gunslinger
Well-known member
Pretty new to the boards but it seems that you don't care much for R-Calf. So why not and are there any cattle associations that you are for and why? I am smalltimes daughter, just as a reference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Questeion for SH
- Thread starter gunslinger
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Gunslinger, after you get his answer, ask a R-CALF member why they joined and then make your decision after hearing both sides.
A
Anonymous
Guest
gunslinger: "Pretty new to the boards but it seems that you don't care much for R-Calf. So why not and are there any cattle associations that you are for and why? I am smalltimes daughter, just as a reference."
Thank you for the question.
There is many reasons why I have nothing good to say about R-CALF. Bottom line is that R-CALF has done nothing good for producers and they have misled them with continual misleading information and outright lies.
Look at the most obvious example recently. R-CALF recently stated that when the Canadian border was opened to live cattle, that prices would fall dramatically. They even stated this in their lawsuit against USDA. Last year the border was closed to Canadian live cattle imports. This year the Canadian border is open to Canadian live cattle imports. Cattle prices are higher this year than last year. Shows you how much R-CALF knows about what factors affect our cattle markets.
I am not saying that Canadian imports do not have some negative impact on our markets, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply stating, as fact, that R-CALF greatly exaggerated the impact of Canadian imports on our cattle markets.
I detest lies and deception and that is exactly what R-CALF's philosophies are based on. Lies about the affect of imports, lies about packers manipulating markets, lies about the beef checkoff supporting anti producer organizations, lies about the safety of Canadian beef, and the list goes on and on.
The basic differences between R-CALF and the NCBA are the same philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats. R-CALF wants more government regulations to address "PERCEIVED" problems and NCBA wants less government intervention. Same philosophical differences between American Farm Bureau and Farmers Union. Same philiosophical differences between the SD Stockgrowers and the South Dakota Cattlemens Association. One wants more government and the other wants less. One favors liberal democratic leaders and the other favors conservative republican leaders. Why do you suppose Johnny Smith outwardly supported Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson? Because Tom and Tim have the same MORE GOVERNMENT MANDATE philosophies that Johnny Smith has.
I am a member of the South Dakota Cattlemens Association and a member of NCBA. I don't believe large successful packers are an enemy to this industry as R-CALF does. I believe Country of Origin Labeling is best driven by the consumer, not by the flawed government mandate that R-CALF is promoting called "M"COOL to save consumers from themselves. I believe the feeding industry can price their own cattle without a government mandate (Captive Supply Reform Act) dictating who can own cattle and how they will be sold. I believe that U.S. producers are better off with free but fair trade policies while R-CALF thinks we'd be better off without any trade as stated by their CEO.
R-CALF continually lies to producers. I'll give you an example. Bill Bullard stated that "USDA does not care about food safety". That is a bold faced lie. USDA's primary responsibility is for the safety of our food to the U.S. consumer and they are held accountable to the U.S. consumer. In comparison, R-CALF is not held accountable and changes their positions from day to day. R-CALF simply made this statement because they wanted to create the illusion that Canadian beef was unsafe to stop Canadian live cattle imports. R-CALF's position was that Canadian beef was contaminated due to Canada having BSE in their native herd. R-CALF risked the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (U.S. produced beef) by lying about the safety of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports). R-CALF took out an add in the Washington Post claiming that Canadian beef was contaminated due to having BSE in their native herd. When the U.S. had BSE in their native herd, R-CALF then said that we have the safest beef in the world due to our firewalls. Gunslinger, Canada has the exact same firewalls that the U.S. has. There isn't an R-CALF representative that could give you a good straight faced reason why Canadian beef is unsafe and U.S. beef safe when they have the same BSE precautionary measures in place. All they can respond with is that Canada has more BSE than the U.S. Well, either these precautionary measures are effective or they are not. The number of cases is a moot point. This whole BSE fiasco was simply a deceptive political ploy by R-CALF to stop Canadian imports WHICH THEY LOST IN A COURT OF LAW.
How stupid is it to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption by lying about BSE? Can you imagine if the media had gone to R-CALF as a reliable source of information on BSE???? Our headlines would have read "U.S. BEEF CONTAMINATED" "BSE FOUND IN NATIVE HERD".
HOW CAN ANYONE CONSIDER THAT PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE U.S. CATTLE PRODUCER????
Look at R-CALF's track record in court where facts matter:
R-CALF lost their dumping case against Canada.
