• 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 USA Members Wins Injunction Against USDA’s BSE Rules

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Exactly what was won here and at what cost? The borders aren't closing and trade won't be restricted. USDA will go back to its rulemaking with the same result. In the meantime, we're getting great cull cow prices and not many cull cows are coming into the U.S. from Canada, despite Bullard's dire predictions months ago about the bottom of the cull cow market falling out. Leo McDonnell knew what the outcome would be with this appeal and he advised accordingly so that producer's hard-earned dollars weren't spent on a non-event in the courts. They threw him out for it and turns out he was right.

What's the price tag associated with this ruling? Does anyone know how many producer dollars were spent to get it? What were Miller and Frye paid? My best guess is tens of thousands in retainers and rewards. We'll have to guess at that since financial statements aren't forthcoming.

Meanwhile, we're gut shooting our Canadian friends over BSE when here in the US we had our own BSE cow that was untraceable. Her progeny are still floating around out there somewhere. And our feed ban leaves a whole hell of a lot to be desired. This is one time when the US and Canada SHOULD be viewing the industry as North American.
 
Her progeny are still floating around out there
Click to expand...

How many cases of BSE are there in progeny of BSE cows?

You sure have your panties in a wad of how R-calf members money is spent. Unless you are a member, then it is none of your business. I don't belong to R-calf and I could care less if they paid 20 million dollars for a prairie dog hole in SD. But for some reason it sure bothers you.
 
You're right! It bothers me that the taxpaying public is being fleeced by a non-profit that reaps the benefits of tax exempt status to say nothing of some unwitting members. There's something very wrong with the picture at R-CALF where only "insiders" really know the financial input and outflow. And I guess I am a member because despite all my pleas to be removed I still keep getting their propaganda. Does that mean they're counting me when they tell the courts they have "x" number of members?

Who knows how many BSE cattle come from progeny of an infected animal? So little is known at this point about the disease that there's not a scientist on the planet who could predict that. The point is that it's possible that those calves are harboring the disease and might someday be tested positive.
 
I think you would be better letting members worry about their money. Any money the leaders, accountants, or lawyers make is taxable. So unwad your panties and worry about the price of gas.

I think cattle pick it up from the feed and it is not passed down through progeny, unless they consume the same feed. If so little is known about it, then why do we have open borders? Just think of all the uncaught BSE cases progeny that is alive and breeding. Better worry about the price of gas, as it would better use the worry brain cells.
 
The key to the cause of BSE is in the "why" of 186,000 cases in England. The UK shipped MBM around the world without similar results...why, if feed is the carrier???
 
The key to the cause of BSE is in the "why" of 186,000 cases in England. The UK shipped MBM around the world without similar results...why, if feed is the carrier???
Click to expand...

Well take how many people smoke in the world, by how many people die of lung cancer from smoking. I know many that have died from lung cancer and have never been around smoke and many that smoke packs a day and died from old age. Who knows I guess.
 
WHITEHAWK said:
Kinda reminds me of all the games canucks played,now the tables turned and you yowlin packer partnerin canucks got your ass in the air,for many years you canucks partnered with packers at the demise of alot of good cattle men south of your border,now the packers have shown you just what kinda partner you are you wanna latch on to your neighbors to the south :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...

lol Games? I assume you must be OT's brother because you have the same misinformation he has.

3% of your cattle trade, sold at the exact same dollars as you guys get down south, has ruined good cattlemen? Give me a break.

Partnered with the packers? Oie. You DO live in North America right? Our packers are YOURS, and you guys are even more concentrated than we are.

