The Saga continues

[Anonymous]

so it's the oie's fault you guys can't keep your story straight :shock:

No don-- What I'm saying is that if we knew the date this number came about- both statements might be correct...

The old OIE rules called for little testing, and I believe was based on number of cattle in the herd- BUT remember, in 2005 they changed all their BSE rules-- including 20 month to 30 month, from 5 risk classifications to 3, different definitions of SRM's, etc., etc.... Did they also change the number then and make it a flat number for each country?

Its such a hodgepodge on their website with old rules mixed in with new ones that I don't remember......And to me it ain't that important an issue....

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

 

[frenchie]

And you still divert away from those pesky telling post ban positives..... They happened, Tam. They happened because no matter what your regulations are, no matter who says your ban is working, it failed. FIVE YEARS after a ban that is supposed to stop new cases from showing up, here one is.

If I inspected a boat and told you it was fine - and then is promplty sank, would you brag about my inspection abilties? Would you hire me to inspect another boat?

Tell me Sandhusker if someone shot 1300 holes in your boat would your boat still be fine?

I quess Sandhusker don,t want to talk about the 1300 known u.s feedban violations found by the F.D.A in 2003 :lol: :lol:

 

[Tam]

I know prior to Canada finding BSE the testing was way down...That was when the question/discussion came up on here about how adequate it really was...Actually I think it was Maxine that was arguing that this was an acceptable amount- which I was a little leery about ....So that would have been in 2003- I see this statement was made in 2006- and OIE as we know has been ever changing with their ages, rules, classifications, and so forth- so that is why I wondered when they could have put out those numbers......OIE has been so flipfloppy that I can't say they don't have this number somewhere in their reams of rules.....

OK Oldtimer if we were already affected by mid 2003 and the OIE APPROVED our new Enhanced Surveillance testing quota at that time then what does the testing numbers for a non affect country have to do with us? :?

The OIE didn't tell us we had to test 187,000 plus the 30,000, they APPROVED testing of at least 30,000 PERIOD. We tested over 57,000 two years in a row exceeding our quota for the last two years. Now If you have something from the OIE that says we are to test 187,000 besides the Approved 30,000 then bring it as I doubt the CFIA have heard about those recommendations.

And yes the OIE testing is changing, from what the CFIA explained to me in an eMAIL we will test on a point system not on the number of head. Points are awarded on what we are testing, with the 4D cattle recieving the highest points and the healthy slaughter animals recieving less points. NoW if a country chooses to test all healthy animals their targeted score will take a lot longer to hit than if they just test the 4D's.

 

[Tam]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

FACT: Canada and the US both exceed the OIE testing recommendations neither tested 187,000 in all the testing they did prior to finding BSE , and according to Oldtimer Australia didn't test 187,000 either as 500 is a far cry from 187,000 head.

Now the actual requirements for BSE testing is, according to the CFIA and the testing we have exceed for the past two years, 30,000 in a HERD THE SIZE OF OURS as approved by the OIE themselves. According to the New USDA testing quota the US is to test 40,000 . which in my opinion is a joke sampling from a herd your size, :roll: but the OIE must have approved the number or I doubt your trading partners would just stand by an let you get away with testing what ever you deem fit.


If you want to prove the statement to be correct then you find the OIE recommendations that says 187,000 head in a non affect country and that the herd size doesn't matter. I'm not looking for something I seriously doubt ever existed and the only ones that claim it did is R-CALF . :roll:

 

[Bill]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

In over your head Sadhusker and trying to deflect attention from another piece of R-Klan mumbo-jumbo and another of your tangled webs?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

In over your head Sadhusker and trying to deflect attention from another piece of R-Klan mumbo-jumbo and another of your tangled webs?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Not at all, Bill. If the topic is OIE requirements, doesn't it make sense to get the info straight from the OIE?

 

[Bill]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

In over your head Sadhusker and trying to deflect attention from another piece of R-Klan mumbo-jumbo and another of your tangled webs?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Not at all, Bill. If the topic is OIE requirements, doesn't it make sense to get the info straight from the OIE?

When has absolute truth and facts ever concerned you and the pom-pommers before?

This from yourself in the Swift thread just minutes ago:

I think the investigation has been over for a long time now. The USDA knows exactly where, who, and when.

How do you know that?

 

[Tam]

Tam, why don't you just bring the OIE's actual requirements?

In over your head Sadhusker and trying to deflect attention from another piece of R-Klan mumbo-jumbo and another of your tangled webs?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Not at all, Bill. If the topic is OIE requirements, doesn't it make sense to get the info straight from the OIE?

Sandhusker Have you ever heard the old saying "Actions speak louder that words" Why should I go searching through the OIE website for words when all you really have to do is look at the testing the OIE has APPROVED since 2003, to see that Bill's statement isn't true. It is not the first time R-CALF has claimed something in reguards to the OIE and it wasn't true. Just take a look at the Federal Court Document that was entered into evidence in the R-CALF verses the USDA case from the OIE themselves.