R-CALF lost their injunction against USDA and this decision was upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
R-CALF supported the Pickett plaintiffs and one of their directors was a plaintiff. Pickett lost and this decision was upheld by the 11th circuit court of appeals.
R-CALF claims to not have a position on the beef checkoff yet Leo McDonnell recently stated that the beef checkoff is funding anti-producer organizations which is another bold faced lie. Herman Schumacher, R-CALF director, was involved in the lawsuit against the checkoff. This was another defeat for all those R-CALF members who are against the beef checkoff.
When it comes to facts and truth in a court of law, R-CALF loses every time because their positions are based on emotion, not fact.
Which side do you want to be on gunslinger? Do you want to support populist opinions just because that is what Johnny Smith, Dennis Hansen, and Herman Schumacher are telling people on the radio while giving their market reports or do you want to be on the side of facts and truth?
That is the decision you are making here.
There is not one more dime that will come into this industry if it does not come from the consumer. Now you tell me who has more focus on the consumer, is it NCBA or R-CALF?
R-CALF only recently aligned themselves with certain consumer groups who had taken an adversarial position against USDA not because they wanted to work with consumer groups but that's the way they have spun it to justify aligning themselves with CERTAIN consumer groups who were critical of our industry in the past.
When R-CALF first started out I thought they may have some value as a watch dog organization for fair trade. As time went on, R-CALF's agenda became more obvious. They didn't want any trade. They felt that the large packers were evil and should be regulated or even broken up. They wanted the government to save consumers from themselves with "M"COOL and they wanted to save the feeders from themselves with the Captive Supply Reform Act.
R-CALF thinks Country of Origin Labeling is going to be so important to this industry.
1. Only 5% of the U.S. beef consumption would be labeled as imported under this law.
2. The law is unenforceable because proponents of this law who demanded proof of where cattle were born, raised, and slaughtered did not want to be burdened with proving origination so they prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL and R-CALF is against traceback.
3. When you segregate 5% of the U.S. beef consumption as imported beef, you create a novelty item to the benefit of the novelty item due to it's rarity.
4. Consumers aren't asking for Country of Origin Labeling.
5. If Consumers were asking for Country of Origin Labeling, the free enterprise system could provide it and already is with the many source verified branded beef programs.
6. It will add costs to the industry. Not just the cost of tracking but the costs of enforcement which will be passed on to the producer in the form of lower cattle prices.
7. Consumers base their purchasing decisions on price far more than country of origin labeling. Just start reading labels around your house if you don't believe me.
"M"COOL as written is a complete joke. Symbolism over substance.
Bill Bullard, R-CALF CEO, stated twice now that U.S. producers would be better off without any trade. Prior to BSE, we had a $1.3 billion dollar trade surplus for a 7 year average when you consider the WHOLE TRADE PICTURE of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats, and hides. R-CALF presents you only part of the picture with their graph that isolates the beef and live cattle sectors of trade as if your hides and beef variety meats had no value. Typical of their deceptive ways of justifying their position.
Bottom line, R-CALF is simply dishonest and I detest dishonesty. I don't agree with every policy that NCBA has taken but I agree with their "less goverment" philosophies and their focus on the consumer.
When this industry starts letting biased sale barn managers determine what is best for this industry, the producer is being led down the primrose path. The sale barns are nothing more than service providers to this industry, certainly not it's spokesperson.
The fight between R-CALF and NCBA has it's roots in the Livestock Marketing Association who didn't like it when the beef checkoff funded research that showed that progressive producers with above average genetics could make more money retaining ownership on their cattle. This meant that the sale barns would lose those commission dollars. That's where the battle lines were drawn. The LMA is self serving, not the voice of this industry. Now the LMA agend hides behind R-CALF and the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM).
I wouldn't give you a dime for any of these organizations.
~SH~
rkaiser
Well-known member
After reading a post like that from SH, gunslinger, where do you stand?
I'm a Canadian, so it would be impossible for me to say that I support a lot of what Rcalf has done over the years, however, the one thing in the post by SH that I agree with is that producers need some kind of watch dog group. A group to hold this industry back from total domination and control by the packer lobby.
The ideology part of the post by SH is fairly far fetched to say the least. NCBA, USDA, and their Canadian comrades have chosen to believe that the industry is better off with one government voice. One voice that includes a group of loose knit producers and a well oiled, well paid group of packer employees. This group has lobbied the government and helped create laws that definately favour the packer. Somehow SH sees this as Right wing vs, left wing policy. Any producer including Rcalf who speaks out against the current sytstem is left wing. That is complete garbage.
