R-CALF goes Back to Court

[flounder]

MORE than 5 minutes with R. M. Thornsberry, D.V.M., M.B.A.


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=69703#69701


TSS

 

[Anonymous]

Ot- You have way too much time on your hands...... You better get out there and ride a horse or something :wink: Way tooo nice to be inside on the computer!~ :wink:

MR- You have to get out of bed before the day is gone :wink: - and manage your time...When I posted this morning I'd already fed both bunches of cows, and the bulls, and corraled the horses...Came in to have a cup of coffee and a bite of breakfast while the loader tractor warmed up so I could scrape out some hay pens (feeding those year old bales- they sometimes leave a lot stuck to the ground)...

Needed to get things done this morning, so this afternoon I can take a trip to town to get a couple sacks of horse feed and some salt- which should put me driving past the local waterhole about time all the old fogies show up to solve the world problems- will probably have to stop in and sample the rye - and might even run into some of Big Muddy's neighbors like I did last week so I can check up on him or Tam... Its all Time Management and Prioriities- comes with experience MR :wink: :lol:

 

[Bill]

How do you explain the OIE report of January 9, 2006 reporting NO cases in Brazil, China, Argentina? Where's the citation for BSE in these countries?

I don't know. Perhaps they weren't reported to the OIE? As I stated, I only went from what New Zealand and Australian scientists said in a televised report. Perhaps they were speaking of cases prior to 1989? As far as China, the World Health Organization has issued statements stating that China is a BSE hotspot. Since I've never visited, I can only go by what I read. Maybe its not accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that BSE is a worldwide problem, nor does it change the view that most scientists view it as a worldwide problem. Perhaps R-Calf would be better sticking the lawyer money into researching a cure, rather than promoting protectionist policies?

Rod

Perhaps Canada should find somebody else to take the bulk of their beef so that they won't be so effected by US trade policies? :wink:

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

 

[Kato]

Why did Japan open to American and Canadian beef at the same time under the same rules????

 

[Econ101]

I don't know. Perhaps they weren't reported to the OIE? As I stated, I only went from what New Zealand and Australian scientists said in a televised report. Perhaps they were speaking of cases prior to 1989? As far as China, the World Health Organization has issued statements stating that China is a BSE hotspot. Since I've never visited, I can only go by what I read. Maybe its not accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that BSE is a worldwide problem, nor does it change the view that most scientists view it as a worldwide problem. Perhaps R-Calf would be better sticking the lawyer money into researching a cure, rather than promoting protectionist policies?

Rod

Perhaps Canada should find somebody else to take the bulk of their beef so that they won't be so effected by US trade policies? :wink:

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

He also had alzheimer's. If the the trade agreement would have had a PSA provision in it, Tyson and Cargill would not have been able to get away with taking the Canadian producers to the bank with low prices while they sold at high prices.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know. Perhaps they weren't reported to the OIE? As I stated, I only went from what New Zealand and Australian scientists said in a televised report. Perhaps they were speaking of cases prior to 1989? As far as China, the World Health Organization has issued statements stating that China is a BSE hotspot. Since I've never visited, I can only go by what I read. Maybe its not accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that BSE is a worldwide problem, nor does it change the view that most scientists view it as a worldwide problem. Perhaps R-Calf would be better sticking the lawyer money into researching a cure, rather than promoting protectionist policies?

Rod

Perhaps Canada should find somebody else to take the bulk of their beef so that they won't be so effected by US trade policies? :wink:

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

Nope- Actually I believe it was Billy Clinton that signed off- he was probably trading "favors" with the liberal Canadians to sell out his country :wink: ........

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Like I said before- If these rules are unnecessary, Why has Canada implemented them? We'd at least like to have the same safeguards for the US herd..........

And like virtually every Canadian cattleman has said, the feed ban rules were needed. We've never argued that fact, or at least most of the cattlemen I know never have. And now that we have more stringent safety standards than the US, perhaps maybe you guys should stop selling beef until your rules are actually up to snuff. It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE to ban safer beef from entering your country. You still haven't been able to refute that statement.

Or is it because Canada is a huge bastion of BSE infection, that CFIA thought you needed stronger rules :???: ?

<chuckle> You should write conspiracy theories. Our rules came about because of consumer demand (yours and ours) and the demands of your government. We stepped up to the plate. Maybe you guys should force the FDA to step up in your own country and quit trying to promote protectionism.

