• 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 Policy Resolutions Supported

Econ101

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ wrote
"Heck, I support the NCBA in probably 95% of what they say. It is the 5% of what they actually do against producer interests and free market interests that bothers me. The 95% rhetoric doesn't cancel out the 5% action. Soapweed's NCBA ballot is just a propaganda tool.

Bill, your support of the NCBA means about as much as my support of the CCA. It doesn't make a hill of beans difference. If you want to register as a foreign lobbyist, then go do it. Stop using this forum to do it free."

Dose this mean you are a NCBA member? Are you even a producer?

Are you? If so, are you an importer to the U.S. or an exporter from the U.S.? We all know what your self serving interests are, BMR, you don't have to remind us all the time. I am actually looking for people with a little higher ethical standard than what you seem to exhibit with these comments.

I find it funny how you, MR, Bill and other Canadians try to intimidate an organization in a foreign country. You might want to work on the Alberta report before you start fixing things down here in the lower 48.

You do make it harder to see qualities of the average producers in Canada when you start your stuff. What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the U.S. when you can't intelligently question things like the Alberta report?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
So I take you don't belong to NCBA and you aren't a beef producer. I figured so. You talk about Canadians discrediting the US industry . Heck we don't need to do that. R-CALF does a good enough job with out our help.


Kinda funny you now blameing Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry. All i can do if laugh. :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
So I take you don't belong to NCBA and you aren't a beef producer. I figured so. You talk about Canadians discrediting the US industry . Heck we don't need to do that. R-CALF does a good enough job with out our help.


Kinda funny you now blameing Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry. All i can do if laugh. :lol: :lol:

So you and SH share the same standard of proof, I see. If someone does not answer, you make up an answer for them and laugh about it. I pretty much have you figured out, BMR.

You can't even discredit a govt. report that doesn't answer the questions asked. You and chickenhead make quite a pair.

Blaming Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry? You can't even control yor provincial bs, why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about controlling anything in the U.S.? My only comment is that for less than 5% of the U.S. consumption of beef, you sure have some loudmouths denigrating producers trying to stick together for a more fair industry instead of getting off your butt and doing anything more than the self serving swipes I have seen on this forum.

There are a few (maybe a lot) of Canadians that see a larger picture of packers that are using the borders for their little games against producers at the expense of cattlemen. You may not have the foresight they have when it comes to these issues and that is why you and chickenhead can only make these swipes at the producers trying to do things to protect other producers in the industry.

It shows that you only try to hit below the belt whenever the opportunity presents itself when it comes to producers arguing and packers laughing.

I have to admit, it is a little comical that you would even try to influence the U.S. beef industry. Most people look at your actions and realize the self interest you continually exert. Some have even said they knew nothing of the self serving border issues you have been a part of.. :shock:
 

Tam

Well-known member
ECON You say:
I find it funny how you, MR, Bill and other Canadians try to intimidate an organization in a foreign country. You might want to work on the Alberta report before you start fixing things down here in the lower 48.
Well I find it funny that you seem to think you as a FOREIGNER can tell us in Canada what to do when the US is the one that can't find the BSE infected cow before she hits the slaughter house or even on the first time around on the testing and can't find the herdmates because of NO NATIONAL ID SYSTEM, Gee in some states there isn't even the brand system to help in the search is there? And you still legally feed chicken crap to your cattle. We may have a few problems to iron out Econ but you and your pals might want to fix a few things in the lower 48 before you start pointing fingers. If your industry didn't have so many problems, importing our cattle wouldn't be an issue. Fix them before telling us what to do OK ECON.

What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the U.S. when you can't intelligently question things like the Alberta report?
What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the Canada when you can't intelligently clean up you own problems surrounding your whole industry? Feed Ban, National ID system, BSE surveillance, safeguards and firewalls.

Blaming Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry? You can't even control yor provincial bs, why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about controlling anything in the U.S.?
Econ who took control and implimented a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM with AGE VERTIFICATION by BIRTHDATE? can you say the Canadian cattle Industry? Who is still looking for their government to design and pay for, as not the burden US producers with the cost of a so called National ID system? can you say the US CATTLE INDUSTRY? :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
By the way Oldtimer where was Dennis McDonald's resolution I didn't see it here. You know it should have read something like this Be it resolved that the US is known to have BSE in their native herd because of two confirmed cases one in Texas and a second in Alabama. Be it resolved that we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months"

He was quoted in a North Dakota Paper as to have said "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months".