Besides if your R-CALF inspector of evidence with 30 years in law enforcement experience behind him can't make sense of the hodgepodge on the OIE website with old rules mixed in with new ones and you won't help him with a simple call to Old Billy Boy to see where the recommendations can be found in that Hodgepodge, why should I look, You are the ones claiming it to be true not me. :roll: The OIE APPROVED testing in both the US and Canada is enough proof for most :roll: But when has that ever stopped you R-CALFers from Defending what BILL spouts in his need to paint the Canadian industry with a brush of evil :x

And you are wrong about me disagreeing with everything you R-CALFers says. You said the US has loopholes in their system that are endangering your herd with the spread of BSE. I agree as you still feed chicken crap etc.. :nod: I just don't see how they can claim the loopholes exist then turn around and say this

"we know if we are going to keep consumer confidence we are going to maintain some of the highest standards in the world to make sure that BSE is not introduced into this country. And we are going to make sure we have the best meat and bone meal ban in this country in place. So if for some reason we did find a case we can stand and look our consumers right in the eye and say, don't worry we have had these firewalls in place for years, the only country prior to having a case of BSE to have these firewalls in place for so many years. And we did it to make sure if a case was ever found it was a non-issue. If we look them right in the eye and say that I will guarantee they will keep eating beef".

or this

Under no circumstances should the United States accept any cattle, beef or beef products, from countries that do not maintain identical or more stringent safeguard measures that is presently required or presently proposed in the United States which measures have been enforced for at least as long as the United States.

Sandhusker, R-CALF said this while trying to stop imports from a country with higher standards. The USDA admitted we have higher standards when they said the safeguards they were announcing to be implemented would bring the US system up to speed with those Canada already had in place. R-CALF in their half A**ed way admitted it too as they said ( if I remember correctly) We can't afford to open our borders until we have the same safeguards in place to protect our industry as Canada has.

See I do agree with one thing that R-CALF said to bad they didn't stick to that topic and do something about those loopholes. :roll: But I guess it was more cost efficent to distract attention from the loophole by bad monthing the Canadian industry than it was to FIX THEM!! Always looking for the cheap route aren't you not matter who it hurts. :wink: How many of the US industry problems could have been taken care of with the time and money R-CALF has wasted on failed lawsuits? :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

R-CALF has called for the FDA to close the loopholes, Tam. Funny thing about government agencies these days, sometimes you have to take them to court to get them to do their job. Sometimes, as in Creekstone's case, you even have to take them to court for doing something that isn't their job!

 

[Tam]

R-CALF has called for the FDA to close the loopholes, Tam. Funny thing about government agencies these days, sometimes you have to take them to court to get them to do their job. Sometimes, as in Creekstone's case, you even have to take them to court for doing something that isn't their job!

The problem with handling every industry issues in the courts like Really- Crooked A** LAWYERS FUND was set up to do, is the media attention it attracts and the risk of damage to consumer confidence that your court cases could cause. But I guess R-CALF hasn't learned that lesson yet.

I wonder what is going to happen to consumer confidence worldwide if Cebull agrees to hear your case based on all beef coming from a BSE affected country is unsafe for human consumption and should be ban from the US and you happen to get him to agree again instead of the seeing that the USDA, OIE and every other BSE affect country's government including the UK that is selling beef following the OIE protocol, could be right when they said the meat is safe as long as the meat is processed to the proper procedures.
:?
Every time your lawyers open their mouths in court you are playing Russia roulette with consumer confidence and the futures of every producer in the world. But as long as it stops the border from being opened who care right? :roll: Maybe if you guys could be reasoned with you wouldn't have to donate so many cattle to fund your lawyers posh lifestyles. :x

 

[Anonymous]

HYPOCRISY TEST..........


Sandhusker and OT,

If the US had bse tested, PERCENTAGE WISE, as many OTM cattle as Canada in the highest risk categories of dead, diseased, and dying and found the same percentage of post feed ban positives as Canada, would you consider our beef "high risk" and "contaminated"?

Yes or No?


Very simple straightforward question.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

We didn't- so we can go only by the numbers we have...They make Canadian beef/cattle much higher a risk...


If we had came up with as many positives as they have with the adjustment taken to cattle herd numbers -- it would mean we would have 70 positives with 40 of those being POST feedbans...

If we found that many positives I would definitely call our beef "high risk" and think the consumer world would require us to test all, like they did Britain....

 

[Sandhusker]

HYPOCRISY TEST..........


Sandhusker and OT,

If the US had bse tested, PERCENTAGE WISE, as many OTM cattle as Canada in the highest risk categories of dead, diseased, and dying and found the same percentage of post feed ban positives as Canada, would you consider our beef "high risk" and "contaminated"?

Yes or No?


Very simple straightforward question.



~SH~

Since you asked so nicely .....YES. Canada found a post ban case for roughly every 3 Million animals. That would mean that the US would have to find 25 caes of BSE. What do you think would be the worldwide and domestic reaction to us finding 25 cases? Do you think you could convince our customers otherwise?

 

[Anonymous]

Hahaha!

Ah....ok?


Easy for you to say now. Kinda like ......

Flip: "USDA doesn't care about food safety"
"USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef"

Flop: "We have the safest beef in the world due to our firewalls"

It's striped
no it's spotted
no it's striped
no it's spotted

Nice weather were having huh?


~SH~