Sandhusker said:
My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".
Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?
By this line of reasoning, I guess we should be skeptical of all of our ranching neighbors in Cherry County. They are undoubtedly more in "direct" competition with us than are ranchers in Canada, South America or Australia. This should also give us reason to do nothing but cheer when Ted Turner buys another ranch in Cherry County, because another direct competitor is no longer around to bother us. :? What about South Dakota ranchers or Wyoming ranchers? I guess they are also to be considered "bad guys" because they are also competing for available money that is spent on beef.
COOL (country of origin labeling) is nothing more than a "cool" buzzword. It means nothing to a hungry person. Which would be more desirable, a beef steak with origins in South America, or a strictly vegetarian meal grown in Grandma's garden next door and processed and cooked entirely by her? No offense to Grandma, but I believe I would take the South American steak, thank you.
Personally, I despise rules and regulations. The quotation, "That government is best that governs least," comes to mind. Life is complicated enough without more bureaucratic unenforceable rules clogging up the arteries of commerce.
We claim Cherry County, Nebraska, as our ranch residence. Though we live on the Nebraska side of the border, a third of our ranch is actually in Bennett County, South Dakota. This could be a genuine hassle, but fortunately there is a "loop-hole" whereby we can annually apply for a grazing permit. This allows us to freely take cattle back and forth on both sides of the border without having them brand inspected and health inspected. What a pain life would be if we couldn't take advantage of this grazing permit. For starters, much of this border isn't even fenced.
I appreciate the freedoms allowed between the different states in these wonderful United States of America. Canada has always been like a little brother to us, with almost as much freedom allowed between the two countries as between our own states. It is sad that this friendly border is now in jeopardy of too much regulation. If I was a rancher along the USA/Canadian border, I would like to exercise the same "freedoms" that I am allowed being on the Nebraska/South Dakota border. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would not set well with me. Beef that would "travel" back and forth on both sides of the border would end up being beef without a home. Canada couln't claim it because it had set hoof in the USA. The USA couldn't claim it because it was "tainted" on Canadian soil.
COOL is a desirable attribute, but only on a voluntary basis, on branded beef that has met certain criteria. Otherwise it will just be an expensive boondoggle that will not generate enough extra money to pay the costs of implementation.