Related tags
ami animal health Argentina australia beef beef board beef checkoff beef prices brucellosis bse canada cattle cattle markets change consumers cool farm bill foot and mouth Gov. Brian Schwei horse jess peterson jon wooster laws livestock title meat packers nais ncba packers and stock pork poultry press release promising start r-calf represent responsibility sb311 trade united states cat usda yellowstone natioMonday, January 21. 2008
Advertising
If you have read here long you know that while I am not fond of the beef checkoff, I don't mind it either. Advertising never hurts, unless you advertise like this. Actually I know it's not an advertisement, but it might be mistaken as one.
Continue reading "Advertising" »
Tuesday, January 8. 2008
Argentina
U.S. Cattlemen To Congress: Fix USDA’s Argentina Mess
USCA (Jan. 7, 2008) - Exactly one year ago this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a little-known and little-publicized proposal to import beef from Argentina, despite that country’s repeated problems with foot and mouth disease (FMD).
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) has made blocking USDA’s action one of its top priorities in 2008.
"FMD is the most contagious and deadly disease facing America’s ranchers today. An outbreak in the United States would devastate the industry virtually overnight," said Doug Zalesky, USDA’s International Trade Committee co-chairman. "It’s a mystery why our government would even consider importing that kind of trouble into America."
Under the USDA proposal, beef and cattle imports would be allowed from areas of Argentina that are considered to be FMD free. USCA says enforcing such a plan would be impossible and shipments containing FMD would likely slip through the cracks.
"FMD is an airborne infection; it’s not going to stop at an imaginary border erected by USDA," Zalesky expalined. "USCA does not believe that Argentina can be trusted to police itself or keep America’s best interests at heart. After all, this is a nation that intentionally defaults on U.S. loans and routinely attacks the U.S. within the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
Even after a year of consideration, no final decision has been published by USDA on its proposal, and USCA is growing impatient with the agency’s inaction.
A resolution passed by the USCA board of directors requests that Congress "take whatever steps necessary to block the proposed rule and to protect the domestic herd from foot and mouth disease."
USCA is also calling on all U.S. livestock producers to get involved to defeat USDA’s proposal. Other groups are following USCA’s lead on the issue. Numerous state cattle organizations have sent letters to Congress and USDA opposing the proposed policy and have passed resolutions against regionalized trade with Argentina.
"We can defeat USDA’s proposal if we unify in this effort," noted Zalesky. "I encourage all cattle producers to become engaged in the process of protecting the U.S. herd."
U.S. Cattlemen’s Association Policy on Regionalized Beef Trade with Argentina:
Whereas:
Foot and Mouth Disease is considered by the American Veterinary Medical Association to be the most economically devastating of all livestock disease.
Whereas: An outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the United States could leave independent cattle producers in financial ruins as entire herds would need to be culled and international markets would be closed indefinitely.
Whereas:
APHIS/USDA has proposed to allow beef and cattle imports from regions of Argentina despite Argentina’s documented Foot and Mouth Disease problems.
Whereas:
Argentina cannot be trusted to keep infected beef from entering the United States and has shown little concern for rural America by defaulting on loans made by U.S. companies and by opposing U.S. farmers in international trade cases.
Whereas:
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association passed a resolution in July opposing the APHIS/USDA plan because it is unworkable and could create gateways for diseased Brazilian and Argentine beef.
Whereas: APHIS/USDA has yet to rule out regionalized beef trade from Argentina despite an outcry of opposition from America’s ranchers.
Now be it resolved:
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association calls on APHIS/USDA to immediately reject the pending regionalized beef trade plan and reaffirm its commitment to protect the domestic herd from Foot and Mouth Disease.
Now be it further resolved:
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association asks the United States Congress to take whatever steps necessary to block the proposed rule and to protect the domestic herd from Foot and Mouth Disease.
Saturday, December 22. 2007
Checkoff Changes
Damn computers, I had a whole big commentary wrote up and the damn computer ate it. Sorry I can't recreate it.
Cattlemen propose changes in federal beef checkoff law
Quick and dirty. I oppose any raise in the rate for the checkoff and most guys I know do to. They feel the checkoff takes enough out of our pocket without raising it. I do like the idea of a periodic referendum about whether to keep it. Give the people paying the bills a little power over the situation. The Beef Board/NCBA will surely oppose this though so it will not happen.
Mentioned, but barely is the USCA proposal to use some of the Beef Checkoff funds to promote US beef. I'm thinking this would garner a lot of support from Cattlemen if brought to a vote. Probably why we will never get the chance to vote on it, the Beef Board/NCBA won't want to allow it.
Lot's of talk of change in the Checkoff program. Whether that talk will involve any actual changes we will have to wait and see.
They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself. Andy Warhol
Cattlemen propose changes in federal beef checkoff law
Cattle producers in Nebraska and other states are pushing for what would be the first significant changes to the national beef checkoff program since it started more than 20 years ago.
It's the program behind the popular "Beef, It's What's for Dinner" ads that feature the distinctive voice of actor Sam Elliott. At a dollar a head, the checkoff fee pools about $80 million annually for beef promotion, research and education, among other things.
But more than two decades of inflation have decreased the buying power of that dollar, checkoff supporters say. Some want to raise the checkoff to $2 and make other changes to the program, which remains much the same since Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to start in the mid-1980s, said Don Ricketts of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Quick and dirty. I oppose any raise in the rate for the checkoff and most guys I know do to. They feel the checkoff takes enough out of our pocket without raising it. I do like the idea of a periodic referendum about whether to keep it. Give the people paying the bills a little power over the situation. The Beef Board/NCBA will surely oppose this though so it will not happen.
Mentioned, but barely is the USCA proposal to use some of the Beef Checkoff funds to promote US beef. I'm thinking this would garner a lot of support from Cattlemen if brought to a vote. Probably why we will never get the chance to vote on it, the Beef Board/NCBA won't want to allow it.
Lot's of talk of change in the Checkoff program. Whether that talk will involve any actual changes we will have to wait and see.
They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself. Andy Warhol
Friday, December 7. 2007
Senate Bill 311
I received the following press release and reprint it here in its entirety.
I would have to say I agree with the USCA position here and urge people to contact their Senators to oppose this. I have.
UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 339 - San Lucas, CA 93954
Email: usca@uscattlemen.org
Web Site: www.uscattlemen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jess Peterson
December 6, 2007
USCA Supports Safe Horse Transportation; Opposes Senate Bill 311
USCA (December 6, 2007) - The United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) is urging cattle producers and all those involved in animal agriculture to speak out against U.S. Senate Bill 311.
Senator Mary Landrieu (D- LA) has succeeded in scheduling Senate Bill 311 for a floor vote, although a specific date has not been set for debate. Senator Landrieu’s bill has 37 co-sponsors.
Senate Bill 311 reads "To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes."
The American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) recently issued an alert stating, "This bill may have far-reaching effects on our members and their ability to buy and sell horses. Members may sell horses unaware of the buyer's intent with the animal and to where it may be transported, possibly resulting in legal ramifications for the seller. This legislation is vague and ambiguous and its passage could have far-reaching consequences."
"The language in this bill is problematic for any horse owner and USCA believes it could set a precedent for the rest of animal agriculture," said Chuck Kiker, USCA Director Region V, Chair of USCA’s Animal Welfare Committee. "USCA encourages producers to get involved by educating their senators regarding the consequences of this legislation. People involved in animal agriculture need to remind their senators of the people involved in horse production and how a bill like this would affect them."
Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry’s voice on Capitol Hill. For more information visit www.uscattlemen.org
I would have to say I agree with the USCA position here and urge people to contact their Senators to oppose this. I have.
Friday, November 9. 2007
Represent
Who does NCBA represent - U.S. cattlemen or packers?
As you see, I am not the only one that thinks the NCBA is nothing but an arm of the big meat packers. The NCBA needs to understand, just because something is good for the meat packers, doesn't mean it is good for cattlemen. For anybody out there interested in this kind of thing, check out the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA). They are interested in working for cattle producers in Washington. In fact they are run completely by working cattlemen and want to grow the organization that way and maintain it only as working Cattlemen.
Moo may represent an idea, but only the cow knows. Mason Cooley
What should an independent cattle producer believe about the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)?
I recently received a letter from the NCBA requesting my membership in the organization. In this letter, the NCBA claims to be lobbying in Washington, D.C., on issues important to cattle producers. This is true - the NCBA is very actively lobbying on issues important to cattlemen. They specifically claim to have improved language to fix country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in the upcoming farm bill.
You would think by the inference of the letter the NCBA was front and center in fighting for COOL. Well, it is true the NCBA was front and center in the debate and fight over COOL, the only problem is the NCBA was trying desperately to kill COOL. The NCBA was working with the American Meat Institute (AMI) to kill the COOL law or gut the effectiveness of the law. The AMI aggressively lobbies for the packers' best interests.
.....
In another segment of the NCBA's letter, it mentions success with the farm bill debate in the House of Representatives in regards to competition issues.
The NCBA was successful in blocking the inclusion of any language in the farm bill improving competition in cattle markets. They go on to say, “The inclusion of competition language is still possible in the Senate, and the NCBA will continue to lobby against this.”
Does this sound like an organization that is lobbying for cattlemen or meatpackers?
As you see, I am not the only one that thinks the NCBA is nothing but an arm of the big meat packers. The NCBA needs to understand, just because something is good for the meat packers, doesn't mean it is good for cattlemen. For anybody out there interested in this kind of thing, check out the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA). They are interested in working for cattle producers in Washington. In fact they are run completely by working cattlemen and want to grow the organization that way and maintain it only as working Cattlemen.
Moo may represent an idea, but only the cow knows. Mason Cooley
Tuesday, October 30. 2007
Livestock Title
I see that there is now a Livestock Title in the Senate version of the Farm bill which has moved out of Committee. Some of the things in it are:
These things are interesting. I didn't understand the Special Counsel at USDA until I attended a meeting of the USCA last night. It's simple. In the whole almost 100 year existence of the Packers and Stockyards Act, there has never been a way the USDA could prosecute any violations. All they could do was recommend the Justice department to prosecute something. Packers and Stockyard stuff was never important to the Justice Department so not much happened. The Special Counsel will be able to prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards act. I've always said that we don't need more laws controlling what the packers do, we just need to enforce the laws all ready in place. This might do that.
So, do we really need the ban on Packer ownership of livestock? This is creating a lot of controversy in the industry. A lot of feeders forward contract to the packers or sell on a formula basis and they feel this might violate this provision and feeders will no longer be able to forward contract to packers. I'll be right up front and say I don't know. Maybe there needs to be provisions in the Title about how forward contracting can be done and not violate the ownership ban.
The house COOL provision is included. Actually I heard there is a wording change to tighten up the mandatory aspect of it but COOL is there. Everybody knows my opinion of it, I've talked enough about it. This is going to happen. Help the beef industry? I'm not so sure.
Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat. this one is interesting. I can't find all the provisions now but this is a compromise. There will be some limited Federal oversight of these plants and the plants have to have over 25 employees but if they meet all the requirements they will be able to ship over state lines. I find this one heartening. I personally am not looking to ship state inspected meats over state lines but there are a lot of people who could use this flexibility in their business. Hell, a rancher like me could even start selling grass fed beef straight to the public if they wanted and not have to worry about transporting the critter to a federally inspected facility which are few and far between in this area.
I will point out that the Farm Bill is up for debate on the Senate floor and these things aren't a done deal. Even if they live through the floor vote then these things have to be comprimised with the House bill which is even a bigger problem. Compromise bills are usually a hodge-podge of stuff that never makes anybody happy. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Forward progress happens but slowly. The question becomes, is progress a good thing for all?
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson
-- Banning packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter;
-- Creation of an Office of Special Counsel at USDA that would enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agriculture Fair Practices Act;
-- House compromise on country of origin labeling;
-- Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat.
These things are interesting. I didn't understand the Special Counsel at USDA until I attended a meeting of the USCA last night. It's simple. In the whole almost 100 year existence of the Packers and Stockyards Act, there has never been a way the USDA could prosecute any violations. All they could do was recommend the Justice department to prosecute something. Packers and Stockyard stuff was never important to the Justice Department so not much happened. The Special Counsel will be able to prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards act. I've always said that we don't need more laws controlling what the packers do, we just need to enforce the laws all ready in place. This might do that.
