Random Musings From A Random Mind

[Anonymous]

Conman: "IF THE PSA CAN NOT BE ENFORCED, EXPECT MORE STRINGENT LEGISLATION."

IF YOU CAN'T PROVE MARKET MANIPULATION, DON'T EXPECT YOUR UNJUSTIFIED LEGISLATION TO PASS!

Conman: "Market manipulation rules that limit those with market manipulation tools and strategies are also part of the free enterprise system. Taking away those tools actually enhances the free enterprise system, it does not hinder it. You are just arguing to keep those tools. Feeders do not come ahead when these tools are used strategically by the packers. The packers do."

Blah, blah, blah!

The cattle feeding industry does not need arrogant packer blaming conspiracy theorists like you telling them how to market their cattle and saving them from themselves.

Conman: "The manipulation in this case was not just a factor of supply and demand in the cash market and "Dropping your price to reflect your needs", but on a collusive price in the formula or grid offering base price that was tied to the former week's cash price instead of a total market price. The offered formula or grid price was less than the average of the market if the thinned out cash market was used as a base price."

If that was the case, the cash market should never be higher than the formula market and we all know there is just as many times that it is as when it isn't.

Conman: "The judge overturned the verdict after the jurors made an intelligent decision and answered questions he approved."

The jury didn't answer the questions honestly. One of those questions was that the jury had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies. Even the plaintiffs testified that ibp had a legitimate reason for using captive supplies. The jury couldn't even get that right. The jury obviously weren't paying attention to the court testimony.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "IF THE PSA CAN NOT BE ENFORCED, EXPECT MORE STRINGENT LEGISLATION."

1. IF YOU CAN'T PROVE MARKET MANIPULATION, DON'T EXPECT YOUR UNJUSTIFIED LEGISLATION TO PASS!

Conman: "Market manipulation rules that limit those with market manipulation tools and strategies are also part of the free enterprise system. Taking away those tools actually enhances the free enterprise system, it does not hinder it. You are just arguing to keep those tools. Feeders do not come ahead when these tools are used strategically by the packers. The packers do."

Blah, blah, blah!

2. The cattle feeding industry does not need arrogant packer blaming conspiracy theorists like you telling them how to market their cattle and saving them from themselves.

Conman: "The manipulation in this case was not just a factor of supply and demand in the cash market and "Dropping your price to reflect your needs", but on a collusive price in the formula or grid offering base price that was tied to the former week's cash price instead of a total market price. The offered formula or grid price was less than the average of the market if the thinned out cash market was used as a base price."

3. If that was the case, the cash market should never be higher than the formula market and we all know there is just as many times that it is as when it isn't.

Conman: "The judge overturned the verdict after the jurors made an intelligent decision and answered questions he approved."

4. The jury didn't answer the questions honestly. One of those questions was that the jury had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies. Even the plaintiffs testified that ibp had a legitimate reason for using captive supplies. The jury couldn't even get that right. The jury obviously weren't paying attention to the court testimony.


~SH~

1. I did not prove it, Pickett did.

2. Who made you spokesman for the feeder industry?

3. It was proven that there was over 2 billion dollar difference over the time periods in question. That is a statistically significant dollar amount.

4. So now you are calling the jury dishonest? You are such a laugh, SH. There is a real difference between a legitimate use of captive supplies and an illegitimate use. The jurors came to the same conclusion Dr. Taylor did on captive supply (see thread on "Dr. Taylor on captive supply"). That was what the trial was about, SH. Rod is on the right path with his argument against "basis contracts".

 

[Anonymous]

1. Pickett never proved a damn thing. You packer blamers lost and you lost again on appeal.

2. Who made you the spokesperson for packer blamers?

3. The jurors didn't even agree with Taylor's phony $2 Billion dollar figure which proves that nothing was proven. BUSTED AGAIN YOU PHONY!

