Are we going to respond to these r-calf bozos?

[Cedar]

If you missed the cbc news tonight, here's a link to an interesting report:

http://www.cbc.ca/newscast.html
click on Canada Now and push the realplayer slider to 6:32 minutes.

More r-calf b.s.!!! Hopefully consumers, both here or in the u.s. are not "dumb" enough to fall for their tactics...however, the consumer, having no real idea of what's going on, could easily be mislead and believe that we have a serious beef-health-problem here, if they listen to this crap! The "risk analysis expert" they had at their meeting is ...hmmm...well...quite the character!!!...I wonder how much they paid that actor?!??!?? I presume the cbc, especially since it's a Canadian company, would be (hopefully, more than) willing to give equal air time to anyone from the Canadian beef industry who cares to respond to these outright lies and f$@*%#g s#@t!!! Anyone up for the challenge? Perhaps Cam Ostercamp, or anybody else who is just as good with this tv stuff? Randy? Whatcha think? After all, if a person just presented the real facts and figures, it shouldn't be too difficult to discredit these lunatics!

[farmers_son]

The ABP, CCA, BIC and CBEF have an army of people who know how to respond to attacks on the beef industry such as we see coming from R-Calf.

Keeping a consistent positive message before the consumers that our beef is safer now than it ever was can be a better strategy than engaging in a public debate with R-Calf.

The Canadian beef industry and our counterparts in the U.S. spend millions every year to spread the message that our beef is nutritious and safe. It is regretable that a splinter producer group like R-Calf seeks to undermine those efforts for what can only be a very small short term gain with serious long term consequences.

[blackjack]

...your right father_son we need to stay positive...personally I think r-calf is running out of gas (ideas)...

[samsdad]

...and such a large convention too....over 200 delegates I understand...

[Joe-2]

Here's a little quick math. There are about 800,000 cattle producers in the US.R-calf claims a membership of around 12,000. That is less than 3%!!
R-CALF...THE VOICE OF 3% of AMERICAN CATTLEMEN!!!!! Hahahaha!!!!
The true goal of R-calf's leadership and their lawyer friends is to extract money from cattle producers.Plain and simple.I feel sorry for their members that are so blinded by unfounded fear and hatred that they can't see what is really going on.

[intr3est]

Joe-2, you should post these numbers on another site, that seems to be all R-calf members! No hints which one, but Ranchers.net comes to mind

[whiteface]

I thought about posting your numbers over there myself Joe but you deserve your credit where credit is due. Head on over there and raise hell!

[Willowcreek]

R-CALF has 12000 members- NCBA has somewhere around 20,000- Total of the two- approximately 32,000 members- If your figures of 800,000 cattle producers is true than there is less than 5% represented by major cattle organizations.

I would bet a large number of these 800,000 are the hobby farmers that are buying up the 40 acre ranchettes and have 5-10 cattle and do not rely on an income from livestock.

Many producers I know in the states belong to neither or no organization, but most do have a feeling on the border.

I pasted a copy of the survey that BEEF did last week:

Exclusive: BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly Survey
Don't Open Border To Canada On March 7, Readers Say
Only 13% of 1,485 respondents to last week's BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly survey of reader attitudes on Canada trade believe the U.S. should allow Canadian live cattle to cross the border on March 7, as USDA proposes. Of respondents, 51.9% say the border should be kept closed indefinitely, while 34.3% say reopening of the border to Canada should be tied to the resumption of U.S. beef exports.

It was in December 2003 that a BSE-infected cow of Canadian origin was discovered in Washington state. Overnight, the U.S. beef industry's $3.8-billion export market vanished. About a third has been regained but the big prize, the Pacific Rim, has proven elusive.

Respondents to the BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly survey say their top concern (73.2%) with USDA's proposed rule to open the Canadian border to live cattle less than 30 months of age is the "economic impact on U.S. cattle producers resulting from resuming trade with Canada without having reopened other export markets, specifically Japan." Meanwhile, 62.3% say the prevalence of BSE in Canada since the announcements on Jan. 2 and 11 is a top concern. In addition, 55.4% cite the compliance of Canada's beef industry with its feed ban, and 42.8% say the overall implications of importing meat from Canadian cattle older than 30 months of age is a top concern.

Interestingly, 82.4% of respondents agreed that, as a general principle, the U.S. beef industry should always stand on the best available science in determining its positions on key industry issues. Still, 86% say USDA should not allow the importation of meat from Canadian beef animals more than 30 months of age when live cattle more than 30 months of age are not allowed to be imported into the U.S. And, 69.7% believe that, even though it may violate World Trade Organization rules, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) should insist that trade be reestablished with Japan and South Korea, and expanded in Mexico, before the U.S. border is reopened to Canadian cattle.

Other survey points include:
95.6% of respondents say that USDA should demand Canadian government officials provide a detailed assessment of the country's ruminant feed ban compliance.
68.6% say total harmonization of bluetongue and anaplasmosis requirements should be a condition to reopening the U.S. border to the Canadian cattle trade.
70.2% attribute recent production cutback announcements by big packers -- Tyson, Swift and National Beef -- as being a tactic to pressure USDA into maintaining its March 7 timetable to reopen the Canadian border. Meanwhile 15.4% see it as the precursor to some permanent plant closures based on overcapacity in the meat packing sector, and 10.6% believe the cutbacks are due to economic conditions caused by flattening demand and bad weather.
Of respondents, 90.6% report they have cattle operations located in the U.S., while 6% say they are not directly involved in beef production. Another 2% say their cattle operation is not in the U.S.
In answer to the question, "If USDA and NCBA are satisfied that science indicates trade can be safely resumed with Canada, do you believe the nation's cow herd and the American consumer are safe with the Canadian supply?" a total of 59.5% of respondents say "no," while 39% say "yes."

[intr3est]

I'll make the same comment here as I did somewhere else. It's funny they want science to prevail, but base the border opening on trade! If their prices had dropped after their BSE case, I wonder what the feeling would have been?

[Willowcreek]

inter3est- I think the main thing here is that there is no "sound science". Theories abound on origin, cause, and transmission of BSE. I think most US producers do not trust CFIA or USDA's theories when so many others are just as believable. It is the big grey area surrounding the science of BSE that has many concerned. Most feel we need to learn more.