Tam said:
Econ101 said:
I think the answer could be found in the OIG report on GIPSA. If reporting violations does not even get an investigation, why do it? Why are we allowing these regulatory agencies to say "there is no proof" of a violation when it is their responsibility to find that proof and they are not looking.
There has to be some credibility in our regulatory agencies and there just isn't. No one is being held accountable. On top of that, we have producers like Tam, Jason, MRJ and others who first of all don't know how to logically read some of the reports by the "experts" or the "investigators" and defend packer actions based on them. The Alberta report is just an example. It is funny to me that these are the kind of people that are "leaders" in the cattle business in the old cattle organizations in the U.S. and in Canada. With this kind of leadership, the cattle business will continue to be manipulated for the interests of packers, and not producers.
Econ you say
If reporting violations does not even get an investigation, why do it? Investigation are done Econ look at the investigation into the NOV Texas cow that became the June Texas positive cow. if an investigation hadn't been done how was she found 7 months after the fact? and what happen to the USDA testing after Phyllis got done with her investigation? Wasn't the USDA force to change their testing protocol? Just because some investigations don't come up with evidence to prove your claims that would punish the packers doesn't mean an investigation wasn't done? I happen to think that if two feed mills are breaking any laws they would not be in business long as we have rules that if a feed mills is NON COMPLIANT they don't get a permit to operate. So if BSE tester has evidence to prove non compliance then turn them in and stop the stupidity
Tam, I am not interested in the exceptions when it comes to investigations, unless they fit into a pattern.
"According to P&SP's data, the agency was tracking a total of 1,842 investigations as of June 30, 2005. The records, howver, could not be used to identify the location of work performed (i.e. the P&SP office or the regulated entity's place of business) for 1,799 of the 1,842 investigations. In addition, agency records were incomplete for 973 of the 1,842 investigations." OIG Jan. 2006 Audit report pg. ii.
Investigations were just phone calls to the ones being investigated with a big rubber stamp on their actions. There was no enforcement. I don't know about you, but the fact that 98% of what they were calling "investigations" could not be located tells me that they are training secretaries to not do their job filing. In essence, GIPSA was working for the industry to sabatoge any action that could be taken against them.
Set aside your hate for rcalf, which is just a scapegoat, and try to understand what is happening to this industry in the U.S. and in Canada. Pretty soon you are going to end up just like the poultry growers. You better start paying attention to what Tyson and the other companies have done in that industry and in the pork industry, otherwise it will be too late. Rcalf will be the least of your worries.