Pssst Hey Sandman.....over here!

[Anonymous]

Remember when you tried to create your "ILLUSION" that R-CULT was not against a Mandatory ID program by stating that they didn't want a "BURDENSOME" traceback as opposed to my contention that they had stated repeatedly during "M"COOL listening sessions that they didn't want to be "BURDENED WITH" a traceback system?

Remember that?

Remember I mentioned the fact that "M"ID was prohibited from "M"COOL yet you insisted on creating the illusion that R-CULT was not opposed to "M"ID?????

R-CULT 2005 Official Mail-In Ballot

Resolution #7. Mandatory Animal ID

BE IT RESOLVED that R-CULT USA does not support a mandatory ID program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that R-CULT USA supports the existing animal identifications methods in place, including but not limited to brand inspection.

Approve #7: 4085
Disapprove #7: 557
Abstain #7: 292

So much for that illusion Sandman!

R-CULT has shown their true colors.

"BY GAWD CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR BEEF WAS "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED" BUT DON'T BURDEN ME WITH PROVING IT."

You betcha!

Gooooooooo R-CULT!


~SH~

 

[ocm]

Remember when you tried to create your "ILLUSION" that R-CULT was not against a Mandatory ID program by stating that they didn't want a "BURDENSOME" traceback as opposed to my contention that they had stated repeatedly during "M"COOL listening sessions that they didn't want to be "BURDENED WITH" a traceback system?

With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either.

Now that this resolution has passed, they now have taken a position.

 

[Sandhusker]

But ocm, some member of R-CALF somewhere probably made a statement against MID so, in SH's book of biased twisted reasoning, that is then official policy.

He's just upset that he got made into a fool first with his WTO trap deal, then with his "suggestions with consequences" comment, and then his exposure the Pickett bunch entering forward contracts - all in just a few days. He's lashing out.

 

[ocm]

But ocm, some member of R-CALF somewhere probably made a statement against MID so, in SH's book of biased twisted reasoning, that is then official policy.

He's just upset that he got made into a fool first with his WTO trap deal, then with his "suggestions with consequences" comment, and then his exposure the Pickett bunch entering forward contracts - all in just a few days. He's lashing out.

Sound plausible.

He's beginning to act like what Rush Limbaugh describes as Democrats when they're out of power. They go nuts. You don't suppose ~SH~ is a closet democrat do you? After all he's sure making us Republicans look good.

 

[Tam]

Remember when you tried to create your "ILLUSION" that R-CULT was not against a Mandatory ID program by stating that they didn't want a "BURDENSOME" traceback as opposed to my contention that they had stated repeatedly during "M"COOL listening sessions that they didn't want to be "BURDENED WITH" a traceback system?

With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either.

Now that this resolution has passed, they now have taken a position.

Why was Leo M. And Bill B. on TV spouting how R-CALF got M'ID taken out of the M"COOL" and explaining how it shouldn't cost the US producers anything extra to have M'COOL if the USDA just labeled the imported all other meat would be US by default. He bragged about R-CALF being successful in getting M'ID taken out of M"COOL" when it was being written. Now SH posts the result of your pathetic groups resolution and you still deny R-CALF was against M"ID" :roll:

 

[Mike]

Tam, look at the date on the resolution.

 

[Tam]

Tam, look at the date on the resolution.

I saw the date 2005 and I ask you did Leo and Bill lie on TV about R-CALF being successful in getting M"ID" taken out of M"COOL"? If they weren't, did R-CALF leadership get it taken out WITHOUT the mandate of their membership? What else has R-CALF leadership done on behalf of their membership without a mandate to do so? I see this resolution as a CYA resolution as they had already taken claim to doing the very thing this resolution gave them the mandate to do.

 

[Mike]

I have no idea of when and what R-Calf has done to kill M'ID. It just seems sort of far fetched that they had this much power. Then again, the NCBA has not been a proponent either.

All I have seen is the written word on here that they took credit for doing so and a resolution considerably after the fact makes it even more suspicious.

Just my 2 pennies.

 

[Sandhusker]

There's a whole lot of possibilities and without an answer from Leo or Bill, it is all speculation.

