• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

U.S. appeals court OKs Canada beef imports

flounder

Well-known member
U.S. appeals court OKs Canada beef imports
Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:17 PM EDT

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court gave the green light on Tuesday to continued Canadian beef and cattle imports, rejecting a rancher group's effort to impose a ban amid mad cow disease concerns.

The Montana-based Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) argued that live Canadian cattle posed a risk of mad cow disease to the U.S. cattle herd and should be banned.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Canada had safeguards in place to prevent the spread of the deadly disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

"Having reviewed the merits of this case, we conclude that the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and its decision to designate Canada a minimal-risk country," Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. government imposed a ban on Canadian cattle after Canada found its first domestic case of mad cow disease in 2003. It planned to reopen the border in 2005 to imports of Canadian cattle, but R-CALF obtained a temporary injunction from a federal court in Montana.

The USDA appealed to the 9th Circuit, which rejected R-CALF's arguments and reopened the U.S. border to shipments of Canadian cattle. The Montana federal court in 2006 also ruled in favor of the USDA.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel based in San Francisco re-examined another R-CALF appeal in its Tuesday ruling.

"R-CALF's extra-record evidence has failed to convince us that the agency's review was unauthorized, incomplete, or otherwise improper," Judge Hall wrote.

The decision went point by point through R-CALF's arguments but found fault in them.

"The agency -- at the time it made its decision -- properly relied on studies from both the World Organization for Animal Health and the Harvard Center on Risk Analysis finding that feed bans were the most effective way to prevent the spread of BSE," the court wrote. "It bears repeating that the agency did not assume 100 percent effectiveness of its measures."

Mad cow disease has infected more than 187,000 cattle over the past two decades, and about 150 people have died from a variant, Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, which has been linked to BSE-contaminated meat, the court wrote in its summary of the case.

Shae Dodson, a spokeswoman for R-CALF, said the group's board would have to vote whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.



© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/


TSS
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Finally - Elwapo, Kato, Oldtimer, Sandhusker, the rest of the gang and I can join hands and fight the good fight agin the packers together. :lol:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Oh - by the way Elwapo and Kato, no acronym but what about the multi millions in lawyers fees paid out by our own card short team at ABP/CCA.

Had about the same effect as the Rcalf dollars had.

All decions made by Packer led USDA. Even the court challenges are a joke.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I have to shake my head at some of you Canucks. Today, you wave this ruling around proclaiming to the world how the court is correct, but yesterday you were telling us how our feed ban was full of holes while being unable to deny that BSE positive cattle would be imported to the US. Maybe submitting your posts would of been the most effective arguements R-CALF could of presented.

Pretty impressive...... :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Finally - Elwapo, Kato, Oldtimer, Sandhusker, the rest of the gang and I can join hands and fight the good fight agin the packers together. :lol:

That's what this was about, Kaiser. The packers are the chief beneficiary of the open border. Is it lost on you that policy was flip-flopped and special rules were made for Canada, when other countries we closed to (and Tyson and Cargill DON'T import from) have much more stringent measures in place - but are still closed? Both US and Canadian cattlemen are the losers here.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Still disagree with you on that one Sandy. Some packers may be better off, but not the two that control and have thrived from the closed border and have had all the say to date. :wink:

Anywho - it ain't going to matter much longer. Are you ready for a good Galloway bull yet bud?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Still disagree with you on that one Sandy. Some packers may be better off, but not the two that control and have thrived from the closed border and have had all the say to date. :wink:

Anywho - it ain't going to matter much longer. Are you ready for a good Galloway bull yet bud?

If they were thriving from the closed border, why were they stomping to get it open? The truth is it was costing them a lot of money.

Don't need a furry bull, but I'm interested in some females if you can build them 1200 lbs or so.
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
I don't keep up on this topic like some of you do just by reading these threads. I just wanted to give my opinion being a US producer right South of the Canadian border. Now remember I am just this stupid kid from way up north in Montana that don't know anything but... Ever since the border closed I lost my feeder calf markets in southern alberta. I am less than 100 mils from a whole bunch of Canadian feedlots and now I have to send them 1200 miles down into Nebraska or even Kansas and get dinged on the freight. I really miss the days of doing buisiness with the Canadians and plus those guys up there always had a slide both ways. I always got a better price for my calves primarily because of my proximity - but another was most of the Canadian feeders love to feed straight herefords or hereford influenced cattle and down here you have to work a little to get the right money for a straight hereford. I am eagerly waiting for the border to open... and as a Hereford breeder I can't wait to bring a live herd bull home here again and maybe even some females. I think canada has some of the best hereford bloodlines there are. As far as RCALF goes, I have always thought there motives were a little fishy. This is also another one of my opinions and one I have developed on my own or is what I would call me gutt feeling. I can remember when RCALF first started and it had nothing to do with what they talk about now. I think RCALF's goal in the early days was to keep the Northern tier cattle from going into the canadian feedlots. Most of the cattle that went north would have gone through Goggins hands otherwise. Then when BSE became the hot topic they jumped all over that to do just that. I don't know, just my thoughts. Would be interested in a response to it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Hereford, I'm a R-CALF member and I'll tell you the same thing I've said on this board 100 times.