Rod
 
I stiil have not been able to find out who the other planiffs are? Maybe it is insignificant but it would be nice to know who they are. Anyone know what site i can go to to find out? I can't understand why this is such a big secret but usally if someone doesn't want their name given out it is for a reason. Maybe PETA is one of the co-plaintiffs? :oops: It would not be surprizing afterall they have deep pockets and like r-calf they are a non-profit too.
As for how much this moral victory cost the r-calf membership, they can spend what they want but if the going is so rough in the cattle business how can cattlemen afford it?
Rm if feeding infected srm's like mbm isn't the way BSE is spread, why is the US banning MBM imports from europe? :roll:
 
Sandhusker said:
1) You didn't answer my first question. I'm looking for a number.

2) I didn't notice they were surprised, but if they were, I would assume it was because even they didn't think the USDA could get away with how thick they were spreading it. The reasons the USDA used in opening the border were all jaw-droppers. There was no reason, no logic, and plenty of BS.

3) I don't see any bigger than this. First of all, what other issue has a list that can match what I presented the last page? No other issue has anywhere close to the complete display of unaccptable nonsense that went on. You Canadians blast R-CALF for standing up against that only because you're caught in the middle, and I still don't understand why US producers have to take a bullet for you guys.

Secondly, we HAVE to get the USDA broke on the way they handle trade issues because look at who's on deck - South America.
Click to expand...

1) Well I guess I thought I gave you one. If we're importing as many cases as we're exporting, I'd say its a wash and perfectly acceptable.

3) If RCalf really believes that the Canadian border being opened to fair, reasonable and KNOWN science is a big issue, then Rcalf is certainly going to kill the American cattle market. BSE is such a non-issue that its not even funny. Hoof and mouth is much more prevalent and just as deadly to a cattle population. So go ahead and import all you want from SA right now, where they don't even have a proper traceback system. E.Coli? No big deal now is it? Why not import all you want from countries that don't even exercise appropriate control measures?

Or better yet, why not let your USDA run roughshod over a company who only wishes to exert its freedom to market animals in any way that it sees fit. Hell, that only violates some of the basic founding principals of your country. No big deal there.

Close the border. You won't see a boost in your animal prices at all, but you'll ensure that your north east cattle producers are forced out of business because they don't have a market for their beef any more. Ontario buys a healthy portion of beef from the north east, and I guarantee that if the border is closed to Canadian beef, that the inverse will also be true. You guys have the same infection rates, the same management practices, no traceback, and a weaker feed ban. You can bet I'll be leading the charge, and the only people to blame for tearing apart Canadian and American producers while allowing the packers to run roughshod over EVERYONE is RCalf.

'Nuff said and I'm out.

Rod
 
Sandhusker said:
1) You didn't answer my first question. I'm looking for a number.

2) I didn't notice they were surprised, but if they were, I would assume it was because even they didn't think the USDA could get away with how thick they were spreading it. The reasons the USDA used in opening the border were all jaw-droppers. There was no reason, no logic, and plenty of BS.

3) I don't see any bigger than this. First of all, what other issue has a list that can match what I presented the last page? No other issue has anywhere close to the complete display of unaccptable nonsense that went on. You Canadians blast R-CALF for standing up against that only because you're caught in the middle, and I still don't understand why US producers have to take a bullet for you guys.

Secondly, we HAVE to get the USDA broke on the way they handle trade issues because look at who's on deck - South America.
Click to expand...

1) Well I guess I thought I gave you one. If we're importing as many cases as we're exporting, I'd say its a wash and perfectly acceptable.

3) If RCalf really believes that the Canadian border being opened to fair, reasonable and KNOWN science is a big issue, then Rcalf is certainly going to kill the American cattle market. BSE is such a non-issue that its not even funny. Hoof and mouth is much more prevalent and just as deadly to a cattle population. So go ahead and import all you want from SA right now, where they don't even have a proper traceback system. E.Coli? No big deal now is it? Why not import all you want from countries that don't even exercise appropriate control measures?

Or better yet, why not let your USDA run roughshod over a company who only wishes to exert its freedom to market animals in any way that it sees fit. Hell, that only violates some of the basic founding principals of your country. No big deal there.

