Sandhusker
Well-known member
From one of OT's postings;
"A rule pending final approval by USDA would allow all Canadian cattle born after March of 1999, 18 months after Canada implemented its feed ban, into the country on an essentially unrestricted basis. When Dr. John Clifford, the top veterinarian for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that proposed final rule earlier this year, he conceded the March, 1999 date had been a "back of the envelope" calculation that surmised an 18-month window would be sufficient to allow Canada's feed ban to take effect. "
That statement tells it all right there, folks. Don't you think the effective date just might be important enough to warrant a little more than a "back of the envelope calculation"? Good Grief! First of all, this whole deal depends on when and even if Canada's feed ban became effective. Secondly, they don't have to do any guessing about March, 1999. When positives are born after that date, you know it wasn't effective then. If a positive was born in 2001, it wasn't effective in 2000. If a positive is born in 2002, it wasn't effective in 2001. This isn't rocket science. If you're missing chickens Wednesday morning, something got in the hen house Tuesday night.
The USDA clearly isn't interested in the effective date of the ban. They are so hell-bent on opening the border they've lost the use of common sense and grade-school reasoning. They're simply BSing us and hoping we don't catch it. Do you think this is the only time they've resorted to BS on this issue? Some people wonder why R-CALF is taking these sold-out clowns to court?
"A rule pending final approval by USDA would allow all Canadian cattle born after March of 1999, 18 months after Canada implemented its feed ban, into the country on an essentially unrestricted basis. When Dr. John Clifford, the top veterinarian for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that proposed final rule earlier this year, he conceded the March, 1999 date had been a "back of the envelope" calculation that surmised an 18-month window would be sufficient to allow Canada's feed ban to take effect. "
That statement tells it all right there, folks. Don't you think the effective date just might be important enough to warrant a little more than a "back of the envelope calculation"? Good Grief! First of all, this whole deal depends on when and even if Canada's feed ban became effective. Secondly, they don't have to do any guessing about March, 1999. When positives are born after that date, you know it wasn't effective then. If a positive was born in 2001, it wasn't effective in 2000. If a positive is born in 2002, it wasn't effective in 2001. This isn't rocket science. If you're missing chickens Wednesday morning, something got in the hen house Tuesday night.
The USDA clearly isn't interested in the effective date of the ban. They are so hell-bent on opening the border they've lost the use of common sense and grade-school reasoning. They're simply BSing us and hoping we don't catch it. Do you think this is the only time they've resorted to BS on this issue? Some people wonder why R-CALF is taking these sold-out clowns to court?