Both R-CALF and NCBA Question Border Opening

Help Support CattleToday:

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,922
Reaction score
33
Location
Northeast Montana
U.S. Cattle Producers Disagree with USDA Plans to Allow into the U.S. Older Canadian Cattle, Beef Products

Billings, Mont., Nov 17 - On Wednesday Ron DeHaven, administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), announced the agency plans to revise its bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) restrictions. Under this new proposal, Canadian cattle over 30 months of age would be allowed into the U.S. by mid-2006. R-CALF USA President-Elect Chuck Kiker made the following statement in reaction to this announcement:

"USDA's plan to lift U.S. import restrictions that would allow Canadian over-thirty-month (OTM) cattle into the U.S. by mid-2006 shows the agency is continuing its push to give market access to our competitors before we regain our lost export markets abroad. In addition, DeHaven's comments show USDA is ignoring the increased risk these older Canadian cattle pose to the U.S. cattle herd and to U.S. consumers, which is particularly disconcerting because USDA scientists have determined these older Canadian cattle to be of higher risk.

"R-CALF is concerned with the BSE prevalence rate in Canada (4 cases) in relation to that of the United States (1 case). While we praise USDA for its efforts to reopen our beef export markets, its work toward reopening the Japanese market is concentrated around animals 21 months of age and younger. On the other hand, this latest proposal by USDA will allow into the U.S. foreign cattle 30 months of age and older, and the associated beef products from those animals.

"At some point, all countries that import and export cattle and beef products must reach agreement on the highest standards of rules for global beef trade.

"Any effort by the agency to move ahead with these plans not only will increase the financial risks to U.S. cattle producers, but also potentially expose the U.S. to an increased risk of importing BSE into the United States.

"R-CALF's original case against USDA (filed in January 2005), in our efforts to force the agency to withdraw its Final Rule that allowed into the U.S. younger Canadian cattle, has not yet been resolved. R-CALF is continuing, in federal court, efforts to strengthen our BSE protections, and how our case is resolved will decide whether or not USDA can go forward with a new rule for older cattle. If this case is settled in R-CALF's favor, it obviously would preempt any attempt by USDA to write another rule for older animals.

"R-CALF was granted a preliminary injunction on March 2 that stopped USDA's rule from taking effect on March 7, as the agency had planned, but was overturned on USDA's appeal in July. Canadian cattle younger than 30 months of age began entering the U.S. on July 18.

"We are still drafting a petition for a court hearing on a permanent ban against Canadian slaughter and feeder cattle. All of the scientific arguments that we used to win the preliminary injunction are even stronger against allowing OTM cattle into the U.S., and even USDA scientists have repeatedly made clear the risk of importing older Canadian cattle into the United States.

"It's important that beef consumers understand this proposal by USDA makes it more critical than ever to implement Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling at once so consumers can make informed decisions when choosing between USA Beef or foreign beef products for their families."

----------------------------------

Today 11/18/2005 7:08:00 PM


NCBA Statement On Cattle Trade With Canada



"Yesterday, NCBA 's animal health scientist Dr. Gary Weber joined me in representing U.S. cattlemen at a meeting in Canada to continue pushing for science-based resolution of all animal health issues between the two countries. The meeting included leading officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Cattlemen's Association and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.



"NCBA and its state affiliates have been frustrated by the lack of access to the Canadian market for U.S. feeder and breeding cattle. While progress has been made to open the Canadian border to the movement of feeder cattle year-round, significant barriers still exist to the movement of breeding cattle.



"That said, progress was made at this week's meeting. We expect resolution on Canada's restrictions on bluetongue for all classes of U.S. cattle to end by mid-2006, after completion of an ongoing risk assessment project. On anaplasmosis, NCBA and APHIS made clear at the meeting the United States' expectation is that any risk mitigation measures are science-based and allow for expanded cattle trade into Canada.



"NCBA will not support advancing resumption of trade with Canada on cattle over 30 months until science-based harmonization is achieved on all animal health issues. There has been discussion about such a rule in media reports this week despite the fact that a proposed rule has not been introduced by USDA. As with every rule-making process, there will be an opportunity for comment. When such a proposal is published, NCBA will maintain the need for harmonization to ensure fair trade between the two countries.