So, do we really need the ban on Packer ownership of livestock? This is creating a lot of controversy in the industry. A lot of feeders forward contract to the packers or sell on a formula basis and they feel this might violate this provision and feeders will no longer be able to forward contract to packers. I'll be right up front and say I don't know. Maybe there needs to be provisions in the Title about how forward contracting can be done and not violate the ownership ban.
The house COOL provision is included. Actually I heard there is a wording change to tighten up the mandatory aspect of it but COOL is there. Everybody knows my opinion of it, I've talked enough about it. This is going to happen. Help the beef industry? I'm not so sure.
Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat. this one is interesting. I can't find all the provisions now but this is a compromise. There will be some limited Federal oversight of these plants and the plants have to have over 25 employees but if they meet all the requirements they will be able to ship over state lines. I find this one heartening. I personally am not looking to ship state inspected meats over state lines but there are a lot of people who could use this flexibility in their business. Hell, a rancher like me could even start selling grass fed beef straight to the public if they wanted and not have to worry about transporting the critter to a federally inspected facility which are few and far between in this area.
I will point out that the Farm Bill is up for debate on the Senate floor and these things aren't a done deal. Even if they live through the floor vote then these things have to be comprimised with the House bill which is even a bigger problem. Compromise bills are usually a hodge-podge of stuff that never makes anybody happy. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Forward progress happens but slowly. The question becomes, is progress a good thing for all?
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, October 4. 2007
USCA Press Release
UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 339 - San Lucas, CA 93954
Email: usca@uscattlemen.org
Web Site: www.uscattlemen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2007
U.S. Cattlemen on Senate Resolution of Disapproval
USCA (Oct. 3, 2007) - Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) today introduced in the United States Senate a Resolution of Disapproval that, if passed, expresses the U.S. Senate’s dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) intention to resume trade in older cattle and beef derived from older cattle with Canada. Senator Dorgan is joined by Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jon Tester, (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and John Barrasso (R-WY).
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) lauded Senator Dorgan’s action, saying public debate over the resolution will highlight problematic provisions in USDA’s Final Rule on the matter and could lead to appropriate and meaningful modifications.
USDA published what is commonly referred to as its "OTM Rule" in the September 18 Federal Register. The agency intends to resume trade in over thirty month of age cattle and beef derived from over thirty month cattle when the 60-day waiting period concludes on November 19.
A Resolution of Disapproval does not impact agency policy unless both the U.S. House and Senate pass it and the President supports it with his signature. Senator Dorgan’s Resolution of Disapproval will, however, put USDA on notice that the Senate strongly disapproves of the Final Rule as written.
"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) applauds Senator Dorgan and Senator Enzi for leading the charge on this resolution," said Chuck Kiker, Beaumont, Texas, USCA Director and Animal Health Committee Chairman. "This will heighten public debate and will certainly enhance public awareness of USDA’s problematic Final Rule."
"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has urged USDA to reconsider its decision to establish March 1, 1999 as Canada’s effective feed ban enforcement date," continued Kiker. "Five of Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were born after March 1999, with two born in 2001 and one born as late as 2002, a full three years after the supposed effective feed ban enforcement date. USCA believes the Final Rule should be modified so that only cattle and beef derived from cattle born after January 1, 2003 should be allowed entry into the U.S."
"Recent events surrounding the discovery of bone found in shipments of beef to Korea have clearly demonstrated the packing industry’s inability to comply with export requirements in terms of proper removal of specified materials," commented Leo McDonnell, Columbus, Mont., USCA Director Emeritus and Animal Health Committee member. "These compliance problems raise questions about the packing industry’s effectiveness in removing specified risk materials from animals potentially exposed to contaminated feed in Canada."
McDonnell pointed out that U.S. beef export markets still remain partially closed with key trading partners. Fears related to commingling of U.S. beef with Canadian beef have created concern among U.S. trading partners.
"These difficulties will be much harder to alleviate if we now open the border to Canadian animals that clearly have a potential for exposure to contaminated feed," continued McDonnell. "Modifying the Final Rule will provide more assurance that cattle potentially exposed to contaminated feed will not enter the U.S., putting the U.S. cattle industry in a defensible position with key trading partners."
"Our export customers are allowed to set their own safety standards for importing food products. As a country, and in the spirit of previous U.S. negotiations and trade positions that allow countries flexibility in setting their own import standards when food safety is a concern, one would hope the U.S. would seek higher standards with regard to the safety of beef and cattle imports and not seek the lowest or minimal standards," noted McDonnell.
"USDA’s actions are of concern because they tilt the ‘trading field’ away from U.S. ranchers," he continued. "USDA’s Final Rule fails the litmus test for internationally practiced standards for harmonization, and puts the burden of the Canadian BSE problem squarely on the shoulders of U.S. ranchers. Under this rule, Canada would be able to resume full export volumes, while the U.S. has resumed less than half of our pre-BSE exports," he stated.
Pat Becker, President of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND), a USCA state affiliate, concurred saying, "USDA’s Final Rule should not be implemented until the U.S. regains export markets lost in 2003 and country of origin labeling is implemented. I-BAND and USCA support what Senator Dorgan has initiated and we will do whatever we can to ensure the resolution’s passage. Certainly, the ensuing debate will underscore the flaws in USDA’s Final Rule, which hopefully will lead to prudent modifications."
Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry’s voice on Capitol Hill. For more information visit www.uscattlemen.org
P.O. Box 339 - San Lucas, CA 93954
Email: usca@uscattlemen.org
Web Site: www.uscattlemen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2007
U.S. Cattlemen on Senate Resolution of Disapproval
USCA (Oct. 3, 2007) - Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) today introduced in the United States Senate a Resolution of Disapproval that, if passed, expresses the U.S. Senate’s dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) intention to resume trade in older cattle and beef derived from older cattle with Canada. Senator Dorgan is joined by Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jon Tester, (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and John Barrasso (R-WY).
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) lauded Senator Dorgan’s action, saying public debate over the resolution will highlight problematic provisions in USDA’s Final Rule on the matter and could lead to appropriate and meaningful modifications.
USDA published what is commonly referred to as its "OTM Rule" in the September 18 Federal Register. The agency intends to resume trade in over thirty month of age cattle and beef derived from over thirty month cattle when the 60-day waiting period concludes on November 19.
