• 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 got this one right!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
R-CALF USA continued its role of representing the interests of U.S. cattle producers during the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) ongoing development of a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). R-CALF USA on Wednesday submitted formal comments on the draft plan under Federal Register guidelines.



"This is an important time within our industry, and it’s crucial that input of producers be considered, as this issue could cause significant changes to the U.S. cattle industry," said North Dakota veterinarian Richard Bowman, who chairs R-CALF USA’s Animal Identification Committee. "I am proud of the product this committee put together, as members worked hard to make sure that key concerns of producers are being addressed."



Member volunteers on the committee represent various sectors of the U.S. cattle industry, including American Indian tribes, coordinators of animal identification pilot projects, representatives of livestock markets, livestock haulers, livestock feeders, and ranchers from brand states and non-brand states alike, worked diligently to reach consensus on how the NAIS draft plan should look.



"We are hearing word that a small minority is pushing for privatization of the system, and I just don’t see how that will work," Bowman said. "In my 30-plus years as a practicing veterinarian, I’ve seen the enactment and enforcement of efficient and effective government-run animal health programs.



"The brucellosis eradication program is an example of an effective federal program that was carried out by individual state animal health boards – a program perfected by producers working hand-in-hand with their veterinarians, along with their state and federal animal health officials," Bowman continued. "I foresee this Animal ID plan working the same way.



"I do not think industry associations can work with private companies to create a proper system," he said "A profit-driven system will not benefit cattle producers, consumers, nor the USDA."



Bill Sauble, president-elect of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association agreed.



"We have to ensure the use of existing systems, and avoid the road of privatization," he said. "New Mexico is a brand state, and I’m pleased that the USDA NAIS draft plan addresses brands. We will continue to work with USDA to ensure that brands are being utilized."



Committee member Ross Racine, executive director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC), explained the unique role of American Indian tribes in development of the NAIS.



"We are really concerned that a private entity may jeopardize the role of tribes within this NAIS, so the IAC has been looking into making certain that the USDA addresses the intricacies of tribes and their sovereign rights," Racine said. "IAC will work to ensure that tribes have the proper ID system that works."



R-CALF USA Director of Government Relations Jess Peterson praised USDA for the agency’s work on the NAIS draft plan.



"The agency has attempted to make the NAIS flexible for various types of cattle operations and unique settings found at ranches around the country," Peterson said. "I believe if we can continue to provide input to USDA, we can create an effective tracking system.



"However, the government needs to maintain control of the system," continued Peterson "Any talk of private groups taking control and putting an ID system in place before 2009 is simply inappropriate.



"There is no need to rush an extremely costly and difficult project," Peterson emphasized. "The USDA needs to move forward in a responsible and deliberate manner so it can properly evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing pilot projects, while continuing to address concerns of producers."
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
It looks like there are some reasonable and intelligent people in R-calf. What they need to do is cleanse themselves of those self-serving idiots from Montana.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
"The agency has attempted to make the NAIS flexible for various types of cattle operations and unique settings found at ranches around the country," Peterson said. "I believe if we can continue to provide input to USDA, we can create an effective tracking system.


WHAT!!! , if I remember right there are no ZIP CODES for federal land ,deserts, state lands,open range land,Its just a broken premises code system and Neil Hammarsmidth got it from CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
Porker,
I bet those properties get a Premise ID if they have food animals running on them-ding -ding- ding!!! :roll:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Porker,
I bet those properties get a Premise ID if they have food animals running on them-ding -ding- ding. Quoted BY CATTLECO

Well you Haven't tried to get a PREMISES CODE YET from the GOV. or you would have Found out CattleCo that the Goverment doesn't know how to handle it.Talked to Dept of Interior person and they said they could not help me on rangeland Premise ID.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just yesterday R-CULT prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL.

Just yesterday R-CULT was saying, "we want country of origin, not farm of origin"

Just yesterday R-CULT members were testifying, "we don't want to be burdened with traceback".

Just yesterday R-CULT members were testifying, "just mark the imports, just mark the imports".

Just yesterday R-CULT members had liability concerns about traceback.

Today they are trying to lead the march.

Hahaha!

John Kerry has nothing on R-CULT when it comes to flip flopping.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How ironic that the R-CULT blamers are continually critical of USDA. Guess who's going to enforce their flawed "M"COOL law? You guessed it, the organization that they are most critical of.

More R-CULT hypocrisy!


~SH~
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
SH,
PORKER could not make a point with a file!!! Doesn't have a clue and can't buy a vowel! :roll:
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...Just yesterday R-CULT prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL

NCBA was, and still is, also against "M" ID.

SH...Just yesterday R-CULT was saying, "we want country of origin, not farm of origin"

NCBA was for M COOL once and flip-flopped on it.

SH...Just yesterday R-CULT members were testifying, "we don't want to be burdened with traceback".

Quote from Cattle Buyers Weekly...Even NCBA, which supports only voluntary COOL, made no mention of the required traceback for a voluntary system.

Scott the NCBA was against a traceback and M ID too, but you don't seem to mention them when you bring this up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
T: "Scott the NCBA was against a traceback and M ID too, but you don't seem to mention them when you bring this up."

The NCBA didn't change their position on traceback but R-CULT has gone 180 degrees finally acknowledging their flawed "M"COOL law is a joke without it.

With "M"ID, "M"COOL is only slightly less of a joke.

"M"COOL as NCBA supported it was not "M"COOL as written by R-CULT.

NCBA changed their position on "M"COOL when they recognized what R-CULT still fails to recognize.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"M"COOL as originally proposed and "M"COOL as actually written.

Nice try Mike!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I'll guarantee you what R-CALF wanted and what final MCOOL ended up to be were different. Seems there were a few groups trying to upset the whole deal that forced compromises.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "I'll guarantee you what R-CALF wanted and what final MCOOL ended up to be were different. Seems there were a few groups trying to upset the whole deal that forced compromises......."

Don't try to pawn this flawed law on to someone else. Leo McDonnel said that "M"COOL, as written, is a good law. He admitted at the "M"COOL listening session that he helped write the law.

Now that some producers are finally starting to realize that the law is unenforceable as written, you guys want to blame others for the flawed law that Leo helped write.

TYPICAL!

Unfortunately, Leo doesn't have to enforce this flawed law that requires proof of where cattle are "born, raised, and slaughtered" WHEN THE PROOF WAS PROHIBITED!

BWAME USDA for their inability to enforce a law that was written to be unenforceable. How ironic!

Leo McDonnell was singing the praises of watered down enforcement because producers didn't want the liability concerns that accompany traceback WHEN THEY WERE THE ONES WHO INSISTED ON PROVING WHERE THE ANIMALS WERE "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED".

TYPICAL!

Their "captive supply reform act" is even more ridiculous. They want to have a fixed base price on forward contracts WHEN MOST FORWARD CONTRACTS DO HAVE A SET PRICE.

Ignorance never ends with R-CULT & Co.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top