• 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 ready to head back to court

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Bid aims to close U.S. border again

JOHN COTTER, CP 2005-08-15 01:31:17


EDMONTON -- A group representing 18,000 independent American cattle producers will push the courts and Congress to close the U.S. border again to Canadian beef.

Since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary ban on young Canadian cattle imports July 14, people in both countries have been anxiously waiting to see how R-CALF will respond to the ruling.

President Leo McDonnell said while details are being worked out, the broad plan is to head back to court and to lobby Congress against a U.S. Department of Agriculture ruling that has allowed young cattle from Canada to be shipped again across the border.

The border war began in May 2003, after a cow with bovine spongiform encephalitis -- or mad cow disease -- was found in an Alberta cow.

"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."

R-CALF maintains the USDA rule does not adequately protect American consumers and cattle herds.

McDonnell said his group has two basic legal options.

It can file for a rehearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and hope a broader group of judges will consider more scientific evidence which R-CALF says bolsters its case.

Or it could continue to push for a permanent injunction against Canadian beef before District Court Judge Richard Cebull in Montana.

It was Cebull who granted the temporary injunction last March that delayed the resumption of the trade in live Canadian cattle.

Three appeal court judges overturned that ruling, saying he should have respected the expertise of the USDA about the safety risks of Canadian beef for BSE.

Cebull has not said if he will dismiss the application for a permanent injunction or order a new hearing.

Another strategy would involve going after the USDA rule in Congress.

Last winter R-CALF began a petition drive which passed in the Senate, but stalled in Congress before it came to a vote.

"We may start out with a gentler approach, trying to nudge the USDA in the right way," said McDonnell, who declined to be specific.

"If the USDA is not responsive we will go to a tougher stance. We may try to legislate some changes."

Other members of R-CALF's 10-member board of directors say the group faces hard choices.

While McDonnell was adamant R-CALF hasn't made a final decision, he suggested they may have a better chance laying the case before Cebull again.

"Judge Cebull is kind of an ultra-conservative judge and I have always felt very comfortable with his decisions," he said.

"He is a very fair man and we will see what happens."

Canadian producers say every day that live cattle cross the border undermines R-CALF's contention that the trade is hurting the American market.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."

I'm not sure who should be more insulted by this.... Canadian or American cattle producers? :shock:

What next, Bob Barker for a spokesman? Or maybe Paul McCartney? :???:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Kato said:
This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."

I'm not sure who should be more insulted by this.... Canadian or American cattle producers? :shock:

What next, Bob Barker for a spokesman? Or maybe Paul McCartney? :???:
Should make the US consumer real confident of the safety of US beef shouldn't it. Especially coming from the self-proclaimed "voice" of the US cattle producer. What a moron.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."
I agree,and what I believe R Calf is trying to stress to the American consumer is,we can control the health standards in our domestic herd,we can not do that with our imports and until the "BSE" matter is resolved to every ones satisfaction,Imports should be limited...................good luck
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
HAY MAKER said:
"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."
I agree,and what I believe R Calf is trying to stress to the American consumer is,we can control the health standards in our domestic herd,we can not do that with our imports and until the "BSE" matter is resolved to every ones satisfaction,Imports should be limited...................good luck
Hayfaker. R-Calf doesn't want imports limited. They want the border CLOSED to Canadian beef and cattle and yes it is a case against Canadians. It has been from the start of R-Calf.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."
I agree,and what I believe R Calf is trying to stress to the American consumer is,we can control the health standards in our domestic herd,we can not do that with our imports and until the "BSE" matter is resolved to every ones satisfaction,Imports should be limited...................good luck
Hayfaker. R-Calf doesn't want imports limited. They want the border CLOSED to Canadian beef and cattle and yes it is a case against Canadians. It has been from the start of R-Calf.

Simmer down bitter bill,you are again looking at this with tunnel vision.You are more worried about short term and money,while R CALF is looking at the long term health of the American cattle industry..........good luck
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."
I agree,and what I believe R Calf is trying to stress to the American consumer is,we can control the health standards in our domestic herd,we can not do that with our imports and until the "BSE" matter is resolved to every ones satisfaction,Imports should be limited...................good luck
Hayfaker. R-Calf doesn't want imports limited. They want the border CLOSED to Canadian beef and cattle and yes it is a case against Canadians. It has been from the start of R-Calf.

