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

R-CALF focus on man and animal

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
R-CALF focus on man and animal

R-CALF: Focus of litigation to both human and herd health

March 25, 2005



BILLINGS, Mont. - The following statement should be attributed to R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard:



"The worst thing for the U.S. beef industry would be for the United States to turn itself from a country where bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has never been found in the domestic herd (despite testing almost 300,000 head of U.S. cattle) into a country where BSE is known to exist because of the importation of millions of Canadian cattle - some of which even attorneys for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have described as 'high-risk.'



"R-CALF has used litigation as a last resort to protect both humans and cattle from possible exposure to the BSE problem in Canada.



"The National Meat Association (NMA) has used short-sighted, eleventh hour legal tactics in San Francisco's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to attempt to reverse a federal judge's critical decision on March 2 to keep the Canadian border closed to imports of live cattle and additional beef products until the merits of our case can be heard.



"NMA's actions demonstrate that organization is more concerned about profits than the safety of consumers and cattle, while the arguments R-CALF presented to U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull were built around the idea of protecting not only human health, but herd health.



"The best way to get Japan and South Korea to buy USA beef again - and the best way to re-establish cattle and beef trade with Canada - is for USDA to start protecting consumers and the beef industry, and stop kowtowing to the Administration's trade politics.



"USDA's idea - and the idea of the multi-national packers - that lowering U.S. import standards to allow Canadian beef products into the U.S. will somehow cause major export customers like Japan and Korea to reopen their markets to the United States is illogical and irrational.



"Since 2003, the Japanese have told us they don't want any beef from the United States unless it can be guaranteed that it is not derived from Canadian cattle, and is properly marked as originating from the United States.



"Why, then, aren't the big packers willing to implement country-of-origin labeling (COOL)? If our government would stop ignoring the requests of some of our biggest export markets, whether it's labeling or testing for BSE, big packers and small packers alike would see an increase in business.



"Another positive result of meeting customer demands likely would be a big improvement in our relationships with those countries."
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
Latest data shows USA has imported the same amount of beef (in boxes) in 2004 that we did in 2002 on the hoof. What has R-Calf done except put some of our small packers out of business, plus get all their names in the headlines in the newspapers. Bull Burger, your last comeback...I laughed!!! Good job.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FLIP

Leo: "Since 2003, the Japanese have told us they don't want any beef from the United States unless it can be guaranteed that it is not derived from Canadian cattle, and is properly marked as originating from the United States."


FLOP!


Leo: "R-CALF has not met with any individuals or groups who officially represent the government of Japan"



~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...FLIP

Leo: "Since 2003, the Japanese have told us they don't want any beef from the United States unless it can be guaranteed that it is not derived from Canadian cattle, and is properly marked as originating from the United States."


FLOP!


Leo: "R-CALF has not met with any individuals or groups who officially represent the government of Japan"




Is this the best you can do Scott?


How about NCBA's statement, we are losing $175 dollars per head due to no exports? You and agman say it is $28 dollars.
How about NCBA's resolution, no Canadian live cattle untill exports are resumed with Japan, Korea, and Mexico. Then flip flop and say we need the border open now when there are no exports to those countries yet.

Have you called NCBA headquarters and told them it is a lie they are putting out about the $175 dollar loss due to exports?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Wow 300,000 head tested. With a test that has less accuracy than the Canadian test.

Funny thing about these so called "high risk" cattle in Canada is that they are being killed and tested on our farms.

Ride this dead horse into the ground Rcalf boys, you might get a Jugde or two bought for a while longer, but keep pissing off your feds and they will bury your a$$ with another domestic BSE cow and that will be the end of any credibility you think you have left.

Bullshit Bullard rides again!!!!!!!!!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Come on Tommy, your leader just said it was about saving lives, and that the NMA had the economic agenda!
:)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tommy said:
SH...FLIP

Leo: "Since 2003, the Japanese have told us they don't want any beef from the United States unless it can be guaranteed that it is not derived from Canadian cattle, and is properly marked as originating from the United States."


FLOP!


Leo: "R-CALF has not met with any individuals or groups who officially represent the government of Japan"




Is this the best you can do Scott?


How about NCBA's statement, we are losing $175 dollars per head due to no exports? You and agman say it is $28 dollars.
How about NCBA's resolution, no Canadian live cattle untill exports are resumed with Japan, Korea, and Mexico. Then flip flop and say we need the border open now when there are no exports to those countries yet.