4. Fact is, the jurors were instructed that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies to reach a guilty verdict when the plaintiffs themselves testified to the contrary. The jurors disagreed with the plaintiffs. LOL!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

1. Pickett never proved a damn thing. You packer blamers lost and you lost again on appeal.

2. Who made you the spokesperson for packer blamers?

3. The jurors didn't even agree with Taylor's phony $2 Billion dollar figure which proves that nothing was proven. BUSTED AGAIN YOU PHONY!

4. Fact is, the jurors were instructed that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies to reach a guilty verdict when the plaintiffs themselves testified to the contrary. The jurors disagreed with the plaintiffs. LOL!



~SH~

1. Then we should all consider you the "jury"?

2. Who made you spokesman for the packers and the feeders?

3. That question was worded in an indefinite manner. Strom approved of it in that form. The damage to the market was as Taylor calculated. The combined damage to the feeders was another number, the damages to producers was another. It seems the jurors tried to parce this out by giving an amount that fit the plaintiffs who were only comprised part of the damages that Taylor calculated.

4. Testimony was provided that the cash market could have handled all sales and that captive supplies was not necessary and actually hindered price determination. Go read the thread "Taylor on captive supply". You are asking two different questions if you ask if abuse of captive supplies are harmful to price determination and if captive supplies are beneficial to packers. They can be both. Go read the thread, SH. The fact that the packers could have had a legitimate business reason for contracts and the fact that they were used illigetimately are two different questions, SH. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The damage to the market was as Taylor calculated. The combined damage to the feeders was another number, the damages to producers was another. It seems the jurors tried to parce this out by giving an amount that fit the plaintiffs who were only comprised part of the damages that Taylor calculated."

MORE BULLCRAP FROM YOU!

Taylor didn't know his ars from a hole in the ground and neither do you. Judge Strom called him "nuts" because he was and so are you.

The feeders are the market and the feeders are the producers you moron!

The damages to the market is the damage to the feeders is the damage to the producer.

If you believe otherwise, I CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION!

Conman: "Testimony was provided that the cash market could have handled all sales and that captive supplies was not necessary and actually hindered price determination."

The plaintiffs agreed that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies. Not one of them disagreed with that so that trumps any testimony to captive supplies being unnecessary.

Bottom line, there was no proof of market manipulation offered in Pickett vs. IBP, NONE!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "The damage to the market was as Taylor calculated. The combined damage to the feeders was another number, the damages to producers was another. It seems the jurors tried to parce this out by giving an amount that fit the plaintiffs who were only comprised part of the damages that Taylor calculated."

1. MORE BULLCRAP FROM YOU!

Taylor didn't know his ars from a hole in the ground and neither do you. Judge Strom called him "nuts" because he was and so are you.

The feeders are the market and the feeders are the producers you moron!

The damages to the market is the damage to the feeders is the damage to the producer.

If you believe otherwise, I CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION!

Conman: "Testimony was provided that the cash market could have handled all sales and that captive supplies was not necessary and actually hindered price determination."

2. The plaintiffs agreed that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies. Not one of them disagreed with that so that trumps any testimony to captive supplies being unnecessary.

Bottom line, there was no proof of market manipulation offered in Pickett vs. IBP, NONE!


~SH~

1. You really show what you don't know on this one, SH. Total market damage is not ever the same with market manipulation because it creates market inefficiencies. The feeders and producers who were damaged in the first part of the market manipulation are not necessarily the same ones who benefit when the market corrects itself due to normal market mechanisms. They could be totally different. More than likely, many of the producers will be the same. The individual feeders could have been pushed out of the market and not be the same ones when things changed. Tyson could take their positions and made more of the money that was shifted out of the market. That time period was not covered by the trial as it is now.

2. I would agree they had a legitimate reason. Their abuse of captive supply for market manipulation was just too tempting for the guys making the decisions. They could not resist. That was when they turned a good mechanism into market manipulation. Much like a criminal takes a gun used for hunting and turns it into a vehicle of crime.



Keep it up in fairyland or Oz, SH. You are quite entertaining. As I said before, it was a little boring without you here. I wouldn't mind being bored again from time to time.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker you talk about the Canadian Welfare for the US companies. Geez haven't you heard of the Chrysler corporation? Many other US companies have gotten handouts from your government.