Rcalf has radical leadership who forge ahead on emotion and personal views. They don't have the well oiled capitalist machine called the AMI. Nor do they even come close to the individual think tanks working for either Cargill or Tyson. These two companies have enough resources to employ hundreds to not only lobby government, but to figure out how to satisfy folks who are not near as radical as SH. SH is the ultimate tool for Cargill and Tyson. The "producer" who says you are stupid if you don't agree with the current trend in both of our countries for packer concentration, and even feeder concentration to be controlled by a very few. The "producer" who chases rancher after rancher from a polling booth with his degrading, radical talk. Ranchers are good people. They generally mind their own business and do it honestly. They don't have time for the politics of the industry, and certainly don't have time to be called names by a fellow "producer" for believing in some of what groups like Rcalf have to say. ( I've got both the time and the skin to take more of SH and his barrage but most don't).
Like I said before, Rcalf needs a lot of help before they could ever be seen as legitimate in my eyes, but to see them as nothing but left wing dolts as SH wants you to believe is a farce.
My suggestion for Rcalf would be to back down and hire some thinking people to go over policy for a while. Most of the border issue has made the Rcalf leadership look pretty sad, and they need to go back to the ranch for a while. The thinkers over in the other camp have not only used this haste and emotion to make Rcalf leadership look backwards, but have actually gained ground in the ultimate goal of concentration and power. A goal that has left wing written all over it in my ideology hand book.
Pay your membership in Rcalf gunslinger, and then go vote for new leadership with better vision and a true goal to help the every day producer of America.
I'm a Canadian, so it would be impossible for me to say that I support a lot of what Rcalf has done over the years, however, the one thing in the post by SH that I agree with is that producers need some kind of watch dog group. A group to hold this industry back from total domination and control by the packer lobby.
The ideology part of the post by SH is fairly far fetched to say the least. NCBA, USDA, and their Canadian comrades have chosen to believe that the industry is better off with one government voice. One voice that includes a group of loose knit producers and a well oiled, well paid group of packer employees. This group has lobbied the government and helped create laws that definately favour the packer. Somehow SH sees this as Right wing vs, left wing policy. Any producer including Rcalf who speaks out against the current sytstem is left wing. That is complete garbage.
Rcalf has radical leadership who forge ahead on emotion and personal views. They don't have the well oiled capitalist machine called the AMI. Nor do they even come close to the individual think tanks working for either Cargill or Tyson. These two companies have enough resources to employ hundreds to not only lobby government, but to figure out how to satisfy folks who are not near as radical as SH. SH is the ultimate tool for Cargill and Tyson. The "producer" who says you are stupid if you don't agree with the current trend in both of our countries for packer concentration, and even feeder concentration to be controlled by a very few. The "producer" who chases rancher after rancher from a polling booth with his degrading, radical talk. Ranchers are good people. They generally mind their own business and do it honestly. They don't have time for the politics of the industry, and certainly don't have time to be called names by a fellow "producer" for believing in some of what groups like Rcalf have to say. ( I've got both the time and the skin to take more of SH and his barrage but most don't).
Like I said before, Rcalf needs a lot of help before they could ever be seen as legitimate in my eyes, but to see them as nothing but left wing dolts as SH wants you to believe is a farce.
My suggestion for Rcalf would be to back down and hire some thinking people to go over policy for a while. Most of the border issue has made the Rcalf leadership look pretty sad, and they need to go back to the ranch for a while. The thinkers over in the other camp have not only used this haste and emotion to make Rcalf leadership look backwards, but have actually gained ground in the ultimate goal of concentration and power. A goal that has left wing written all over it in my ideology hand book.
Pay your membership in Rcalf gunslinger, and then go vote for new leadership with better vision and a true goal to help the every day producer of America.
Soapweed
Well-known member
SH, thank you for a good honest rational post. I agree one hundred percent with all that you said.
Personally, I am not for Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). At first glance it looks and sounds good. But without mandatory identification also, it has no "teeth" or traceback. Most of the beef sold in the USA is a product of the United States, anyway, so it is in essence, "commodity beef". The niche markets, that can guarantee beef that is born, raised, and processed in the United States, and that meet other specialized requirements, bring a substantial premium. This is the way that it should be.
If all the beef that is produced in the USA carries a USA label, it means nothing. It is still just commodity beef bringing commodity prices, but there is a cost to producers to label this beef as such. That cost will not be recovered due to it still just being commodity beef. Niche market products such as South Dakota Certified Beef, Nebraska Cornfed Beef, Certified Angus Beef, or Certified Hereford Beef all bring a premium, and rightfully so. These products have unique taste and quality because they are produced by meeting rigid requirements.
