Rule2 one step closer.

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "No, you don't get it. You're a hypocrite. Hypocrites aren't held in high esteem by anybody."

Hahaha! Listen to you! You're a blamer and blamers are only held in high esteem by other blamers. Glad you are in good company.

Sandcheska: "Why don't you settle down and act like a man?"

Why don't you act like a man and back your views with supporting facts for once in your life instead of your usual volley of empty meaningless little statements?


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod,have you ever had any dealings with the retailers? I have.

Yes, I have. And either side has the capability to walk away from contract negotiations if the price isn't right. If there is excess supply in the system, that leaves the seller in a bad position, I'll grant you that. But they still have the right to walk away from a really bad deal.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "We don't have the same options you fool, as there isn't enough trucking space available to overcome one of our big packers exiting the market. Exports are NOT some big bottomless well that we can dip into whenever we feel like it. I realize that you seem to work in a black and white arena, like those cheap courtroom shows on the boob tube, but the world isn't black and white."

You're talking out of your ash again Rod. Any Canadian feeder can sell fat cattle in the US giving them the same packer opportunities as US feeders.

You stuck your foot in your mouth again and now you're trying to back peddle your way out of it like so many times before.


~SH~

 

[Jason]

Actually Rod, both of our big packers have been "out" of the fed cattle market to some extent. They have both been killling cows like crazy as there has been more margin there than trying to match the US price for feds.

Some obviously are still being killed, but look at the report that says how many they killed:

Preliminary data to the end of 2006 shows that the number of cows killed through the year total over 676,250 head. Last year the total was 626,839 head while the increased cow slaughter is even more substantial when compared to just two years back when in 2004 the annual total was only 251,544 head.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

You're talking out of your ash again Rod. Any Canadian feeder can sell fat cattle in the US giving them the same packer opportunities as US feeders.

You stuck your foot in your mouth again and now you're trying to back peddle your way out of it like so many times before.

Do you have ANY idea what it takes to export livestock? How much it costs? How long it takes?

First, you must obtain vet certificates. This may take 3 days to a week.

Then you need to find trucking. Since special permits and licensing is required to ship south of the border, not just any schmoe with a cattleliner can ship south. Since the death of the crow benefit in Canada, trucking is in high demand and getting worse each day. Many truckers don't bother with cross-border stuff since they have ALL they need just shipping interprovincially. Hell, just to ship livestock to Moose Jaw on a liner means a 1 week wait.

So do you really believe that a market with a minimum 2 week delay is even remotely close to being a viable market that can compete in a bidding situation? Add to that the shipping distance and costs and these days, the strong Canadian dollar, and US packing plants are NOT an option.

Do not talk about the Canadian market, SH. You know absolutely nothing of it and only use bluster to try and make your point. Your arguement is factually void.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod cattle are moving South everyday. My vet is working fulltime doing the paperwork and inspections to ship fats South.

Trucks are being added everyday. The price offered by the US plants is worth the time and effort needed to comply with the rules.

The feedlot industry has adapted to new realities. They might be onerous rules, but they comply for the sake of competition. If 1 lot was to say screw the Americans I'm only selling here, they give away their leverage to the packers. How long will they stay in business if they have to compete against feedlots for cattle that get more money for their fats because they will do the paperwork to ship them?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Jason, this was a short term discussion. Are you saying that enough trucks and drivers can be added in a day to handle an increase of exports greater than 10%? :roll:

And if trucks are being added everyday, why do we still have a trucking shortfall in Canada? This shortfall has been around since the crow rate was eliminated (what was that, 10 years ago now?). Since trucks and drivers can magically appear, why do we still have a shortage 10 years later?

And since your vets already working fulltime on export permits, how would he handle a greater increase? Perhaps expand the day to 25 hours? Our local vets would be pleased, as they're already working 6 and 7 day weeks. The best vet in the area isn't sure whats going to happen come calving season, since he's booked up to 2 weeks in advance and can't find anyone qualified to help.

I repeat, we currently do not have the capacity in Canada to increase exports rapidly. In a month, or a year, yes. Short term, we simply do not have that ability. Trucks, truckers and vets cannot simply appear out of nowhere.

Rod

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Jason, this was a short term discussion. Are you saying that enough trucks and drivers can be added in a day to handle an increase of exports greater than 10%? :roll:

And if trucks are being added everyday, why do we still have a trucking shortfall in Canada? This shortfall has been around since the crow rate was eliminated (what was that, 10 years ago now?). Since trucks and drivers can magically appear, why do we still have a shortage 10 years later?