Two things, BMR; Chrysler paid the money back - it was a loan. The money came from the US government, not Canadian.

But, hey, if you have no problem subsidizing profitable US companies, feel free. Maybe we can cut a few of their deductions and boost our tax revenues now that you're supplying a new income stream for them.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

[Rod, you never mentioned anything about "GROSS" or "NET" profit. You said "PROFIT" and now you are trying to cover your tracks.

As I mentioned SH, I thought it was obvious that I had calculated gross profits. You'll notice there was no mention of packer expenses once I had arrived at the $400 mark. This is gross profits, and I assumed that everyone would understand that. I even asked if the packer was so inefficient that it would cost him $396 to process that beef (to arrive at your $3.88 number). Obviously a gross profit calculation.

You and Jason provided with some additional numbers so I could attempt to arrive at a net profit, and yet we're still sitting at $92 more profit than whats been reported as average. I only ask for more expenses to net off.

DSCC: "I did learn that people are using a 36% (come on man, 36%?) red meat yield on HAMBURGER cows to try and justify packer profit margins."

Let's not misinterpret what I stated. If 36% of LIVE ANIMAL WEIGHT is not representative of RED MEAT YIELD, tell me what the number is Rod?

No SH, I used a 50% carcass yield to arrive at my initial estimation of the number of pounds of hamburger that the packer would obtain from that live animal. You called me on it, and I agreed that it was an error, and went with your 36% red meat yield to get 410 pounds to prevent further debate. Since I was calculating based on cheap hamburger, you and I both know that a certain percentage of the trim would be returned back to make the ground beef. As such, we'd end up with a > 36% yield on that animal.

The point that you are missing is that this ofal (both edible and inedible) has more value to the larger packer and they pay for cattle accordingly. The smaller less efficient packer that does not utilize the value of ofal pays accordingly.

SH, I won't deny that the ofal has a certain value to the packer, but I didn't calculate that into the revenue from the animal, just to make things a little easier. You then told me that the ofal needed to be subtracted from the packer revenue. Since I only gave the packers revenue on 36% of the live carcass (410 lbs), that ofal value would be ADDED to packer revenue, not subtracted. You've went both ways on me. I also won't deny that they may pay the producer/feedlot a little more based on the ofal value, that only amplifies my position.

Contract markets do not DRIVE DOWN cash markets. If that was the case, the cash market would always be lower than the formula and forward contract markets.

So if thats the case, why have they driven down cash market values in the grain industry? I already said that the cash market could be higher than formula over the short term, but longer term you will see a downward pressure on the cash market. Its undeniable. Its already happened to one industry.

History has already proven you wrong Rod. Currently, there is more cattle sold on formula and grid pricing in the U.S. than ever before and guess what? That's right, highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded.

Consumer demand is also at an all time high, at least in my country and overseas markets. China had opened their doors to trading beef, opening up a HUGE market. I say if we had open bid systems and full transparency in the system, our feeder and fat prices would be even higher than they are today.

DSCC: "The packer doesn't owe me a living, however I am captive to one packing plant, and he is exercising his market power to block my entry to that market."

That's not true!

You have two large packing companies in Canada both wanting your cattle and you also have the option of combining loads with another producer to ship to packing plants in the United States.

No, I have one company in my area, and he's already stated he doesn't want my small lots. He's also already stated that he doesn't want several people to band together and send in a consolidated load. So I no longer have that option. My next closest option is to truck an additional 4 hours away, and by the time I've done that, my profits are eaten up by trucking costs. Ditto to the US.

Don't be such a defeatist.

I'm not a defeatist. They beat me in every way I've looked thus far, but I've kept looking. And I'll keep looking. I have other options available to me. But it doesn't change the fact that they've used their market position to reduce my options.

No it's not. The cash market for feeder cattle is driven by the price of corn and the futures market. Those are the factors that play on the market, not how many cattle were sold previously.