Did Dennis pass on putting his resolution before to the R-CALF membership and if so maybe you could explain why? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
By the way Oldtimer where was Dennis McDonald's resolution I didn't see it here. You know it should have read something like this Be it resolved that the US is known to have BSE in their native herd because of two confirmed cases one in Texas and a second in Alabama. Be it resolved that we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months"

He was quoted in a North Dakota Paper as to have said "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months".

Did Dennis pass on putting his resolution before to the R-CALF membership and if so maybe you could explain why? :wink:

Another one of those quotes that you and Maxine see when you're hitting the bottle :???: I just read a thread where they're seeing ghosts in one pub also :roll: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam
Econ who took control and implimented a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM with AGE VERTIFICATION by BIRTHDATE? can you say the Canadian cattle Industry? Who is still looking for their government to design and pay for, as not the burden US producers with the cost of a so called National ID system? can you say the US CATTLE INDUSTRY?

Are you trying to say that the Canadian government didn't pay any of your ID system :???: You know what Super Hero calls people like you? :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
ECON You say:
I find it funny how you, MR, Bill and other Canadians try to intimidate an organization in a foreign country. You might want to work on the Alberta report before you start fixing things down here in the lower 48.
Well I find it funny that you seem to think you as a FOREIGNER can tell us in Canada what to do when the US is the one that can't find the BSE infected cow before she hits the slaughter house or even on the first time around on the testing and can't find the herdmates because of NO NATIONAL ID SYSTEM, Gee in some states there isn't even the brand system to help in the search is there? And you still legally feed chicken crap to your cattle. We may have a few problems to iron out Econ but you and your pals might want to fix a few things in the lower 48 before you start pointing fingers. If your industry didn't have so many problems, importing our cattle wouldn't be an issue. Fix them before telling us what to do OK ECON.

What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the U.S. when you can't intelligently question things like the Alberta report?
What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the Canada when you can't intelligently clean up you own problems surrounding your whole industry? Feed Ban, National ID system, BSE surveillance, safeguards and firewalls.

Blaming Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry? You can't even control yor provincial bs, why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about controlling anything in the U.S.?
Econ who took control and implimented a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM with AGE VERTIFICATION by BIRTHDATE? can you say the Canadian cattle Industry? Who is still looking for their government to design and pay for, as not the burden US producers with the cost of a so called National ID system? can you say the US CATTLE INDUSTRY? :wink:

Tam, you are the one suckered into a national id and all the little things that come with it. I don't agree with it. I think the USDA should be spending a little more effort in enforcement of existing laws. You know that it is my contention that it was to the benefit of the big packers to sell MBM for use in cattle rations and poultry rations. This led to the amplification of bse as well as making the comparative advantages SH previously bragged was the "efficiency" aspect that allowed some of the big packers to have a comparative advantage against smaller packers which helps them consolidate the industry more. In my opinion, the packers should be paying for the whole bse fiasco instead of getting the "safety" system you have set up that they wanted all along.

I just didn't go for the worm, the hook, the line, or the sinker as you did. Instead, I was for allowing a company like Creekstone to test.

I think the USDA would have a lot more support from cattlemen if they didn't ask the packers what to do in every situation that gives packers advantages in the marketplace over producers and degrades the safety of the food in the U.S.

I don't blame the average producer in Canada or the U.S. for these circumstances. I think they have about as much say so in national policy as rcalf right now. I do blame you for not helping solve some of these problems or at least not recognizing them. Instead you want to go into a silly little diatribe about rcalf and the he said she said game. I think more Canadians are realizing that some of the little advantages you supported over border diseases have created an ethical nightmare when bse issues are raised.

Keep playing the chicken head games. I don't buy them.

I still reserve the right not to answer your lower intellect posts. For the most part they are a waste of time.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
By the way Oldtimer where was Dennis McDonald's resolution I didn't see it here. You know it should have read something like this Be it resolved that the US is known to have BSE in their native herd because of two confirmed cases one in Texas and a second in Alabama. Be it resolved that we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months"

He was quoted in a North Dakota Paper as to have said "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months".

