A
Anonymous
Guest
MRJ said:
I know its Fact- I've seen it done...Period.....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help Support Ranchers.net:
I know its Fact- I've seen it done...Period.....
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ said:Sandhusker said: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
Come on, MRJ. "Proper channels" are your words. The 11 points?
Sandhusker said:MRJ said:Sandhusker said: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
Come on, MRJ. "Proper channels" are your words. The 11 points?
I didn't think you were talking about that, because I very clearly stated several times that a conference call vote of the state affiliate leaders agreed that enough of the points WERE achieved to proceed.
That is policy set by members of the affiliated state organizations, and is used quite rarely to take care of business between meetings.
Would you prefer an organization have no mechanism to take care of business between meetings?
How does R-CALF handle such events? Do the directors take care of things themselves?
Or do they ask their affiliates what to do?
Oh.........I forgot, there has never been a reversal of the directors' votes after the members mail in votes.........so does that mean members all approve of directors running things for them?
MRJ
Sandhusker
Well-known member
I would prefer an organization that had no mechanism to overturn membership's vote.
Don't you see the problem, MRJ? The people who can overturn are not the same who voted in the deal. 5 people should not be able to reverse what 10,000 voted for.
Don't you see the problem, MRJ? The people who can overturn are not the same who voted in the deal. 5 people should not be able to reverse what 10,000 voted for.
Sandhusker said:I would prefer an organization that had no mechanism to overturn membership's vote.
Don't you see the problem, MRJ? The people who can overturn are not the same who voted in the deal. 5 people should not be able to reverse what 10,000 voted for.
These are the same "mechanisms" the Farm Bureau Uses.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I prefer an organization that doesn't lie about BSE to stop Canadian imports because they are too ignorant to understand the true impact of Canadian imports, too ignorant to understand that Canadian beef will not be removed from the world market, and too ignorant to realize the potential consequences of their shortsighted political actions regarding BSE.
R-CULT is a blamers organization. Truth and facts don't matter to them.
~SH~
R-CULT is a blamers organization. Truth and facts don't matter to them.
~SH~
~SH~ said:I prefer an organization that doesn't lie about BSE to stop Canadian imports because they are too ignorant to understand the true impact of Canadian imports, too ignorant to understand that Canadian beef will not be removed from the world market, and too ignorant to realize the potential consequences of their shortsighted political actions regarding BSE.
R-CULT is a blamers organization. Truth and facts don't matter to them.
~SH~
SH, are you talking about R-Calf here or the NCBA run USDA?
A
Anonymous
Guest
SH- One question-- The Canadian government, the CFIA and world scientists believe that the BSE safeguards now being requested by the latest panel of scientists, MacDonalds, and R-CALF are necessary to prevent the spread of BSE....
Canada thru the CFIA has already instituted all these feed bans...Honestly now- Don't you think the US cattlemen and the US cattle herd deserve the same safeguards?
Canada thru the CFIA has already instituted all these feed bans...Honestly now- Don't you think the US cattlemen and the US cattle herd deserve the same safeguards?
Sandhusker said:I would prefer an organization that had no mechanism to overturn membership's vote.
Don't you see the problem, MRJ? The people who can overturn are not the same who voted in the deal. 5 people should not be able to reverse what 10,000 voted for.
Where do you get the "five people"? There are over thirty state affiliates, and there are boards of directors for each. Those directors are well aware that if they do not accurately represent their members, there will likely be new directors elected soon.
I like the NCBA system better than one where ONLY the national board, and maybe a few chosen state people can make all the decisions between annual meetings.
That vote was not overturned. A choice was made reflecting the fact that there were enough of the points achieved to make it better to continue the work than to stop all progress.
MRJ
Oldtimer said:MRJ said:Oldtimer said: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
I know its Fact- I've seen it done...Period.....
So........which of your premises are you talking about? Is it verifiable NCBA policy, or is it a whim or stand of an individual?
MRJ
A
Anonymous
Guest
MRJ said:Oldtimer said:MRJ said: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
I know its Fact- I've seen it done...Period.....
So........which of your premises are you talking about? Is it verifiable NCBA policy, or is it a whim or stand of an individual?
MRJ
These are individuals -- some of which are in the hierarchy of NCBA....
A
Anonymous
Guest
OT: "SH- One question-- The Canadian government, the CFIA and world scientists believe that the BSE safeguards now being requested by the latest panel of scientists, MacDonalds, and R-CALF are necessary to prevent the spread of BSE....
Canada thru the CFIA has already instituted all these feed bans...Honestly now- Don't you think the US cattlemen and the US cattle herd deserve the same safeguards?"
WHAT? You mean you don't agree with Leo McDonnell?
When we had BSE in our native herd in Texas, Leo said we have the safest beef in the world due to the firewalls we have in place. Now you're saying they're not good enough?
Don't blow smoke at me OT. No BSE has been discovered in cattle that were born since the feed ban phase out period. USDA's scientists know a lot more than R-CULT's fast buck artists selling BSE tests and everyone can see right through R-CULT's political agenda to justify keeping the Canadian border closed. Nobody's buying R-CULT's bullsh*t anymore but their cloned followers like you.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
~SH~ said:OT: "SH- One question-- The Canadian government, the CFIA and world scientists believe that the BSE safeguards now being requested by the latest panel of scientists, MacDonalds, and R-CALF are necessary to prevent the spread of BSE....
Canada thru the CFIA has already instituted all these feed bans...Honestly now- Don't you think the US cattlemen and the US cattle herd deserve the same safeguards?"