If thats the case, when sale barn prices are higher than the feedlot buyers maximums, they wouldn't be bother to call the feedlot and see what to do. I don't know about your barns, but when prices are on the climb, the buyers get pretty busy on those cell phones. When prices are depressed, no calling. If the maximum a feedlot will pay is purely based on corn costs and futures, there would be no need for the calls. They'd know exactly what the maximum is and be done with it.

Perhaps things are different in your area because producer contracts have already skewed the system. In my area, virtually all FEEDERS are still sold through the barns.

There is no need to estimate. On any given day you can see what corn and futures prices are which drive cattle prices.

It must be nice to have a simplified market then. Up here, we need to watch YOUR corn markets, YOUR futures markets, our own barley/wheat/oat/corn markets, our futures, sileage prices, and a few other countries prices.

Order buyers can relay "QUALITY" information but the futures market is the same for every feeder and the corn prices vary based on basis only.

I disagree with the quality statement. With a minimum sale of 2500 head, and sale numbers often into the 3500 head range, your quality spread from sale to sale is going to be minimal. These are presort sales I'm talking about.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Total market damage is not ever the same with market manipulation because it creates market inefficiencies. The feeders and producers who were damaged in the first part of the market manipulation are not necessarily the same ones who benefit when the market corrects itself due to normal market mechanisms."

Why do you even talk about cattle markets when you know nothing about them? You were so ignorant that you actually believed only a decrease in supplies would raise prices. Too damn ignorant to know anything about the demand side of the equation.

There is no proof of market manipulation, period.

Conman: "The individual feeders could have been pushed out of the market and not be the same ones when things changed. Tyson could take their positions and made more of the money that was shifted out of the market. That time period was not covered by the trial as it is now."

More baseless unsupported conspiracy theories!

DSCC: "I only ask for more expenses to net off."

That's better than assuming the profits are much greater than they really are. Do your own homework and see what you come up with.

DSCC: "You then told me that the ofal needed to be subtracted from the packer revenue."

That is not what I said at all. I said the smaller less efficient packers do not utilize ofal like the larger more efficient packers do. I never suggested that larger more efficient packers were paying someone to haul their ofal off. That is the smaller less efficient packing company.

Yes you are going to have to factor in ofal and hide values just as you are going to find more expenses to deduct which will leave you with a $5 - $25 per head profits depending on whether boxed beef demand is rising or falling and depending on whether cattle supplies are rising or falling.

DSCC: "So if thats the case, why have they driven down cash market values in the grain industry?"

The grain market is not the cattle market.

DSCC: "I already said that the cash market could be higher than formula over the short term, but longer term you will see a downward pressure on the cash market. Its undeniable. Its already happened to one industry."

The only reason that would occur is if the higher quality cattle naturally gravitate towards grid pricing while the poorer cattle remain in the cash market hoping not to reveal their lower level of quality. As this industry progresses you will only see widening spreads between higher and lower quality cattle.

DSCC: "I say if we had open bid systems and full transparency in the system, our feeder and fat prices would be even higher than they are today."

MERE SPECULATION!

DSCC: "If thats the case, when sale barn prices are higher than the feedlot buyers maximums, they wouldn't be bother to call the feedlot and see what to do. I don't know about your barns, but when prices are on the climb, the buyers get pretty busy on those cell phones. When prices are depressed, no calling. If the maximum a feedlot will pay is purely based on corn costs and futures, there would be no need for the calls. They'd know exactly what the maximum is and be done with it."

You're wrong! It is not the order buyer's responsibility to crunch the numbers for the feedlot. Of course when prices are rising order buyers need to consult with the feeders to determine whether or not they want to raise their bids according to the factors that are raising the market for others.



~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

That's better than assuming the profits are much greater than they really are. Do your own homework and see what you come up with.

Don't worry, I have been. My initial profit/loss analysis has been opened up a bit though, and I'll likely need Jason to provide me with some Canfax numbers from a few years back.

Since the Canadian market is a little less mature than the US market, at least so far as the use of cash basis contracts goes, I think you may find some of the numbers at the very least though provoking.