Did Dennis pass on putting his resolution before to the R-CALF membership and if so maybe you could explain why? :wink:

Another one of those quotes that you and Maxine see when you're hitting the bottle :???: I just read a thread where they're seeing ghosts in one pub also :roll: :lol: :lol:


"People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones" OT
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Econ,


Until you can prove to us that you are a serious cattle rancher I will consider you a wannabe rancher.






"Econ" was rounding up his cattle to bring into the yards, and all of a sudden he couldnt get control of his horse. As he tried to get the horse under control, tears started rolling down his face. :cry2: All of a sudden the horse came to a complete stop. Suddenly a woman walked up and inserted another quarter into econs merry go round ride. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
ECON You say:
I find it funny how you, MR, Bill and other Canadians try to intimidate an organization in a foreign country. You might want to work on the Alberta report before you start fixing things down here in the lower 48.
Well I find it funny that you seem to think you as a FOREIGNER can tell us in Canada what to do when the US is the one that can't find the BSE infected cow before she hits the slaughter house or even on the first time around on the testing and can't find the herdmates because of NO NATIONAL ID SYSTEM, Gee in some states there isn't even the brand system to help in the search is there? And you still legally feed chicken crap to your cattle. We may have a few problems to iron out Econ but you and your pals might want to fix a few things in the lower 48 before you start pointing fingers. If your industry didn't have so many problems, importing our cattle wouldn't be an issue. Fix them before telling us what to do OK ECON.

What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the U.S. when you can't intelligently question things like the Alberta report?
What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the Canada when you can't intelligently clean up you own problems surrounding your whole industry? Feed Ban, National ID system, BSE surveillance, safeguards and firewalls.

Blaming Canadians for wanting to control the north american beef industry? You can't even control yor provincial bs, why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about controlling anything in the U.S.?
Econ who took control and implimented a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM with AGE VERTIFICATION by BIRTHDATE? can you say the Canadian cattle Industry? Who is still looking for their government to design and pay for, as not the burden US producers with the cost of a so called National ID system? can you say the US CATTLE INDUSTRY? :wink:

Tam, you are the one suckered into a national id and all the little things that come with it. I don't agree with it. I think the USDA should be spending a little more effort in enforcement of existing laws. You know that it is my contention that it was to the benefit of the big packers to sell MBM for use in cattle rations and poultry rations. This led to the amplification of bse as well as making the comparative advantages SH previously bragged was the "efficiency" aspect that allowed some of the big packers to have a comparative advantage against smaller packers which helps them consolidate the industry more. In my opinion, the packers should be paying for the whole bse fiasco instead of getting the "safety" system you have set up that they wanted all along.

I just didn't go for the worm, the hook, the line, or the sinker as you did. Instead, I was for allowing a company like Creekstone to test.

I think the USDA would have a lot more support from cattlemen if they didn't ask the packers what to do in every situation that gives packers advantages in the marketplace over producers and degrades the safety of the food in the U.S.

I don't blame the average producer in Canada or the U.S. for these circumstances. I think they have about as much say so in national policy as rcalf right now. I do blame you for not helping solve some of these problems or at least not recognizing them. Instead you want to go into a silly little diatribe about rcalf and the he said she said game. I think more Canadians are realizing that some of the little advantages you supported over border diseases have created an ethical nightmare when bse issues are raised.

Keep playing the chicken head games. I don't buy them.

I still reserve the right not to answer your lower intellect posts. For the most part they are a waste of time.

Econ do you mean all the little things that go along, like the ability of finding the cattle involved with all reportable disease cases (including BSE) in a reasonable time frame so consumers can eat our beef with confidence. OR age vertifing cattle by birthdate so our trading partners know how old the beef is?
And do you have any proof it was the packers that made and fed the Texas cow or the Alabama cow the feed that infected them. Was it the packers that imported the cattle from the UK that was likely the source of the contamination. And if it wasn't the feed but enviromental problems like some seem to think how are you going to blame the packers for that. I can't see how but knowing you, you will try find a way. :wink:

Tell us what safety system did the packers want Econ. Do you mean the national ID system that traces the cattle back to the place of birth. How is that not a safety system benefiting EVERYONE? As if you know where the animal comes from then all other producers are not having to wonder if it was their cow that caused the problem. That make just a few less producer being investigated doesn't it Econ? If the producer has proof of where his feed came from (if it is feed that contaminated the animal) then No wide spread search to find the feed mill involved. If the feed guys can prove where they got their feed ingredients then again No wide spread investigation to find the suppliers. If those guys have records of any MBM purchases and they came from one of those low life packers :wink: then the source of BSE is found isn't it. Right back to the PACKER YOU CLAIM WANTED THE SAFETY SYSTEM ALL ALONG. I'm sure there were alot less sleepless night on behalf of the Canadian producers Feed Manufacturers, their suppliers, packers and our consumers because of our safety system.
Econ you support Creekstone testing UTM cattle with a test that even Creekstone knows isn't designed to find BSE in the age of cattle they would be testing, Why? Would that not be classified as testing NOT TO FIND? Why not test those animals most likely to have the problem the OTM 4D's. But that could mean you will find it and again prove to the watching world how bad your system needs a "safety system" :wink:

And Econ who is really degrading the safety of the meat in the US. the packers by selling MBM that is legally put in some animals feed or the producer that decides to cut imput costs by feeds chicken crap and feed that is not intended for cattle to his baby calves? Yes the Packer may be selling it but who is buying it and feeding to their cattle?

Is R-CALF solving any problems for the US producers when they are standing hand in hand with "Consumer Groups" :wink: and in a Federal court room claiming there is a health risk associated with beef coming from a country that they themselves admit has standards not yet implimented by the US beef industry. Especially when the US is in the same risk catagory as that country. On one hand they claim to have the safest beef in the World because of their firewalls that have had for years but on the other they admit their system has loophole that could contaminate the US herd and risk human health if BSE was introduced to the US via imported cattle. News Flash Econ BSE is in the US and those loopholes are risking the US herd and CONSUMERS via US CATTLE. So what is with the SAFEST BEEF IN THE WORLD CRAP. Either they are lieing about the health risk associated with our beef or they are lieing about the world safest US beef either way they are LIEING.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
By the way Oldtimer where was Dennis McDonald's resolution I didn't see it here. You know it should have read something like this Be it resolved that the US is known to have BSE in their native herd because of two confirmed cases one in Texas and a second in Alabama. Be it resolved that we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months"

He was quoted in a North Dakota Paper as to have said "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months".

Did Dennis pass on putting his resolution before to the R-CALF membership and if so maybe you could explain why? :wink:

Another one of those quotes that you and Maxine see when you're hitting the bottle :???: I just read a thread where they're seeing ghosts in one pub also :roll: :lol: :lol:

Oldtimer according to the Minot Daily News staff writer Marvin Baker on February 22,2005 in an article titled "R-CALF CAN border message- Expert says border should stay closed." Dennis McDonald, the trade committee chairmen for R-CALF USA spoke at a North Central Research Extension Center at a meeting sponsered by the North Central Beef Marketing Club. The article states McDonald (A leading U.S. cattle expert) said
"If there is a positive case again in the United States, we as a beef producing nation, shouldn't market beef in cattle older than 20 months.
it goes on to say
That comment created another heated debate from a producer who said up to 30 percent of his income is based on cattle older than 20 months. McDonald countered that BSE has never been found in cattle aged 20 months or younger, so why even take a chance?

So I ask you again why was there not resolution brought forward by the Trade committee chair asking the R-CALF membership to support the banning of marketing beef from cattle older than 20 months? Why is R-CALF willing to take a chance now that BSE has been found not once but twice in the Native US herd? Did Dennis stick his foot in his month so far that Leo and Bill gagged :help:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ,


Until you can prove to us that you are a serious cattle rancher I will consider you a wannabe rancher.






"Econ" was rounding up his cattle to bring into the yards, and all of a sudden he couldnt get control of his horse. As he tried to get the horse under control, tears started rolling down his face. :cry2: All of a sudden the horse came to a complete stop. Suddenly a woman walked up and inserted another quarter into econs merry go round ride. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

MR, when you can vote in my state's election in the United States, I will consider you a foreigner trying to sell their wares in my country and trying to influence the safety and welfare of our food supply.

Maybe you should stick to fictional writing. There are a few on this board that read on the level you write.

It is interesting that you believe you are the self appointed purveyer of who should and who should not be on this site. You laughed about my comments of some of you foreigners trying to control the U.S. cattle business but you are trying to do just that on this forum.

I will remind you, MR, you are less than 5%. You better try to stick to the real issues instead of trying to bully people off with your comical writing. You may be humoring only yourself and those on your level.