And since your vets already working fulltime on export permits, how would he handle a greater increase? Perhaps expand the day to 25 hours? Our local vets would be pleased, as they're already working 6 and 7 day weeks. The best vet in the area isn't sure whats going to happen come calving season, since he's booked up to 2 weeks in advance and can't find anyone qualified to help.

I repeat, we currently do not have the capacity in Canada to increase exports rapidly. In a month, or a year, yes. Short term, we simply do not have that ability. Trucks, truckers and vets cannot simply appear out of nowhere.

Rod

Poundmaker at Lanigan ships lots of cattle south.

 

[Jason]

Why do we suddenly need to increase exports 10% overnight? Supplies don't increase that fast.

If there is a buck to be made someone usually takes it.

I don't see a backlog of fat cattle in Canada.

If anything, packers are agressively trying to lock in those April fats because they think they will be caught short.

Quit changing the rules for your scenario. You said it was a one day event, the 2 supplies not connected.

If the supply was over capacity one day by 30%, it will get absorbed later. But not knowing the rest of what might happen later prevents an educated guess if it is a blip or a trend. The real world isn't that isolated, information is out there to know where the industry is headed.

Let's change this to packers are locking in 96 cents fats for April, should feedlots lock in as many cattle as they can at that price? What if that price is lower than the cash market when they deliver? Was it a bad deal for them to have locked it in? What about if cash is lower?

What would you personally base your decision on Rod?

 

[Ben Roberts]

Rod said "Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual."

Can you tell us just how many family farms and ranches have been incorporated to take advantage of the Corporation laws? Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges? :???:


ocm says "For instance, corporations are not allowed to vote. Corporations don't go to jail. Court decisions have already distinguished the "civil rights" of corporations from the rights individuals have. They are different."

Does incorporating your farm or ranch automatically revoke your right to vote? if you incorporate do you automatically recieve a get out of jail free card? Are the Laws for family farm and ranch Corporations different from those of other large corporations? If large corporations should not be allowed to own cattle then should small family corporations have to follow that same rule? :?

Hi Tam, I know nothing of Canadian corporate law. Here in the US we have many different levels you can incorporate into,not all of the same rules/benefits apply at each level.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges"

Who told you that?

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges"

Who told you that?

Ever notice when you leave out a question mark, the intended question seems to somehow become a statement. :wink:



And I asked the "question" because of this

I find it interesting how you equate a CORPORATIONS ownership of property on the same level as PERSONAL ownership of property. This is unfortunately a common viewpoint, and I think its indicative of whats wrong with today's world. Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Rod

Since Rod did not qualify his statement to what kind of corporation he was speaking of, I asked Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges??????? Which I would still like to know the answer as it doesn't seem to make much sence to me to incorporate a family farm or ranch if you are going to chance losing any of your individual rights and privieges. Namely the "right to own cattle" if you are a rancher, and someone decided to limit the ownership of certain things when it comes to CORPORATIONS.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nowhere did anybody hint that incorporating had any effect on individual rights.

You didn't understand a one sentence statement. Bearing this in mind, how do you expect me to believe that you understood a 40 page legal ruling?

 

[Tam]

Nowhere did anybody hint that incorporating had any effect on individual rights.

You didn't understand a one sentence statement. Bearing this in mind, how do you expect me to believe that you understood a 40 page legal ruling?

Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Explain this.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nowhere did anybody hint that incorporating had any effect on individual rights.

You didn't understand a one sentence statement. Bearing this in mind, how do you expect me to believe that you understood a 40 page legal ruling?

Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Explain this.

Corporations are not people, they're not living breathing entities. They are a creation of business. An individual can vote, run for office, adopt a child, etc... A corporation isn't even an inanimate object - you can't see it, touch it smell it. With this in mind, it would be impossible for a corporation to have the same rights as an individual.

 

[Bill]

Let's see what news comes out this week.

What's the update from your "sources"?

It;s not going to be made public as soon as I thought, but here is some evidence of what I said from the USDA. Press release.

The proposal expands upon a rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for delivery to a slaughterhouse or feedlot, from countries recognized as minimal-risk. In the rule announced today, APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of:

* Live cattle and other bovines for any use born on or after, March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;
* Blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and
* Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.

Meat and meat products from animals of any age, with specified risk materials removed, were addressed in the January 2005 final rule. In March 2005, APHIS published a notice of a delay of applicability of certain provisions of that rule. This delay affected only meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. If the proposed rule announced today is made final, it would be consistent to lift the delay and also allow the importation of these products.