DSCC: "So if thats the case, why have they driven down cash market values in the grain industry?"

The grain market is not the cattle market.

Ah, but the grain market and the livestock market are VERY similar to one another. Even the historical tracings are similar (grain used to be sold on an open bid, etc etc etc). There are many valuable lessons to be learned from looking at a very mature market.

The only reason that would occur is if the higher quality cattle naturally gravitate towards grid pricing while the poorer cattle remain in the cash market hoping not to reveal their lower level of quality.

I disagree. I think the cash market contracts make for price suppression other than quality cattle moving towards the grid. And bear in mind you're talking about fats. Its tougher to tell quality on feeders.

As this industry progresses you will only see widening spreads between higher and lower quality cattle.

You'd better make a checkmark on the calendar SH. Something we agree on. :lol:

DSCC: "I say if we had open bid systems and full transparency in the system, our feeder and fat prices would be even higher than they are today."

MERE SPECULATION!

It is, but its speculation based on market watching the grain industry and other industries very similar to our own. SO I have my reasons for feeling the way I do. By the same token, its also speculation for you to say that I'm wrong. But again, you have your reasons for feeling the way you do.

You're wrong! It is not the order buyer's responsibility to crunch the numbers for the feedlot. Of course when prices are rising order buyers need to consult with the feeders to determine whether or not they want to raise their bids according to the factors that are raising the market for others.

I never said it was the buyers responsibility, but when they're sent to the market for orders, they're given a maximum price to pay. This max price you say is based only on corn and market futures. I say its not, otherwise when the price at the barn is higher than the maxmimum given to the buyer, they wouldn't bother calling back to the feedlot. The feedlot wouldn't bother boosting its maximum bidding price. Thats why I say an open bidding situation would give us true price discovery. The feedlot or the packer could then manage costs some other way, or demand more for their product (difficult to do when consumers are the ones with the demand), but with as few packers as there are, they'd be able to exert some influence.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Conman: "Total market damage is not ever the same with market manipulation because it creates market inefficiencies. The feeders and producers who were damaged in the first part of the market manipulation are not necessarily the same ones who benefit when the market corrects itself due to normal market mechanisms."


Why do you even talk about cattle markets when you know nothing about them? You were so ignorant that you actually believed only a decrease in supplies would raise prices. Too damn ignorant to know anything about the demand side of the equation.

There is no proof of market manipulation, period.


Quote:
Conman: "The individual feeders could have been pushed out of the market and not be the same ones when things changed. Tyson could take their positions and made more of the money that was shifted out of the market. That time period was not covered by the trial as it is now."


More baseless unsupported conspiracy theories!

SH, you have so little to add to this thread it is embarassing that you even posted. Do you have any real arguments or just gopher trappin' opinions that don't amount to much?

 

[Mike]

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Conman: "Total market damage is not ever the same with market manipulation because it creates market inefficiencies. The feeders and producers who were damaged in the first part of the market manipulation are not necessarily the same ones who benefit when the market corrects itself due to normal market mechanisms."


Why do you even talk about cattle markets when you know nothing about them? You were so ignorant that you actually believed only a decrease in supplies would raise prices. Too damn ignorant to know anything about the demand side of the equation.

There is no proof of market manipulation, period.


Quote:
Conman: "The individual feeders could have been pushed out of the market and not be the same ones when things changed. Tyson could take their positions and made more of the money that was shifted out of the market. That time period was not covered by the trial as it is now."


More baseless unsupported conspiracy theories!

SH, you have so little to add to this thread it is embarassing that you even posted. Do you have any real arguments or just gopher trappin' opinions that don't amount to much?

What was it you said about a "Hissy-Fit"? I spewed coffee all over my keyboard!

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "What was it you said about a "Hissy-Fit"? I spewed coffee all over my keyboard!"

Sounds like you have a real problem with self control and identifying humor Mike.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike: "What was it you said about a "Hissy-Fit"? I spewed coffee all over my keyboard!"

