• 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's Flip - Flopping!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
How any one can continue to support R-Calf after their "FLIP_FLOP" on the below issues is beyond me. R-Calf had some good intentions earlyon.....what the hell happened???? For the most part R-Calf has a LOT of good folks on the books!! How did they get "brain washed" to the positions this organization has taken???? I was disappointed with NCBA long before R-Calf was ever an organization. Now, R-Calf has rained on the parade. The only thing I can come up with is, for those of us in the cattle business we nned to order 2 steaks, 2 hamburgers, 2 prime rib when we eat out or the pipeline is going to fill up fast!


Flip-Flopping Didn't Go Away With John Kerry.

Flip Flopping and Hanging Judges Latest Twists in Border Case
Colorado Springs, CO April 28, 2005




We've talked about the preposterous new claim by R-CALF that they didn't really say there was a threat to human health by opening the Canadian border. We're used to politicians claiming that we only imagined what it was we saw on the tape. We don't buy the flip-flop at all. But if someone did, what are the implications?

Now someone is actually asking, "So if we take R- CALF literally, and they didn't raise the question of human health, then where did the judge get all this stuff about 'genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers' and 'catastrophic risk of danger to the beef consumers in the U.S.?'"

That would mean the judge came up with all that stuff on his own. Said judge, with R-CALF claiming it never said anything like that, is left dangling in the breeze. Flip-flopping can leave your allies hung out to dry.

You see, the National Meat Association (NMA) filed suit to intervene in the Canadian border case. R- CALF's brief, filed in answer to NMA's request, said, "R-CALF has never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada."

NMA's reply brief argues that the admission by R- CALF that they never said there was a human-health risk, combined with their ignoring the existence of the Harvard Risk Assessment, "shows R-CALF has abandoned any health-based reason for its lawsuit."

Since the judge based most of his opinion for the injunction on the danger to human health, and now R- CALF is claiming there is none, and an injunction has to be based on the opinion that a case is likely to succeed on the merits, it would appear the key pins have been knocked out from under the injunction. To quote NMA's attorneys, "We now see that there was no factual basis for the District Court's conclusions, having apparently been created out of whole cloth by the Court itself."

NMA is reasoning that if you eliminate the human health elements, R-CALF's case rests mainly on technicalities and environmental issues. Environmental issues, you ask?

If you didn't read the whole lawsuit, a whole section of R-CALF's original suit detailed how the border shouldn't be opened because the EPA had not done an environmental impact statement assessing the environmental effects of all those trucks hauling Canadian cattle to U.S. feedyards or packing plants. They also claim the EPA should have assessed the impact of "feeding and holding" those cattle. (We assume "holding" must imply, "What are they going to do with all that manure?")

I kid you not. It's really in there, in a lawsuit filed with an actual court, regarding the Canadian border and the beef industry in two countries - except for the definition of what "holding" implies. We added that. Did we tell you R-CALF is taking not leaves, but whole chapters from its Liberal Activist Group (LAG) associates?

Question is, did the attorneys for Public Citizen or the Sierra Club or GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment) come up with that one for them? If they succeed on this one, can you just see the environmental groups using that as a precedent to keep us from hauling calves from Florida to Kansas because of the environmental damage? Don't even make me think where all that could lead!

So, first R-CALF claims they are trying to keep the border closed in part because Japan wouldn't trade with us if they thought Canadian beef was in our beef supply. Then they said the Japanese didn't tell them - at least not real, official Japanese government types - that not opening the border with Canada would damage the changes of trade with Japan.

Then R-CALF said the border should remain closed because of dangers to human health. Then they said they didn't say that.

But long before all this, they said the real reason the cattle market was up was because the border was closed, and for that cattlemen should thank R- CALF. So what are we to believe?

R-CALF's flip-flopping reminds us more of struggling fish flopping around on the beach than cowboys. And Cebull's being hung out to dry by R- CALF's latest flip-flopping gives a whole new meaning to the expression, "hanging judge."








The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.

The AFF - freedom watchdog for American agriculture.



Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Glad my trip to the city turns out to be tomorrow rather than today so this interesting information didn't go out of sight before I could see it.

Court briefs are definitely not boring to read! And they can't be denied or brushed aside, either.

It will be interesting to watch this drama play out. Not fun, not good for our cattle/beef industry, but interesting!

MRJ
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Another press release from the one-man foundation? :roll:


Sandhusker can you deny what was quoted from the legal briefs? Did R-CALF say "R-CALF has never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." When the whole time they have been fear mongering about the health of the US consumer.

