• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for Final Rule supporters

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The USDA has a Congressional mandate to control the spread of animal diseases in our herd. In opening the border to Canadian OTMs, they estimate that they will be bringing in over 100 BSE positive animals. (And this is the estimate of the same people who said Canada's feed ban was effective in 1999.) They aren't going to test any of the animals who they know will be bringing in BSE, and the OIE, the organization that they tout as having authority on the subject, says our feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE. Considering the above, can anybody explain how their actions could possibly be justified?
 

mwj

Well-known member
If we do not test any they will not be found and it will be buisness as always
:lol: We can not find any homegrown ones so it will not change things!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mwj said:
If we do not test any they will not be found and it will be buisness as always
:lol: We can not find any homegrown ones so it will not change things!

You're getting off topic there. The question is how can they justify their actions with the mandate before them. I say there is no possible way that it can be done.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
mwj said:
If we do not test any they will not be found and it will be buisness as always
:lol: We can not find any homegrown ones so it will not change things!

You're getting off topic there. The question is how can they justify their actions with the mandate before them. I say there is no possible way that it can be done.

Ya. You say. :roll:
MWJ hits the nail right on the head. There really is nothing else left to say.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
mwj said:
If we do not test any they will not be found and it will be buisness as always
:lol: We can not find any homegrown ones so it will not change things!

You're getting off topic there. The question is how can they justify their actions with the mandate before them. I say there is no possible way that it can be done.

Ya. You say. :roll:
MWJ hits the nail right on the head. There really is nothing else left to say.

He's talking about testing of domestic animals - another subject. Stay focused here, let's talk about one misguided policy at a time. How can the USDA justify their actions in respect to Canadian OTMs with the mandate they have?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Oh.... I thought he was talking about the fact that the USDA couldn't track or find an elephant with a bloody nose walking in 3 feet of snow on the flat bald prairie, therefore making the addition of Canadian cattle to the American herd a moot point.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Oh.... I thought he was talking about the fact that the USDA couldn't track or find an elephant with a bloody nose walking in 3 feet of snow on the flat bald prairie, therefore making the addition of Canadian cattle to the American herd a moot point.

When the Van Dyke fiasco was playing out, I was being told the USDA had everything tracked properly. When did they go from being professional to being inept?

Like I said, one misguided policy at a time. Do you care to address the original question?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Oh.... I thought he was talking about the fact that the USDA couldn't track or find an elephant with a bloody nose walking in 3 feet of snow on the flat bald prairie, therefore making the addition of Canadian cattle to the American herd a moot point.

When the Van Dyke fiasco was playing out, I was being told the USDA had everything tracked properly. When did they go from being professional to being inept?

Like I said, one misguided policy at a time. Do you care to address the original question?

Oh, so now you're onside with the USDA? Good grief, your knees must be about shot from jumping on and off that bandwagon.
I suppose my brand of sarcasm went right over your pointy little head. It is my belief, and has been from the beginning, that there is no discernable difference in the occurance of bse between the US herd and the Canadian herd. If you believe otherwise, you are a fool. If you say otherwise, you are a protectionist fool.
It amazes me how you are so willing to accept facts and figures which back your protectionist feelings and discard those which don't.

So, to address your silly question (how can their actions be justified): I suppose it makes sense if one believes that they know what everyone else has known all along (but only a few like you and OT pretend to not know): THERE IS NO FREAKIN' DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE BETWEEN THE US HERD AND THE CANADIAN HERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Why is this topic so hard to stay on? You don't like it so you tangent off onto something else? This isn't about comparing rates of disease (which the CDC disagrees with you on). This is about whether or not the USDA is doing what they are supposed to do. Let me draw you a picture;

One of the USDA's jobs is to stop the spread of animal diseases.

They admit that they will be bringing in diseased animals from Canada.

They are taking absolutely no measures to address those diseased animals that they know they will be allowing in.


The question now is; How can they justify their actions with the mandate given them?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH you seem to want to answer your own questions. But here is my 2 cents - if you believe the USDA was wrong on the feedban in Canada then why would they be right on the number of positives coming in from canada. To be credible you have to believe in them or not - picking and choosing when to back the USDA just doesn't stand up. As for that much flaunted CDC report on the higher incedence of BSE in Canada it is based on the number of BSE positive animals found IF even only a few positives are missed in the US the incedence rate would be much closer between Canada and the US. Could you please explain why the OIE predicted incedence rates of BSE positive animals in developed countries with BSE match the actual numbers in developed counties except the US. :roll:
As for the Van Dyke case the cattle were from Canada and were mixed with US cattle in the plant by someone. That isn't supposed to happen, but the Canadian and US cattle didn't know better so maybe someone responsible should come forward. So in all actuality this is a moot point. Or is this another USDA lie :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What I am asking doesn't matter what I, you, Silver or anybody other than the USDA believe. ONCE AGAIN,

THEY are supposed to stop the spread of animal diseases.

THEY say they will be bringing it in.

THEY will be doing nothing special with those diseased cattle that THEY know have disease.