R-CALF has wanted COOL in the worst way. COOL means nothing without some sort of identification traceback, and now producers will probably all have to be burdened with mandatory identification because R-CALF got what they worked so hard to get.
There is a major lesson in Life to all of this. We need to be very careful about what we wish for, because sometimes when we get it, all that glitters is not gold.
Personally, I am not for Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). At first glance it looks and sounds good. But without mandatory identification also, it has no "teeth" or traceback. Most of the beef sold in the USA is a product of the United States, anyway, so it is in essence, "commodity beef". The niche markets, that can guarantee beef that is born, raised, and processed in the United States, and that meet other specialized requirements, bring a substantial premium. This is the way that it should be.
If all the beef that is produced in the USA carries a USA label, it means nothing. It is still just commodity beef bringing commodity prices, but there is a cost to producers to label this beef as such. That cost will not be recovered due to it still just being commodity beef. Niche market products such as South Dakota Certified Beef, Nebraska Cornfed Beef, Certified Angus Beef, or Certified Hereford Beef all bring a premium, and rightfully so. These products have unique taste and quality because they are produced by meeting rigid requirements.
R-CALF has wanted COOL in the worst way. COOL means nothing without some sort of identification traceback, and now producers will probably all have to be burdened with mandatory identification because R-CALF got what they worked so hard to get.
There is a major lesson in Life to all of this. We need to be very careful about what we wish for, because sometimes when we get it, all that glitters is not gold.
gunslinger
Well-known member
SH thankyou for your response.
As a young person in Ag it is hard to sort out the rehtoric of all the different organizations. As part of my college experience we were exposed in a way to both R-Calf and NCBA. Like all polictical organizations they both can give good and compelling talks and then one is left to wonder. I think for a majority of young people R-Calf just seems like the thing to do cause it is so highly promoted. But I have always believed that we have to have packers as our distributer. I sure as hell don't want to have to kill and market my own beef.
Second I think COOL could back fire. BSE outbreaks will happen in the U.S. It will happen. When it does all that grandstanding about American beef being the best and safest in the world is gonna sound pretty hollow. What are we gonna tell to the consumer then. When and if they decide to eat beef again they will then just buy the cheapest, since safe is just a relative term. We live in a walmart culture. Then we will just have an expensive branding program.
Perhaps we should try as hard as possible to minimize the possibility of BSE, and funnel money into R and D in studying BSE and maybe finding a treatment,cure, or something to make the public more comfortable eating beef. Truth is important and I get upset at any organization that runs on emotion. It is embarrassing to hear people that just want someone else to save them, we are in a business. Just like any other, industries change, economic facts are economic facts. Not sure if I will join any of the organizations, not from a family of joiners but thanks for your opinion.
- gunslinger
As a young person in Ag it is hard to sort out the rehtoric of all the different organizations. As part of my college experience we were exposed in a way to both R-Calf and NCBA. Like all polictical organizations they both can give good and compelling talks and then one is left to wonder. I think for a majority of young people R-Calf just seems like the thing to do cause it is so highly promoted. But I have always believed that we have to have packers as our distributer. I sure as hell don't want to have to kill and market my own beef.
Second I think COOL could back fire. BSE outbreaks will happen in the U.S. It will happen. When it does all that grandstanding about American beef being the best and safest in the world is gonna sound pretty hollow. What are we gonna tell to the consumer then. When and if they decide to eat beef again they will then just buy the cheapest, since safe is just a relative term. We live in a walmart culture. Then we will just have an expensive branding program.
Perhaps we should try as hard as possible to minimize the possibility of BSE, and funnel money into R and D in studying BSE and maybe finding a treatment,cure, or something to make the public more comfortable eating beef. Truth is important and I get upset at any organization that runs on emotion. It is embarrassing to hear people that just want someone else to save them, we are in a business. Just like any other, industries change, economic facts are economic facts. Not sure if I will join any of the organizations, not from a family of joiners but thanks for your opinion.
- gunslinger
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Gunslinger, I hope you realize that you are going to get a hyper-slanted opinion on an organization when you ask somebody who childishly calls them by other names. A rebuttle;
Canadian cattle; When pointing out the R-CALF was wrong on the flood of Candain cattle coming down, SH conveniently omits the fact that the USDA placed a number of new requirements on them to where the combonation of better prices and more hoops to jump thru simply isn't worth it for Canadians to bother with. Those restrictions were not in place when the comment was made. Also, the border isn't completely open - animals over 30 months are not allowed period.