Note the admission that OTM meat is not specifically included in this new rule. They're depending on its inclusion in the previous rule. However it was removed from the previous rule (with an "indefinite delay") And that previous rule still has pending litigation. "Re-adding" it to the previous rule makes R-CALF's case on the previous rule much stronger.

Do you think there will be anything official this week ocm? Maybe something will be announcesd at the national meeting of the R-Klanners? Let us know when your sources get it sorted out.

 

[Tam]

Nowhere did anybody hint that incorporating had any effect on individual rights.

You didn't understand a one sentence statement. Bearing this in mind, how do you expect me to believe that you understood a 40 page legal ruling?

Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Explain this.

Corporations are not people, they're not living breathing entities. They are a creation of business. An individual can vote, run for office, adopt a child, etc... A corporation isn't even an inanimate object - you can't see it, touch it smell it. With this in mind, it would be impossible for a corporation to have the same rights as an individual.

If you were to incorporate your farm or ranch (IF you even have one Sandhusker) would you still beable to run your incorporated farm or ranch with the same rights and privileges as an individual? YES OR NO
Or would you be forced to run that incorporated farm or ranch under the corporation laws which according to Rod were never intended to have all the rights and privileges of an individual? Yes or NO If the later is true then tell us again how your individual rights would not be limited by incorporating?

Example as a corporation you can't own cattle if it is decided Corporation can't own cattle. Would you still baable to own cattle as an individual or would you lose that right because of your incorporation?

 

[Sandhusker]

Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Explain this.

Corporations are not people, they're not living breathing entities. They are a creation of business. An individual can vote, run for office, adopt a child, etc... A corporation isn't even an inanimate object - you can't see it, touch it smell it. With this in mind, it would be impossible for a corporation to have the same rights as an individual.

If you were to incorporate your farm or ranch (IF you even have one Sandhusker) would you still beable to run your incorporated farm or ranch with the same rights and privileges as an individual? YES OR NO
Or would you be forced to run that incorporated farm or ranch under the corporation laws which according to Rod were never intended to have all the rights and privileges of an individual? Yes or NO If the later is truth then tell us again how your individual rights would not be limited by incorporating?

Tam, you still don't get it. Having a corporation has no bearing on any personal right I have just like having a rock in your back yard has no bearing.

Sure, there are laws the corporation has to follow as any entity, living or man-made has to follow, but that has no bearing on your personal rights.

If I have a corporation, I have the exact same personal rights as somebody who digs ditches. The corporation has no bearing at all.

 

[ocm]

Tam, "Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges"

Who told you that?

Ever notice when you leave out a question mark, the intended question seems to somehow become a statement. :wink:



And I asked the "question" because of this

I find it interesting how you equate a CORPORATIONS ownership of property on the same level as PERSONAL ownership of property. This is unfortunately a common viewpoint, and I think its indicative of whats wrong with today's world. Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual.

Rod

Since Rod did not qualify his statement to what kind of corporation he was speaking of, I asked Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges??????? Which I would still like to know the answer as it doesn't seem to make much sence to me to incorporate a family farm or ranch if you are going to chance losing any of your individual rights and privieges. Namely the "right to own cattle" if you are a rancher, and someone decided to limit the ownership of certain things when it comes to CORPORATIONS.

Because it also limits their liabilities. It shields them.

 

[Tam]

Corporations are not people, they're not living breathing entities. They are a creation of business. An individual can vote, run for office, adopt a child, etc... A corporation isn't even an inanimate object - you can't see it, touch it smell it. With this in mind, it would be impossible for a corporation to have the same rights as an individual.

If you were to incorporate your farm or ranch (IF you even have one Sandhusker) would you still beable to run your incorporated farm or ranch with the same rights and privileges as an individual? YES OR NO
Or would you be forced to run that incorporated farm or ranch under the corporation laws which according to Rod were never intended to have all the rights and privileges of an individual? Yes or NO If the later is truth then tell us again how your individual rights would not be limited by incorporating?

Tam, you still don't get it. Having a corporation has no bearing on any personal right I have just like having a rock in your back yard has no bearing.

Sure, there are laws the corporation has to follow as any entity, living or man-made has to follow, but that has no bearing on your personal rights.

If I have a corporation, I have the exact same personal rights as somebody who digs ditches. The corporation has no bearing at all.

ocm: Because it also limits their liabilities. It shields them.

Would you two like to discuss this and get back to me. One says their rights are not limited and the other say Because it ALSO limits their liabilities. Which is it boys limited right and ALSO liabilities or No limits?

And Sandhusker if you incorporate your ranch and corporations are limited to what they can do, say own cattle, does that not limit your right to own cattle because you are the corporation?