• 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 on Hong Kong talks

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Statement on Hong Kong WTO Ministerial



(Billings, Mont.) – “The Hong Kong WTO ministerial this week will do little to help U.S. cattle producers, or production agriculture generally, in this country,” said R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder Leo McDonnell. “Our sector of the U.S. agriculture industry faced a $3.3 billion trade deficit in 2004, and that red ink is growing. America’s cattle producers need relief from predatory and unfair trade practices abroad. The current stalled state and structure of the WTO negotiations does little to help the U.S. cattle producer.



“USTR and USDA should advocate a sectoral initiative for cattle and beef that will open markets abroad by lowering global tariffs to U.S. levels and eliminating trade distorting subsidies other countries grant their cattle and beef producers,” he emphasized. “USTR and USDA should also do a better job attacking informal barriers to U.S. cattle and beef. Currently, 53 nations have maintained complete or partial bans on U.S. beef exports because of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) concerns. USDA needs to open these markets and work toward upward harmonization of global standards.



“Monday, Japan opened its market to U.S. beef products from cattle younger than 21 months of age, while the U.S. announced its intention to open our own market to Japanese beef products from cattle of all ages,” McDonnell pointed out. “While we are glad to be back in the Japanese market, that kind of action by our government is not a consistent approach. We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers.



“In addition, it is important to have the option of long phase-in periods for tariff reductions in regional and bilateral trade agreements, for both developing and developed countries,” he continued. “Under the draft ministerial declaration issued by WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, developing countries would get a better deal than nations like the United States. If Lamy’s proposal were to be adopted, it could be impossible to have the 18-year phase-out on beef import tariffs that R-CALF obtained in the U.S. - Australian FTA. Instead, we could be limited to much shorter phase-outs that would make it easier for foreign competitors to flood our markets with their beef.”



McDonnell also said there needs to be stronger safeguards at the WTO for perishable and cyclical products.



“Some in the Administration are blocking even an attempt to make a proposal in this area, despite instructions from Congress in the Trade Act of 2002 to do so,” he explained.



“Finally, we need to make sure that the U.S. cattle and beef sectors and U.S. agriculture in general can effectively access domestic trade-remedy laws, so we have the ability to go after unfair foreign trade practices by utilizing those anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws,” insisted McDonnell. “Instead, in the face of relentless attacks on these laws at the WTO, and despite repeated urging from Congress to vigorously protect our trade laws, U.S. negotiators appear to be missing in action.



“Clearly, the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial will be difficult for all concerned because it is becoming increasingly difficult for the WTO to respond to both multinational corporations and the concerns that regular citizens have about the current course of globalization,” he commented. “The same divide is apparent here in the U.S., where production agriculture is no longer taking a backseat to agribusiness when it comes to trade policy, and is giving voice to the needs of family farmers, independent ranchers, and other producers who demand that trade policy reflect the needs of all sectors of U.S. agriculture.”



McDonnell said current U.S. trade policy is not working for the American rancher.



“In the face of a disappearing surplus in agriculture, overall, and a growing deficit in cattle and beef, America’s producers can no longer afford to continue business as usual,” he stressed. “Unfortunately, this week’s WTO ministerial in Hong Kong offers little hope of a bold new direction.



“R-CALF USA will continue to work with the Administration and Congress to push for a comprehensive approach to the global barriers and distortions faced by our members, and to fight for a trade policy that works for U.S. cattle producers,” McDonnell concluded.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Good. The Hong Kong market for beef isn't huge but Canada appreciates R-Calf leaving it for Canada to gain a foothold and to increase market share for the past 13 months.

Lets see.... if every Asian consumer ate 1/2 of a pound of beef per week that would take about 96 BILLION pounds per year. Pretty significant.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."



Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Big Muddy rancher said:
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."



Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?

:oops: Now there you go trying to make of what R-Calf said compared to what they did. :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one BMR.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."



Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?

:oops: Now there you go trying to make of what R-Calf said compared to what they did. :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one BMR.

No, that's not what the US and Canada were doing.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Leo said" We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers."



Isn't that what the USDA and Canada were doing when R-CALF filed the injunction?

:oops: Now there you go trying to make of what R-Calf said compared to what they did. :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one BMR.

No, that's not what the US and Canada were doing.



So Sandhusker tell what the USA and Canada were doing? The OIE was reveiwing the rule and our countries were trying to comply as the new rules would benefit both of them .
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Come on sandhusker explain yourself.

First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.

Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
McDonnell pointed out. “While we are glad to be back in the Japanese market, that kind of action by our government is not a consistent approach. We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers.




Gee where better to start then at home. Billings or Brussells R-CALF wasn't wanting to let the USDA do i the job they are saying they want them to do.
Can't R-CALF make up their mind what they want?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Can't R-CALF make up their mind what they want?