R-CALF does NOT believe large packers are an enemy of the industry. SH has read comments from R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard on packers and he knows this. Yet, he wails about lies and deception.... R-CALF knows that the packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen.
SH claims he and the NCBA want less government intervention, yet they both supported the USDA in denying small domestic packers the ability to BSE test for international markets - which R-CALF supported. R-CALF sees that as needless and counter productive government intervention.
The current version of M-COOL is not exactly what R-CALF wanted, but they settled as it was a start. The organizations that SH supports were the ones largely responsible for the flaws. Yet, the GAO said it was a good law as written. Gunslinger, most developed countries in this world have COOL - and it is working. We are told it is too expensive, consumers don't want it, can't implement it, excuses ad naseum.... but we have dozens of examples of it working already.
US producers have invested millions into producing quality cattle. In additionl, we chuck $1 into the pot everytime we sell one to promote our cattle and then we can't even seperate our beef from any body else's. R-CALF recognizes that US producers are not getting the highest return on their investments. Gunslinger, how many other businesses out there are content with investing to provide the highest quality product out there, and then not being able to seperate it? Why do we bother?
R-CALF also has the vision to look into the future and recognize that a flood of imported beef is coming our way. Trade barriers are being removed and large US packers are positioning themselves in foreign countries so they can whisk that beef thru their channels to US consumers. COOL gives US producers a fighting chance. Gunslinger, Brazil alone has close to 3 times the number of cattle we do. When they have full access to our markets, what do you forsee happening if the status quo remains? Do you see anything positive for producers?
R-CALF does NOT want more government per se. They simply want the government to do it's job in keeping markets fair and functioning as they were intended.
If R-CALF is simply playing politics with Canadian BSE as SH would tell you, why is Canadian beef not allowed in most of the world? R-CALF asks why we are taking product most other countries won't? Does it make sense to have lower import standards than third-world countries such as Egypt? Why does the Canadian government maintain many of the same policies against other countrys that R-CALF's opponents chastise them for? Look at the bigger picture, gunslinger.
SH does not tell the whole truth on R-CALF's court record; They won the dumping case - just could not prove damages.
R-CALF won the injunction but it was tossed by the 9th court. Gunslinger, examine the 9th's record and see what you think. R-CALF's core arguement was that the USDA was not doing their job - and the 9th came back and said judgment should be deferred to the USDA. Does that sound like the USDA is accountable or they just got an unlimited pass? I recommend you don't listen to SH or me - look at the case yourself.
Yes, R-CALF supported the Pickett plaintiffs. A jury of 12 mostly professional college educated jurors voted unamiously in their favor. Did SH mention that? I would ask that you read the first two pages of the Packers and Stockyards Act and then see if you agree with the judge who threw out the verdict.
R-CALF only position on the checkoff is that it should be voted on periodically.
SH is wrong again when he states R-CALF is anti trade. R-CALF simply wants FAIR trade. They point out that we keep making trade agreements with beef exporting countries - which jeapordizes US producers. R-CALF would like efforts directed at trade agreements with beef importing countries - which helps US producers.
Yes, R-CALF has aligned with consumer groups. Who else better than your customers should you cozy up to?
My view on the NCBA is that, from the gate, they can not do what they say they are doing - representing all segments of the beef/cattle industries. You join trade organization to give you a larger voice in promoting your agendas. A producer's agenda is low beef prices so consumers will buy it and high calf prices as that is what they are selling. Feeders want low calf prices and high fat prices. Packers want low fat prices and high boxed beef , retailers want low box beef and high retail prices - and the circle is complete. Notice how many different and opposite agendas there are? They've got to pick one.
R-CALF only claims to represent one segment - the producer. You'll notice all their actions are consistant with putting more money in US producer's pockets. Take a look at all of NCBA's stands and see if you can reach the same conclusion. I also invite you to take a look at what NCBA membership voted on and passed with their 11 point initiative and what leadership did with it. That, to me, speaks volumes on which segment of the industry NCBA has picked.
Canadian cattle; When pointing out the R-CALF was wrong on the flood of Candain cattle coming down, SH conveniently omits the fact that the USDA placed a number of new requirements on them to where the combonation of better prices and more hoops to jump thru simply isn't worth it for Canadians to bother with. Those restrictions were not in place when the comment was made. Also, the border isn't completely open - animals over 30 months are not allowed period.