"NCBA's commitment to free trade is well-documented, and we speak with great credibility on this issue. Normalization of trade is our goal, but normalization is a two-way street and can only be achieved if trade provisions are equitable.



"NCBA will continue to encourage the USDA to make science-based decisions relative to trade of beef and cattle. NCBA will never favor any change in trade policy that threatens our herd health or the safety of our food supply. We do not feel that Canadian cattle pose any such threat, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. However, Canada's restrictions on U.S. breeding stock and feeder cattle - especially those related to anaplasmosis and bluetongue – have placed undue hardship on America's cattle producers for too long. NCBA will continue to be at the table to fight for equitable trade for U.S. cattlemen.



"Earlier this year, NCBA was instrumental in convincing USDA to limit both live cattle and boxed beef imports from Canada to 30 months of age and younger. Our producer-members adopted this policy based on sound science and in the interest of fair trade."
 
slow rule-making = 10+ years :mad: :(


Today 11/22/2005 7:53:00 AM


NCBA Balks At Canadian Cattle Over 30 Months



The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, irritated by slow rule-making in Canada that has blocked U.S. breeding cattle from heading north, has said it will not support a USDA rule, to be issued in 2006, that would allow the import from Canada of live cattle over 30 months of age.

"NCBA's commitment to free trade is well documented, and we speak with great credibility on this issue," said Terry Stokes, NCBA chief executive. "Normalization of trade is our goal, but normalization is a two-way street."

Stokes and NCBA's animal health expert Dr. Gary Weber met with Canadian Food Inspection Agency personnel, as well as representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association late last week to discuss access to the Canadian market of U.S. feeder and breeding cattle. The feeder cattle issues seem to be moving toward resolution, Stokes said, but restrictions on breeding stock, especially related to bluetongue and anaplasmosis, remain burdensome.

"Earlier this year, NCBA was instrumental in convincing USDA to limit both live cattle and boxed beef imports from Canada to 30 months of age or younger," Stokes said. "Our producer-members adopted this policy based on sound science and in the interest of free trade."[/b]
 
Oldtimer":2kwm2s10 said:
slow rule-making = 10+ years :mad: :(



. The feeder cattle issues seem to be moving toward resolution, Stokes said, but restrictions on breeding stock, especially related to bluetongue and anaplasmosis, remain burdensome.

"b]

Leave the border closed to breeding stock both ways then .
 
frenchie":3vjrbs46 said:
Oldtimer":3vjrbs46 said:
slow rule-making = 10+ years :mad: :(



. The feeder cattle issues seem to be moving toward resolution, Stokes said, but restrictions on breeding stock, especially related to bluetongue and anaplasmosis, remain burdensome.

"b]

Leave the border closed to breeding stock both ways then .

So what do you say Ot ,So Why don,t you take this one step further and close the Montana border to any stock over 30 months in or out from surrounding states..

Hell lets have all imported or exported food stopped and turned back at the Montana border
 
Does anyone find it a bit strange that Japan, will require beef to be under 20 months of age, but now we are gonna accept beef that is 30 months of age...
 
houstoncutter":2glfs5oh said:
Does anyone find it a bit strange that Japan, will require beef to be under 20 months of age, but now we are gonna accept beef that is 30 months of age...
I don't find it a bit strange. I wouldn't be scared to eat any healthy animal over 30 mo. Do you think we should do something or not do something because that's Japans policy. Hell there wouldn't be any Christians left here. We would all be Buddists or what ever the Japs worship.
 
Oldtimer":s6nwx5kj said:
"Any effort by the agency to move ahead with these plans not only will increase the financial risks to U.S. cattle producers, but also potentially expose the U.S. to an increased risk of importing BSE into the United States.

You already have B.S.E in the U.S..Did they forget that. ;-)
 
La4angus its very srange, the Japs and their science says that they want there animals under 20 months. Of course USDA and their wisdom say nope your wrong and it should be 30 months. Think I will have to side with the Japs on this one. We should set a standard industry wide and stick to it until its proven wrong.
 
frenchie":n4cy2wbb said:
Oldtimer":n4cy2wbb said:
"Any effort by the agency to move ahead with these plans not only will increase the financial risks to U.S. cattle producers, but also potentially expose the U.S. to an increased risk of importing BSE into the United States.