Now, how in the hell are the doing their job of stopping animal disease when they're knowingly bringing it in?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
As for the Van Dyke case the cattle were from Canada and were mixed with US cattle in the plant by someone. That isn't supposed to happen, but the Canadian and US cattle didn't know better so maybe someone responsible should come forward. So in all actuality this is a moot point. Or is this another USDA lie :roll:



QUESTION, are you sure about this.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The USDA has a Congressional mandate to control the spread of animal diseases in our herd. In opening the border to Canadian OTMs, they estimate that they will be bringing in over 100 BSE positive animals. (And this is the estimate of the same people who said Canada's feed ban was effective in 1999.) They aren't going to test any of the animals who they know will be bringing in BSE, and the OIE, the organization that they tout as having authority on the subject, says our feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE. Considering the above, can anybody explain how their actions could possibly be justified?



they call it MONEY $$$


some of you may not have read this, and some might be interested in some of the commentors, and replies to commentors ;


[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041]
RIN 0579-AC01


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live
Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/Docket_9-10-2007.doc



EXPORTATION AND IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS:
BSE; MRR AND IMPORTATION OF COMMODITIES, 65758-65759 [E6-19042]




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=1&F=P&P=8374




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3854




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=3381




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10277




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=9972




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=4492




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2583




http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2470



Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You're right, Flounder. And when people raise a big stink about lawsuits filed against the USDA, but can't refute the arguement, I call that horsecrap.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Anybody else want to take a stab at it? MRJ, BMR, Bill? I'm sure you guys will speak out against the lawsuit again. Here's an opportunity to put some facts behind your arguements.

I'm getting a feeling that facts just don't matter with the anti-RCALF flock.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The USDA has a Congressional mandate to control the spread of animal diseases in our herd. In opening the border to Canadian OTMs, they estimate that they will be bringing in over 100 BSE positive animals. (And this is the estimate of the same people who said Canada's feed ban was effective in 1999.) They aren't going to test any of the animals who they know will be bringing in BSE, and the OIE, the organization that they tout as having authority on the subject, says our feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE. Considering the above, can anybody explain how their actions could possibly be justified?

Does R-calf agree with the OIE, that the USA's feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE??
A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
The USDA has a Congressional mandate to control the spread of animal diseases in our herd. In opening the border to Canadian OTMs, they estimate that they will be bringing in over 100 BSE positive animals. (And this is the estimate of the same people who said Canada's feed ban was effective in 1999.) They aren't going to test any of the animals who they know will be bringing in BSE, and the OIE, the organization that they tout as having authority on the subject, says our feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE. Considering the above, can anybody explain how their actions could possibly be justified?

Does R-calf agree with the OIE, that the USA's feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE??
A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

YES

Can you answer my question now?
 

TimH

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
The USDA has a Congressional mandate to control the spread of animal diseases in our herd. In opening the border to Canadian OTMs, they estimate that they will be bringing in over 100 BSE positive animals. (And this is the estimate of the same people who said Canada's feed ban was effective in 1999.) They aren't going to test any of the animals who they know will be bringing in BSE, and the OIE, the organization that they tout as having authority on the subject, says our feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE. Considering the above, can anybody explain how their actions could possibly be justified?

Does R-calf agree with the OIE, that the USA's feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE??
A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

YES

Can you answer my question now?

Certainly. Obviously the USDA believes that your feedban IS adequate to stop the spread of BSE.......be it DOMESTIC or imported.
Pretty simple really.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Does R-calf agree with the OIE, that the USA's feed ban is not adequate to stop the spread of BSE??
A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

YES

Can you answer my question now?

Certainly. Obviously the USDA believes that your feedban IS adequate to stop the spread of BSE.......be it DOMESTIC or imported.
Pretty simple really.

But the OIE, which they continually tout as the experts when they try to force trade their way down the throats of other countries, says our feed ban isn't adequate. I'll also point out the hundreds of posts from Canadians - the same who condemn the lawsuit - that also blast our ban. Therefore, what you have is two sets of hypocrites who's opinions are swayed by the dollar. You guys can be that way if you like, I don't care, but I find it unacceptable for my government to be that way, especially when it puts the welfare of so many at risk - and for what?
 

TimH

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
YES

Can you answer my question now?

Certainly. Obviously the USDA believes that your feedban IS adequate to stop the spread of BSE.......be it DOMESTIC or imported.
Pretty simple really.

But the OIE, which they continually tout as the experts when they try to force trade their way down the throats of other countries, says our feed ban isn't adequate. I'll also point out the hundreds of posts from Canadians - the same who condemn the lawsuit - that also blast our ban. Therefore, what you have is two sets of hypocrites who's opinions are swayed by the dollar. You guys can be that way if you like, I don't care, but I find it unacceptable for my government to be that way, especially when it puts the welfare of so many at risk - and for what?

I feel your pain Sandhusker. Perhaps you should hold a few more bend-over....er I mean rollover calf auctions and buy a full-page ad in The Washington Post and explain to your consumers how the USA's feedban is unsafe. It won't effect beef consumption or consumer confidence. Really. :roll:
 
Top