Simmer down bitter bill,you are again looking at this with tunnel vision.You are more worried about short term and money,while R CALF is looking at the long term health of the American cattle industry..........good luck
An R-calfer accusing someone of tunnel vision? :lol: :lol: :lol: You are correct on one account though, all Canadian producers are downright bitter towards R-Calf and its supporters. R-Calf as the watchdog of the long term health of the American cattle industry. That's a scary thought.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
Hayfaker. R-Calf doesn't want imports limited. They want the border CLOSED to Canadian beef and cattle and yes it is a case against Canadians. It has been from the start of R-Calf.

Simmer down bitter bill,you are again looking at this with tunnel vision.You are more worried about short term and money,while R CALF is looking at the long term health of the American cattle industry..........good luck
An R-calfer accusing someone of tunnel vision? :lol: :lol: :lol: You are correct on one account though, all Canadian producers are downright bitter towards R-Calf and its supporters. R-Calf as the watchdog of the long term health of the American cattle industry. That's a scary thought.


They are doing a Damn site better job than the "CCA" they are as much entwined with the ami as mncba...............good luck
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
While McDonnell was adamant R-CALF hasn't made a final decision, he suggested they may have a better chance laying the case before Cebull again.

"Judge Cebull is kind of an ultra-conservative judge and I have always felt very comfortable with his decisions," he said.



Oh sure he feels a lot better about placing this in front of Cebull because he is on the R-calf buy a judge program :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
R-CALF honing strategy in push to close U.S. border again to Canadian beef

John Cotter
Canadian Press


EDMONTON (CP) - A group representing 18,000 independent American cattle producers will push the courts and Congress to close the U.S. border again to Canadian beef.

Since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary ban on young Canadian cattle imports July 14, people in both countries have been anxiously waiting to see how R-CALF will respond to the ruling.

President Leo McDonnell said while details are still being worked out, the broad plan is to head back to court and to lobby Congress against a U.S. Department of Agriculture ruling that has allowed young cattle from Canada to be shipped again across the border.

The border war began in May 2003, after a cow with bovine spongiform encephalitis - or mad cow disease - was found in an Alberta cow.

"This case is not against Canadians," McDonnell said from his ranch near Columbus, Mont. "This case is against the USDA. This is about a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards in the extreme to the point where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."

R-CALF maintains the USDA rule does not adequately protect American consumers and cattle herds.

McDonnell said his group has two basic legal options.

It can file for a rehearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and hope that a broader group of judges will consider more scientific evidence which R-CALF says bolsters its case.

Or it could continue to push for a permanent injunction against Canadian beef before District Court Judge Richard Cebull in Montana.

It was Cebull who granted the temporary injunction last March that delayed the resumption of the trade in live Canadian cattle.

Three appeal court judges overturned that ruling, saying he should have respected the expertise of the USDA about the safety risks of Canadian beef for BSE.

Cebull has not said if he will dismiss the application for a permanent injunction or order a new hearing.

Another strategy would involve going after the USDA rule in Congress.

Last winter R-CALF began a petition drive which passed in the Senate, but stalled in Congress before it came to a vote.

"We may start out with a gentler approach, trying to nudge the USDA in the right way," said McDonnell, who declined to be specific.

"If the USDA is not responsive we will go to a tougher stance. We may try to legislate some changes."

Other members of R-CALF's 10-member board of directors say the group faces hard choices.

Chuck Kiker, a director from Texas, said dealing with Congress is tough because of the powerful meatpackers' lobby that favours the renewed live cattle trade with Canada.

But going before the 9th Circuit Court wouldn't be easy either, he said.

"They are considered one of the most radical or liberal courts in the United States," Kiker said from his ranch near Beaumont.

Kathleen Kelley, a director from Meeker, Colo., wondered about their chances of winning a case before the appeal court.


While McDonnell was adamant R-CALF hasn't made a final decision, he suggested they may have a better chance laying the case before Cebull again.

"Judge Cebull is kind of an ultra-conservative judge and I have always felt very comfortable with his decisions," he said. "He is a very fair man and we will see what happens."

Canadian producers say every day that live cattle cross the border undermines R-CALF's contention that the trade is hurting the American market.

More than 33,000 head of cattle have crossed into the U.S. during the past few weeks with little effect on beef prices, said Dennis Laycraft, executive director of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

He expects those numbers to soon average up to 12,500 cattle per week.

