OT, there is "no inside scoop". Everything about that situation is public. Click onto the www.810KBHB.com website. Maybe the interview done last Saturday is there for you to hear for yourself. That is where I got my information.
Sandhusker, PLEASE take your head out of the sand! Clean your eyes! You continue your stupid mantra that NCBA policy caused BSE market closures. News Flash! Are you certain it was not a USDA rule against giving individuals or businesses control over tests for which USDA is responsible, maybe even liable?
How many times have I stated that I believe (and this has nothing to do with NCBA) that USDA did the right thing in not allowing a private company to test for BSE.
MY reason is that at the time, and maybe even today, there is too little that is known with certainty about BSE tests. How many tests for BSE that were accepted by the world scientific community for use by individuals and businesses were available AT THAT TIME????
Further, my personal belief is that, given what is known about BSE, I believe procedures, including SRM removal and keeping non-ambulatory and suspicious appearing cattle out of the food and mamalian feed supply is regarded in the world science community as adequate protection from BSE.
Re. NCBA policy suporting USDA refusal to allow private businesses to test for BSE.....what do you fail to understand about using science here?
That is the stand of NCBA.........do what the recognized science community supports.
You are totally incorrect saying NCBA "leadership can completely reverse membership decrees". That decision was made after seeking the approval of state affiliate directors. NCBA members are not afraid to make unpopular decisions. We understand that science will prove out ultimately. YOu have NO WAY of knowing things would have been any better had BSE testing been allowed by individuals. There could have been a mistake made that would have been far more costly, but you will never admit that possibility, will you? Membership is growing, with the 29,000+ figure nearly a year old now, I'll post current number later.
You are being assinine to claim that NCBA or packers, for that matter, say any such thing as: "No, you'll buy our product the way we want you to buy it". That is absolutely ridiculous OF YOU!!!! Why do you think packers have made any changes in beef cuts, or anything else, if not to satisfy customer demand?
MOST OBVIOUSLY, and let me say that I'm very sorry for you that your mind is unable to comprehend this fact: NCBA does NOT "figure losing business and markets benefits producers", in any way, shape, or form! NO ONE has disputed that losing export markets lost money for US cattle producers! What have you and R-CALF done to regain those markets? With help of NCBA, CBB, and others, we HAVE regained more than half of that lost. Pretty phenomenal, I'd say, considering all the consumer fearmongering some people have done!!!!
Do you really froth at the mouth when you are writing your little barbs and lies about NCBA, Sandhusker? I'd sorta like to see it. Pictureing that is part of my motivation here, I must confess.
Tex, R-CALF has been filing their lawsuits for years. What else do they have to show for it, other than some wealthy attorneys? Why do they continue it if they don't think they can make cattle producers more successful by doing so? Looks like the idiocy is in continuing to push the same old lawsuits.
BTW, it was differences in services TO MEMBERS, not NCBA policy issues are the "philisophical differences" between Coteau Hills and SDCA, as described previously in this thread. Other state affiliates want state dues money spent to focus on issues, especially at local and state levels.
The issues you are relating to here are on the national level, and NCBA membership has grown significantly the past few years, but thank you for your concern, misplaced as it is.
I've posted MANY, MANY times that I DO NOT CONDONE false claims, or hiding anything about beef production.....or anything else.....yet you continue to claim that I do. Are you a pathological liar, unable to help yourself? If so, you have my pity, but I will not enable you by failing to point out your lies.
I may support private BSE testing if and when adequate testing is completed and recognized and proof of test accuracy is available. IMO, that will take time, just as some claim incubation of BSE takes time.
You fantasize or lie when you say I do not want consumers to have truth. I just don't want them to have half-truths and spinning and innuendo posing as truth.
I "look out for my own interests" by using science based animal husbandry practices to produce great cattle, and age verification, other appropriate information, and premise ID so that purchasers of our cattle can tell which practices we use in order that those, including ourselves, who add value to our cattle can benefit.
What is it you do to look out for any producers interests, other than telling consumers that "commodity beef," which incidentally may be all they can afford, and most of which is equally safe as any other beef, is probably fed garbage and poisons and will harm them?
mrj