Have you called NCBA headquarters and told them it is a lie they are putting out about the $175 dollar loss due to exports?

Tommy, you know very well SH won't ever hold NCBA to the same "standards" as he holds R-CALF. His critizism is only directed one way. NCBA does't lie - they are just sometimes mistaken. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
T: "How about NCBA's statement, we are losing $175 dollars per head due to no exports?"

What about it?


T: "You and agman say it is $28 dollars."

WRONG!

That is the net of exports and imports under normal trade situations. NCBA is only referring to the value of exports.

In case you forgot, we are nowhere near the value of our normal export markets.


T: "How about NCBA's resolution, no Canadian live cattle untill exports are resumed with Japan, Korea, and Mexico."

Already voiced my disapproval of that directive as well as the USDA grade stamp directive.

I disagreed with NCBA on both of those directives AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT!

Unlike you, I don't try to defend something that I believe is obviously wrong.


T: "Have you called NCBA headquarters and told them it is a lie they are putting out about the $175 dollar loss due to exports?"

Prove that it's a lie Tommy!

Prove to me that our export markets are not worth $175 per head on fat cattle.

You say it's a lie BUT WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??

You don't have none because talk is cheap with you R-CULTers.


I question that number also but I'm not foolish enough to say it's a lie UNLESS I CAN PROVE IT IS!



Sandblaster,

Already said that I didn't agree with two of NCBA's directives. Unlike you, I'm not a mindless "headnodder" that tries to defend hypocrisy and flip flops like the one mentioned above.

It didn't go unnoticed that you didn't address that. Just continue to nod your head in agreement as Leo tells you what you want to hear AT THAT MOMENT!

Forget that it contradicted what he said yesterday.



~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
T: "You and agman say it is $28 dollars."

WRONG!

That is the net of exports and imports under normal trade situations. NCBA is only referring to the value of exports.


SH from archives...through it all, the beef industry maintains a $28 per head trade surplus. Imagine that?

NCBA...Since our export markets closed on December 23, 2003, cattle producers have suffered an economic loss equal to $175 per head of cattle.

NCBA said cattle producers suffered the loss Scott, not companies who export the beef. In your mind are they one and the same?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
T: "NCBA said cattle producers suffered the loss Scott, not companies who export the beef. In your mind are they one and the same?"

Of course they are one in the same. If packers get more for beef they pay more for cattle.

If they didn't prices wouldn't move.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
T: "NCBA said cattle producers suffered the loss Scott, not companies who export the beef. In your mind are they one and the same?"

Of course they are one in the same. If packers get more for beef they pay more for cattle.

If they didn't prices wouldn't move.



~SH~

If that is the case, historical charts should reveal a direct correalation between packer profits and the price of cattle. Any bets on that? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SH (previous): "If packers get more for beef they pay more for cattle. if they didn't prices wouldn't move"


Sandblaster: "If that is the case, historical charts should reveal a direct correalation between packer profits and the price of cattle. Any bets on that?"

Wrong again, if that is the case historical charts should reveal a direct correlation between BOXED BEEF PRICES and the price of cattle.

Any bets on that????

I didn't think so!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
SH (previous): "If packers get more for beef they pay more for cattle. if they didn't prices wouldn't move"


Sandblaster: "If that is the case, historical charts should reveal a direct correalation between packer profits and the price of cattle. Any bets on that?"

Wrong again, if that is the case historical charts should reveal a direct correlation between BOXED BEEF PRICES and the price of cattle.

Any bets on that????

I didn't think so!


~SH~

Fine, since you brought it up, why not post your findings for all of us to see.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I told you before, I'm not doing your research for you. If you are too ignorant to realize the relation between boxed beef prices and cattle prices you are beyond educating. Anyone who listens to market reports beyond R-CULT rhetoric realizes this.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
I told you before, I'm not doing your research for you. If you are too ignorant to realize the relation between boxed beef prices and cattle prices you are beyond educating. Anyone who listens to market reports beyond R-CULT rhetoric realizes this.



~SH~

I'm not asking you to do my research. You made the comment. You either know what you're talking about or you're flapping your lips. If you know what you're talking about, you obviously would have some facts that led you to your decision and your comment. :roll:

Who is it that told me "Talk is cheap"? :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top