Did R-CALF bring up the damage to the enviroment? and do you think that if it is used as a reason to stop the border, the enviromental activists groups will not be using it as a platform to cause big problems for the beef industry in the future?

I know you are a die hard believer in R-CALF but how can you blindly defend their statements when you know they said them. In the future most of the statements R-CALF has made could and will come back to destroy you the grass root producer they say they repesent. Isn't it time for you to stop the defence of these statements and make them clean up their act and stop the lieing and flip flopping.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Another press release from the one-man foundation? :roll:


Sandhusker can you deny what was quoted from the legal briefs? Did R-CALF say "R-CALF has never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." When the whole time they have been fear mongering about the health of the US consumer.

Did R-CALF bring up the damage to the enviroment? and do you think that if it is used as a reason to stop the border, the enviromental activists groups will not be using it as a platform to cause big problems for the beef industry in the future?

I know you are a die hard believer in R-CALF but how can you blindly defend their statements when you know they said them. In the future most of the statements R-CALF has made could and will come back to destroy you the grass root producer they say they repesent. Isn't it time for you to stop the defence of these statements and make them clean up their act and stop the lieing and flip flopping.

I don't know what R-CALF argued as I have never seen the briefs - and the "Agribusiness Freedom Foundation" is not a credible source for information on R-CALF. It is simply one man on a R-CALF vendetta.

I've seen R-CALF's comments called lies so many times on this board that I think it's just become a catch phrase. Everything that I've seen called a lie was really a difference of opinion.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
123
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker why don't you do your own research if you don't believe anybody else. No you just say everybody is out to get R-CALF. Well read the breifs and point out where evrybody else is wrong.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
I don't know what R-CALF argued as I have never seen the briefs - and the "Agribusiness Freedom Foundation" is not a credible source for information on R-CALF. It is simply one man on a R-CALF vendetta.

So, who would you say is a credible source of information on R-CALF? R-CALF, maybe. Personally I don't think R-CALF is a credible source of information on anything.


Everything that I've seen called a lie was really a difference of opinion.

How is Leo saying that Canada is still slaughtering downer cattle a difference of opinion? :???:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Another press release from the one-man foundation? :roll:


Sandhusker can you deny what was quoted from the legal briefs? Did R-CALF say "R-CALF has never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." When the whole time they have been fear mongering about the health of the US consumer.

I don't know what R-CALF argued as I have never seen the briefs - and the "Agribusiness Freedom Foundation" is not a credible source for information on R-CALF. It is simply one man on a R-CALF vendetta.

I've seen R-CALF's comments called lies so many times on this board that I think it's just become a catch phrase. Everything that I've seen called a lie was really a difference of opinion.

Response...The difference is you have not seen the briefs by your own admission but still express your opinion and discredit the author on blind faith. I have read the briefs and the aforementioned comments are not fiction. The truth will prevail just as it did in the Pickett case. That said you are so blinded by your reliance on misinformation from R-Calf you cannot function with truthful facts. The shallowness, fallacy and deception of R-Calf's position will be exposed for all to see in this court case. Have a great day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, "Response...The difference is you have not seen the briefs by your own admission but still express your opinion and discredit the author on blind faith. I have read the briefs and the aforementioned comments are not fiction. The truth will prevail just as it did in the Pickett case. That said you are so blinded by your reliance on misinformation from R-Calf you cannot function with truthful facts. The shallowness, fallacy and deception of R-Calf's position will be exposed for all to see in this court case. Have a great day."

I have no reservations whatsoever with discrediting the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation. The complete foundation is a single person - RED FLAG. This one-man foundation is set up to take your tax deductable "donations" - RED FLAG. It has a mission of "Promoting free market princibles throughout the agricultural food chain" yet every "press release" is simply an attack on R-CALF - HUGE RED FLAG. With such a grandoise stated mission, wouldn't you think there would be something else to write on besides R-CALF - unless, of course the mission along with the entire "foundation" was just a crock? This "foundation" is a farce.

I find it very interesting that many imply that the Judge made a ruling based on R-CALF's "lies" and "deception". They seem to forget (convienietly) that the USDA had their battery of lawyers flapping their jaws as well. The Judge heard both sides before he made the call.