Sounds like you have a real problem with self control and identifying humor Mike.


~SH~

Believe me, SH, you are identified.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Your opinion of anything or anyone is totally irrelevant. Nobody on this forum has been exposed for lying more than you have. You are a complete phony and basically everyone that matters has you figured out.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman,

Your opinion of anything or anyone is totally irrelevant. Nobody on this forum has been exposed for lying more than you have. You are a complete phony and basically everyone that matters has you figured out.



~SH~

The pope had Gallileo and DaVinci figured out as liars and heritics as well. The Earth round? Even rotating around the sun? Blasphemy!

A fool is a fool is a fool.

 

[Tam]

Tam, first of all, if R-CALF lied about your product, sue them for libel. What's stopping you?

Secondly, why do you support this packer spawned notion of a North American market? What has this North American market gotten you? You have virtually no Canadian packing industry, only a US packing industry - North Division. You're dependant on the US to take your production - without us you crumble. Your government will not do a thing in your favor if the USDA (packers) won't approve it. Millions of your tax dollars just went to the pockets of those same US packers who are worth billions - and you staunchly defend the system? Where is the benefit of a North American herd for you? Have you ever stopped to consider what being part of this North American herd has/will do for you?

You say R-CALF members need to think for themselves?

I paid my twenty dollars to support sueing R-CALF Sandhusker.
As for the rest of this R-CALF crap

You're dependant on the US to take your production - without us you crumble.

then why did so many in the US fear that if this border was to stay closed Canada would become a very strong competitor for markets instead of the friends we were pre BSE. Seems to me our slaughter capacity has been on the increase since the border was closed and that is why the US system wanted the border open as if we keep building, more of your plants will be mothballed.

And sorry Sandhusher I see this as a North American herd for many reasons and the main one is the fact we have freely traded cattle, beef and feed for over a hundred years. BSE proved just how intrigrated our two systems are. We warned you that if we had BSE it was only a matter of time before you would find it. But in all of your leaders wisdom they insisted it was a Canadian problem and that you were BSE free and had the safest beef in the World. They were so cocky about it that they bad mouthed all beef coming from a country affected by BSE was tainted even if it was as little as one case. To bad but our warning was proven in Dec 2003 when BSE was found within your borders and backed up by the fact you found your own native case in 2005. Did your leadership stop then? No they attacked every aspect of our industry only to find out that it wasn't our system at all that you feared it was your non superior system that they had been bragging up for the last two plus years. This is a North American herd and I feel it has given me a life that I love. The only bad side affects is R-CALF :roll:

Tam- Do you forget the rules that allowed cattle to go south unrestricted, but put restrictions on all cattle going north......Doesn't sound like one herd to me...Remember you were the ones that called it a Canadian herd and a US herd- and you didn't want the diseased US herd infecting your Canadian herd- (didn't matter where in the US they came from- Canada just lumped them all together US CATTLE)..... It didn't become a North American herd until Canada needed the US slaughter houses and the US Packers wanted acess back to their Canadian supply....

And I haven't heard of too many fearing that the border would stay closed- except some of the packers wanting access to their market manipulators.....

Same old crap again Oldtimer, I have told you several times that the Canadian Beef industry has been working on getting these restrictions lifted for years but we have a government departmant to deal with too. You should know what dealing with a Government department is like. Look how fast you are getting the USDA to do what you want them to. Some things get fast tracked and other don't but we are still working on them. And NO OLDTIMER WE DIDN"T START WHEN BSE WAS FOUND WE STARTED ABOUT A DECADE AGO. Was at a meeting today and we were talking about other problems the Sask. Ag Producers are dealing with and one of them has taken several decades and it still is a hot topic that is not resolved. But we haven't given up the fight and I don't see many in the industry stopping on the harmonization of our two countries beef industries. So why dont you stick this tired old story and the one about your shirttails where they belong. ( :wink: in the garbage)

And I haven't heard of too many fearing that the border would stay closed- except some of the packers wanting access to their market manipulators.