MR, I don't feel the need to prove anything to a foreign supposed rancher that is so familiar with the grocery store horse rides.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is good.

It's about time that R-CALF draws a line in the sand on their positions. Can't have little Sandcheska trying to deceive readers into believing that R-CALF didn't want a "burdensome traceback" as opposed to not wanting to be "burdened with traceback" when they've proven they don't want traceback period.


Members overwhelmingly (3,815-22) instructed the board to “take appropriate action to challenge and stop USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) from allowing the importation of beef products from cattle older than 30 months of age, as well as the importation of live cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age, from Japan or any other BSE-affected country.”

SDCA supports a similar policy and I support it.


Regarding animal identification, members approved by a vote of 3,628-183 the following resolution: “R-CALF USA opposes a federally mandated national animal identification program. R-CALF USA opposes a totally privatized, centralized database and/or a federally centralized database. R-CALF USA supports a voluntary animal-health traceback system that ensures the protection of individual data, and a system that is compatible with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). R-CALF USA shall continue to work with the federal government, state governments and Tribal governments, as well as the industry, to determine the feasibility, functionality, and benefit to the U.S. cattle industry of an animal-health traceback system that incorporates existing systems, such as brand programs and the Intertribal Cattle Connect program, and vests the responsibilities and authority under the auspices of state animal health officials and Tribal governments.

I also oppose a national ID system. Let the consumers drive it and the free enterprise system run it and those who want to refuse to participate can receive less money for their cattle. Nobody should be forced to participate in source verification against their will.


R-CALF USA often has been mischaracterized as being opposed to the Beef Checkoff. However, the organization’s only Beef Checkoff policy was established back in 2000, which states U.S. cattle producers should have the right to periodically vote on the Beef Checkoff.

Their most outspoken advocates, the Livestock Marketing Police, tested the constitutionality of the beef checkoff in a court of law and lost.


R-CALF USA established a Checkoff Committee in January that proposed the following resolution, which passed 3,734-41: “Whereas, R-CALF USA seeks to provide the motivation, information and support necessary to our members so they can become more involved in influencing decisions regarding the Beef Checkoff, and Whereas, the vast majority of dollars collected by the Beef Checkoff comes directly from U.S. cattle producers, Therefore, be it resolved, R-CALF USA recommends the following: 1) All R-CALF USA affiliate organizations seek approval as “qualified” organizations or associations in their respective states, nominate from within their membership and actively promote those nominees for appointment to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB); 2) Those affiliate organizations also work diligently to obtain seats on their respective state beef council by providing candidates for appointment or election; 3) Be it further resolved, R-CALF USA seeks appropriate changes to the Beef Promotion Act and Order that would allow Beef Checkoff dollars collected from U.S. cattle producers to be used to promote products that are specifically born, raised and processed in the United States.


What's so ridiculous about this resolution is that there was nothing stopping any of them from being involved in the beef checkoff now. Hell Johnny Smith with the Livestock Marketing Police opposes the beef checkoff and he served on the board. What more proof does anyone need that the beef board does not discriminate?

The other thing that is so ridiculous about this resolution is the fact that R-CALF opposes an ID system and they prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL making it unenforceable yet they want the retail beef industry to somehow identify the 5% sliver of foreign beef that ends up at the retail level without a traceback system? Real wisdom there folks!

Every time I see a "USA BEEF" bumper sticker, I'd like to have one that says, "95% OF THE BEEF AT THE RETAIL LEVEL IS US BEEF, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?????" Symbolism over substance!


A second Beef Checkoff-related resolution, approved with a vote of 3,615-142, states: “Be it resolved: R-CALF USA will lead a nationwide referendum to amend the National Beef Promotion Act to make such Acts responsive to grassroots family cattle producers. This is NOT an effort to kill the program, but rather an effort to make the program better. Specifically, R-CALF USA is suggesting the Checkoff program be amended to include the following: 1) Checkoff dollars may be used to promote USA beef from cattle born, raised, and processed in the United States of America; 2) A periodic vote on the Checkoff program (every 5 years); 3) Prohibit any one cattle organization from serving as the “prime contractor” for the program, but allow all cattle organizations to participate in approved projects on a case-by-case basis; 4) Reform the Cattlemen’s Beef Board to reflect proportional representation from all national cattle organizations; 5) Allow Checkoff expenditures to promote branded products from small and large packing entities; 6) Provide that 70% of all funds collected remain in the state where collected, and 30% to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board; 7) Reset the date for cattle organizations to be able to bid on Checkoff contracts from 1985 to the date the Act is amended.

