like you that ran the Inquisition. Why don't you just get on with it and burn Tam at the stake. And then Bill. And then Cowsence. And all the rest of the Canadians.

Then you can start burning or drowning malcontents like mwj, Texan . . . and all those who don't see eye to eye with your horizontally challenged views.

As if you are any less biased or impartial than Tam, myself or any other poster on here. What evidence do you ever supply to prove that you are not just another protectionist hypocrite.

Probably my advice to you to stop focusing on the remedies to the BSE problem that the packers have given you and work on a scientific test to exclude the possibility of bse like Japan.

Of course, you and others would rather play the game and rant about rcalf.

Where has that been beneficial?

S'funny, econ, I did not think to mention rcalf in that post, but just to humour you I will do so now.


R-CALF!!!!!


There, are you satisfied now sonny?

If you committed adultery yesterday but not today, does that mean you are not an adulterer?

I pulled up a quick search and came up with 50 hits on you mentioning rcalf. Do you want to see if any of them fit the allegation?

I bet Canadian and U.S. producers could agree on some of the major issues, if they tried. Instead it is always adversarial.

Canadians are in the same spot most U.S. poultry producers are in when it comes to packer power. They are scared to death they will lose their livelihood if they speak out against the abuses of packer policies.

Keep arguing, MPA. See if it helps you.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Tam, i've also spent several hours on this issue, without pay, and don't expect any.

I, have never questioned Dr. Holland's credibility. There is an issue here though, I don't understand. The health certificate that Dr. Holland saw, with the ear tag numbers in question here, had a November 28th. date on it, CCIA, reports those same ear tag numbers crossing the border on November 23rd. How can that be?

Now, if those cattle came acrossed the border on the 23rd of November as CCIA reports, that would be on a (Wednesday), that would have put those cattle in Grand Island, Nebraska on the 24th of November (Thursday). No major beef packer, that I know of, has pen space or feeding ability to take care of those cattle, so I assume those cattle were slaughtered no later than November 25th. (Friday).

Van Dyke's load of cattle were delivered to the Grand Island, Nebraska plant on November 27th. (Sunday) Van Dyke's cattle were slaughtered on November 28th. ( Monday), the health certificate that Dr. Holland saw was dated November 28th. (Monday). Van Dykes cattle were already slaughtered before the Canadian load arrived at the Grand Island plant.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts (private eye)

First of all the CCIA would not have verified the export the CFIA would have. According to an email I recieved

On Jan 22, CFIA told my sourse they had reported to USDA on Jan 19 that the tags belonged to fat cattle legally exported from Canada on Nov 28. The fats were transported in a sealed truck directly to the Swift plant in Nebraska.

I asked Dr Holland about the date I even mention it TWICE in my email and not once did he say anything about another date so I take that the date provided to me was correct to be NOV 28 2006

Now where did you come up with the dates you posted

I, believe I made it very clear Tam, of my source.

 

[Tam]

Tam, i've also spent several hours on this issue, without pay, and don't expect any.

I, have never questioned Dr. Holland's credibility. There is an issue here though, I don't understand. The health certificate that Dr. Holland saw, with the ear tag numbers in question here, had a November 28th. date on it, CCIA, reports those same ear tag numbers crossing the border on November 23rd. How can that be?

Now, if those cattle came acrossed the border on the 23rd of November as CCIA reports, that would be on a (Wednesday), that would have put those cattle in Grand Island, Nebraska on the 24th of November (Thursday). No major beef packer, that I know of, has pen space or feeding ability to take care of those cattle, so I assume those cattle were slaughtered no later than November 25th. (Friday).

Van Dyke's load of cattle were delivered to the Grand Island, Nebraska plant on November 27th. (Sunday) Van Dyke's cattle were slaughtered on November 28th. ( Monday), the health certificate that Dr. Holland saw was dated November 28th. (Monday). Van Dykes cattle were already slaughtered before the Canadian load arrived at the Grand Island plant.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts (private eye)

First of all the CCIA would not have verified the export the CFIA would have. According to an email I recieved

On Jan 22, CFIA told my sourse they had reported to USDA on Jan 19 that the tags belonged to fat cattle legally exported from Canada on Nov 28. The fats were transported in a sealed truck directly to the Swift plant in Nebraska.

I asked Dr Holland about the date I even mention it TWICE in my email and not once did he say anything about another date so I take that the date provided to me was correct to be NOV 28 2006

Now where did you come up with the dates you posted

I, believe I made it very clear Tam, of my source.