You already have B.S.E in the U.S..Did they forget that. ;-)

Nope- but did you read what it says closely "to an increased risk"....The US is a country with only 1 origin case-- Canada has had 4 in a herd about 7 times smaller- one of which was born after the feedban was supposed to be in effect...

That is an increased risk in my book.......
 
houstoncutter":3joni6mj said:
La4angus its very srange, the Japs and their science says that they want there animals under 20 months. .
And their religion says to worship Budda. So when are you gonna start, or have you already joined them.
 
Oldtimer":ipbhy9dc said:
frenchie":ipbhy9dc said:
Oldtimer":ipbhy9dc said:
"Any effort by the agency to move ahead with these plans not only will increase the financial risks to U.S. cattle producers, but also potentially expose the U.S. to an increased risk of importing BSE into the United States.

You already have B.S.E in the U.S..Did they forget that. ;-)

Nope- but did you read what it says closely "to an increased risk"....The US is a country with only 1 origin case-- Canada has had 4 in a herd about 7 times smaller- one of which was born after the feedban was supposed to be in effect...

That is an increased risk in my book.......


Ah but you testing program was questionable. All you need to do is look at the events surrounding your native case .

How many others.Ot
 
Yep La4Angus gonna try that budda stuff out about the same time as USDA gets its head outa its rump. Some folks on this board seem to think that American consumers dont think its strange that USDA sends out conflicting data. So which ones is it L4Angus, if 30 months is safe, then lets go with that and tell the Japs to stick it where the sun dont shine. If its 20 months as the Japs and other countries claim, lets do 20 months.We as a industry need to quit sending out conflicting signals.
 
houstoncutter":2ia3nn58 said:
We as a industry need to quit sending out conflicting signals.
That's really a good one, Cutter. Especially coming from one of you R-CALF'ers. Why don't you tell Leo and Bullard that's what we need to do? Because I sure agree with you. You might not be such a bad guy, after all. :D
 
Texan":1my5cjc3 said:
]
That's really a good one, Cutter. Especially coming from one of you R-CALF'ers. Why don't you tell Leo and Bullard that's what we need to do? Because I sure agree with you. You might not be such a bad guy, after all. :D
Hey Texan, You think Leo and Bullard will listen to the Cutter. I sure can't agree with him. He is a long ways from not being a bad guy. :lol:
 
houstoncutter":1qs9hjq8 said:
We as a industry need to quit sending out conflicting signals.


Texan- Would that be like about 7-8 years ago when NCBA initiated and were strongly promoting the M-COOL law- telling how important it was to identify our product so it could compete in the global trade- testifying to Congress that polls showed over 80% of consumers wanted the ability to choose where their beef comes from- that it was a necessity to promote fair trade--telling producers and convincing me of how important it was to be honest with consumers.........BUT

then along came the Big Packer money influence which is now inrooted into NCBA and a complete FLIP-FLOP....Now NCBA is preaching that M-COOL is bad- that the packer and retailers fraud of removing import marks and restamping with the USDA stamp to pass off imported meat to consumers as a US product is good - and that R-CALF, who picked up the COOL and fair trade flag that they sold out, is evil....

Texan- You want to talk of conflicting signals.....What signal did that send cattle producers?

And now that they are losing thousands of members to R-CALF they start talking the fair trade issue again :? ....

I quit NCBA because of that inconsistency- I think I will stay with the organization that represents the cattleman and hasn't been bought out yet with the conflicting interests of the packers and retailers.....At least 18,000 R-CALF members must agree with me, many of which used to belong to NCBA..
 
WellTexan,Icant tell those folks what to that is right,they have to call em as they see em. I cant tell NCBA my opinion anymore because I am no longer a member anymore. I quit being a member when everything got merged together. Cattlemen and cattlewomen need a organization that is going to look out for their best interests of its members and not packers. Maybe it should be changed to National Packers Association.