Again Oldtimer, you never answered my question from before: How many smaller independent packing plants had to close when the border closed before? Does R-Calf even bother to think about how much damage you're doing to your own industry with these prolonged attacks on a safe country? Here's a conspiracy theory for ya: Maybe R-Calf is backed by the big packers. Border closures do 2 things: Force the smaller packer out of business in your own country, thereby reducing competition within your own borders. Plus it gives the multi-nationals an excuse to rape us up here. Big packers win both ways. Hmmmmmmmm...

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Like I said before- If these rules are unnecessary, Why has Canada implemented them? We'd at least like to have the same safeguards for the US herd..........

And like virtually every Canadian cattleman has said, the feed ban rules were needed. We've never argued that fact, or at least most of the cattlemen I know never have. And now that we have more stringent safety standards than the US, perhaps maybe you guys should stop selling beef until your rules are actually up to snuff. It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE to ban safer beef from entering your country. You still haven't been able to refute that statement.

Beef and cattle from a country that has a much higher BSE ratio is not what I call safe - Without the safeguards there is a much higher chance that a (Canadian) diseased cow or beef could enter the US feed system and infect 100's of US cattle- that is the reason we need the same safeguards you have before we expand any import restrictions....

Or is it because Canada is a huge bastion of BSE infection, that CFIA thought you needed stronger rules :???: ?

<chuckle> You should write conspiracy theories. Our rules came about because of consumer demand (yours and ours) and the demands of your government. We stepped up to the plate. Maybe you guys should force the FDA to step up in your own country and quit trying to promote protectionism.

What do you think we are trying to do- DUH :???:

Again Oldtimer, you never answered my question from before: How many smaller independent packing plants had to close when the border closed before?
Some have closed- but some have opened-and some new ones are in the planning--its the continuing cycle with the small plants- much of which is affected by location....

Does R-Calf even bother to think about how much damage you're doing to your own industry with these prolonged attacks on a safe country? Here's a conspiracy theory for ya: Maybe R-Calf is backed by the big packers. Border closures do 2 things: Force the smaller packer out of business in your own country, thereby reducing competition within your own borders. Plus it gives the multi-nationals an excuse to rape us up here. Big packers win both ways. Hmmmmmmmm...

I Don't buy it- I know many of the R-CALF people- besides in R-CALF the entire membership gets 1 vote on policy unlike the NCBA which depends on cattle numbers for each state and the economic and work ability to travel to the conventions, along with complex committee memberships for policy making.... And R-CALF members voted almost unanimously for the leadership to protect the safety and integrity of the US cattle herd...

And actually now with these safeguards in place in Canada and not in the US, it makes it cheaper and more profitable for the multinationals to slaughter in the states- making US cattle worth more....But that is not worth endangering the US herd health and the US cattle industry in the long run ...

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Beef and cattle from a country that has a much higher BSE ratio is not what I call safe - Without the safeguards there is a much higher chance that a (Canadian) diseased cow or beef could enter the US feed system and infect 100's of US cattle- that is the reason we need the same safeguards you have before we expand any import restrictions....

There you go with your MUCH higher again. We found a couple more cases than the US. Not 200 more. Not 300 more. We tested a greater percentage of animals than you did and still only came up with a neglible amount and therefore neglible risk.

Oh sure you can twist things around and say stuff like 300% more cases but the cold hard fact remains that there we never even came close to double digits in 3 years, 2 of those years under a close microscope.

What do you think we are trying to do- DUH :???:

Then spend more time doing something useful instead of promoting protectionist policies for your own monetary gain. Its an open border. If you can't compete, get out of the business. Many others have found ways to work with Canada and have forged profitable alliances that make money for all parties.

Some have closed- but some have opened-and some new ones are in the planning--its the continuing cycle with the small plants- much of which is affected by location....

Sorry, not buyin' it. I know too many US cattlemen who are disgusted by the number of independent packer closures, and by the way RCalf is killing the industry from the inside out.

And R-CALF members voted almost unanimously for the leadership to protect the safety and integrity of the US cattle herd...

And how is closing the border to cattle that are bound for a feedlot or packing facility "protecting the US herd"? The animals crossing the border CANNOT be destined for a cow/calf operation, otherwise they are not allowed over the border. No breedstock allowed, please don't let the doorknob hit you on the butt on the way out. Downers aren't allowed in either. Nor are sickly animals. Just healthy critters on their way to being fed out and/or killed. They wouldn't get within spitting distance of your breedstock.