OK Ben I provided quotes from the CFIA, the USDA and Dr. Holland that verified it was the 28th, that the animals were legally exported from Canada.
Since you say it was a report from the CCIA that stated the cattle were exported from Canada on Nov. 23, 2006, you shouldn't have that much trouble providing a quote from the CCIA report. :? Show me what you got Ben. :?

 

[PORKER]

BEN ,One Problem here with this timeline .Those animals were seen,sold ,and purchased back on Feb. 06 by VanDykes and then fed till Nov. then Van Dyke's load of cattle were delivered to the Grand Island, Nebraska plant on November 27th. (Sunday) Van Dyke's cattle were slaughtered on November 28th. .All the documation was invoices and even the CDL truckers log can be verified as to time of driving.Too many people handled and raised these feeders before Nov.28 /06 .

Ben Quote;The health certificate that Dr. Holland saw, with the ear tag numbers in question here, had a November 28th. date on it, CCIA, reports those same ear tag numbers crossing the border on November 23rd. How can that be?

I would want the trucker CDL trip ticket to Swifts plant .May be the Department of transportion could check. Even so that truck had to cross over some State or Federal Highway truck weigh scales and as Ben said the border crossing time and delivery time doesn't match. All they want to do is keep the thinking that those Canadian animals were never at or from VanDykes summer feed lot.

 

[Tam]

Come on Ben back your timeline where is the quote from the CCIA report? :?

 

[mrj]

It seems quite clear that Tam has done the research to back her claims, Econ is acting like an ash, making his usual personal attacks rather than giving real evidence to back his claims of packer/USDA conspiracies, and who knows where Pat Roberts got his information!

I've known and followed the career of Sam Holland as SD State Veterinarian since it began many years ago. His first and foremost concern has ALWAYS been for the protection of the producer who acts within SD law.

We all know that major packing plants run lots of cattle through their plants. Doesn't it seem reasonable that a mistake of moving cattle through the system COULD result in such a mix-up?

Certainly, we want a thorough investigation.

Why not start with following the trail of some of those cattle claimed to be brought into the USA illegally in the northwest states, and tracking them through the sale barns it would have been necessary for them to go through before the Van Dykes bought them in SD, if you believe something like that is the case? Did one of the early news stories claim that the cattle went through the Ft. Pierre sale barn, then through the Huron sale within a day or few?

That, if true, brings up another problem of our cattle industry......'sale barn' cattle. Cattle bought, traded, and sold multiple times attempting to make money on them with little in-puts.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ:

Certainly, we want a thorough investigation.

That is what we all want, not USDA opinions not based on facts that can easily be supported by the required documentation.

MRJ, you have not addressed my main complaint that the packer was able to hold over the producer after taking delivery and destroying the evidence.

Is that how business is done in your town?

When are you going to address the producer side of the complaint?

 

[Sandhusker]

We do have the Rev. Roberts, but it's BEN, not PAT.

I don't think anybody here has been throwing darts at Dr. Holland - just questioning the documents that have been provided to him.

What we have is a case of Tam's research saying one thing and Ben's saying another. Who are you going to believe?

 

[Tam]

We do have the Rev. Roberts, but it's BEN, not PAT.

I don't think anybody here has been throwing darts at Dr. Holland - just questioning the documents that have been provided to him.

What we have is a case of Tam's research saying one thing and Ben's saying another. Who are you going to believe?

Ben is basing his version on a report from the CCIA. Have you asked Ben to provide a quote from that report Sandhusker? Why haven't you? Could it be because all you care about is that it puts doubt in the research I did of which I have provided several quotes from those involved and media reports that state the same as I'm saying. Do us a favor ask Ben for a quote from the CCIA report and see if you have any better luck getting one!!!!!

 

[Econ101]

We do have the Rev. Roberts, but it's BEN, not PAT.

I don't think anybody here has been throwing darts at Dr. Holland - just questioning the documents that have been provided to him.

What we have is a case of Tam's research saying one thing and Ben's saying another. Who are you going to believe?

Ben is basing his version on a report from the CCIA. Have you asked Ben to provide a quote from that report Sandhusker? Why haven't you? Could it be because all you care about is that it puts doubt in the research I did of which I have provided several quotes from those involved and media reports that state the same as I'm saying. Do us a favor ask Ben for a quote from the CCIA report and see if you have any better luck getting one!!!!!

