I don't think we would be strengthening our position by accepting a border opening as it has been presented. Actually, I think it would be very dangerous to do so. It's not as simple as a matter of which side of the 49th that cattle are slaughtered on as some would lead you to believe. There's a lot of baggage along with the deal that is not bring presented by the AMI.
Consider that accepting this deal would mean that we would have lower beef importation laws than a whole list of countries, one of them being Egypt. Cattleman, Egypt is a third-world country. How can we expect to be viewed as the world's leader in beef if our standards are below third-world countries? We're trying to tell the world to buy our expensive product on quality reasons and at the same time we accept beef that Egypt won't take? The AMI "forgot" to mention this on their website.
What about the huge investment this country has made to try to provide US consumers with the world's highest quality product? We've invested billions into having the best food supply in the world, accepting the border deal now means a good deal of those funds were wasted as we would be gut-shooting our previous efforts.
Accepting the border deal would mean acceptance of the USDA's policy of catering to the AMI. It would mean you are OK with the notion that long standing policy destined to keep you and your herd healthy can be amended when said policy becomes a burden on the AMI member's checkbook.
Finally it would mean you see no problem with a governmental agency instituting far reaching policy without first doing the proper due diligence and/or ignoring the due diligence they had done.
I see the AMI's website to be just like the drug commericials you see on TV, except they don't have to make any mention of side effects. Believe me, Cattleman, there are plenty of side effects.
By the way, what don't you agree with me on about the packers agenda? Is it their growing investments abroad, their standing on free trade, their position on COOL?