• 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 Seek Rehearing of CourtDecision

Help Support Ranchers.net:

redcattle56

Active member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Western America
U.S. Cattle Producers Seek Rehearing of Court Decision That Allows Imports from Countries with BSE


(Billings, Mont.) – Today, attorneys for R-CALF USA filed with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for a rehearing before the full appellate court regarding an opinion handed down by a three-judge panel in July that allowed the U.S. to resume imports of live Canadian cattle and additional beef products, despite the recent detection of four cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada under limited testing.



In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana had granted R-CALF USA a preliminary injunction to keep the border closed to imports due to Canada’s problems with BSE. USDA appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit, and on July 14, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction.



“The long-term health of our nation’s cattle herd and our beef consumers is at stake, as is the economic well-being of our U.S. cattle industry,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “As evidenced by the amicus curiae briefs in support of R-CALF already filed in the 9th Circuit from six state attorneys general, a broad coalition of national consumer groups, as well as state and local agriculture groups, the national importance of this case goes far beyond today’s price of cattle. We are dealing with a disease that has devastated the cattle industries in other countries and that already has cost the U.S. cattle industry billions of dollars in lost beef exports after a single diseased Canadian cow was discovered in Washington state.”



R-CALF USA’s petition states that the three-judge “panel’s conclusion that the Secretary of Agriculture has a vast amount of discretion to allow imports of pest-infested or diseased animals and animal products, and the panel’s proffered findings about the underlying facts in this case, create a precedent that is highly prejudicial to the public’s right to judicial review of critical decisions affecting U.S. agriculture and its consumers. Moreover, since the statutory authority at issue here is very similar to other statutes giving the Agriculture Secretary responsibility for preventing imports of pests and diseases affecting plants and unsafe food, the decision creates a precedent that also could be applied to limit judicial review of critical USDA actions under those other statutes.”



“Rehearing is appropriate because the panel’s decision to reverse long-standing protections against BSE was made without any definitive scientific evidence, it is inconsistent with several other decisions by the same court, and because it overlooks or misstates a number of important points of law and facts contained in the Administrative Record,” noted Bullard.



The petition also states: “The three-judge panel attempted a detailed review of facts not even fully developed in the district court, nor fully presented on appeal, and as a result, the panel missed or misunderstood numerous key aspects of this case.”



“Because this case involves questions of national importance and because consideration by the full court is necessary to maintain consistency among the court’s decisions, we hope the full court will agree that a rehearing is warranted,” Bullard said.



Following are some other specific concerns with the panel’s opinion that justify rehearing:



I. The opinion is inconsistent with other decisions of the 9th Circuit requiring an agency to justify departures from prior factual and policy determinations:



A) The opinion does not reflect USDA policy and pronouncements to Congress that prohibiting imports was the most important measure for preventing the introduction of BSE and that importation of diseased animals could result in the spread of BSE, despite the U.S. feed ban.



II. The opinion imposed a very narrow standard of review of USDA’s action, based on an argument it should not have considered because it was not raised in the District Court:



A) The opinion overlooked statements in the legislative history of the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) that show paramount congressional intent that the Secretary of Agriculture prevent the entry or dissemination of communicable diseases of livestock and provide maximum protection to consumers.



B) The opinion did not refer to the Animal Disease Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control Act of 2001 that showed congressional intent for USDA to take steps to reduce, not increase, the risk of BSE.



C) The opinion accepted USDA’s assurances that the BSE risks are acceptable, yet USDA failed to quantify the risk – despite USDA policies that confirm the need for quantitative risk assessments, and despite a prior opinion of the circuit court requiring an agency to specify its criteria for classifying a risk as insignificant.



III. The opinion substituted factual conclusions for those of the District Court, contrary to other decisions by the circuit court:



A) Unlike prior decisions, the opinion judged the merits of the case at the preliminary injunction stage.



B) The opinion ignored the District Court’s finding that USDA had a preconceived intention to allow Canadian imports before the facts were developed.



IV: The opinion’s conclusion on irreparable harm contained errors of fact and law:



A) The opinion ignored the fact that USDA estimated the Final Rule would cost U.S. cattle producers, mostly small businesses, close to $3 billion.



B) The opinion missed the fact that past experience demonstrates that imports from Canada presented an irrefutable risk of significant, irreparable harm to U.S. exports of beef, which harm continues to accrue.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Very informative post redcattle,thank you for posting it................good luck
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
HAY MAKER said:
Very informative post redcattle,thank you for posting it................good luck

I went and read the brief that was filed and R-CALF is still trying to make it look as if the Texas cow was never found and that if there is any danger to the US consumers it could only come from Canada.