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

 

[Tam]

We do have the Rev. Roberts, but it's BEN, not PAT.

I don't think anybody here has been throwing darts at Dr. Holland - just questioning the documents that have been provided to him.

What we have is a case of Tam's research saying one thing and Ben's saying another. Who are you going to believe?

Ben is basing his version on a report from the CCIA. Have you asked Ben to provide a quote from that report Sandhusker? Why haven't you? Could it be because all you care about is that it puts doubt in the research I did of which I have provided several quotes from those involved and media reports that state the same as I'm saying. Do us a favor ask Ben for a quote from the CCIA report and see if you have any better luck getting one!!!!!

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

AGAIN Ben is basing his "researched" version on a report from the CCIA saying the cattle were exported on Nov 23, 2006 . I'm basing mine on the USDA, backed up a plant, FSIS, USDA APHIS, port vets, customs, CFIA, private vet in Canada, the Canadian shipper and Dr. Holland a State Vet that is know to critize the USDA handling of issues that says these cattle were exported on Nov 28th. But for some reason you doubt mine and take Bens without any proof, as in a simple quote from the claimed CCIA report . Are you not at the least interested in why he has yet to back his and only his version? Come on eCON be fair ask Ben to provide something to back his claim the cattle left Canada on Nov. 23 and not on Nov 28. Or are you not interested in which version is the truth. :wink:

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben is basing his version on a report from the CCIA. Have you asked Ben to provide a quote from that report Sandhusker? Why haven't you? Could it be because all you care about is that it puts doubt in the research I did of which I have provided several quotes from those involved and media reports that state the same as I'm saying. Do us a favor ask Ben for a quote from the CCIA report and see if you have any better luck getting one!!!!!

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

AGAIN Ben is basing his "researched" version on a report from the CCIA saying the cattle were exported on Nov 23, 2006 . I'm basing mine on the USDA, backed up a plant, FSIS, USDA APHIS, port vets, customs, CFIA, private vet in Canada, the Canadian shipper and Dr. Holland a State Vet that is know to critize the USDA handling of issues that says these cattle were exported on Nov 28th. But for some reason you doubt mine and take Bens without any proof, as in a simple quote from the claimed CCIA report . Are you not at the least interested in why he has yet to back his and only his version? Come on eCON be fair ask Ben to provide something to back his claim the cattle left Canada on Nov. 23 and not on Nov 28. Or are you not interested in which version is the truth. :wink:

Tam,

I believe in research, of the truth and real facts before I charge into a battle, because I don't care to fight, just for the reason of fighting, but I love a good fight when I'm fighting for what is right against wrong.

My research continues on this issue and will continue until I find out the truth, of these eight Canadian calves, cattle producers on both sides of the 49th. parallel, I believe deserve that.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Tam]

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

AGAIN Ben is basing his "researched" version on a report from the CCIA saying the cattle were exported on Nov 23, 2006 . I'm basing mine on the USDA, backed up a plant, FSIS, USDA APHIS, port vets, customs, CFIA, private vet in Canada, the Canadian shipper and Dr. Holland a State Vet that is know to critize the USDA handling of issues that says these cattle were exported on Nov 28th. But for some reason you doubt mine and take Bens without any proof, as in a simple quote from the claimed CCIA report . Are you not at the least interested in why he has yet to back his and only his version? Come on eCON be fair ask Ben to provide something to back his claim the cattle left Canada on Nov. 23 and not on Nov 28. Or are you not interested in which version is the truth. :wink:

Tam,

I believe in research, of the truth and real facts before I charge into a battle, because I don't care to fight, just for the reason of fighting, but I love a good fight when I'm fighting for what is right against wrong.

My research continues on this issue and will continue until I find out the truth, of these eight Canadian calves, cattle proudcers on both sides of the 49th. parallel, I believe deserve that.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

But Ben you charge into battle, as you put it, when you provided a "timeline" that you said was backed up by a report from the CCIA. Since your timeline was posted to create doubt in the USDA's version backed up by the CFIA and a long list of others, I think it is only fair that you provide some proof like a quote from that claimed CCIA report that states the Nov 23 date. Come on Ben provide it.

 

[mrj]

Sorry for the misnomer on Ben's name. Typing while reading something else is not a good idea for anyone, let alone me! I do know Ben Roberts and Pat Robertson are two different individuals.

Making my living from the cattle my family produces, I'm definitely 'for the producer'!