Why would the beef checkoff NOT be responsible to grass roots producers IF YOU'VE JUST ENCOURAGED YOUR MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE ON THE BOARD???

Can't identify beef that was "born, raised, and processed in the US" without the traceback system that you oppose. CATCH 22!

Fine, have a periodic vote that tells you that 70% of the cattle producers understand that the price of beef affects the price of cattle. Whatever!

Any cattle organization can compete for checkoff dollars. Hey, wait a minute, didn't Leo claim R-CALF was not interested in contracting for checkoff dollars??? What happened to that? I'm going to have to see if I can find that contradiction.

The beef checkoff has to promote beef, not individual branded beef programs. A national checkoff can't play favoratism to certain branded beef products. Ridiculous. Of course everyone would want everyone else's money promoting their product. GEE, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT????

Why would you spend 70% of the beef checkoff dollars promoting beef TO THOSE WHO EAT BEEF???? How stupid is that????


Members also instructed the board to “establish a standing committee to help protect and preserve private property rights,” with a vote of 3,587-101.

That's good. Eminent domain should be front and center.


An Endangered Species Act resolution also was passed with a vote of 3,575-149, which states: “Whereas, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation amending the ESA to offer greater incentives to landowners to participate in species recovery; and Whereas, the House legislation provides for compensation to property owners to aide the recovery of species; and Whereas the House legislature calls for better science in listing species and development of recovery plans; and Whereas, the U.S. Senate is currently considering updating and modernizing the ESA; Now therefore be it resolved that R-CALF USA strongly supports amending the ESA to advance protections of private property rights, insuring that listing and recovery decisions are based on credible science and providing financial incentives for property owners to participate in recovery of species; and Be it further resolved that R-CALF USA strongly encourages the U.S. Senate to go forward with updating and modernizing the ESA.”

WONDERFUL! AGREE 100%! This is the best place that R-CALF could focus their energy and actually do some good. This is a real problem that could have a bigger impact on ranching than packer blaming conspiracy theories and imports.


On another animal-health matter, the following resolution was approved with a vote of 3,562-74: “Be it resolved, that R-CALF USA requests that APHIS and APHIS Wildlife Services look into the cause and spread and distribution of neospora caninum infection in cattle and/or livestock.

Great!


I'm glad to see R-CALF focus on private property rights and the ESA. That is where they can actually do some good if they can stop their NCBA blaming, packer blaming, USDA blaming, import blaming, and GIPSA blaming long enough to remain focused on an issue that really matters.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
ECON You say:
Well I find it funny that you seem to think you as a FOREIGNER can tell us in Canada what to do when the US is the one that can't find the BSE infected cow before she hits the slaughter house or even on the first time around on the testing and can't find the herdmates because of NO NATIONAL ID SYSTEM, Gee in some states there isn't even the brand system to help in the search is there? And you still legally feed chicken crap to your cattle. We may have a few problems to iron out Econ but you and your pals might want to fix a few things in the lower 48 before you start pointing fingers. If your industry didn't have so many problems, importing our cattle wouldn't be an issue. Fix them before telling us what to do OK ECON.


What gives you foreigners the right to question anyone here in the Canada when you can't intelligently clean up you own problems surrounding your whole industry? Feed Ban, National ID system, BSE surveillance, safeguards and firewalls.

Econ who took control and implimented a NATIONAL ID SYSTEM with AGE VERTIFICATION by BIRTHDATE? can you say the Canadian cattle Industry? Who is still looking for their government to design and pay for, as not the burden US producers with the cost of a so called National ID system? can you say the US CATTLE INDUSTRY? :wink:

Tam, you are the one suckered into a national id and all the little things that come with it. I don't agree with it. I think the USDA should be spending a little more effort in enforcement of existing laws. You know that it is my contention that it was to the benefit of the big packers to sell MBM for use in cattle rations and poultry rations. This led to the amplification of bse as well as making the comparative advantages SH previously bragged was the "efficiency" aspect that allowed some of the big packers to have a comparative advantage against smaller packers which helps them consolidate the industry more. In my opinion, the packers should be paying for the whole bse fiasco instead of getting the "safety" system you have set up that they wanted all along.