R-CALF does NOT believe large packers are an enemy of the industry. SH has read comments from R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard on packers and he knows this. Yet, he wails about lies and deception.... R-CALF knows that the packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen.
SH claims he and the NCBA want less government intervention, yet they both supported the USDA in denying small domestic packers the ability to BSE test for international markets - which R-CALF supported. R-CALF sees that as needless and counter productive government intervention.
The current version of M-COOL is not exactly what R-CALF wanted, but they settled as it was a start. The organizations that SH supports were the ones largely responsible for the flaws. Yet, the GAO said it was a good law as written. Gunslinger, most developed countries in this world have COOL - and it is working. We are told it is too expensive, consumers don't want it, can't implement it, excuses ad naseum.... but we have dozens of examples of it working already.
US producers have invested millions into producing quality cattle. In additionl, we chuck $1 into the pot everytime we sell one to promote our cattle and then we can't even seperate our beef from any body else's. R-CALF recognizes that US producers are not getting the highest return on their investments. Gunslinger, how many other businesses out there are content with investing to provide the highest quality product out there, and then not being able to seperate it? Why do we bother?
R-CALF also has the vision to look into the future and recognize that a flood of imported beef is coming our way. Trade barriers are being removed and large US packers are positioning themselves in foreign countries so they can whisk that beef thru their channels to US consumers. COOL gives US producers a fighting chance. Gunslinger, Brazil alone has close to 3 times the number of cattle we do. When they have full access to our markets, what do you forsee happening if the status quo remains? Do you see anything positive for producers?
R-CALF does NOT want more government per se. They simply want the government to do it's job in keeping markets fair and functioning as they were intended.
If R-CALF is simply playing politics with Canadian BSE as SH would tell you, why is Canadian beef not allowed in most of the world? R-CALF asks why we are taking product most other countries won't? Does it make sense to have lower import standards than third-world countries such as Egypt? Why does the Canadian government maintain many of the same policies against other countrys that R-CALF's opponents chastise them for? Look at the bigger picture, gunslinger.
SH does not tell the whole truth on R-CALF's court record; They won the dumping case - just could not prove damages.
R-CALF won the injunction but it was tossed by the 9th court. Gunslinger, examine the 9th's record and see what you think. R-CALF's core arguement was that the USDA was not doing their job - and the 9th came back and said judgment should be deferred to the USDA. Does that sound like the USDA is accountable or they just got an unlimited pass? I recommend you don't listen to SH or me - look at the case yourself.
Yes, R-CALF supported the Pickett plaintiffs. A jury of 12 mostly professional college educated jurors voted unamiously in their favor. Did SH mention that? I would ask that you read the first two pages of the Packers and Stockyards Act and then see if you agree with the judge who threw out the verdict.
R-CALF only position on the checkoff is that it should be voted on periodically.
SH is wrong again when he states R-CALF is anti trade. R-CALF simply wants FAIR trade. They point out that we keep making trade agreements with beef exporting countries - which jeapordizes US producers. R-CALF would like efforts directed at trade agreements with beef importing countries - which helps US producers.
Yes, R-CALF has aligned with consumer groups. Who else better than your customers should you cozy up to?
My view on the NCBA is that, from the gate, they can not do what they say they are doing - representing all segments of the beef/cattle industries. You join trade organization to give you a larger voice in promoting your agendas. A producer's agenda is low beef prices so consumers will buy it and high calf prices as that is what they are selling. Feeders want low calf prices and high fat prices. Packers want low fat prices and high boxed beef , retailers want low box beef and high retail prices - and the circle is complete. Notice how many different and opposite agendas there are? They've got to pick one.
R-CALF only claims to represent one segment - the producer. You'll notice all their actions are consistant with putting more money in US producer's pockets. Take a look at all of NCBA's stands and see if you can reach the same conclusion. I also invite you to take a look at what NCBA membership voted on and passed with their 11 point initiative and what leadership did with it. That, to me, speaks volumes on which segment of the industry NCBA has picked.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well put Sandhusker-- I sometimes envision R-CALF as being the Teddy Roosevelt of the day- trying to keep Big Business and Government honest and digging thru the inrooted corruption in both ..........
gunslinger
Well-known member
Thanks everone for the input. Haven't made up my mind yet, but I do really enjoy hearing both sides. I commend anyone who is trying to make stuff better. I just don't think a lot of people maybe have the time to do the research to really make the best decisions on who they support. I have been away from the industry for a few years and have a lot of catching up to do as to the intricacies of what is going on. I asked SH to clarify his opinion cause he is a strong force on this website, and as a newbee it is hard to figure out what is going on. You hate to just jump in the middle of a thread and make an a#% of yourself. I know I don't have all the facts. I have some opinions that all they are, and enjoy hearing others.