A Resolution of Disapproval does not impact agency policy unless both the U.S. House and Senate pass it and the President supports it with his signature. Senator Dorgan’s Resolution of Disapproval will, however, put USDA on notice that the Senate strongly disapproves of the Final Rule as written.
"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) applauds Senator Dorgan and Senator Enzi for leading the charge on this resolution," said Chuck Kiker, Beaumont, Texas, USCA Director and Animal Health Committee Chairman. "This will heighten public debate and will certainly enhance public awareness of USDA’s problematic Final Rule."
"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has urged USDA to reconsider its decision to establish March 1, 1999 as Canada’s effective feed ban enforcement date," continued Kiker. "Five of Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were born after March 1999, with two born in 2001 and one born as late as 2002, a full three years after the supposed effective feed ban enforcement date. USCA believes the Final Rule should be modified so that only cattle and beef derived from cattle born after January 1, 2003 should be allowed entry into the U.S."
"Recent events surrounding the discovery of bone found in shipments of beef to Korea have clearly demonstrated the packing industry’s inability to comply with export requirements in terms of proper removal of specified materials," commented Leo McDonnell, Columbus, Mont., USCA Director Emeritus and Animal Health Committee member. "These compliance problems raise questions about the packing industry’s effectiveness in removing specified risk materials from animals potentially exposed to contaminated feed in Canada."
McDonnell pointed out that U.S. beef export markets still remain partially closed with key trading partners. Fears related to commingling of U.S. beef with Canadian beef have created concern among U.S. trading partners.
"These difficulties will be much harder to alleviate if we now open the border to Canadian animals that clearly have a potential for exposure to contaminated feed," continued McDonnell. "Modifying the Final Rule will provide more assurance that cattle potentially exposed to contaminated feed will not enter the U.S., putting the U.S. cattle industry in a defensible position with key trading partners."
"Our export customers are allowed to set their own safety standards for importing food products. As a country, and in the spirit of previous U.S. negotiations and trade positions that allow countries flexibility in setting their own import standards when food safety is a concern, one would hope the U.S. would seek higher standards with regard to the safety of beef and cattle imports and not seek the lowest or minimal standards," noted McDonnell.
"USDA’s actions are of concern because they tilt the ‘trading field’ away from U.S. ranchers," he continued. "USDA’s Final Rule fails the litmus test for internationally practiced standards for harmonization, and puts the burden of the Canadian BSE problem squarely on the shoulders of U.S. ranchers. Under this rule, Canada would be able to resume full export volumes, while the U.S. has resumed less than half of our pre-BSE exports," he stated.
Pat Becker, President of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND), a USCA state affiliate, concurred saying, "USDA’s Final Rule should not be implemented until the U.S. regains export markets lost in 2003 and country of origin labeling is implemented. I-BAND and USCA support what Senator Dorgan has initiated and we will do whatever we can to ensure the resolution’s passage. Certainly, the ensuing debate will underscore the flaws in USDA’s Final Rule, which hopefully will lead to prudent modifications."
Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry’s voice on Capitol Hill. For more information visit www.uscattlemen.org
Thursday, September 27. 2007
Checkoff
I see that the USCA is starting a push to have part of the beef checkoff funds used to promote just domestic beef. This ties in really with the push USCA is making for Mandatory COOL. As long as the beef checkoff funds are used to promote beef, I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot over whether it is domestic beef or not.
Simple supply and demand. If demand is up for beef, whether it is us beef, organic beef, natural beef, or the usual corn fed beef, I will benefit. Real simple.
We not only interpret the character of events... we may also interpret our interpretations. Kenneth Burke
Simple supply and demand. If demand is up for beef, whether it is us beef, organic beef, natural beef, or the usual corn fed beef, I will benefit. Real simple.
We not only interpret the character of events... we may also interpret our interpretations. Kenneth Burke
Wednesday, September 19. 2007
Border Ruling
I know I am a little behind on this one but life sometimes gets in the way of things. The USDA has approved the import of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age into the US. This is, to say the least, a very controversial decision in Cattle producer circles which is why I say I should have commented on this sooner.
Why is this so controversial? It has to do with BSE and trade issues. The Internationally accepted age of cattle where you don't have to worry about BSE, is 30 months of age. As long as a critter is under 30 months of age you don't have to worry about BSE and over 30 months of age, you worry about it. This USDA rule recognizes Canada as a "minimal risk" country which is eligible to import cattle into the US over 30 months of age since they are at "minimal risk" of having BSE.
That's the basis of the controversy in producer circles. According to the NCBA and the meat packers, Canada is at "minimal risk" and should be allowed to import cattle and groups such as R-Calf and USCA think that Canada has a higher risk for BSE than "minimal" and don't want them importing cattle over 30 months of age into the country.
Some more information. (I lost the rest of this the first time around so I am trying to recreate it) As I said, this whole thing has to do with BSE. It is generally accepted that BSE is spread form cow to cow via feed. Use of cattle by products in the slaughter process being fed back to other cows starts and spreads BSE. Both Canad and the US instituted a feed ban a number of years ago that does not allow cattle to be fed back to cattle to prevent the start and spread of BSE, we won't go into my personal theory that there is a naturally occurring form of BSE. The US has had two domestic cases of BSE and Canada has had approximately 10 cases of BSE. Both cases in the US were in cows that were born after the feed ban was instituted. This is not the case with some of the Canadian cases. Some of these cattle were born after the feed ban was put in place. This leads producers in the US to question the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban and question whether Canada is actually a "minimal risk" country or not.
This is the whole situation that has led USCA to ask the USDA to change the rule calling Canada a "minimal risk" country for BSE and allow them to import cattle into the US. They claim that the importation of Canadian cattle will hurt our export markets since other countries don't want Canadian cattle.
So far I have just laid out the facts. Let me give you my take on the situation. Most people in the greater world stage aren't going to understand or want to know all the facts I have laid out here. They are going to see two things that don't make sense to them. They are going to see that the US wants countries around the world to accept beef from cattle that are over 30 months of age even though they have had BSE found in the country while stopping Canada from importing cattle over 30 months of age into the US because they have had cases of BSE in Canada. This appears to be sheer hypocrisy. They aren't going to care about when the feed ban was instituted and when the cattle were born in which country. They are just going to see the hypocrisy of the US position if the USCA were to prevail and Canada was not allowed to ship cattle over 30 months of age into the US.