USDA comes out with rules that we are supposed to follow and the ink isnt even dry and Packers are whispering in their ear that changes need to be made. Lo and behold rules get changed, of course if NCBA makes a comment on a issue, its another one of those, we will take it under advisement.
 
houstoncutter":whb6imp7 said:
Cattlemen and cattlewomen need a organization that is going to look out for their best interests of its members and not packers.
I don't really disagree with that, Cutter. But I guess we're just different. I feel like our best interests lie with profitable packers to move our product. Not profitable lawyers to litigate every trade issue. And not more government regulations that hamper that trade. A profitable packer is in my best interests. You guys go ahead an pay your lawyers. I'd rather the packer have my donation.
 
Texan, can you say monoply? thats what started in the 90's when our prices were poor, the packers were making record profits..... The big guys started buying out the smaller packers... As well as pouring money into building and updating their plants. That also helped to keep the profits from looking even larger. Price of beef in the stores was about the same as it is now.... Of course they made more because they were paying about a 1/3 of what their paying for steers now....Do I want a packer profitable most definately. do I wont a monoply.......NOPE......Their are laws on the books to control this very problem.... Of coure that would mean chicken#### crooks in goverment no matter what their party would have to stand up and be counted. NCBA should be at the head of the pack at this fight, but alas they are gonna take it under advisement.
Just a question Texn are you a cow calf producer?
 
Cutter, I'm just different than you Leo worshippers and that's all there is to it. Businesses grow and evolve into larger ones. It's not just packers and oil companies that consolidate---cow-calf guys, feeders and auctions do it, too. We've already got laws on the books to take care of it, but you R-CALF guys want more laws and more lawyers. I want less. Captive supplies seem to be a big problem for you guys---you want to determine who a packer does business with. I say it's nobody's damn business, because it'll never stop there.

I'm going to be lazy and just paste in part of a post I made here a long time ago that pretty well sums up my feelings on all the damn laws you guys want. There's no reason for me to try to explain it all again because I haven't changed my mind.....



I believe in capitalism, free enterprise and less government intervention. I don't think R-CALF does. But, let's say we ban packer ownership and any type of captive supplies like some of you guys want. And its not just R-CALF members that would like to see this, by the way. What's the next logical step in that sequence?

Maybe stocker operators would like to ban cattle feeders from running stocker cattle? That gives the feeder an unfair advantage. I'm a cow-calf operator. Maybe I think we should have a law to keep stocker outfits from running cow-calf operations, too. That takes them out of the market for my calves. That's not fair! Why don't we have a law to stop futures basis trades and forward contracting? That takes those buyers out of the cash market later.

And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries. I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle. That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law......



Cutter, we just can't continue making more laws to define who people do business with because it never stops!
 
Texan":1dnt4dqa said:
Cutter, I'm just different than you Leo worshippers and that's all there is to it. Businesses grow and evolve into larger ones. It's not just packers and oil companies that consolidate---cow-calf guys, feeders and auctions do it, too. We've already got laws on the books to take care of it, but you R-CALF guys want more laws and more lawyers. I want less. Captive supplies seem to be a big problem for you guys---you want to determine who a packer does business with. I say it's nobody's damn business, because it'll never stop there.

I'm going to be lazy and just paste in part of a post I made here a long time ago that pretty well sums up my feelings on all the damn laws you guys want. There's no reason for me to try to explain it all again because I haven't changed my mind.....



I believe in capitalism, free enterprise and less government intervention. I don't think R-CALF does. But, let's say we ban packer ownership and any type of captive supplies like some of you guys want. And its not just R-CALF members that would like to see this, by the way. What's the next logical step in that sequence?

Maybe stocker operators would like to ban cattle feeders from running stocker cattle? That gives the feeder an unfair advantage. I'm a cow-calf operator. Maybe I think we should have a law to keep stocker outfits from running cow-calf operations, too. That takes them out of the market for my calves. That's not fair! Why don't we have a law to stop futures basis trades and forward contracting? That takes those buyers out of the cash market later.

And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries. I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle. That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law......



Cutter, we just can't continue making more laws to define who people do business with because it never stops!

:clap: :clap: :cowboy: :clap:
 

Latest posts

Top