Sandhusker........
'he packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen. "
Think about it Gunslinger......Sandhusker hates to live in a "free"society!
Cheers for ~SH~and Soapweed.
'he packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen. "
Think about it Gunslinger......Sandhusker hates to live in a "free"society!
Cheers for ~SH~and Soapweed.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Whether or not NCBA or R-Calf purposely are political, the politicians either group supports have a clear record. Some folks would throw their political idiology out the window to vote for a candidate they think would give them M-COOL. Even if I was a strong beliver in R-Calf, I could NEVER vote for someone who votes continually to take away our rights in this country.
Another point I would like to add to SH's is that I believe R-Calf's position on BSE testing is flawed. If we set the precedent of letting Creekstone test for the Japs., what is to say that we shouldn't test ALL our beef for foreign and domestic producers. I know Sandhuskers and Oldtimers argument sometimes makes me think we should have done it from the beginning because of the time that has gone by, but the science does not justify testing. We should not let our trading partners set all the limits on our trade. Why not follow what science tells us? As long as beef packers are margin operators, the cost of testing will be passed to producers.
I hope you keep an open mind gunslinger. I know I changed some of my thinking since I started here. And there are good people on either side of the argument here. We ALL think we want what is best for us.
Another point I would like to add to SH's is that I believe R-Calf's position on BSE testing is flawed. If we set the precedent of letting Creekstone test for the Japs., what is to say that we shouldn't test ALL our beef for foreign and domestic producers. I know Sandhuskers and Oldtimers argument sometimes makes me think we should have done it from the beginning because of the time that has gone by, but the science does not justify testing. We should not let our trading partners set all the limits on our trade. Why not follow what science tells us? As long as beef packers are margin operators, the cost of testing will be passed to producers.
I hope you keep an open mind gunslinger. I know I changed some of my thinking since I started here. And there are good people on either side of the argument here. We ALL think we want what is best for us.
A
Anonymous
Guest
the real jake said:I know Sandhuskers and Oldtimers argument sometimes makes me think we should have done it from the beginning because of the time that has gone by, but the science does not justify testing. We should not let our trading partners set all the limits on our trade. Why not follow what science tells us?
real jake-What science justifys USDA's policy of sending only under twenty month beef to Japan, but importing under thirty month from Canada for the US consumer?
The sound science being preached and practiced by the USDA is not scientific science -- it has been influenced and dominated by the science of big corporate economics since day one......
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Juan said:Sandhusker........
'he packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen. "
Think about it Gunslinger......Sandhusker hates to live in a "free"society!
Cheers for ~SH~and Soapweed.
Juan, I wasn't complaining. I was simply stating facts. If you feel I was wrong in any way, point it out.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Guys, I would not disagree that USDA made some mistakes, but for now at least with the 20 month cattle we may not have to bear the costs of testing ourselves. Although I am sure it will cost something to verify the age of 20 mo. I think 30 mo. should have been the accepted rule, as that is the norm. right?
All I know is let's get the cattle moving as it is getting old having a one way street. We still have a few calves to sell sometime.
Some coming 4 yr. old cows that we bought as heifers and calved them out and resold them bred last year, resold again this last week for 1650 bred back. And the first 3 owners all made money on 'em. Gotta like that. Just hope they work for the 4th owner. :lol:
All I know is let's get the cattle moving as it is getting old having a one way street. We still have a few calves to sell sometime.
Some coming 4 yr. old cows that we bought as heifers and calved them out and resold them bred last year, resold again this last week for 1650 bred back. And the first 3 owners all made money on 'em. Gotta like that. Just hope they work for the 4th owner. :lol:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
the real jake said:Guys, I would not disagree that USDA made some mistakes, but for now at least with the 20 month cattle we may not have to bear the costs of testing ourselves. Although I am sure it will cost something to verify the age of 20 mo. I think 30 mo. should have been the accepted rule, as that is the norm. right?
All I know is let's get the cattle moving as it is getting old having a one way street. We still have a few calves to sell sometime.
Some coming 4 yr. old cows that we bought as heifers and calved them out and resold them bred last year, resold again this last week for 1650 bred back. And the first 3 owners all made money on 'em. Gotta like that. Just hope they work for the 4th owner. :lol:
According to Creekstone, we weren't going to bear the cost of testing to begin with.