Anybody that has read this site very long knows that I almost never defend the governments position on things and NEVER agree with the USDA on things. This time though I am going to have to give the USDA credit, I won't go so far as to defend them but give them credit. I truly believe they have done this with the thought in mind that if we want other countries to take our beef from cattle over 30 months of age, we have to bite the bullet and accept cattle from Canada and show the world that this is the right thing to do.
This is the thought I have had in mind all along with this situation and why you have never heard me ranting about this rule when it was proposed. We can try to explain away the differences in the US and Canadian BSE situation all we want, the perception of the situation is going to rule the day though. If we don't allow Canadian beef in over 30 months of age we will be seen as hypocritical when we try to get other countries to accept US beef over 30 months of age. Perception in this case trumps facts and we have to suck it up. Sorry if you don't like to hear that but that's the way it goes sometimes. We have to do things we don't like to move forward in life and this is one of those cases.
The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception. Walter Benjamin
Why is this so controversial? It has to do with BSE and trade issues. The Internationally accepted age of cattle where you don't have to worry about BSE, is 30 months of age. As long as a critter is under 30 months of age you don't have to worry about BSE and over 30 months of age, you worry about it. This USDA rule recognizes Canada as a "minimal risk" country which is eligible to import cattle into the US over 30 months of age since they are at "minimal risk" of having BSE.
That's the basis of the controversy in producer circles. According to the NCBA and the meat packers, Canada is at "minimal risk" and should be allowed to import cattle and groups such as R-Calf and USCA think that Canada has a higher risk for BSE than "minimal" and don't want them importing cattle over 30 months of age into the country.
Some more information. (I lost the rest of this the first time around so I am trying to recreate it) As I said, this whole thing has to do with BSE. It is generally accepted that BSE is spread form cow to cow via feed. Use of cattle by products in the slaughter process being fed back to other cows starts and spreads BSE. Both Canad and the US instituted a feed ban a number of years ago that does not allow cattle to be fed back to cattle to prevent the start and spread of BSE, we won't go into my personal theory that there is a naturally occurring form of BSE. The US has had two domestic cases of BSE and Canada has had approximately 10 cases of BSE. Both cases in the US were in cows that were born after the feed ban was instituted. This is not the case with some of the Canadian cases. Some of these cattle were born after the feed ban was put in place. This leads producers in the US to question the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban and question whether Canada is actually a "minimal risk" country or not.
This is the whole situation that has led USCA to ask the USDA to change the rule calling Canada a "minimal risk" country for BSE and allow them to import cattle into the US. They claim that the importation of Canadian cattle will hurt our export markets since other countries don't want Canadian cattle.
So far I have just laid out the facts. Let me give you my take on the situation. Most people in the greater world stage aren't going to understand or want to know all the facts I have laid out here. They are going to see two things that don't make sense to them. They are going to see that the US wants countries around the world to accept beef from cattle that are over 30 months of age even though they have had BSE found in the country while stopping Canada from importing cattle over 30 months of age into the US because they have had cases of BSE in Canada. This appears to be sheer hypocrisy. They aren't going to care about when the feed ban was instituted and when the cattle were born in which country. They are just going to see the hypocrisy of the US position if the USCA were to prevail and Canada was not allowed to ship cattle over 30 months of age into the US.
Anybody that has read this site very long knows that I almost never defend the governments position on things and NEVER agree with the USDA on things. This time though I am going to have to give the USDA credit, I won't go so far as to defend them but give them credit. I truly believe they have done this with the thought in mind that if we want other countries to take our beef from cattle over 30 months of age, we have to bite the bullet and accept cattle from Canada and show the world that this is the right thing to do.
This is the thought I have had in mind all along with this situation and why you have never heard me ranting about this rule when it was proposed. We can try to explain away the differences in the US and Canadian BSE situation all we want, the perception of the situation is going to rule the day though. If we don't allow Canadian beef in over 30 months of age we will be seen as hypocritical when we try to get other countries to accept US beef over 30 months of age. Perception in this case trumps facts and we have to suck it up. Sorry if you don't like to hear that but that's the way it goes sometimes. We have to do things we don't like to move forward in life and this is one of those cases.
The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception. Walter Benjamin
Friday, July 13. 2007
COOL
I've been staying out of the recent fray about COOL being waged by NCBA, AMI, R-Calf, and USCA. I've been really busy and haven't wanted to deal with the situation. The law is here and I have to pay the costs of it, so why argue about it. R-Calf and USCA are very aggressively pushing for it and AMI doesn't want it and NCBA is lukewarm about the situation. Google around and you can find out about the battle going on if you really want. What I wanted to do was talk about my take on this situation.
If you've read here very long you will know I reluctantly support COOL. I support it because the public has the right to know where their meat comes from, but reluctantly because it is going to cost the producers and consumers of beef a lot of money to do this. The consumer will be paying more for the information provided and I as a producer will relieve less money for my critters and have to provide some amount of ungodly amount of information to the supply chain to prove the cattle were born in the US. These in my opinion are fact.
I know people will say that it will bring me money. They base this on the fact that consumers in surveys say that if they had the choice, they would buy US Beef. Sorry,I don't buy it. What consumers do and what they say they will do can be two different things. Fine they say they would purchase US Beef, but what would they do when confronted with the situation? Say you had some consumers in your average Wally World looking at the meat counter at some ground beef. Half of the ground beef prominently displays a label, US Beef, and the other half displays a label of Country Of Origin, Unknown. Now these consumers look at the beef and there is absolutely no visual difference in the beef, they look the same to the untrained lay persons eye. Then they look at the price. They see the price of the US Beef is say 20 cents a pound more expensive than the Unknown beef. This is a reasonable number for cost due to the massive amounts of paperwork that is going to be required by the government or meat packing plants for COOL. So here we have consumers faced with meat that looks the same to them but that has a significant price difference do to a little sign that says where it comes from. What would the majority of US Consumers do when faced with this situation? You got it, buy the cheaper product. Remember, these are the people shopping at Wally World where price is way more important than quality and that equals a lot of people in the US. I believe that the large majority of consumers will base their buying decisions this way. So it will be no significant help to the US Beef industry and just make a paperwork nightmare for us.