It talks about if BSE is introduced to the US SORRY BOYS IT HAS BEEN. and if your cow was 12 years old and our 4 have all been under nine that tells me you had BSE before Canada did.

I would also love to see what would happen if Japan got a look at this brief and just what it would do to the negotiations to get your export markets open to the Asian countries. The claim of all Canadian beef is tainted has a side affect and that is all US beef is now tainted because of your native case. So why should Japan "allow imports of pest infested or diseased animals and animal products" from the US?

Pretty hard to sell your beef to export markets when you are claiming in court briefs, a country in the same risk catagory presents a genuine risk of death is it Haymaker. And you are in the same risk catagory because of a NATIVE CASE not an imported case.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
B) The opinion missed the fact that past experience demonstrates that imports from Canada presented an irrefutable risk of significant, irreparable harm to U.S. exports of beef, which harm continues to accrue.

Just what did your native case add to the harm that continues to accrue.
Or what did your firewalls that failed add to the harm the continues to accure. R-CALF wants everyone to believe Canadian beef caused your problems and still are. Your system has caused just as much harm to your industry as our one cow caused. And now that you have a native case you can't blame all your export problems on us, so give it up.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Tam....Tam....Tam...... how can you expect a one issue organization to quit. Hell they might havta admit that they"ve been proven wrong on each and every count! Besides who else would employ the likes of Bullard....he has to rely on the contributions of those who "implicitly and unquestionably" support him. :!: :twisted:
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
Bullard and his r-culters really are digging the grave for the US cattle industry. They are willing to risk their export market just to keep Canadian cattle out with the imaginary belief that that will keep US prices high. Doesn't matter that they have to lie through their teeth to do it. But I suppose they have never let the truth stand in their way before. R-cult should be sued for wasting the courts' time.
Cebull was actually smart enough to tell r-cult to piss off, so failing to bribe him into submission, they are going after the appeal court? And they're implying that the court was too stupid to realise what they were doing? What a bunch of idiots.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
You guys need to look more carefully at the legal issues, not the merits of the case.

If this decision is allowed to stand it sets the precedent that the federal government can do what it wants without regard to the nature of the facts involved. Several other groups that don't have anything to do with cattle are joining in this appeal for the sole purpose to rolling back the expansion of power of our federal government. This case expanded it greatly.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
we hope the full court will agree that a rehearing is warranted,” Bullard said.
:lol: :lol: :lol: We hope?

ocm:
This case expanded it greatly.
The November positive TEXAS animal was the case that greatly expanded the argument against keeping the border closed and is a little itty bitty fact R-Calf and others fail to mention.

THE US HAS BSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was found in a native Texas bred, born and raised cow that was 12 years old. Far older than any Canadian case. It is highly probable that the US had BSE before Canada and with your lax feed regs it may have been floating around your herd for over a decade!

Keep dragging this up R-Calf and provide a little more press for the anti-beef crowd.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
When R-CULT can say that Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in Canada's native herd, then turn around and say, "the U.S. has the safest beef in the world" after the U.S. has BSE in their native herd, there is no case here either.

R-CULT will lose again with their "NO FACTS, ALL EMOTION" approach to these issues.

R-CULT's lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports is as obvious as the nose on anyone's face.

R-CULT files a dumping case against Canada then Leo turns around and lies by suggesting that this case has nothing to do with the Canadian producer.

They absolutely have no shame.

R-CULT is a slap in the face to intelligent cattlemen in this industry.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
When R-CULT can say that Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in Canada's native herd, then turn around and say, "the U.S. has the safest beef in the world" after the U.S. has BSE in their native herd, there is no case here either.

R-CULT will lose again with their "NO FACTS, ALL EMOTION" approach to these issues.

R-CULT's lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports is as obvious as the nose on anyone's face.

R-CULT files a dumping case against Canada then Leo turns around and lies by suggesting that this case has nothing to do with the Canadian producer.

They absolutely have no shame.



R-CULT is a slap in the face to intelligent cattlemen in this industry.



~SH~


The Japanese know that the Secretary of Agriculture was not using a good test for BSE. It seems you can not fool everyone in the world, SH. It is amazing that the Secretary of Agriculture jumped all over Phyllis Fong for requiring a more accurate test. It just goes to show that in this administration, they do not have the ethical integrity to investigate themsleves or take responsibility.