In response to your comments on my "reliance on misinformation from R-CALF", I just have to laugh. This finger-waggling coming from someone who parrots the tune for the AMI? There's been enough manure coming from them to cover Kansas 3 feet deep. Your NCBA has plenty of flip-flops and discrepancies to their credit as well. I believe they are called "mistakes" and "errors". Your allegences are plain to see - and that's fine with me. I don't expect everybody to pick the same horse I do. I'm just not going to take any guff from anybody who has as many stains on their tie as they accuse me of. You have a great day, too.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Reader, Sandhusker admitted he didn't read the briefing. Did you? are you forming your opinion on the this article on anything but your opinion of paid hacks? Just maybe this guy has some facts to back up what he says. You say you don't support R-CALF but everytime something is posted by this writer about R-CALF, you try to discredit him.

Can you or Sandhusker prove anything he wrote to be false? Did R-CALF say in their briefing "R-CALF has never argued that there was a great risk to human health from resumed imports of cattle and beef from Canada." I have read this comment from R-CALF in other media outlets would you like to discredit them too to defend your opinion of this man?

Did R-CALF in their court briefing bring up enviromental issues that could later be used against the beef industry? Can you prove anything that was written in this article is be untrue.

Proving Dittmer is telling us lies about R-CALF would go alot farther to discredit him than your personal opinion of public relations people.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Reader 2nd, what is wrong with using good PR when an organization, business, whatever does good things and tells the world about them?

You may or may not understand this, but the cattle/beef business has been under attack for years by those who want our land for other species, want us to stop using animals for any purpose, and want to enjoy "pristine" nature, and are sure everything we do to produce animals or crops which they have no knowledge or understanding of i is going to "poison" the earth, or the people on it.

Many organizations' members despaired of being able to continue in raising food because we could not garner any public or media attention to show that we were not ogres out to rape and pillage the earth and poison the people and wildlife. We hired PR people and the first thing they told us was that most of us had an excellent record for caring for our animals and the earth, but that we had an abysmal record of telling our story. Now that we are trying to tell our stories, we are getting trashed for it. Especially so, when we find someone like Dittmer who can do the investigation necessary to find the fallacies and falsehoods promoted by some people and some organizations.

Been there, done that, and been trashed for it to darned often!

MRJ
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Now that we are trying to tell our stories, we are getting trashed for it. Especially so, when we find someone like Dittmer who can do the investigation necessary to find the fallacies and falsehoods promoted by some people and some organizations.

So MRJ are you saying NCBA hired Dittmer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Spent the afternoon with a buyer who is offering prices right around the $750 per calf mark for some calves for fall delivery- good price in our area with trucking costs getting as high as they are- especially if they have not been implanted and are "branded" so that they are permanently ID'd and can be identified as a US origin...Said that the natural (no implants and no antibiotics signed affidavit) and permanent ID ( brand inspection tracing back to US origin with calving period dates affidavits) is worth $10 per 100 more....

Watched 2100 lb cull bulls sell for $81 today......Saw one 2100 lb cull bull that weighed close to 2200 sell for $1750.....Cull cows were $60 + almost across the board...

Never saw prices like that when the border was open--- Many years we wished for just $80 on our calves :?

Maybe consumers are showing they are ready to pay more for what they identify as safe, IDed, good quality US beef :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bull Burger said:
Oldtimer said:
Never saw prices like that when the border was open--- Many years we wished for just $80 on our calves


OT, did you ever see today's prices before the National Beef Checkoff?

Didn't see them after the National Beef Checkoff either- until the border closed....... :wink:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
Now that we are trying to tell our stories, we are getting trashed for it. Especially so, when we find someone like Dittmer who can do the investigation necessary to find the fallacies and falsehoods promoted by some people and some organizations.

So MRJ are you saying NCBA hired Dittmer?

No, and I'm not saying they didn't because I do not know. I would think there are many members backing him, both individual and corporate. There are several people like him doing what he does and I appreciate them is what I am saying. It took a long time to get anyone to expose some of the "foundations" that are working against the food animal industries and it is about time we learned what is going on there.

MRJ
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
reader (the Second) said:
Hey MRJ - give me the name of some 1-man foundations that are working against the food animal industry and are false flag foundations pretending to be independent versus stating outright their affiliation, funding, and true goals.

If you do and I look into them and they are false flag, corporate campaigns, run by PR guys, and disingenuous, I'll rant about them too, regardless of their position.