You're right, there is something fishy going on, but it's not what you think.

1) After input of the experts on the disease, the USDA instituted a zero-tolerance policy that banned imports from any BSE positive country. They followed that policy without fail 22 consecutive times. Country #23 was different, they totally changed the rules for that country. That is fishy.

2) If a zero-tolerance policy was designed to protect us, doesn't it stand to reason that reversing it puts us at risk?

3) Canada is the only country USDA has labeled "low risk", even though countries in the EU go to much greater lengths than Canada does. That's pretty fishy.

4) The USDA applied to the OIE for the same risk category as Canada, even though we clearly qualify for a higher category. That's pretty fishy.

5) The USDA claims Canada's feed ban became effective in March, 1999, despite the fact that half of their positives have been born after that date, the last one 4 years after. That's not just fishy, that's political BS.

6) The USDA testified to Judge Cebull that importing from Canada posed a "low" risk. When asked what "low" meant, they had no answer. "Low" compared to what? What scale? That's not even fishy, that shows they can't quantify the risk, so they're just trying to BS their way.

Why did the USDA forget what the experts told them and reverse policy completely for Canada alone, while justifying their actions with reasons they themselves have no logical answers to? I think for two reasons. First, Tyson and Cargill own Canada, and they "donate" heavily to Washington and were losing serious money with the closed border. Secondly, Bush has this North American Union thing going that he won't be forthright on and having a closed border goes completely against the grain of what he wants to put together. Either way, this border deal is much more than "fishy" and US producers are being thrown under the bus.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Hereford76 said:
I don't keep up on this topic like some of you do just by reading these threads. I just wanted to give my opinion being a US producer right South of the Canadian border. Now remember I am just this stupid kid from way up north in Montana that don't know anything but... Ever since the border closed I lost my feeder calf markets in southern alberta. I am less than 100 mils from a whole bunch of Canadian feedlots and now I have to send them 1200 miles down into Nebraska or even Kansas and get dinged on the freight. I really miss the days of doing buisiness with the Canadians and plus those guys up there always had a slide both ways. I always got a better price for my calves primarily because of my proximity - but another was most of the Canadian feeders love to feed straight herefords or hereford influenced cattle and down here you have to work a little to get the right money for a straight hereford. I am eagerly waiting for the border to open... and as a Hereford breeder I can't wait to bring a live herd bull home here again and maybe even some females. I think canada has some of the best hereford bloodlines there are. As far as RCALF goes, I have always thought there motives were a little fishy. This is also another one of my opinions and one I have developed on my own or is what I would call me gutt feeling. I can remember when RCALF first started and it had nothing to do with what they talk about now. I think RCALF's goal in the early days was to keep the Northern tier cattle from going into the canadian feedlots. Most of the cattle that went north would have gone through Goggins hands otherwise. Then when BSE became the hot topic they jumped all over that to do just that. I don't know, just my thoughts. Would be interested in a response to it.

I like the way you think, Hereford 76, and think you are right on target.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Still disagree with you on that one Sandy. Some packers may be better off, but not the two that control and have thrived from the closed border and have had all the say to date. :wink:

Anywho - it ain't going to matter much longer. Are you ready for a good Galloway bull yet bud?

Just shows the benefit of being multi-national operations!!!!!!
Do you think Tyson and Cargill would be willing to pay more for Canadian cattle if they could save $10.00/cwt. on their USA purchases???
But wait...Canadian cattle prices are tied to USA cattle prices with an open border!! :shock: That's what you call...hitting the double down!!! :twisted:
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
Sandhusker - Yeah I have heard you guys argue over your six points you listed there forever it seems. Some days I agree and some days I don't... it just goes to show you I really don't pay as much attention to all of this as I should. I formed my opinion about RCALF a long time ago and right or wrong its hard to be convinced otherwise. I would love to be part of an organization that is supposed to be looking out/protecting the AMerican rancher but at the same time I have a hard time getting behind RCALF when I see how it has affected my neighbors across the line. ANd I don't mean neighbors like most people describe Canada as being our neighbor to the north. I mean my neighbors. I don't know if my place would have kept its head above water if the situation was reversed. I'm sorry but I am big on being able to look a person in the eye.