Jake, "Another point I would like to add to SH's is that I believe R-Calf's position on BSE testing is flawed. If we set the precedent of letting Creekstone test for the Japs., what is to say that we shouldn't test ALL our beef for foreign and domestic producers. "
If the customers are willing to pay for the extra, what is the problem? If a customer wants their steaks packaged in cotton candy and they will pay, who is to stand in the way? I think the USDA has set the inexcusable precident of standing in the way of enterprise. They're picking sides when they are just supposed to be the referee. Creekstone testing for BSE for the Japanese in no way negetively effects anybody else.
If somebody else looks at Japan and decides they want their beef tested, I say fine, pay the cost and we'll deliver. Isn't that how free enterprise is supposed to work?
A
Anonymous
Guest
? I think the USDA has set the inexcusable precident of standing in the way of enterprise.
Wait a minute Sandhusker. Did you just trap yourself? I didn't think you were for open trade. :wink:
Do you think there is a difference between our consumers and Japaneese consumers. Let's play hardball.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
the real jake said:? I think the USDA has set the inexcusable precident of standing in the way of enterprise.
Wait a minute Sandhusker. Did you just trap yourself? I didn't think you were for open trade. :wink:
Do you think there is a difference between our consumers and Japaneese consumers. Let's play hardball.
Fine, lets play! I'm all for FAIR trade. I don't know what you mean by "open". Of course there is a difference between Japanese and US consumers, especially concerning BSE issues. There are also similarities - we all want safe food. What are you getting at?
RobertMac
Well-known member
Gunslinger, I find your original question very interesting. :???: SH's opinion of R-CALF is probably the most documented opinion on this board...after all, he is the number one poster! :clap: Even if you have only read this board since Nov. 9, I'm sure he has covered everything in his response to you about R-CALF at least once since then. (Sorry Scott, didn't read your latest R-CALF denigrating diatribe...if you put in something new, let me know and I'll check it out.) If it's a honest question, I apologize for any perceived suspicions...and my advise, go to the sources for information on NCBA and R-CALF, then make up your own mind.
Soap, are you not contradicting yourself? How can "R-CALF's" COOL be flawed for no teeth, but now burdening producers with "teeth"????
Soapweed said:Personally, I am not for Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). At first glance it looks and sounds good. But without mandatory identification also, it has no "teeth" or traceback.
COOL means nothing without some sort of identification traceback, and now producers will probably all have to be burdened with mandatory identification because R-CALF got what they worked so hard to get.
Soap, are you not contradicting yourself? How can "R-CALF's" COOL be flawed for no teeth, but now burdening producers with "teeth"????
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Soapweed, allow me to chime in on M-ID as well.
Jim McAdams commenting on the the statement; "We don't really need animal ID."
"If anyone still believes this, they simply are not paying attention to the industry"
We can have COOL virtually tomorrow at minimal cost. Mexican cattle are already branded as such and few Canadian cattle not already identified exist here. Beef imports have a label when they hit our shores. All we have to to do is pass down the labels that exist and everything else is US.
Jim McAdams commenting on the the statement; "We don't really need animal ID."
"If anyone still believes this, they simply are not paying attention to the industry"
We can have COOL virtually tomorrow at minimal cost. Mexican cattle are already branded as such and few Canadian cattle not already identified exist here. Beef imports have a label when they hit our shores. All we have to to do is pass down the labels that exist and everything else is US.
Soapweed
Well-known member
RobertMac said:Soap, are you not contradicting yourself? How can "R-CALF's" COOL be flawed for no teeth, but now burdening producers with "teeth"????
M-COOL means absolutely nothing without M-ID. I don't want either one, because they are both just an extra hassle for the producer. COOL is meaningless anyway, because it says "USA" on plain old commodity beef. Big deal. Let free enterprise on the niche market specialized beef bring the premium it deserves. Leave the commodity beef alone, so it can be bought as cheaply as possible by the consumer and so it is as hassle-free as possible for the producer. We don't want to put extra cost burdens on beef so it gets priced out of the reach of the consumers.
As I've said before, I'd much rather eat tasty high quality Canadian produced beef than I would southern Okie-type USA poor quality stuff. "USA Beef" means nothing. It might mean high quality beef, or it might mean unsavory poor quality beef. We need to allow niche markets and free enterprise to prevail, and keep government intervention out of commodity beef.