Let's go beyond on the example I gave you. Let's place our selves in a higher end grocery store, in this area that would be an Albertsons. They usually have higher quality produce, meat and seafood. So, with COOL in effect you go up to the dispaly of chicken looking to buy a chicken with the government approved, Product of the US on it. You look around and can not find a single label proclaiming this. Why is this? That's simple, the COOL law we are talking about exempts chickens in the US. So all the people out there claiming cool will make our food supply safer, how does this do that when the largest source of protein in Americans diet is exempt from the law? Can anyone please answer this? I know that not much chicken is imported but why are we exempting the really big agri-business product, chickens? So beef and pork producers are going to have a burdensome paperwork requirements because of COOL yet chickens are exempt. Hell, it looks to me like the chicken industry did this to us to drive the cost of their main competitors products up and make chicken price seem relatively cheap to the average consumer. How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Let me ask you another question. What percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought over the meat counter? I don't have the time nor energy to find this out but I guarantee you it is less than 50%. The large majority of meat consumed in the US is in the food service industry. Fast food, restaurant, cafeterias and so on. Is this meat required to be labeled for COOL? NO!!! So they can use any meat they want and have no COOL requirements at all. Again I ask you people, how does this make our meat supply safer? It doesn't.
Everybody here knows my problem with NAIS. They tell us NAIS will stop a disease. I've made my sticking point on this all along, an ear tag never stopped a disease and this is true. The same thing goes here. How does a law that exempts the biggest source of protein in the American's diet and exempts the largest area of consumption of meat in the American diet, make the food supply in the US safer? It doesn't. It just cripples the industries they are requiring to do it. This whole COOL argument is based on making the food supply safer which it doesn't. I will add, just because meat is from the US, doesn't automatically make it safer. It can still get contaminated at the slaughter plant with e-coli or other things so a US label in and of itself does not make the food supply safer. People are operating under a false assumption here.
I will again say at this point, the American consumer has the right to know this information. As long as this information is available at all levels on all products I will remove my reluctance from my support for COOL. This requires a change in the law which I have not heard anything about. All the arguments going on is about the beef industry doing this and how good, or bad it is. I even note that the Government has opened the rule making for COOL up again, comments can be left here (I never could get this site to work with Firefox, only internet explorer). This won't change the law. Only Congress can do that. All we can do is comment on the rule making for the law and maybe the record keeping requirements for it.
When it comes to record keeping for COOL I have a question. Why is it that US producers are going to be burdened with all the paperwork for COOL and imports are not? Since this is the US why not require all meat coming over our borders be permanently marked as foreign and if it doesn't have this mark, assume it is US. No costly paperwork requirements and little to no cost to consumers at the end of the supply line. Instead of there being a 20 cent difference in my example of earlier, there would be at most 1 or 2 cent price difference in the price of the US product and the non US product. Then I can see consumers buying US Beef willingly. The way it is now, it's only going to hurt me and consumers.
I hope I have explained my stance on COOL succinctly. In brief, it will not help the beef industry, will cost the consumer more and will not perform its primary function of making our meat supply safer, but is the right thing to do. How's that for screwed up?
Knowledge is power. Francis Bacon
If you've read here very long you will know I reluctantly support COOL. I support it because the public has the right to know where their meat comes from, but reluctantly because it is going to cost the producers and consumers of beef a lot of money to do this. The consumer will be paying more for the information provided and I as a producer will relieve less money for my critters and have to provide some amount of ungodly amount of information to the supply chain to prove the cattle were born in the US. These in my opinion are fact.
I know people will say that it will bring me money. They base this on the fact that consumers in surveys say that if they had the choice, they would buy US Beef. Sorry,I don't buy it. What consumers do and what they say they will do can be two different things. Fine they say they would purchase US Beef, but what would they do when confronted with the situation? Say you had some consumers in your average Wally World looking at the meat counter at some ground beef. Half of the ground beef prominently displays a label, US Beef, and the other half displays a label of Country Of Origin, Unknown. Now these consumers look at the beef and there is absolutely no visual difference in the beef, they look the same to the untrained lay persons eye. Then they look at the price. They see the price of the US Beef is say 20 cents a pound more expensive than the Unknown beef. This is a reasonable number for cost due to the massive amounts of paperwork that is going to be required by the government or meat packing plants for COOL. So here we have consumers faced with meat that looks the same to them but that has a significant price difference do to a little sign that says where it comes from. What would the majority of US Consumers do when faced with this situation? You got it, buy the cheaper product. Remember, these are the people shopping at Wally World where price is way more important than quality and that equals a lot of people in the US. I believe that the large majority of consumers will base their buying decisions this way. So it will be no significant help to the US Beef industry and just make a paperwork nightmare for us.
Let's go beyond on the example I gave you. Let's place our selves in a higher end grocery store, in this area that would be an Albertsons. They usually have higher quality produce, meat and seafood. So, with COOL in effect you go up to the dispaly of chicken looking to buy a chicken with the government approved, Product of the US on it. You look around and can not find a single label proclaiming this. Why is this? That's simple, the COOL law we are talking about exempts chickens in the US. So all the people out there claiming cool will make our food supply safer, how does this do that when the largest source of protein in Americans diet is exempt from the law? Can anyone please answer this? I know that not much chicken is imported but why are we exempting the really big agri-business product, chickens? So beef and pork producers are going to have a burdensome paperwork requirements because of COOL yet chickens are exempt. Hell, it looks to me like the chicken industry did this to us to drive the cost of their main competitors products up and make chicken price seem relatively cheap to the average consumer. How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Let me ask you another question. What percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought over the meat counter? I don't have the time nor energy to find this out but I guarantee you it is less than 50%. The large majority of meat consumed in the US is in the food service industry. Fast food, restaurant, cafeterias and so on. Is this meat required to be labeled for COOL? NO!!! So they can use any meat they want and have no COOL requirements at all. Again I ask you people, how does this make our meat supply safer? It doesn't.
Everybody here knows my problem with NAIS. They tell us NAIS will stop a disease. I've made my sticking point on this all along, an ear tag never stopped a disease and this is true. The same thing goes here. How does a law that exempts the biggest source of protein in the American's diet and exempts the largest area of consumption of meat in the American diet, make the food supply in the US safer? It doesn't. It just cripples the industries they are requiring to do it. This whole COOL argument is based on making the food supply safer which it doesn't. I will add, just because meat is from the US, doesn't automatically make it safer. It can still get contaminated at the slaughter plant with e-coli or other things so a US label in and of itself does not make the food supply safer. People are operating under a false assumption here.