It's too bad some people do not understand that being "for the producer" does not mean instantly assuming packers are always wrong or always out to cheat the producer.

The point that errors can occur honestly in packing plants or any other large volume, fast paced business was, typically of Econ, ignored.

My last post for the day, folks. Off to do some business this afternoon and have some fun this evening. Come have a baked potato supper to benefit the After Prom party parents in Kadoka before the game. Go Kougars!

MRJ

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sorry for the misnomer on Ben's name. Typing while reading something else is not a good idea for anyone, let alone me! I do know Ben Roberts and Pat Robertson are two different individuals.

Making my living from the cattle my family produces, I'm definitely 'for the producer'!

It's too bad some people do not understand that being "for the producer" does not mean instantly assuming packers are always wrong or always out to cheat the producer.

The point that errors can occur honestly in packing plants or any other large volume, fast paced business was, typically of Econ, ignored.

My last post for the day, folks. Off to do some business this afternoon and have some fun this evening. Come have a baked potato supper to benefit the After Prom party parents in Kadoka before the game. Go Kougars!

MRJ

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sorry for the misnomer on Ben's name. Typing while reading something else is not a good idea for anyone, let alone me! I do know Ben Roberts and Pat Robertson are two different individuals.

Making my living from the cattle my family produces, I'm definitely 'for the producer'!

It's too bad some people do not understand that being "for the producer" does not mean instantly assuming packers are always wrong or always out to cheat the producer.

The point that errors can occur honestly in packing plants or any other large volume, fast paced business was, typically of Econ, ignored.

My last post for the day, folks. Off to do some business this afternoon and have some fun this evening. Come have a baked potato supper to benefit the After Prom party parents in Kadoka before the game. Go Kougars!

MRJ

MRJ, No worries, i've been called worse, and my life went on.

It's good to know that you are for the producers.

As far as the packers go, in my fifty two years in the cattle industry, i've probably known more packers, large and small than anyone here, and your comments about them, are not the norm. but I will respect your thoughts.

Mix-ups, happen in the livestock industry everyday, but a company with integrity, would address those issues immediately.

Next time i'm through Kadoka, i'll let you know, I would like to meet you.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sorry for the misnomer on Ben's name. Typing while reading something else is not a good idea for anyone, let alone me! I do know Ben Roberts and Pat Robertson are two different individuals.

Making my living from the cattle my family produces, I'm definitely 'for the producer'!

It's too bad some people do not understand that being "for the producer" does not mean instantly assuming packers are always wrong or always out to cheat the producer.

The point that errors can occur honestly in packing plants or any other large volume, fast paced business was, typically of Econ, ignored.

My last post for the day, folks. Off to do some business this afternoon and have some fun this evening. Come have a baked potato supper to benefit the After Prom party parents in Kadoka before the game. Go Kougars!

MRJ

MRJ, No worries, i've been called worse, and my life went on.

It's good to know that you are for the producers.

As far as the packers go, in my fifty two years in the cattle industry, i've probably known more packers, large and small than anyone here, and your comments about them, are not the norm. but I will respect your thoughts.

Mix-ups, happen in the livestock industry everyday, but a company with integrity, would address those issues immediately.

Next time i'm through Kadoka, i'll let you know, I would like to meet you.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Econ101]

Ben is basing his version on a report from the CCIA. Have you asked Ben to provide a quote from that report Sandhusker? Why haven't you? Could it be because all you care about is that it puts doubt in the research I did of which I have provided several quotes from those involved and media reports that state the same as I'm saying. Do us a favor ask Ben for a quote from the CCIA report and see if you have any better luck getting one!!!!!

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

AGAIN Ben is basing his "researched" version on a report from the CCIA saying the cattle were exported on Nov 23, 2006 . I'm basing mine on the USDA, backed up a plant, FSIS, USDA APHIS, port vets, customs, CFIA, private vet in Canada, the Canadian shipper and Dr. Holland a State Vet that is know to critize the USDA handling of issues that says these cattle were exported on Nov 28th. But for some reason you doubt mine and take Bens without any proof, as in a simple quote from the claimed CCIA report . Are you not at the least interested in why he has yet to back his and only his version? Come on eCON be fair ask Ben to provide something to back his claim the cattle left Canada on Nov. 23 and not on Nov 28. Or are you not interested in which version is the truth. :wink:

AGAIN, Tam, you are not even acknowledging the plight of the producer who had to raise a huge ruckus and wait 47 days for his pay, your argument with Ben notwithstanding.