Close the border. You won't see a boost in your animal prices at all, but you'll ensure that your north east cattle producers are forced out of business because they don't have a market for their beef any more. Ontario buys a healthy portion of beef from the north east, and I guarantee that if the border is closed to Canadian beef, that the inverse will also be true. You guys have the same infection rates, the same management practices, no traceback, and a weaker feed ban. You can bet I'll be leading the charge, and the only people to blame for tearing apart Canadian and American producers while allowing the packers to run roughshod over EVERYONE is RCalf.

'Nuff said and I'm out.

Rod
 
RANCHERS CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND; UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA; HERMAN R. SCHUMACHER; ROBERT P. MACK; ERNIE J. MERTZ; WAYNE J. NELSON; SOUTH DAKOTA STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION; CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
AMERICA; CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE FOUNDATION, INC.; FOOD & WATER WATCH; and PUBLIC CITIZEN,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE; CHARLES F. CONNER, in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Agriculture,

Defendants

"The Court will remand this case to the USDA to provide notice and comment on the OTM beef provisions, but no provisions of the OTM Rule will be vacated. Plaintiffs' remaining claims will be stayed pending administrative action. The substance of the OTM Rule may be different after further administrative proceedings, but Plaintiffs will not be precluded from reasserting their challenges to the merits of the OTM Rule at a later date, if necessary."

Judge Piersol is not only bright, he's scary bright. The USDA has a long and speckled history of screwing up notice and comment, so it is no surprise and an absolutely non-controversial finding to say that they have done it yet again. R-CALF et al, Judge Piersol's constituents, get to claim a win, but nothing really happens and business carries on as usual. Meanwhile, time passes and anything can happen in a year or two if the political climate changes because the case is still technically alive.

The reality, however, is that the notice and comment battle will drag on so long that they never get around to resolving the substance of the dispute. One is forced to wonder what manner of naive fool could view this as some sort of effective attempt to curb abuse of power by the Feds? This is the classic political/judicial two-step in action, with the caveat that Judge Piersol apears to be an exceptionally fine dancer.
 
SAndhusker said, "that question sure shut MRJ up", re. "would you feed your family beef from a cow that tested positive for BSE?"

You never have, never will "shut her up"! There are times when I do not have time to play on the computer, unlike you.

That may be for an extended period of time, or it may be that I don't get around to read your every comment......good grief, who has that kind of time, let alone motivation?????

First, it is a stupidly ridiculous, loaded question! Every animal is NOT tested. SRMs are removed.

You, at the least, imply that there probably are BSE infected cattle sold as food in the USA, so in the highly unlikely event that SRM removal is not adequate protection, your premise is that people have eaten infected beef.

BSE did not begin yesterday, so where is the epidemic of nvCJD?

Oh, I guess you forget that there is no absolute verified connection between BSE and ANY disease in humans!

Re. your stupid question, I occasionally purchase beef of unknown origin, therefore under various of your BSE scenarios re. non-testing of ALL cattle, I have likely fed my family beef from a critter with BSE. No one has suffered any ill effects over the more than half cenury we have been eating beef!

The cattle/beef industries might be better served if you would put your energies to solving animal health problems like e coli, Jonnes Disease, Brucellosis, and even bruising of animals between the time they leave the ranch and the time they reach the packer which costs tons of money, rather than beating up on USDA over BSE.

mrj

mrj
 
Oh, I guess you forget that there is no absolute verified connection between BSE and ANY disease in humans!
Click to expand...

Sound science says that it does MRJ. There you go cherry pickin with what science fits your agenda. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
You still won't answer the question, MRJ. Neither did Kato. The question is; Would you KNOWINGLY feed beef from an animal that you KNEW had BSE, and had SRMs removed? It is a simple yes or no question.
 