Just smoke and mirrors in a thinly veiled attempt to restrict competition.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod
"And how is closing the border to cattle that are bound for a feedlot or packing facility "protecting the US herd"? The animals crossing the border CANNOT be destined for a cow/calf operation, otherwise they are not allowed over the border. No breedstock allowed, please don't let the doorknob hit you on the butt on the way out. Downers aren't allowed in either. Nor are sickly animals. Just healthy critters on their way to being fed out and/or killed. They wouldn't get within spitting distance of your breedstock. "
______________

Rod- Do you not read the news :???: ? USDA is in the process of opening the Canadian border to OTM's and beef from OTM's-- and they have opened the border to Japanese beef of any age without the requirement that it be tested...

These OTM's and the meat, SRM material, and blood products from them could then end up in US feed under the current rules...Can you look at an old cow and tell she doesn't have BSE before you ship her to the US for slaughter? Are you Karnak the Canuck :wink: :???:

If Canadians really believe in the North American Beef Industry theory, I would think they would be fighting besides the US cattlemen to get the USDA and FDA to put the safeguards in place- to protect the long term of of your ability to run cattle thru the states...If BSE expands thru the US and our industry goes down the drain- so goes Canadas'....

 

[Bill]

Perhaps Canada should find somebody else to take the bulk of their beef so that they won't be so effected by US trade policies? :wink:

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

Nope- Actually I believe it was Billy Clinton that signed off- he was probably trading "favors" with the liberal Canadians to sell out his country :wink: ........

Better check your history Oldtimer. The CUSTA (Canada/US trade agreemnt) agreement predates NAFTA which brought in Mexico. It was definitley Ronnie who signed for you.

When the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement was signed, the US president, Ronald Reagan spoke. "This agreement will provide enormous benefits for the United States. It will remove all Canadian tariffs, secure improved access to Canada's market for our manufacturing, agriculture, high technology and financial sectors, and improve our security through additional access to Canadian energy supplies. We have also gained important investment opportunities in Canada. I congratulate Prime Minister Mulroney." [Ronald Reagan, quoted in Mel Hurtig, The Betrayal of Canada, Toronto, Stoddart, 1991, p.13]Can't blame that one on Billy and the Liberals. :wink: Sure is easy to blame everything on NAFTA though isn't it? That way one can tie the Mexicans and Canadians all in one package.

 

[Econ101]

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

Nope- Actually I believe it was Billy Clinton that signed off- he was probably trading "favors" with the liberal Canadians to sell out his country :wink: ........

Better check your history Oldtimer. The CUSTA (Canada/US trade agreemnt) agreement predates NAFTA which brought in Mexico. It was definitley Ronnie who signed for you.

When the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement was signed, the US president, Ronald Reagan spoke. "This agreement will provide enormous benefits for the United States. It will remove all Canadian tariffs, secure improved access to Canada's market for our manufacturing, agriculture, high technology and financial sectors, and improve our security through additional access to Canadian energy supplies. We have also gained important investment opportunities in Canada. I congratulate Prime Minister Mulroney." [Ronald Reagan, quoted in Mel Hurtig, The Betrayal of Canada, Toronto, Stoddart, 1991, p.13]Can't blame that one on Billy and the Liberals. :wink: Sure is easy to blame everything on NAFTA though isn't it? That way one can tie the Mexicans and Canadians all in one package.

Bill, they did not get Canada to pass an international PSA for the trade area did they? The trade negotiators sold out the producers on both sides of the border for that failure. It was a corporate benefit over the producers. Don't tell me recent events did not prove this to be true.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps people like you need to quit whining about duly signed trade agreements Sandhusker. No guns were held to anyones head least of all the US and wasn't it Reagan who signed on your behalf. Wasn't he one of the best Presidents the US ever had? :wink:

Nope- Actually I believe it was Billy Clinton that signed off- he was probably trading "favors" with the liberal Canadians to sell out his country :wink: ........

Better check your history Oldtimer. The CUSTA (Canada/US trade agreemnt) agreement predates NAFTA which brought in Mexico. It was definitley Ronnie who signed for you.

When the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement was signed, the US president, Ronald Reagan spoke. "This agreement will provide enormous benefits for the United States. It will remove all Canadian tariffs, secure improved access to Canada's market for our manufacturing, agriculture, high technology and financial sectors, and improve our security through additional access to Canadian energy supplies. We have also gained important investment opportunities in Canada. I congratulate Prime Minister Mulroney." [Ronald Reagan, quoted in Mel Hurtig, The Betrayal of Canada, Toronto, Stoddart, 1991, p.13]Can't blame that one on Billy and the Liberals. :wink: Sure is easy to blame everything on NAFTA though isn't it? That way one can tie the Mexicans and Canadians all in one package.