I can't stand toe to toe with you sandhusker and argue the fine points of the border situation (or BSE situation as RCALF puts it now), but all I really was interested was what you thought of my very initial hunch on RCALF and how I thought it was an attempt to keep the northern tier cattle from going into the canadian feedlots. Also sandhusker, if you lived where I do and couldn't send calves north 100 miles like you historically had and had to absorb the freight difference going south wouldn't you be a little peeved. Like I said I'm just this stupid kid, but I wish it could just be the way it was.
 

elwapo

Well-known member
Hereford
You sound like an honorable man. Just like the honorable people I used to do business with in Montana. I too am less than 100 miles from the medicine line. Those that wish to stop trade between our two countries are short sighted and blind to the many win:win situations that exist when cattle cross the border BOTH WAYS. Just like they have for the past 150 years.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Something fishy when rules are changed Sandhusker - that I will agree. But how can yo not look at who benefited from the changes and figure out the problem. Take a look back at the Canadian producers books for the past four years. The partially opened border which you and Rcalf could simply not stop, gave nothing to the primary producer and only allowed our government an opportunity to stop bailing out any feedlot. All of the benefits from the partially opened border went to the packers. Then the two that had virtually all of the American export markets, cashed in royally and started a war chest to stop competition on either side of the border. By the time all of the rules and regulations came in for live feeder and fat cattle exports (which again you and Rcalf had no hope of stopping) the stage was set for Cargill and Tyson and the retailers to begin the most amazing game of deception ever seen in the food industry in our country. Send all they could send south and change the consumer in Canada (with the help of our own government and blind industry leaders) into cow eaters without them knowing it. If you don't think that this has been a lucrative situation for the packers in Canada you have to be totally blind. We have killed and ate more cows than at any time in history with unbelievable profits due to captive cow markets and all of that profit has gone to the packers and retailers. Ask them to open their books and they laugh at the government - it has happened. Try to compete as in a new plant like Salmon Arm, or Ranchers, or any of the other old school American dreamer plans and they will use some of the war chest to sink that ship. Even to the point of letting profits slip for a few weeks or months and dig in to the war chest. Do I think that the only "so called" Canadian plant that does any substantial amount of business has a deal with the other two YES. What kind of deal - I do not know. Yes I am saying the American dream Sandhusker - one that we call the Canadian dream up here which is becoming harder to accomplish as our neocon commucapitalist governments drive for more globalism and profit for global companies.

Does that mean I am a Socialist MRJ - not for a second, but anyone who cannot see that true capitalism is lost in our current society is truly lost.


Yes the changes will effect trade with other nations as well, and that will not be the best thing for either of us. Hopefully the consumer will ultimately decide and as you know I am not in opposition to country of origin labeling. I am sorry to say that you and I and COOL may not be able to stop and unaware individual from buying a cheap product.

But to say that Rcalf has or will have any effect on the border and the overall plan of the USDA to strengthen the globalist notion of two multinational packers. You are dreaming and being used Sandhusker.

Yes I have some hairy little cows for you, but don't know if I can squeeze these frame four / four and a half frame tanks down to 1200 pounds without starving them for a while.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, I'm 100 miles from the medicine line too-- and thought the NAFTA plan was great originally because I thought it would be a great set-up for feeders to go to Canada...

Only one problem-- I didn't see it except for about 2 years back around 1999...For 10 of the 13 years of NAFTA it was just a one way road with everything headed south...Then when the Canadian cow/calf guys decided they couldn't compete without help- and had to put up trade barriers to protect themselves with the "ALL US CATTLE ARE DISEASED rules-- I started seeing the handwriting on the wall....

Then after numerous times of hearing buyer friends tell me that the reason they could only give $15-20 for culls was because the plants were all backed up tight with Canadian trucks- I didn't need no more pictures painted for me....

To Canadians it was a North American Herd-- as long as none of those cattle are headed north :roll: :wink: :lol:

As far as this court challenge-- I personally was against it-- and told the R-CALF leadership/offices that...I agree with USCA that we can gain much more thru the public and legislation-- especially now with the current feeling/backlash of the nation/Congress against foreign products and imports....