Is official R-CALF policy now that they are opposed to M-ID? Yes. Membership voted as such. I was in the minority, but that's the way it goes. I agreed with the other 6 resolutions.

Did they get M-ID tossed from COOL? Maybe yes, maybe no. The final version of COOL certainly wasn't what they wanted, but they decided it was good enough for a start. If they did, what were the reasons? The system for accomodating M-ID as proposed might of been the problem. Once again, you need answers directly from Bill or Leo to know.

 

[Tam]

Well Sandhusker I believe we did get the answer from Leo and Bill when they both sat on RFD-TV and said they were successful in getting M"ID" taken out of M"COOL" and that M"COOL would work at no extra expence to US producer if the USDA just labeled all imports and the rest would be US by DEFAULT.

And the fact it was 2005 that this resolution passed proves you still don't really want the US consumers to KNOW where their beef comes from even after the USDA proved they couldn't find the animals involved with the BSE positive cows using the existing animal identification methods.

 

[Sandhusker]

Well Sandhusker I believe we did get the answer from Leo and Bill when they both sat on RFD-TV and said they were successful in getting M"ID" taken out of M"COOL" and that M"COOL would work at no extra expence to US producer if the USDA just labeled all imports and the rest would be US by DEFAULT.

And the fact it was 2005 that this resolution passed proves you still don't really want the US consumers to KNOW where their beef comes from even after the USDA proved they couldn't find the animals involved with the BSE positive cows using the existing animal identification methods.

Once again, Tam, WHY did they want M-ID out? There are a number of possible reasons.

Are you telling us that it would not work to simply label all foreign beef? Why not?

I'm in favor of M-ID. What else do you want me to say?

 

[ocm]

R-CALF's long held position is that COOL should not be based on individual animal ID. Such individual animal ID is not necessary for COOL. A workable system to do that very thing has been put forward by R-CALF.

The 2005 resolution is new in that it takes a position against any mandatory federal animal ID program.

I know the lone R-CALF participant in one of the early multi-group meetings on ID. He says that at that meeting there were rumblings of NCBA operating an ID system for the government. He warned them that if they proceeded that theyr would surely get as much grief on it as a money making scheme that was mandatory as they already had on the checkoff. I know of some state cattle organizations that have gotten $$$$ in front of their eyes over this.

As an R-CALF member I supported this resolution because I think individual states can do an adequate job of animal ID. If an animal never crosses a state line then it's none the the federal governments business. When it crosses the line, then you could give the basic info to the feds, but the detail belongs to the state.

Also there has never been any federal legislation mandating animal ID. It is just agency regulation, and I'm not even sure about that. No hearings yet (govt sponsored).

So, Tam, there are two different things here. 1. No animal ID connected with COOL and 2. No animal ID by itself.

Number 1 has been R-CALF's position for quite some time.
Number 2 is new this year.

 

[Tam]

Well Sandhusker I believe we did get the answer from Leo and Bill when they both sat on RFD-TV and said they were successful in getting M"ID" taken out of M"COOL" and that M"COOL would work at no extra expence to US producer if the USDA just labeled all imports and the rest would be US by DEFAULT.

And the fact it was 2005 that this resolution passed proves you still don't really want the US consumers to KNOW where their beef comes from even after the USDA proved they couldn't find the animals involved with the BSE positive cows using the existing animal identification methods.

Once again, Tam, WHY did they want M-ID out? There are a number of possible reasons.

Are you telling us that it would not work to simply label all foreign beef? Why not?

I'm in favor of M-ID. What else do you want me to say?

Sorry Sandhusker when I said " you" I meant as in R-CALF and the 4085 members that voted to pass this resolution. I took from what Leo said as it was because tagging and verifing where US beef really comes from was going to be an expence US producer shouldn't have to bear. As there wasn't a problem with US beef it is the SAFEST BEEF IN THE WORLD. It would cost the US producer nothing to label imported beef and that is the beef consumers had to beware of. Let the US consumers guess where in the US the US beef really was born and raised, no expence to that right Sandhusker. :roll: Well until the USDA tries to find where these BSE positive cows were from and then it cost lots in time and money but who cares about that.