Does it matter if he is one or a whole office or if he is a PR person doing his job? You haven't proved anything by trying to discredit him other than he is good at his job. If you or Sandhusker had ever been able to point out he was lieing to make his point about R-CALF then that could have discredited him but all you have against him is that he is a good PR man. He has brought to light some of the flip flopping R-CALF has been doing wouldn't that be what he was paid to do if he is as you say he is a PR man. I think a few in the R-CALF camp should take a few notes as everytime one of them speaks up it takes about 5 seconds to prove they are lieing. Everytime one of his articles gets posted you and the R-CALF supporters on here try to discredit him. Everytime, you are asked the same question about what in the article is not true and have any of you ever answered the question? No you just state he is a PR man. SO WHAT he is doing his job at pointing out R-CALF lies with the truth is that so bad? Would you hire a PR man that sits on his back side and didn't point out the false statements that were made to destroy consumer confidence in your product?
 

sdsu rancher

Active member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Lowry, SD
I've been trying to educate myself about this whole border issue lately. I'm a young producer and don't know a lot about price history in our industry or what drove it in the past. My college classes don't teach me everything I need to know. But I've drawn a few conclusions from this situation.

First, I think we need to spend our money as producers on things that will do our industry good in the long run. I admire those R-CALF members who have sacrificed a lot for their cause. It would be a lot easier to sit back and just reap the benefits of their efforts. That being said, I have to question the amount of money being spent to keep the border closed. It seems to me that money is going down a hole it won't come out of. I understand we are seeing higher prices, perhaps due to the border being closed (I am not arguing that point - I don't honestly know if that is the sole reason or not) and I like that as much as the next guy. But what about when the border opens? One would be naiive to think it will stay shut forever. What happens when Canada proves it complies with the same regulations we do? What competetive edge will US producers have? It seems to me we need to be adding value to our products, setting them apart from the rest of the world.

I don't think we need to fling wide our borders to all cattle from everywhere tomorrow though. I don't know why some are so eager to do so, other than for political reasons. Keeping the border closed until we have a solid ID system in place, and maybe even more testing than we really need, I would support I guess. The way the media blows everything out of proportion leaves us with limited options. I don't think we can convince the average consumer that all US meat is BSE-free unless we test to his satisfaction, not ours, and don't leave loopholes open until that kind of system is in place.

Organic beef maybe isnt the way our dads did it, but if that is what the consumer wants and is willing to pay a premium for, why don't we go for that market? Every other company in the business world knows they can't stand still, or else someone will pull ahead. Why should our industry be any different?

Maybe I'm a little biased but I supported the checkoff because at least some of the money went towards adding value to our product and educating those removed from agriculture why our product is better. Any program, checkoff or whatever, that accomplishes those goals seems to be the most sustainalbe use of our hard-earned money.

Again, I am not pretending to be super-well-informed about this whole issue. I wish it was as simple as I see it, but I'm sure it isn't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Did anyone see Sandblaster contradict anything stated by Dittmer with opposing facts? Neither did I!

As always, those who cannot debate, discredit only adding credibility to the author.


SDSU rancher,

I'd admire your willingness to seek out the truth on these issues. This whole trade picture is so much bigger than you will ever get by listening to Johnny Smith and Herman Schumacher give their "keep my commission dollars rolling in" biased sale barn market report or by listening to R-CULT spread their lies about the safety of Canadian beef.

The bottom line is that we cannot set a BSE presidence for Canada that we are unwilling to live with ourselves.

If truth, honesty, and integrity is your guiding light, that is the bottom line on this issue.

Either Canadian beef is safe or it isn't? Either U.S. beef will be safe under the same circumstances or it won't?

That's why you see R-CULT in their current position of back peddling like the deceptive, "live for the moment and to heck with the consequences" organization that they are.

R-CULT is using BSE as a convenient excuse to stop the importation of 4.5% of our domestic U.S. beef consumption (Candian live cattle) because the other 4.5% is already coming down in boxes. By doing so, they are setting a BSE presidence that they will be unwilling to live with in the event that BSE is discovered here again. That's how wreckless and shortsighted R-CULT is.

If Canadian beef is not imported into the U.S., Canada will eventually absorb that portion of our export market to Japan making it a wash. R-CULT won't tell you that because they simply cannot think that far ahead. They would rather stab Canadian producers in the back for short term financial gain while they set a BSE presidence that we are unwilling to live with if Canada's BSE shoe was on our foot.

You want to know the exact impact of "BEEF" trade? Prior to the BSE situation closing the trade borders, the U.S. was in a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus position as an average of 7 years. That amounts to about $28 per head. That includes the trade categories of live cattle, hides, beef variety meats, and beef. The source of that data is the U.S. Dept of Commerce - Bureau of Census. R-CULT won't tell you that. All they talk about is Canadian imports and overstate the affects of that. They cherry pick the trade data that supports their bias.