I guess if you look at it that way we would have to blame President Pierce- he signed the Reciprocity Treaty back in 1855 with the British North American colonies :roll: :wink: But it was NAFTA, signed by Clinton, that sold out the US citizens for the benefit of the Corporate world.....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod- Do you not read the news :???: ? USDA is in the process of opening the Canadian border to OTM's and beef from OTM's-- and they have opened the border to Japanese beef of any age without the requirement that it be tested...

I do read the news, but from the RCalf release that started this thread, it appears as though RCalf was shooting for a full border closure again. I did not see anything that specifically singled out OTMs, and indeed saw only reference to the original ruling that prevented animals under 30 months of age from entering the US. Once again, where is the threat from these under 30 month animals?

If Canadians really believe in the North American Beef Industry theory, I would think they would be fighting besides the US cattlemen to get the USDA and FDA to put the safeguards in place- to protect the long term of of your ability to run cattle thru the states...If BSE expands thru the US and our industry goes down the drain- so goes Canadas'....

Ummmm, you may wanna check the news from time to time yourself. The CCA and the CFIA have both corresponded with USDA and FDA over these issues. They were told, politely but firmly, to butt the hell out. So they did. Getting the USDA and FDA inline is up to US cattle producers, but don't use safe Canadian beef as the scapegoat to do it. 4 positives in 3 years does not make an outbreak, nor does it count as a MUCH higher BSE rate.

Rod

 

[Bill]

Nope- Actually I believe it was Billy Clinton that signed off- he was probably trading "favors" with the liberal Canadians to sell out his country :wink: ........

Better check your history Oldtimer. The CUSTA (Canada/US trade agreemnt) agreement predates NAFTA which brought in Mexico. It was definitley Ronnie who signed for you.

When the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement was signed, the US president, Ronald Reagan spoke. "This agreement will provide enormous benefits for the United States. It will remove all Canadian tariffs, secure improved access to Canada's market for our manufacturing, agriculture, high technology and financial sectors, and improve our security through additional access to Canadian energy supplies. We have also gained important investment opportunities in Canada. I congratulate Prime Minister Mulroney." [Ronald Reagan, quoted in Mel Hurtig, The Betrayal of Canada, Toronto, Stoddart, 1991, p.13]Can't blame that one on Billy and the Liberals. :wink: Sure is easy to blame everything on NAFTA though isn't it? That way one can tie the Mexicans and Canadians all in one package.

I guess if you look at it that way we would have to blame President Pierce- he signed the Reciprocity Treaty back in 1855 with the British North American colonies :roll: :wink: But it was NAFTA, signed by Clinton, that sold out the US citizens for the benefit of the Corporate world.....

The thread was about Sandhusker's comment of Canada finding markets for its beef other than US. I mentioned it was a duly signed agreement that gave Canada access (CUSTA). You turned it into NAFTA/Clinton and now corporations.

I'm sure not one that would ever defend Clinton but did you even read where Reagan said "We have also gained important investment opportunities in Canada." Do you think that just maybe he was speaking about Corporate America investing in Canada? You make a good R-Calfer Oldtimer try and twist things around even when the facts are presented to you. :roll:

 

[mrj]

Like I said before- If these rules are unnecessary, Why has Canada implemented them? We'd at least like to have the same safeguards for the US herd..........

And like virtually every Canadian cattleman has said, the feed ban rules were needed. We've never argued that fact, or at least most of the cattlemen I know never have. And now that we have more stringent safety standards than the US, perhaps maybe you guys should stop selling beef until your rules are actually up to snuff. It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE to ban safer beef from entering your country. You still haven't been able to refute that statement.

Beef and cattle from a country that has a much higher BSE ratio is not what I call safe - Without the safeguards there is a much higher chance that a (Canadian) diseased cow or beef could enter the US feed system and infect 100's of US cattle- that is the reason we need the same safeguards you have before we expand any import restrictions....

Or is it because Canada is a huge bastion of BSE infection, that CFIA thought you needed stronger rules :???: ?

<chuckle> You should write conspiracy theories. Our rules came about because of consumer demand (yours and ours) and the demands of your government. We stepped up to the plate. Maybe you guys should force the FDA to step up in your own country and quit trying to promote protectionism.

What do you think we are trying to do- DUH :???:

Again Oldtimer, you never answered my question from before: How many smaller independent packing plants had to close when the border closed before?
Some have closed- but some have opened-and some new ones are in the planning--its the continuing cycle with the small plants- much of which is affected by location....