Consumer confidence in beef on both sides of the border remains high, he said.

"They (R-CALF) had 'the sky-is-falling argument', and that clearly didn't happen," Laycraft said.

"And in June the U.S. confirmed their own domestic case of BSE. The longer this goes, what were already suspect arguments become even more suspect."

R-CALF will make its final decision on its response in the next few weeks, McDonnell said.
"We may start out with a gentler approach, trying to nudge the USDA in the right way," said McDonnell, who declined to be specific.
As I said. What a moron! A little late for a gentler approach don't ya think Leo? Last week you accused USDA of targeting Montana plants through the inspection process. These are the clowns you feel are the watchdogs of health of the livestock industry when they support mouse feces in meat coolers.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Bill said:
Bid aims to close U.S. border again

JOHN COTTER, CP 2005-08-15 01:31:17


EDMONTON -- A group representing 18,000 independent American cattle producers will push the courts and Congress to close the U.S. border again to Canadian beef.

Since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary ban on young Canadian cattle imports July 14, people in both countries have been anxiously waiting to see how R-CALF will respond to the ruling.

President Leo McDonnell said while details are being worked out, the broad plan is to head back to court and to lobby Congress against a U.S. Department of Agriculture ruling that has allowed young cattle from Canada to be shipped again across the border.

The border war began in May 2003, after a cow with bovine spongiform encephalitis -- or mad cow disease -- was found in an Alberta cow.

"This case is not against Canadians. This case is against the USDA . . . a rogue agency liberalizing our import standards . . . where we have some of the lowest import standards in any modern beef consuming country."

R-CALF maintains the USDA rule does not adequately protect American consumers and cattle herds.

McDonnell said his group has two basic legal options.

It can file for a rehearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and hope a broader group of judges will consider more scientific evidence which R-CALF says bolsters its case.

Or it could continue to push for a permanent injunction against Canadian beef before District Court Judge Richard Cebull in Montana.

It was Cebull who granted the temporary injunction last March that delayed the resumption of the trade in live Canadian cattle.

Three appeal court judges overturned that ruling, saying he should have respected the expertise of the USDA about the safety risks of Canadian beef for BSE.

Cebull has not said if he will dismiss the application for a permanent injunction or order a new hearing.

Another strategy would involve going after the USDA rule in Congress.

Last winter R-CALF began a petition drive which passed in the Senate, but stalled in Congress before it came to a vote.

"We may start out with a gentler approach, trying to nudge the USDA in the right way," said McDonnell, who declined to be specific.

"If the USDA is not responsive we will go to a tougher stance. We may try to legislate some changes."

Other members of R-CALF's 10-member board of directors say the group faces hard choices.

While McDonnell was adamant R-CALF hasn't made a final decision, he suggested they may have a better chance laying the case before Cebull again.

"Judge Cebull is kind of an ultra-conservative judge and I have always felt very comfortable with his decisions," he said.

"He is a very fair man and we will see what happens."

Canadian producers say every day that live cattle cross the border undermines R-CALF's contention that the trade is hurting the American market.

These folks, R-Calf authorities, are just too ignorant to recognize the beating they took. Cebull would be an even bigger fool to get hoodwinked again by this group of self-proclaimed saviors of their own egos. They don't desereve to be called leaders as it is increasing apparent that they would get lost trying to lead two .... ants around a pole.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
No, Agman, these folks are right. The USDA needs straightened out badly. A "rogue" agency is a pretty fitting description.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
No, Agman, these folks are right. The USDA needs straightened out badly. A "rogue" agency is a pretty fitting description.

I guess that is right if you are an R-Calf megaphone and cannot think for yourself to see the potential damage. Why don't you go set the USDA straight? While you are on your way maybe you can get an audience with the Ninth Circuit and explain your personal version of "low" risk to them. I am certain they would find that entertaining. I am certain you will provide all your scientific proof direct from the archives of R-Calf. Just a brief reminder; Cebull tried that and it failed on all counts. Have you not figured that out yet?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
No, Agman, these folks are right. The USDA needs straightened out badly. A "rogue" agency is a pretty fitting description.

I guess that is right if you are an R-Calf megaphone and cannot think for yourself to see the potential damage. Why don't you go set the USDA straight? While you are on your way maybe you can get an audience with the Ninth Circuit and explain your personal version of "low" risk to them. I am certain they would find that entertaining. I am certain you will provide all your scientific proof direct from the archives of R-Calf. Just a brief reminder; Cebull tried that and it failed on all counts. Have you not figured that out yet?