Let the light shine in.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ.,

Explain to me the difference between the BSE precuationary measures taken in Canada and the BSE precautionary measures taken in the U.S. to justify R-CULT's position that Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef "is the safest in the world" when we both had BSE in our native herds?

Go ahead, make a statement unrelated to the question and divert again. I would expect nothing less from you.


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...R-CULT is a slap in the face to intelligent cattlemen in this industry.



Scott I would put the intelligence of R-CALF cattlemen up against the intelligence of NCBA cattlemen anyday. I would bet the R-CALF cattlemen are just as prosperous and knowlegeable as anyone else in the cattle industry.
 

Cattleman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
I have seen very little insights regarding the beef supply chain, and the effects of supply and demand on cattle prices from the R-Calfers. R-Calfers do not think big picture, and they are narrow sighted, I have a hard time to call them knowledgable of the real facts.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Econ.,

Explain to me the difference between the BSE precuationary measures taken in Canada and the BSE precautionary measures taken in the U.S. to justify R-CULT's position that Canadian beef is "high risk" and our beef "is the safest in the world" when we both had BSE in our native herds?

Go ahead, make a statement unrelated to the question and divert again. I would expect nothing less from you.


~SH~

All the beef industry has a stake in this one, in Canada and in the U.S. We should be careful that self interest doesn't kill the beef industry. BSE should be stopped everywhere and every way. Try to sell anything else to the consumer and you all lose. Tyson's poultry division would love that to happen.

There is a difference between truth (t) and SH--(s). I am glad to have taught you that difference in our discussion.

If the Canadians can not make their beef market more competitive and the U.S. can not make its markets work more efficiently with their enforcement of existing laws then we all suffer the consequences.

Stop squeeling SH-- , I thought you were a sheep farmer.

Go answer Sandhusker's question since it goes to the heart of your defenses.

Are you scared?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Cattleman said:
I have seen very little insights regarding the beef supply chain, and the effects of supply and demand on cattle prices from the R-Calfers. R-Calfers do not think big picture, and they are narrow sighted, I have a hard time to call them knowledgable of the real facts.

I'll disagree with you Cattleman. ocm's post is correct. This issue is NOT cattle prices as those who can not see the big picture think. The issue is NOT Canada. This issue is the USDA putting the entire industry at risk by bending to the will of big business and of the judicial system making precident that says the US Government will no longer be held accountable for their actions and are to be simiply given deference. I'd have to say R-CALF is looking at a very big picture.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Econ101, SH will not answer the question. I knew that when I submitted it. Just as I knew the sun would rise this morning, I knew he would do just as he accuses others of, divertion. I figured Agman would to the same and I was right again. The question was posed to draw a picture for them and everybody else exactly what Judge Strom did that effectively detoured the trial to something that it was not about in the first place. I made my point, correctly predicted their responses, and am satisfied.

GO BIG RED
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Can anyone show me where Kindergarten Econ. pointed out the difference between the BSE precautionary measures taken in Canada and the BSE precautionary measures taken in the U.S. to justify R-CULT's position?

Anyone?

Just like I told you, Kindergarten made a statement and diverted the question. Predictable as the sun setting in the West.


Sandman: "I'd have to say R-CALF is looking at a very big picture."

Bwahahaha!

That's funny!

R-CULT is so damn narrow minded that they risked the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle) by lying about the affects of BSE. That's how smart they aren't.


Sandman and Kindergarten,

Sandman's stupid question is irrelevant until you can prove market manipulation which you have diverted 16 times already.

You scared?



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As compared to "full of SH**" and "hawker"?

Yup, you shor got the high ground there SANDMAN!

Answer my question and quit diverting!

What a couple of cowards.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Diverted from what? Read my post on BSE. It really doesn't matter what the rules or laws are regarding anything if they are not followed.

What is your point?

I have answered your questions that matter. If you have anything else other than fish or diverticuli, bring it on.

Follow the money. Everything else is a diversion.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Look at what happened in England when they did not effectively keep BSE out of their cattle herds. I am not going to argue on the little points, implementation of public policy is not being done. There is more implementation of policies of contributors to our political system than public policies being followed. That may work in the short run but in the long run it is bad for everyone. Ask anyone who had to flee New Orleans. New Orleans isn't the only place where public policy is not being followed.

What is your question, SH?

You still have not answered my question on the competency of the court in its example of the Robinson-Patman Act example. In a court room the person on the witness stand has to answer the questions in front of 12 jurors.
 

Latest posts

Top