I will again say at this point, the American consumer has the right to know this information. As long as this information is available at all levels on all products I will remove my reluctance from my support for COOL. This requires a change in the law which I have not heard anything about. All the arguments going on is about the beef industry doing this and how good, or bad it is. I even note that the Government has opened the rule making for COOL up again, comments can be left here (I never could get this site to work with Firefox, only internet explorer). This won't change the law. Only Congress can do that. All we can do is comment on the rule making for the law and maybe the record keeping requirements for it.
When it comes to record keeping for COOL I have a question. Why is it that US producers are going to be burdened with all the paperwork for COOL and imports are not? Since this is the US why not require all meat coming over our borders be permanently marked as foreign and if it doesn't have this mark, assume it is US. No costly paperwork requirements and little to no cost to consumers at the end of the supply line. Instead of there being a 20 cent difference in my example of earlier, there would be at most 1 or 2 cent price difference in the price of the US product and the non US product. Then I can see consumers buying US Beef willingly. The way it is now, it's only going to hurt me and consumers.
I hope I have explained my stance on COOL succinctly. In brief, it will not help the beef industry, will cost the consumer more and will not perform its primary function of making our meat supply safer, but is the right thing to do. How's that for screwed up?
Knowledge is power. Francis Bacon
Friday, June 22. 2007
Regionalize
As you know, Gov. Brian Schweitzer wants to regionalize the Brucellosis problem in Montana and make a perimeter around Yellowstone National Park where Brucellosis would be monitored and treated differently than in the rest of the state. I was never very sure about the idea but I listened and wondered about the whole idea of regionalizing a disease problem like this. Some people have claimed it's not good and that made me wonder but I've kept my council.
Now a story about regionalizing a disease has come to my attention and brings things into sharper focus for me.
USCA opposes plan to regionalize beef trade
"I see said the blind man" as the old saying goes. I now understand the regionalization issue better and why maybe it isn't a good idea. I really think the Governor needs to rethink this issue. I don't think regionalization of disease is going to go over good outside of Montana so that will make the whole thing useless. We live in bigger world than just here in Montana and the whole idea has to be acceptable not just to Montanans, but cattle producer and health experts everywhere and this story indicates to tme that it might not be. Animal health is too big of issue to play with in most peoples minds so regionalizing it doesn't appear to be a good idea.
I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I said I had no idea about. Elliott Abrams
Now a story about regionalizing a disease has come to my attention and brings things into sharper focus for me.
USCA opposes plan to regionalize beef trade
In a letter sent on June 19 to the Senate Finance Committee, the U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) made it clear that opposing regionalization of Argentina, related to animal health disease issues for import purposes, is one of the organization's "top member-driven policy issues."
USCA urged Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to "strongly oppose any attempt to weaken oversight or regulation of trade with Argentina."
Despite widespread problems with foot and mouth disease (FMD), a highly contagious infection that can destroy entire cattle herds, Argentina has proposed a plan to export beef to the United States from certain regions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently considering adoption of the proposal to relax restrictions on Argentine beef from some areas by regionalizing trade areas.
"I see said the blind man" as the old saying goes. I now understand the regionalization issue better and why maybe it isn't a good idea. I really think the Governor needs to rethink this issue. I don't think regionalization of disease is going to go over good outside of Montana so that will make the whole thing useless. We live in bigger world than just here in Montana and the whole idea has to be acceptable not just to Montanans, but cattle producer and health experts everywhere and this story indicates to tme that it might not be. Animal health is too big of issue to play with in most peoples minds so regionalizing it doesn't appear to be a good idea.
I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I said I had no idea about. Elliott Abrams
Friday, May 25. 2007
High Stakes
High-stakes testing continues
I really wish I had the ability to turn a phrase like this headline once in a while. The Brucellosis testing going on is high stakes for Montana cattlemen and is being watched closely by many people concerned with the issue.
I've talked about the producers involved in Bridger losing their entire herds of cattle to this, they will be killed, and there is no guarantee of reimbursement of any kind. They just have to eat the loss which will more than likely put them out of business. I see the USCA has adopted a policy that seeks indemnification program for affected ranchers.
I doubt anything will come of this since the Federal Government does not want to take responsibility for their reservoir of Brucellosis infection in Yellowstone National Park but at least there is somebody working on the issue.
The proposal makes sense too. The Brucellosis infection in the cattle more than likely came from the Park so the Federal Government is responsible. The Federal Government is responsible for the wildlife in the Park and since they don't want to do anything about the Brucellosis problem with these animals, even though they require private citizens to control Brucellosis, they should be financially responsible for the chaos that ensues from their lack of responsibility.
Responsibility and Government, what an oxymoron.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw
I really wish I had the ability to turn a phrase like this headline once in a while. The Brucellosis testing going on is high stakes for Montana cattlemen and is being watched closely by many people concerned with the issue.
I've talked about the producers involved in Bridger losing their entire herds of cattle to this, they will be killed, and there is no guarantee of reimbursement of any kind. They just have to eat the loss which will more than likely put them out of business. I see the USCA has adopted a policy that seeks indemnification program for affected ranchers.
"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association urges the Department of Interior and USDA to indemnify ranchers for losses suffered as a result of herds being infected by wildlife," noted Kiker. "The financial losses for individual ranching operations affected by this disease could be catastrophic, to say nothing of the negative economic impact on the entire livestock industry within an affected state."
I doubt anything will come of this since the Federal Government does not want to take responsibility for their reservoir of Brucellosis infection in Yellowstone National Park but at least there is somebody working on the issue.
The proposal makes sense too. The Brucellosis infection in the cattle more than likely came from the Park so the Federal Government is responsible. The Federal Government is responsible for the wildlife in the Park and since they don't want to do anything about the Brucellosis problem with these animals, even though they require private citizens to control Brucellosis, they should be financially responsible for the chaos that ensues from their lack of responsibility.