Well you hadn't heard about R-CALF going ahead with the refiling until the Japanese deal either but R-CALF's own press releases proved they announce they were looking forward to presenting their full case three weeks before the Japanese deal was even announced. So maybe you should widen your information base. I think you should talk to the feeders in the US and see what they thought of the fact they couldn't bring in cattle to fill their lots Oldtimer. Not all the cattle that left Canada once the border opened when to packers. A pile of them when to feedlots and they were not Canadian owned when they left Canada. They were US owned. Maybe even some of the big supporters of R-CALF as remember they have been in Canada buying cattle. Even after R-CALF warning everyone that our beef was tainted and unsafe for US citizens to consume. :roll:

 

[Tam]

Tam, first of all, if R-CALF lied about your product, sue them for libel. What's stopping you?

Secondly, why do you support this packer spawned notion of a North American market? What has this North American market gotten you? You have virtually no Canadian packing industry, only a US packing industry - North Division. You're dependant on the US to take your production - without us you crumble. Your government will not do a thing in your favor if the USDA (packers) won't approve it. Millions of your tax dollars just went to the pockets of those same US packers who are worth billions - and you staunchly defend the system? Where is the benefit of a North American herd for you? Have you ever stopped to consider what being part of this North American herd has/will do for you?

You say R-CALF members need to think for themselves?

I paid my twenty dollars to support sueing R-CALF Sandhusker.
As for the rest of this R-CALF crap

You're dependant on the US to take your production - without us you crumble.

then why did so many in the US fear that if this border was to stay closed Canada would become a very strong competitor for markets instead of the friends we were pre BSE. Seems to me our slaughter capacity has been on the increase since the border was closed and that is why the US system wanted the border open as if we keep building, more of your plants will be mothballed.

And sorry Sandhusher I see this as a North American herd for many reasons and the main one is the fact we have freely traded cattle, beef and feed for over a hundred years. BSE proved just how intrigrated our two systems are. We warned you that if we had BSE it was only a matter of time before you would find it. But in all of your leaders wisdom they insisted it was a Canadian problem and that you were BSE free and had the safest beef in the World. They were so cocky about it that they bad mouthed all beef coming from a country affected by BSE was tainted even if it was as little as one case. To bad but our warning was proven in Dec 2003 when BSE was found within your borders and backed up by the fact you found your own native case in 2005. Did your leadership stop then? No they attacked every aspect of our industry only to find out that it wasn't our system at all that you feared it was your non superior system that they had been bragging up for the last two plus years. This is a North American herd and I feel it has given me a life that I love. The only bad side affects is R-CALF :roll:

I don't hear much about that libel suit you donated to.

We've freely traded cattle with Europe for longer than Canada. Does that make us a Northern Hemisphere Market?

I was hoping you would address the foreign ownership of your packing industry, your government's unwillingness to buck the USDA, and the Canadian tax-payer welfare directed at US companies. Instead, you would rather rant on R-CALF. I guess it's easier to blame others than the one in the mirror. It's sad, Tam, because you'll never fix your problems if you don't know what they are. R-CALF didn't sell out your packing industry. R-CALF didn't make you dependant on one country to make a living. R-CALF didn't spend millions of your tax dollars on welfare for rich US companies. R-CALF didn't stop your government from testing for foreign markets. R-CALF isn't in contempt of parliament.

Sandhusker this comment was a joke wasn't it????? we are working on fixing our industry, but I would suggest to you that you get to work fixing the US problems before you start pointing our any more of ours OK. As from todays news you have a few more to fix. I love the fact we are the ones with the problems in your eyes but we aren't the ones standing saying we need to impliment the same safeguards as the US has. You and the organization you support need to realize that blaming Canada for your industry problems are not going to work anymore.

 

[Sandhusker]

I thought you were SH's deciple. We don't blame Canada, we are packer blamers.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam- I'll make you a deal-- I'll work as hard to open the border for the Canadian herd as you Canucks did/are to open Canada up to the US herd..

That means I'll start in about 10 years and only after our teat is caught in a wringer and we need Canada to bail our butts out :wink: ......