Another thing I noticed is on this mail out resolution only 4934 members replied of what R-CALF claims is a 18,000+ member membership. Didn't the other 13000+ members pick up their mail and care to vote?

 

[Tam]

R-CALF's long held position is that COOL should not be based on individual animal ID. Such individual animal ID is not necessary for COOL. A workable system to do that very thing has been put forward by R-CALF.

The 2005 resolution is new in that it takes a position against any mandatory federal animal ID program.

I know the lone R-CALF participant in one of the early multi-group meetings on ID. He says that at that meeting there were rumblings of NCBA operating an ID system for the government. He warned them that if they proceeded that theyr would surely get as much grief on it as a money making scheme that was mandatory as they already had on the checkoff. I know of some state cattle organizations that have gotten $$$$ in front of their eyes over this.

As an R-CALF member I supported this resolution because I think individual states can do an adequate job of animal ID. If an animal never crosses a state line then it's none the the federal governments business. When it crosses the line, then you could give the basic info to the feds, but the detail belongs to the state.

Also there has never been any federal legislation mandating animal ID. It is just agency regulation, and I'm not even sure about that. No hearings yet (govt sponsored).

So, Tam, there are two different things here. 1. No animal ID connected with COOL and 2. No animal ID by itself.

Number 1 has been R-CALF's position for quite some time.
Number 2 is new this year.

1. No animal ID connected with COOL and no way of guaranteeing COOL without. US beef is US beef by default with no proof of where it came from.

2. No animal ID by itself. What has this cost the USDA in manpower and credibility when they are forced to investigate a reportable disease outbreak like BSE and they fail?

Why are R-CALF members so scare to let the Consumer know where your beef really comes from? Why not see to it that there is a NATIONAL data base that contains this information, so the next BSE animal that is found the USDA doesn't have to take weeks and months to close the investigation. Just how much more damage it done to the US beef industry credibility because you are not willing to provide proof of where your beef is born and raised?

 

[Tam]

So, Tam, there are two different things here. 1. No animal ID connected with COOL and 2. No animal ID by itself.

Number 1 has been R-CALF's position for quite some time.
Number 2 is new this year.

Sorry I missed this I thought you said

With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either.

Now that this resolution has passed, they now have taken a position.

Which is it OCM was it their position to be against M"ID" or wasn't it?

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Another thing I noticed is on this mail out resolution only 4934 members replied of what R-CALF claims is a 18,000+ member membership. Didn't the other 13000+ members pick up their mail and care to vote?"

You need to do the same as SH and check on dates, Tam. Due to the huge recent growth of R-CALF, most of those 13,000+ people who are members now were not members then.

 

[agman]

Tam, "Another thing I noticed is on this mail out resolution only 4934 members replied of what R-CALF claims is a 18,000+ member membership. Didn't the other 13000+ members pick up their mail and care to vote?"

You need to do the same as SH and check on dates, Tam. Due to the huge recent growth of R-CALF, most of those 13,000+ people who are members now were not members then.

That is a stretch even for you Sandhusker.

 

[ocm]

So, Tam, there are two different things here. 1. No animal ID connected with COOL and 2. No animal ID by itself.

Number 1 has been R-CALF's position for quite some time.
Number 2 is new this year.

Sorry I missed this I thought you said

With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either.

Now that this resolution has passed, they now have taken a position.

Which is it OCM was it their position to be against M"ID" or wasn't it?

They had not taken one on M ID alone, only in its relation to COOL.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Another thing I noticed is on this mail out resolution only 4934 members replied of what R-CALF claims is a 18,000+ member membership. Didn't the other 13000+ members pick up their mail and care to vote?"

You need to do the same as SH and check on dates, Tam. Due to the huge recent growth of R-CALF, most of those 13,000+ people who are members now were not members then.

That is a stretch even for you Sandhusker.

Really? Are you going to deny that R-CALF's membership has grown dramatically the last few months? :shock:

Maybe you would rather compare the percentage of members who are voting between R-CALF and NCBA? :wink:

 

[Murgen]

Lemmings, what happened to Lemmings, anyway?