Take a lucky stab in the dark, see who will believe your lies, and then move onto the next lucky stab.

all in the name of furthering your agenda/mandate of "no trade, is good trade"
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Come on sandhusker explain yourself.

First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.

Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
You sure have a habit of twisting things around to suit your arguement Sandhusker.

The US and Canada were harmonizing to meet the current recommendations of the OIE plain and simple, not what other countries were doing but what the OIE recommended. R-Calf filed an injunction to put a stop to it despite what the OIE said. Twist it how you want LEO put his foot in it again. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Both the US and Canada were also dealing with a different situation than the OIE guidelines were written on.

doesn't matter what side of the science you are on:

1) Feed may be a transmitter, but it may also be spontaneous
2) Without a large incidence, feed contamination is not an issue (if monitored and regulated)
3) Both were working to "re-write" the regulations, which pertain to existing science and circumstances, not rules that had been written during an outbreak ( in the UK), when facts were not known.
4) Not using opportunity for their own benefit, due to an unfortunate situation, for the beef industry (they were looking at the longer term)

Was RCALF taking advantage of an unfortunate situation, to further their agenda?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Come on sandhusker explain yourself.

First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.

Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
You sure have a habit of twisting things around to suit your arguement Sandhusker.

The US and Canada were harmonizing to meet the current recommendations of the OIE plain and simple, not what other countries were doing but what the OIE recommended. R-Calf filed an injunction to put a stop to it despite what the OIE said. Twist it how you want LEO put his foot in it again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What injunction are you talking about, Bill?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
McDonnell pointed out. “While we are glad to be back in the Japanese market, that kind of action by our government is not a consistent approach. We would prefer the U.S. government spend more time working to harmonize BSE standards around the globe, and less time on the now stalled WTO negotiations. That sort of adjustment would actually help U.S. cattle producers.




Gee where better to start then at home. Billings or Brussells R-CALF wasn't wanting to let the USDA do i the job they are saying they want them to do.
Can't R-CALF make up their mind what they want?

So what job is it that R-CALF want's the USDA to do and are stopping them from? How are they stoppin them? Have you been hitting on Murgen's Kong Bong? :wink:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
First of all, R-CALF's injunction was not directed towards the US and Canada's dealings with the WTO on BSE. The injunction was filed in Billings, but Brussels. I realize they both begin with the letter "B", but the similarities end there.

Secondly, the US and Canada were stumping the WTO to LOWER standards. My thesaurus doensn't link "lower" with "harmonize".
You sure have a habit of twisting things around to suit your arguement Sandhusker.

The US and Canada were harmonizing to meet the current recommendations of the OIE plain and simple, not what other countries were doing but what the OIE recommended. R-Calf filed an injunction to put a stop to it despite what the OIE said. Twist it how you want LEO put his foot in it again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What injunction are you talking about, Bill?
How many injunctions did R-Calf apply for? :roll:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Have you been hitting on Murgen's Kong Bong?

You haven't sent it back Sandhusker, how could anybody else be using it?

When I sent it to you I thought it was just for a week loaner, but now after 4 months, I'm beginning to wonder if I will ever get it back.

You haven't lent it out to the RCALF management, have you? Stupid question, of course you have, I can see it in their paranoia.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
You sure have a habit of twisting things around to suit your arguement Sandhusker.

The US and Canada were harmonizing to meet the current recommendations of the OIE plain and simple, not what other countries were doing but what the OIE recommended. R-Calf filed an injunction to put a stop to it despite what the OIE said. Twist it how you want LEO put his foot in it again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What injunction are you talking about, Bill?
How many injunctions did R-Calf apply for? :roll:

You're the one who brought it up, Bill. What injunction were you talking about?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Sandhusker, just thinking?

If I prove that since the border has been closed, that Tyson lost more in the US than they made in Canada, at prior agreed upon plants.

Will you send SH's $100 back and send me a cheque for $100 also?

Double or nothing, I guess you would call it?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen said:
Have you been hitting on Murgen's Kong Bong?

You haven't sent it back Sandhusker, how could anybody else be using it?

When I sent it to you I thought it was just for a week loaner, but now after 4 months, I'm beginning to wonder if I will ever get it back.

You haven't lent it out to the RCALF management, have you? Stupid question, of course you have, I can see it in their paranoia.

I sent it back - it must of got confiscated at the border and then sent to Ottowa. That would explain Parliament doling out millions of Canadian tax-payer's dollars to keep Tyson and Cargill afloat. :wink:

Maybe somehow the NCBA leadership got hold of it - they seemed to take the opposite stance on what membership voted in. :wink:

Then again, there's SH - but I thought he was only into sniffing glue. :lol:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Craziness is caused by sniffing the ink on all those bills the banks print, you're not around those at all are you?

Talk about big business!!!! Lending out money, that is printed out back by 2 illegal immigrants!

The ink on their hands is proof enough for me!
 

Latest posts

Top