If you want to know the exact impact of Canadian cattle on our markets, consider that the day the Canadian border opened to boxed beef, which is almost 50% of our normal Canadian imports or 4.5% of our total U.S. beef consumption, fat cattle prices continued to rally. That is a fact! Check it out.

Does that mean that Canadian imports don't affect our markets? Of course not but it certainly points out the fact that our current markets are not solely driven by reduced Canadian imports like the R-CULTers would lead you to believe. The current markets are primarily driven by an increase in consumer discretionary spending on beef which has slowed with higher fuel prices. You can also credit the Adkins diet for some of this and the beef checkoff for adding value to the chucks and rounds.

The best market analysts in the U.S. that look at the bigger picture which includes carcass weights, competitive meat prices, discretionary consumer spending, etc. etc., (the things that really do impact beef prices) will tell you, as a rule of thumb, that for every 1% change in production it will create a 1.5% - 2% change in price. In other words, if fat cattle prices are at $90 and we increase our production by 5% (Canadian live cattle imports), we will reduce fat cattle prices by $6.75 / cwt. $9 per cwt would be the high side.

Now that doesn't mean the futures market might overreact which it does but that would be close to the true impact WITH ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. To look at one factor of the supply and demand equation, like the R-CULTers do, and give sole credit for the current cattle market to that single factor (ban on Canadian live cattle imports), screams of market ignorance.

Also consider the impact of 40 extra pounds of carcass weight on our markets and how that compares with a lack of Canadian imports. The more you study what really affects beef prices, the more disgusted you will become with some of these guys that think our prices revolve solely around imports and packer market manipulation conspiracy theories.

Again, if Canada absorbs that same portion of our export market, then we have gained nothing by stabbing Canadian producers in the back for short term financial gain.

The biggest issue here is still whether the U.S. is willing to live by the same BSE presidence they establish for Canada. If you want to peg the R-CULTers to the wall, ask them to define for you the exact differences between the BSE precautionary measures taken by the U.S. and Canada and see what they say. They can't tell you. The truth of the matter is that Canada actually has taken more stringent BSE precautionary measures than the U.S. has. Did you know some of the "so called" contaminated feed found in Canada originated in the U.S.? You won't hear R-CULT tell you that either.

Leo McDonnel recently stated that Canada is still processing downer cows. That's a perfect example of how that organization will say and do anything to keep Canadian live cattle out because that is simply not true.

The other thing that R-CULT won't tell you is that beef is not the only thing we trade with Canada. We also trade electrical power and oil. The Canadian trade picture is so much bigger than you will get from R-CULT.

Johnny Smith has stated that "Canadian beef is junk". Yet the truth is that the reputation of "northern cattle" didn't stop at the border. Did you know Creekstone wanted to import Canadian cattle and ship them to Japan? How ironic considering that R-CULT rallied behind Creekstone in their desire to conduct testing on young cattle which wouldn't reveal anything anyway.

Look no further than R-CULT members buying "supposedly" unsafe Canadian cattle with the anticipation of making a quick buck when the border opened. The organization is absolutely riddled with lies and hypocrisy.

Pick up an old ABS catalog from the early 80s and look at the number of Canadian bulls in their line up. That should give you some indication of how valid the "Canadian beef is junk" argument is.

If you want to hear the side of this trade story that R-CULT won't tell you about, I suggest you read the recent three part series article in Tri-State Livestock news from a Canadian producer that tells the truth about this entire issue.

My only bias on this issue is truth. What R-CALF tells people is either half truths or out and out lies.

My biggest concern is that R-CULT has set the U.S. cattle industry up for a fall by stating in a court of law that the BSE precautionary measures taken by Canada do not assure food safety. By doing so, they are risking the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption. That's how narrow minded R-CULT and their followers really are on this issue.


sdsu: "It seems to me we need to be adding value to our products, setting them apart from the rest of the world."

You stay on that line of thinking and you will go far. Every dime that contributes to cattle prices will come from the consumer. How ironic that the same people that are telling us about the affect of imports, captive supply and packer concentration are also trying to end the producer's self help program of beef research, promotion, and education.


R-CULT and their cloned followers are taking this inudstry down a dead end road.



Scott Huber
formerly from Lowry, S.D.
 

Latest posts

Top