Does R-Calf even bother to think about how much damage you're doing to your own industry with these prolonged attacks on a safe country? Here's a conspiracy theory for ya: Maybe R-Calf is backed by the big packers. Border closures do 2 things: Force the smaller packer out of business in your own country, thereby reducing competition within your own borders. Plus it gives the multi-nationals an excuse to rape us up here. Big packers win both ways. Hmmmmmmmm...

*************************************************************

I Don't buy it- I know many of the R-CALF people- besides in R-CALF the entire membership gets 1 vote on policy unlike the NCBA which depends on cattle numbers for each state and the economic and work ability to travel to the conventions, along with complex committee memberships for policy making.... And R-CALF members voted almost unanimously for the leadership to protect the safety and integrity of the US cattle herd...

***

Is that your comment, OT? Above the three asterisks, that is. The post was so fragmented that i'm not certain, however it's what you have stated previously......so I must tell you that you are mis-informed or mis-understand NCBA voting policy.

You said "the entire membership (of R-CALF) gets one vote on policy". That IS unlike NCBA where EVERY member gets to vote on policy! Couldn't resist taking advantage of the unintended (wasn't it?) sentence structure. Not claiming mine is perfect, either.

Seriously, EVERY member of NCBA DOES get to vote on policy, even those who stay at home. There is a mailed ballot and every member can vote. I personally do not favor a mail in ballot because people not in attendance can gain the benefit of the discussion of pro's and con's.

You do have the NCBA system seriously skewed, and I don't if it is intentional, or you truly mis-understand it. More on this later. My eyes are about done for the day.

MRJ

*************************************************************

And actually now with these safeguards in place in Canada and not in the US, it makes it cheaper and more profitable for the multinationals to slaughter in the states- making US cattle worth more....But that is not worth endangering the US herd health and the US cattle industry in the long run ...

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Seriously, EVERY member of NCBA DOES get to vote on policy, even those who stay at home."

Yes, but there are "proper channels" for the policy voted on and passed by membership to be reversed in a very short period of time. That is not right.

 

[Anonymous]

If I remember right MRJ-- No mail vote has ever been counted because they didn't get a high enough percentage return- so if you stayed home and mailed in your vote it was discounted.....

Remember the post on the old forum where the numbers were posted- and according to the independent accounting office they didn't get a high enough percentage to count them......

I'v been told the main reason they don't get enough mail in voters are because so many NCBA are "ghost members"-- either they don't know they were even members because someone bought them a membership (like the feedlot bonus), or they care less because they only joined in order to do business with a certain buyer or feedlot who wouldn't do business with them until they did....In some areas you were forced to join to belong to your state cattle organization....

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "Seriously, EVERY member of NCBA DOES get to vote on policy, even those who stay at home."

Yes, but there are "proper channels" for the policy voted on and passed by membership to be reversed in a very short period of time. That is not right.

Would you please state what you mean? Cite the rules you reference?

MRJ

 

[mrj]

If I remember right MRJ-- No mail vote has ever been counted because they didn't get a high enough percentage return- so if you stayed home and mailed in your vote it was discounted.....

Remember the post on the old forum where the numbers were posted- and according to the independent accounting office they didn't get a high enough percentage to count them......

I'v been told the main reason they don't get enough mail in voters are because so many NCBA are "ghost members"-- either they don't know they were even members because someone bought them a membership (like the feedlot bonus), or they care less because they only joined in order to do business with a certain buyer or feedlot who wouldn't do business with them until they did....In some areas you were forced to join to belong to your state cattle organization....

Are you very sure of your wording here, OT? Are you sure it wasn't that they didn't get enough to CHANGE to results of the vote by those at the meeting? That is how I recall it, but will check to be certain. Either way, the stay at home guys vote was no more discounted than those who voted opposite those that carried the question, IMO.

Some of you raised a fuss when someone a while back posted the rumor that R-CALF "presents" memberships to people who don't voluntarily pay the $50.00 membership, paying for it with donated money, making for quite a number of in name only R-CALF members.

Please note that I stated the above scenario is a rumor, while you cite your claim of "bought" memberships in NCBA as fact. You offer no proof as basis of your "fact". I offer no "proof" for my rumor, however I do hear it repeated occasionally, and it did not originate with me.

That certainly seems more likely to me than the scenario you attribute to "ghost" NCBA members.

The R-CALF "ghost member" scenario means getting more bang for bucks already given to the organization, while the NCBA "ghost member" scenario depends on people who have already paid their very hefty dues digging even deeper to pay dues for those phantom members.

Re. your premise that some "buyers" or "feedlots" refuse to do business with anyone not an NCBA member.......how/why is that worse than R-CALF members forcing main street businessmen who want their business to kick in and buy an R-CALF membership?

MRJ