The only reason I would have liked the Appellate Court to reopen the case would be to overturn the precedent set by ruling that the USDA's opinions/decisions are unchallengeable in Court....That is scarey....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Something fishy when rules are changed Sandhusker - that I will agree. But how can yo not look at who benefited from the changes and figure out the problem. Take a look back at the Canadian producers books for the past four years. The partially opened border which you and Rcalf could simply not stop, gave nothing to the primary producer and only allowed our government an opportunity to stop bailing out any feedlot. All of the benefits from the partially opened border went to the packers. Then the two that had virtually all of the American export markets, cashed in royally and started a war chest to stop competition on either side of the border. By the time all of the rules and regulations came in for live feeder and fat cattle exports (which again you and Rcalf had no hope of stopping) the stage was set for Cargill and Tyson and the retailers to begin the most amazing game of deception ever seen in the food industry in our country. Send all they could send south and change the consumer in Canada (with the help of our own government and blind industry leaders) into cow eaters without them knowing it. If you don't think that this has been a lucrative situation for the packers in Canada you have to be totally blind. We have killed and ate more cows than at any time in history with unbelievable profits due to captive cow markets and all of that profit has gone to the packers and retailers. Ask them to open their books and they laugh at the government - it has happened. Try to compete as in a new plant like Salmon Arm, or Ranchers, or any of the other old school American dreamer plans and they will use some of the war chest to sink that ship. Even to the point of letting profits slip for a few weeks or months and dig in to the war chest. Do I think that the only "so called" Canadian plant that does any substantial amount of business has a deal with the other two YES. What kind of deal - I do not know. Yes I am saying the American dream Sandhusker - one that we call the Canadian dream up here which is becoming harder to accomplish as our neocon commucapitalist governments drive for more globalism and profit for global companies.

Does that mean I am a Socialist MRJ - not for a second, but anyone who cannot see that true capitalism is lost in our current society is truly lost.


Yes the changes will effect trade with other nations as well, and that will not be the best thing for either of us. Hopefully the consumer will ultimately decide and as you know I am not in opposition to country of origin labeling. I am sorry to say that you and I and COOL may not be able to stop and unaware individual from buying a cheap product.

But to say that Rcalf has or will have any effect on the border and the overall plan of the USDA to strengthen the globalist notion of two multinational packers. You are dreaming and being used Sandhusker.

Yes I have some hairy little cows for you, but don't know if I can squeeze these frame four / four and a half frame tanks down to 1200 pounds without starving them for a while.

I don't deny that Canadian producers were/are getting hosed by the border closure and that the Canadian cost centers of Tyson and Cargill were raking it in. However, I don't think you're looking at the big picture for those packers. You look at how much they were losing from their US operations and it dwarfs what they gained up there. Because to the size differential on our respective herds, you could analogize it as them making 5% on their $1 investment up there, but losing 3% on their $10
here - NET LOSS.

I'll agree with you that R-CALF is going against "the system" and the odds are against us, but I don't believe in just rolling over if the odds are against you. What they are doing is not right and a guy needs to stand up for himself.

I'd rather have those girls around 1400, but I thought 1200 might be pushing it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Hereford76 said:
Sandhusker - Yeah I have heard you guys argue over your six points you listed there forever it seems. Some days I agree and some days I don't... it just goes to show you I really don't pay as much attention to all of this as I should. I formed my opinion about RCALF a long time ago and right or wrong its hard to be convinced otherwise. I would love to be part of an organization that is supposed to be looking out/protecting the AMerican rancher but at the same time I have a hard time getting behind RCALF when I see how it has affected my neighbors across the line. ANd I don't mean neighbors like most people describe Canada as being our neighbor to the north. I mean my neighbors. I don't know if my place would have kept its head above water if the situation was reversed. I'm sorry but I am big on being able to look a person in the eye.

I can't stand toe to toe with you sandhusker and argue the fine points of the border situation (or BSE situation as RCALF puts it now), but all I really was interested was what you thought of my very initial hunch on RCALF and how I thought it was an attempt to keep the northern tier cattle from going into the canadian feedlots. Also sandhusker, if you lived where I do and couldn't send calves north 100 miles like you historically had and had to absorb the freight difference going south wouldn't you be a little peeved. Like I said I'm just this stupid kid, but I wish it could just be the way it was.

If you think there is more to R-CALF's actions than meets the eye, I have to ask you what makes you think they need anything else? :lol: The way I see it, the USDA has given them half a dozen reasons to balk, they don't need anything anything secretive.

Sure, something like this is going to hurt some border folks who traditionally do business locally. But, are you going to let the USDA establish the protocol of selling out all producers for the benefit of the packers just so you don't disrupt the small percentage along the border?
 
Top