WHAT? You mean you don't agree with Leo McDonnell?
When we had BSE in our native herd in Texas, Leo said we have the safest beef in the world due to the firewalls we have in place. Now you're saying they're not good enough?
Don't blow smoke at me OT. No BSE has been discovered in cattle that were born since the feed ban phase out period. USDA's scientists know a lot more than R-CULT's fast buck artists selling BSE tests and everyone can see right through R-CULT's political agenda to justify keeping the Canadian border closed. Nobody's buying R-CULT's bullsh*t anymore but their cloned followers like you.
~SH~
So we should open the border to OTM cattle and/or beef from two countries that have found it in post feed ban cattle and have a higher ratio of BSE?
Won't that allow an avenue for any prion infected product or cattle they send to get mixed into the US cattle feed?
Or should we just keep the border closed to Canadian OTM's so they can't get mixed into our blood products, animal feed, poultry litter, etc?....
A
Anonymous
Guest
I trust USDA to make the right decsion because they have the best scientists in the world and the consumer's safety as their primary motive. If they feel OTM cattle are unsafe for importation, they will ban them. If the science says there is no justification to ban imported OTM cattle, they will be imported. These decisions need to be based on the best available science, not the political agendas of isolationist import blamers. Consumers outvote producers by 98% to 2%. I doubt USDA will be politically influenced by R-CULT's isolationist agenda.
Do you agree with Leo that we have the safest beef in the world or not?
Quit dancing and answer the question.
~SH~
Do you agree with Leo that we have the safest beef in the world or not?
Quit dancing and answer the question.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
~SH~ said:I trust USDA to make the right decsion because they have the best scientists in the world and the consumer's safety as their primary motive. If they feel OTM cattle are unsafe for importation, they will ban them. If the science says there is no justification to ban imported OTM cattle, they will be imported. These decisions need to be based on the best available science, not the political agendas of isolationist import blamers. Consumers outvote producers by 98% to 2%. I doubt USDA will be politically influenced by R-CULT's isolationist agenda.
Do you agree with Leo that we have the safest beef in the world or not?
Quit dancing and answer the question.
~SH~
I do SH- but I want to keep it that way....
A
Anonymous
Guest
Leo said we have the safest beef in the world BECAUSE OF the firewalls we have in place. You are saying that we haven't gone far enough.
WHICH WAY IS IT???
~SH~
WHICH WAY IS IT???
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
~SH~ said:Leo said we have the safest beef in the world BECAUSE OF the firewalls we have in place. You are saying that we haven't gone far enough.
WHICH WAY IS IT???
~SH~
Scientists say we need additional firewalls now that BSE was found- and especially if we import from countries with higher ratios of the disease...USDA and FDA scientists recommended these two years ago- so did the OIE- so did the CFIA scientists (so Canada put them in place)....
Is CFIA just putting in rules for no reason?
Must be just a bunch of dumb Canuck bureaucrats up there with nothing to do....
If I didn't know how Corporate influenced our government is- I might be able to blindly follow them like you do.....But in this instance, where the decision could mean the whole viability of the US cattle industry ( and possibly human lives ) I think we need to err on the side of safety- even if we find out 10 years from now they were unnecessary....
A
Anonymous
Guest
OldTimer,
Look at the obvious. Who is influenced more by USDA? Consumers who have over 98% of the vote or special interests such as packers or producers with less than 2% of the votes? You can't be stupid enough to believe USDA will do anything that is not in the best interests of consumer safety. The politics here is a landslide towards consumers.
YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA (stopping Canadian imports) not USDA!
Pull your pants up and try another issue. You're losing this one.
~SH~
Look at the obvious. Who is influenced more by USDA? Consumers who have over 98% of the vote or special interests such as packers or producers with less than 2% of the votes? You can't be stupid enough to believe USDA will do anything that is not in the best interests of consumer safety. The politics here is a landslide towards consumers.
YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA (stopping Canadian imports) not USDA!
Pull your pants up and try another issue. You're losing this one.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:OldTimer,
Look at the obvious. Who is influenced more by USDA? Consumers who have over 98% of the vote or special interests such as packers or producers with less than 2% of the votes? You can't be stupid enough to believe USDA will do anything that is not in the best interests of consumer safety. The politics here is a landslide towards consumers.
YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA (stopping Canadian imports) not USDA!
Pull your pants up and try another issue. You're losing this one.
~SH~
SH, " I trust USDA to make the right decsion because they have the best scientists in the world and the consumer's safety as their primary motive".
Consumers safety as their primary motive? :shock: :lol: :roll: That is why they abandon a zero tolerance policy for the packer's checkbook? That is why they petition the OIE to LOWER standards? That is why we take product nobody else in the world will take? Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeze
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:1) and especially if we import from countries with higher ratios of the disease...
2)Is CFIA just putting in rules for no reason?
1) Right there is where RCalf's entire arguement simply disintegrates. Canada's ratio of these disease is not significantly higher than the US's. The vast majority of the world's scientists agree. Don't bother with the arguement that our herd is considerably smaller, therefore the ratio is considerably higher. We tested a greater percentage animals than you did: in other words, once the US test numbers begin to approach our own, you can't even remotely say that our ratio of infection is higher. You have zero evidence to base this statement on.
2) The CFIA put the rules in place for a few reasons, consumer demand, the Canadian Cattleman's Association, and the demands of foreign governements so we could reopen the border. We did it and the border is reopening as promised because it is recognized that Canadian beef is every bit as safe as US beef, regardless of the age of the animal.
Rod
