USDA Opposes NMA Appeal

[farmers_son]

http://www.meatingplace.com/DailyNews/init.asp?iID=14024

USDA opposes NMA entry into R-CALF lawsuit

by Pete Hisey on 3/30/05 for Meatingplace.com

In a move that stunned the National Meat Association, USDA lawyers filed a brief Monday evening strongly opposing the granting of intervenor status to NMA in its appeal of a restraining order that effectively keeps the Canadian border closed to cattle.

The brief argues that NMA should be excluded from the appeal "because its purely economic interests are only remotely related to the underlying litigation." NMA had filed for intervenor status on the grounds that its members, mainly meat processors, were being profoundly and perhaps permanently damaged by the continued closure of the Canadian border. Jobs at slaughter and processing plants are disappearing as Canada builds up its own slaughter and processing capacity, NMA contends.

The appeal, which is under consideration by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has a fixed timetable. USDA has until April 14 to submit its brief, after which R-CALF USA will have until May 12 to respond. USDA may then take 14 days to respond, if it so wishes. The court will then make a decision as to whether or not it will accept the appeal, and set dates for oral arguments, if necessary.

R-CALF USA was scheduled to submit its brief, presumably opposing NMA's intervention, on Monday evening, but it received a one-day extension. NMA promises to respond vigorously to both briefs

[grassfarmer]

Wow, what a surprise - you don't think that possibly there are other people in the USA than R-CALF that are working to keep the border closed? That would be a stunning revelation to ABP who still seem naively confident that time is on our side and soon the border will spring open and everything will get back to the good old days pre BSE.

[farmers_son]

I am wondering if our government knew the USDA was going to oppose the NMA appeal when they trotted out their $300 million aid package yesterday.

It is curious why the USDA would take this step. The NMA appeal certainly offered the fastest timetable while I believe there is still no date on the USDA appeal which took two weeks to be even filed. Why is the USDA seeking to slow up the opening of the border? Is the USDA looking for ways to keep the border closed to our live cattle until trade resumes with Japan? Meanwhile, back in Montana Richard Cebull is scheduled to hear the R-Calf lawsuit in late July. Any bets on what his decision will be?

On the positive side I noted that the USDA was opposing the NMA appeal because the NMA's interest was purely economic. The same could be said for R-Calf. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denys the NMA appeal because their interest is purely economic then I would tend to think R-Calf's position has been compromised. Ditto for the CCA's plans to present information to the Court assuming it ever had a chance of making it through the door anyway.

The plot thickens, all the while the border is closed to our live cattle. At some point the provincial and federal governments must realize the beef industry cannot operate in an environment of political and judicial wrangling. I cannot understand why when a solution is available to Canadian cattle producers, that solution being the immediate addition of new packing capacity, that there is not concrete action by all concerned.

I am wondering just who is on our side anymore. Is anyone on our side?

[kpb]

farmers son, the answer to your question is that the common taxpayers and citizens of Canada are on our side. They trust us. But they are the only ones--everyone else, from our producer groups to the fed and prov. governments have other agendas, other people to please, other countries to appease.


kpb

[jensend]

farmers_son: It is curious why the USDA would take this step. The NMA appeal certainly offered the fastest timetable while I believe there is still no date on the USDA appeal which took two weeks to be even filed

the only good reason there can be for this is that as usda said nma was appealing solely on the basis of economic well-being or advantage. usda said they want the debate to be about safety and risk mitigation. if that is the case, it may serve to take out most of r-calf's arguments and return the debate to health and safety in which case r-calf is very weak. it might also be to eliminate any canadian briefs to the court as well because they can be argued to be economic in nature. you ask if there is anybody on our side - not south of the border and very few if any in power north of 49. i try to write well-reasoned letters to politicians but rarely receive even the standard acknowledgement. all it's gotten me is on stephen harper's mailing list so spam is all i've gotten.

[Cattleman]

The economic hurt is an interesting area. Would we better if the discussion was about economic hardship by all of the players in the US? Sure R-Calf argues they get a few cents less with the border open, but what about all the jobs in the processing sector and the losses to all the taxpayers, never mind the profits of the packers. And all the spinoffs of these jobs and processes. Economic hurt would play in our favour if the arguement was made with the big picture in mind!! But after I state this we should keep the border shut and take it all away from them!! I think this is what the USDA sees, and thats why long term they know the border is better opened, but they can continue to stall as long as the packing expansion in Canada continues to stall..... I don't think Tyson's expansion in Brooks is moving to fast, I think they just made that announcement to discourage anyone else from building!!

My 2 cents..