Thanks for posting the list of plaintiffs shaft. :tiphat: No wonder nobody wanted to show the rest of the plaintiffs. :shock:
Sandh when an animal is confirmed to have BSE in Canada it automatically becomes 100% SRM. So you cannot feed any part of that animal to a person. So if you are asking yeah i think feeding 0% of a BSE positive animal is safe for humans. Just remember in Canada NO animal tested and found positive for BSE has ever made it to the human food chain unlike the US. :oops:
 
QUESTION said:
Thanks for posting the list of plaintiffs shaft. :tiphat: No wonder nobody wanted to show the rest of the plaintiffs. :shock:
Sandh when an animal is confirmed to have BSE in Canada it automatically becomes 100% SRM. So you cannot feed any part of that animal to a person. So if you are asking yeah i think feeding 0% of a BSE positive animal is safe for humans. Just remember in Canada NO animal tested and found positive for BSE has ever made it to the human food chain unlike the US. :oops:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I forgot, Canada is catching them all... :roll:

I've tossed that question to MRJ half a dozen times with the same result, dancing and tangents but no answer. That question cuts right down to exactly how much confindence she really has on SRM removal making the beef safe to eat. She really doesn't believe it herself or she would answer, "Yes, I would feed it to my family", but yet she'll still beat the drums for her masters.

Tell me Q, Kato, MRJ, et al, if SRM removal assures safety of the animal, why are positives automatically 100% SRM? Why waste a perfectly good carcass when one can just remove the SRMs and safety is assured?
 
SandH do you know the word precaution. I'll explain it - downers, deadstock and BSE positives are automatically considered 100% SRM. The reasoning is to prevent possible spread of the disease and keep it out of the foodchain animal and human. It is called a feedban and it is a small price to pay to get rid of BSE. You can go to the CFIA website and it will explain why SRM's are removed from target animals and why certain animals are 100% srm and the carcass of the animal has to be moved to an approvel disposal site where it is buried with of course appropriate permits and paper work. As for the removal of SRM's from target animals it is done to remove the most potentially infective part of the animal. It is all about prevention and safety. With all this and you still wonder why Canada and the US are rate the same even with such a different number of positives. Canada is being proactive not just paying lipservice. Try it and you just might get into more international markets.
 
If SRM removal "assures safety", then what is the extra caution needed for? Why can't the animal be put in the food chain? What's the problem?
 
Sandhusker said:
If SRM removal "assures safety", then what is the extra caution needed for? Why can't the animal be put in the food chain? What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Sandhusker, it seems most of these folks are having trouble reading between your lines.

This is a little tongue in cheek but here goes:

Previous to May 20, 2003 we had a little, nondescript burocracy called the CFIA. It was located in Ottawa and when it occassionally ventured out of it's cubicle it was easily chased back by irate farmers.
When the first BSE cow was found in Canada, and with the help of world policy and concern, the CFIA grew teeth and claws and began to propagate in numbers never thought of before.
Now we all know that when burocracies grow they NEVER dwindle, if we start testing all cattle and find that the negative cattle can be 100% utilized the CFIA will not have as much purpose as they have created for themselves. On top of that our Big Brother from the south has told little brother that he is going to BS the world customers that he doesn't have a problem and for little brother to not create a bigger stir than he already has by testing all of his cattle.
So, in order to keep the consumer brainwashed and content you MUST keep utilizing downers etc. to let the people know that they are perfectly fine to eat and when a case or two of CJD shows up it can be explained away by blaming beef from another far-away country.
It's all very simple don't you think?
 
I guess you don't have health insurance afterall you are not sick. :roll: Yeah we are going over board but i would rather do too much than not enough. That is one way we plan to get rid of BSE by being too careful. But hey by all means lobby on behalf of the packers so your nations childern can eat all the downers and deadstock all the while going untested for bse or any other disease. Maybe they will never get sick but there is a reason the animal is down it is NOT healthy. As for myself i would never want to eat meat from a downer animal or deadstock but by all means bon apetite.
 

Latest posts

Top