I just didn't go for the worm, the hook, the line, or the sinker as you did. Instead, I was for allowing a company like Creekstone to test.

I think the USDA would have a lot more support from cattlemen if they didn't ask the packers what to do in every situation that gives packers advantages in the marketplace over producers and degrades the safety of the food in the U.S.

I don't blame the average producer in Canada or the U.S. for these circumstances. I think they have about as much say so in national policy as rcalf right now. I do blame you for not helping solve some of these problems or at least not recognizing them. Instead you want to go into a silly little diatribe about rcalf and the he said she said game. I think more Canadians are realizing that some of the little advantages you supported over border diseases have created an ethical nightmare when bse issues are raised.

Keep playing the chicken head games. I don't buy them.

I still reserve the right not to answer your lower intellect posts. For the most part they are a waste of time.

Econ do you mean all the little things that go along, like the ability of finding the cattle involved with all reportable disease cases (including BSE) in a reasonable time frame so consumers can eat our beef with confidence. OR age vertifing cattle by birthdate so our trading partners know how old the beef is?
And do you have any proof it was the packers that made and fed the Texas cow or the Alabama cow the feed that infected them. Was it the packers that imported the cattle from the UK that was likely the source of the contamination. And if it wasn't the feed but enviromental problems like some seem to think how are you going to blame the packers for that. I can't see how but knowing you, you will try find a way. :wink:

Tell us what safety system did the packers want Econ. Do you mean the national ID system that traces the cattle back to the place of birth. How is that not a safety system benefiting EVERYONE? As if you know where the animal comes from then all other producers are not having to wonder if it was their cow that caused the problem. That make just a few less producer being investigated doesn't it Econ? If the producer has proof of where his feed came from (if it is feed that contaminated the animal) then No wide spread search to find the feed mill involved. If the feed guys can prove where they got their feed ingredients then again No wide spread investigation to find the suppliers. If those guys have records of any MBM purchases and they came from one of those low life packers :wink: then the source of BSE is found isn't it. Right back to the PACKER YOU CLAIM WANTED THE SAFETY SYSTEM ALL ALONG. I'm sure there were alot less sleepless night on behalf of the Canadian producers Feed Manufacturers, their suppliers, packers and our consumers because of our safety system.
Econ you support Creekstone testing UTM cattle with a test that even Creekstone knows isn't designed to find BSE in the age of cattle they would be testing, Why? Would that not be classified as testing NOT TO FIND? Why not test those animals most likely to have the problem the OTM 4D's. But that could mean you will find it and again prove to the watching world how bad your system needs a "safety system" :wink:

And Econ who is really degrading the safety of the meat in the US. the packers by selling MBM that is legally put in some animals feed or the producer that decides to cut imput costs by feeds chicken crap and feed that is not intended for cattle to his baby calves? Yes the Packer may be selling it but who is buying it and feeding to their cattle?

Is R-CALF solving any problems for the US producers when they are standing hand in hand with "Consumer Groups" :wink: and in a Federal court room claiming there is a health risk associated with beef coming from a country that they themselves admit has standards not yet implimented by the US beef industry. Especially when the US is in the same risk catagory as that country. On one hand they claim to have the safest beef in the World because of their firewalls that have had for years but on the other they admit their system has loophole that could contaminate the US herd and risk human health if BSE was introduced to the US via imported cattle. News Flash Econ BSE is in the US and those loopholes are risking the US herd and CONSUMERS via US CATTLE. So what is with the SAFEST BEEF IN THE WORLD CRAP. Either they are lieing about the health risk associated with our beef or they are lieing about the world safest US beef either way they are LIEING.

Tam, this is the kind of dribble I was talking about.

If you would care to discuss ONE issue at a time until you have it in your head and can comprehend the points AND remember them so we don't have to do it over and over again, I would be glad to answer you.

You argue with me on things you know I have posted against. The "safest beef in the world" verbage is salesmanship, not science. It is a value statement whose underpinnings are being eroded by the packer backed policies in the USDA and their "scientific" staff that doesn't even know how to spell the one of the major cattle breeds in the U.S.(the breed was developed on the King Ranch in Texas).

Until you can show that you can be intelligent on your questions instead of the diatribe you go into, continue to direct your questions to your husband or others instead of me. MR may want to put in a quarter every once in a while and get a jiggle, not I.
 

Latest posts

Top