Responsibility and Government, what an oxymoron.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw
Friday, May 18. 2007
Pay Attention
UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information: Abra Belke, (202) 725-4600
Email Contact: abra@bigskystrategies.com
Food Safety Events Escalate Need for Mandatory COOL
San Lucas , Calif. (May 14, 2007) ~ The melamine contamination scandal that began last March in pet food has expanded in recent weeks to include feed given to hogs, chickens, and farm-raised fish. The revelation that a tainted product can move so quickly through the supply chain and contaminate product bound for American dinner tables is troubling to consumers and producers alike.
The United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) is asking the federal government to implement mandatory country of origin labeling (M-COOL) at the soonest possible date in order to maintain consumer confidence.
“It is imperative that U.S. consumers know where their food comes from,” says Region X Director and COOL Committee Chairperson Danni Beer. “USCA implores the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement M-COOL for beef and fresh fruits and vegetables as soon as possible. The American public deserves the ability to make informed choices about the products they consume, beginning with the food we feed to our families.”
Mandatory country of origin labeling was passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, but the USDA has until September 30, 2008, to implement the rule. However, implementation of M-COOL is not the only barrier to providing consumers with accurate and complete food labeling information.
In 2003, the GAO reported that the Tariff Act still requires that imported items be marked with their country of origin through to the ultimate purchaser,who generally would be the consumer. However, there is debate on which agency actually has authority to enforce the Tariff Act. USDA contends that the Federal Meat Inspection Act provides that imported meat products, once they have undergone safety-related inspection activities, and are “deemed and treated as domestic.”
These two Acts overlap each other with two different enforcement agencies, resulting in confusion. USCA believes this confusion was alleviated by country of origin labeling provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill and that USDA has the responsibility to work with other agencies and write a Final Rule for labeling meat products that is definitive, efficient, and economical. Lack of clarity on this issue is providing a loophole for processors and importers and prevents consumers from knowing where a product came from.
“The United States has a number of firewalls in place that make food products - particularly beef, born, raised, and processed domestically - the healthiest, most wholesome food in the world,” says COOL Committee member and Region V Director Chuck Kiker. “These firewalls are accomplished through government funded agencies, but the only way for taxpayers and producers to take full advantage of the services they pay for is to label food products with their origin. Differentiation of U.S. product is particularly important when the conditions and rules by which we produce food in the U.S. have been instrumental in building our reputation worldwide as producing high quality beef. American, as well as international, consumers must have the ability to choose to purchase food that has been produced through systems they are familiar with and have great confidence in.”
Currently, the only information available to the purchaser is a USDA mark of inspection and the USDA grade stamp. These labels have no value when determining a product’s country of origin because imported beef and cattle are eligible for these recognizable stamps.
"USCA strongly urges the USDA and Congress to implement accurate and transparent food labeling. We hope that, in the future, mandatory country of origin labeling will allow U.S. consumers the right to make more informed decisions about the food they buy,” said Beer.
Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington D.C. to enhance and expand the cattle industry's voice on Capitol Hill. For membership forms and other information visit www.uscattlemen.org .
More and more organizations are jumping on the mandatory COOL bandwagon. People need to pay attention though, Congress wants to mate COOL and NAIS which is not what producers want. Yes, I said producers. If the consumers were informed what these measures would cost them when they buy beef, they would not want them. I see a train wreck coming if COOL is implemented on a hurry up basis by not considering the costs involved with doing this. Hopefully USCA will watch out for this coupling of COOL and NAIS. It will be a killer if they don't.
Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with 'the world'; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous. Nelson Goodman
Monday, May 7. 2007
More Information
Anybody who has read me for a while knows I talk about R-Calf USA sometimes. I have also been following the recent upset in the R-calf ranks which has led a large number of the founding members to leave the organization and start another new organization, United States Cattleman's Association (USCA). A while ago the USCA website was up and running but there was not much information on it and there still isn't. I have been waiting but nothing appeared to be happening.
Finally I have found something, an interview with Jon Wooster, the head of USCA. It's an interesting interview if you are at all interested in this new organization. A couple of things that really struck me were the information on the lobbyists they have retained in Washington and the comments on animal id and COOL being linked.
R-Calf all but has no representation in Washington. That was what caused the split in R-Calf. Militant R-calf members wanted to only use litigation to advance their cause and the new leaders of USCA wanted to present their ideas to Congress through Lobbyists to get the point across without expensive and fruitless litigation. Knowing that USCA is forging ahead with representation in Washington is nice to know.
Now the answer to linking animal id and COOL was to say the least, sparse. Jon points out some advantages of COOL and then tells how producers are opposed to NAIS but he doesn't give any solutions to the dilemma. I feel he needs to offer Congress alternatives to linking the two together. How can COOL be run that doesn't require animal id? That needs to be answered instead of just pointing out nobody likes NAIS.
It really looks like USCA is taking off. I am glad to see this. As I have stated, I was never sure about the R-Calf method of using the courts to try to solve their problems. Representation in Washington is more effective and cheaper in the long run. I will keep an eye on the USCA to see what happens. It looks promising.
What's important is promising something to the people, not actually keeping those promises. The people have always lived on hope alone. Hermann Broch
Finally I have found something, an interview with Jon Wooster, the head of USCA. It's an interesting interview if you are at all interested in this new organization. A couple of things that really struck me were the information on the lobbyists they have retained in Washington and the comments on animal id and COOL being linked.
R-Calf all but has no representation in Washington. That was what caused the split in R-Calf. Militant R-calf members wanted to only use litigation to advance their cause and the new leaders of USCA wanted to present their ideas to Congress through Lobbyists to get the point across without expensive and fruitless litigation. Knowing that USCA is forging ahead with representation in Washington is nice to know.
Now the answer to linking animal id and COOL was to say the least, sparse. Jon points out some advantages of COOL and then tells how producers are opposed to NAIS but he doesn't give any solutions to the dilemma. I feel he needs to offer Congress alternatives to linking the two together. How can COOL be run that doesn't require animal id? That needs to be answered instead of just pointing out nobody likes NAIS.
It really looks like USCA is taking off. I am glad to see this. As I have stated, I was never sure about the R-Calf method of using the courts to try to solve their problems. Representation in Washington is more effective and cheaper in the long run. I will keep an eye on the USCA to see what happens. It looks promising.
What's important is promising something to the people, not actually keeping those promises. The people have always lived on hope alone. Hermann Broch
Posted by
in R-Calf, USCA
at
06:35
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: jess peterson, jon wooster, promising start, r-calf, united states cat, usca
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 14 entries)