What I've figured out is that the Ninth Circuit said that we should trust the judgement of the USDA. I don't trust the judgement of the USDA. Why not, you may ask? Consider the following;

1) Banning private BSE testing on the grounds it is not based on sound science when a precidence has already been established that sound science is not a requirement for other marketing methods.

2) Was the Washington cow a downer or not?

3) Why wasn't that one Texas cow tested even when BSE was the hottest topic in the agricultural community?

4) The policy of announcing inconclusive negetive test results before it was known for sure the exact status of the sample.

5) Phyllis Fong showing them they didn't even know what a positive sample was when they had one.

6) The sudden reversal of policy that, as late as 2003, they had testified to Congress was their front line of defense for keeping BSE out of here.

7) Their inabiltiy to define what scale they were using when describing a measurement as "low".

8) Their recomendation that our import standards be lower than our customer's.

Need I go on? I'm sure I've forgotten others. You bet, Agman, the good 'ol USDA is working for producers, all right. We should just give them all the rein they want.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Give er **** on all those issues Sandman, but as soon as you connect this stuff to the Canadian Border, your credibility gets lost. All of your credible points become a smokescreen for the protectionist agenda of Rcalf.

Take on the USDA, but stop with the border BS. Canadian and American herd have been one for as long as you've been born. And know guess what, Both countries have the same incidence of the dreaded of all bovine phenomenon.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
rkaiser said:
Give er s*** on all those issues Sandman, but as soon as you connect this stuff to the Canadian Border, your credibility gets lost. All of your credible points become a smokescreen for the protectionist agenda of Rcalf.

Take on the USDA, but stop with the border BS. Canadian and American herd have been one for as long as you've been born. And know guess what, Both countries have the same incidence of the dreaded of all bovine phenomenon.

I know you don't agree with me on the border deal for obvious reasons, nor do I expect you too, but what did I say that was false? The USDA did reverse their health policy very quickly, with economics being the reason. They did set the requirements of the US taking Canadian product in the final rule at levels below what other countries demand of us.

I'll have to disagree with your "same incidence" statement. You have had 4 times the cases in your native herd that is 1/7 the size of yours. That is not the same incidence. You can fault our testing system if you want, and will probably have good points, but that is another deal.

I also thought of another reason not to give the USDA "deference". What about their claim to use only "sound science" and the need to "treat everybody equally" and then they negotiate different SRM lists and ages with different countries?

Yep, Agman, the Ninth Circuit sure seems like a credible bunch to me. Have you refrained from using the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegance per their ruling? You seem to hold their opinion with such high regard.....
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
As far as I'm concerned Sandman, the incidence is the same. Nothing. One case or 50 is still nothing. The only way to have less than nothing when it comes to BSE is to not test at all.

I would also like to say that my opinion of BSeconomics is the same for Rcalf and the USDA. Both have been using BSE as an economic tool, and both have no credibility using BSE for these economic reasons. This is a battle of Americans fought on foreign soil, taking out foreign bystanders, but then again, what else is new.

Forget the border, Canadian producers are doing nothing to deserve any of this. Including an open border and a sickening basis.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I agree with you that this is an American battle that is taking out Canadians. However, that is a risk taken when you knowingly become dependant on our markets. If you only depended on us to take 5% of your product, the R-CALF - USDA battle would only be entertainment for you. However, you built your industry depending on us to take your product and opened yourselves up to problems.

We've made the same mistake. Look at us and our dependence on foreign oil. We've created monsters in the Middle East and US soldiers are dying because of it every day. We've put our fate in other's hands and are paying the price. Heck, we've got this example in our face every day we're still doing it. We don't make anything any more and soon we'll even be dependant on others for our food.
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker,
Just curious .....How many folks on this board over 40 can remember eating cow brains when they were growing up? Now we know what happenend to Agman and Porker!! :lol:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Randy: "Take on the USDA, but stop with the border BS. Canadian and American herd have been one for as long as you've been born. And know guess what, Both countries have the same incidence of the dreaded of all bovine phenomenon."

Randy, didn't Canada have the border closed to USA cattle because of some disease??????? One in the same...when it fits your need!!! :shock:
What's that word SH always uses????????? :eek:
 

Latest posts

Top