I believe the documents in question should have been provided to Van Dyke. When the government (USDA in this case) has control of all of the information and is not transparent, there is doubt to be had.

I am interested in Ben's version and where he might have obtained his information. That is one reason I haven't whole heartedly said he was right, although he may very well be.

My argument is that the information should not be only in the hands of the USDA. The USDA and Swift owe Mr. Van Dyke more than that.

Wouldn't you agree or do you still want to ignore the producer's concern once again?

 

[Econ101]

Sorry for the misnomer on Ben's name. Typing while reading something else is not a good idea for anyone, let alone me! I do know Ben Roberts and Pat Robertson are two different individuals.

Making my living from the cattle my family produces, I'm definitely 'for the producer'!

It's too bad some people do not understand that being "for the producer" does not mean instantly assuming packers are always wrong or always out to cheat the producer.

The point that errors can occur honestly in packing plants or any other large volume, fast paced business was, typically of Econ, ignored.

My last post for the day, folks. Off to do some business this afternoon and have some fun this evening. Come have a baked potato supper to benefit the After Prom party parents in Kadoka before the game. Go Kougars!

MRJ

MRJ, I know errors can be made in any business and that they happen much more than is reported. My issue is not one that errors happen, it is the power and control that has been given (or taken) by Swift in this instance. You seem to excuse it every way you can.

The point is a broader point.

I am sorry you seem to be so narrow minded about it all and seem to be making excuses for Swift and the USDA instead of asking for the documentation for the mix up as Van Dyke has done. Van Dyke should have been given the documentation when he asked for it.

Again, you say you are for the producer, but at every turn you have a plethora of excuses that you just pull out of your hat.

When are you going to base your judgment on the facts instead of your feeling of what happened so you can just make another excuse? I have done as Van Dyke has done and asked for the facts in the investigation, not just the word of the USDA and Swift over a month and counting after the incident. You are so biased and uninterested in the facts it is scary.

I hope you tend to your cooking better than your quest for the facts before offering up judgment on this issue.

 

[Tam]

You just can't seem to acknowledge a producer's concern in regards to packers if it is not yours, can you? MRJ seems to excuse them all the time also.

AGAIN Ben is basing his "researched" version on a report from the CCIA saying the cattle were exported on Nov 23, 2006 . I'm basing mine on the USDA, backed up a plant, FSIS, USDA APHIS, port vets, customs, CFIA, private vet in Canada, the Canadian shipper and Dr. Holland a State Vet that is know to critize the USDA handling of issues that says these cattle were exported on Nov 28th. But for some reason you doubt mine and take Bens without any proof, as in a simple quote from the claimed CCIA report . Are you not at the least interested in why he has yet to back his and only his version? Come on eCON be fair ask Ben to provide something to back his claim the cattle left Canada on Nov. 23 and not on Nov 28. Or are you not interested in which version is the truth. :wink:

AGAIN, Tam, you are not even acknowledging the plight of the producer who had to raise a huge ruckus and wait 47 days for his pay, your argument with Ben notwithstanding.

I believe the documents in question should have been provided to Van Dyke. When the government (USDA in this case) has control of all of the information and is not transparent, there is doubt to be had.

I am interested in Ben's version and where he might have obtained his information. That is one reason I haven't whole heartedly said he was right, although he may very well be.

My argument is that the information should not be only in the hands of the USDA. The USDA and Swift owe Mr. Van Dyke more than that.

Wouldn't you agree or do you still want to ignore the producer's concern once again?

eCON Van Dyke got his money, his plight was over when the Swift check cleared the bank. What is at stake now is the PLIGHT OF THOUSANDS OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS and their ability to export. Does their plight not matter to you? Could it be because it doesn't directly affect YOU?
The USDA was the agency that was in charge of collecting the information but that information was in the hands of many people. That is the exact reason that Dr. Holland believes that this is not a conspiracy to cover up anything. There are TO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED.
Please give me one good reason Dr. Holland would go on record supporting the evidence if he had any questions about that evidence!!!

The thing about Ben's version is that he has yet to back the claim it came from a CCIA report. WHY? Do you care why he is willing to add to the plight of thousands of Canadian Producers by making statements that he is not willing to back up. AS long as there is somebody to fuel this story with more unproven claims, this story will add to the ongoing PLIGHT OF THOUSANDS. Not that that matters to you!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: