Fair Market Beef

[plowjockey]

I am writing the cheque today! tired of this r-calf bunch of ......!

[SASH]

grass_farmer wrote:
I think it has been tried already. I can’t help but notice the willingness to throw good money after bad on lawyers but if Jim Murray was soliciting $20 for a feasibility study or business plan on a made in Canada solution would there be a similar response?

This goes back to our whole conversation on trying to get consensus in the beef industry. You have a right to disagree but for $20, I'm willing to give this a shot. I've spent $20 on worse causes than this.

[grassfarmer]

Not guilty SASH ! I do tend to agree with farmers_son on this - we expect a Montana judge to rule with Canadians that are trying to bankrupt a Montana based producers group? Still it's a low stakes gamble - count me in.

[mcfarms]

I think the key to this is it's an oppurtunity even if it doesn't succeed to weaken r-calf's fund supply. That may be the best benefit of an action such as this, besides as we saw a month ago anything can and will happen in a court case and nothing says the judge won't say I'm not giving you 7 million a day but I will give you 100 thousand, that'll add up real quick in the minds of the people behind r calf and thats not a bad thing. Hell I lost 20 bucks in productivity whilst I read and replied to this thread.

[SASH]

I apologize Grass_farmer, that should say farmers_son wrote.

[kato]

The crux of the matter is that if Canadian cattle producers sit by and let the lies be spread, then we are by default admitting that there 'may' be truth to them.

If they are allowed to keep repeating over and over that our beef is somehow unsafe, when we know it is not, then sooner or later the rhetoric becomes fixed in people's minds. They will say that if there was no response from us, then we must have something to hide.

Best thing to do is come out swinging and stick up for ourselves. No one else seems likely to do it.

Had a talk with a friend who knows Mr. Murray personally. He says he's a straight shooter, and is one of those guys who's not afraid of a fight. He also said he couldn't figure out why this hasn't been done a long time ago.

He joked that even the Montana lawyers are polarized on this one. About two thirds are R-Calf members, and the other third are firmly opposed. No one in the middle. And they all love to scrap about it.

Now if we could just get ourselves our own personal judge, like they have.......

[farmers_son]

I should point out here that I would love to give R-Calf a kick in the butt as much as the next person. But there are a few more south of the border who could use a swift kick too.

I would ask if R-Calf is really the enemy. Kato suggests that R-Calf has their own personal judge. That may be true but read the transcript of the injunction hearing at:

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/Hearing%20Transcript.pdf

The lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice representing the USDA was either very poorly briefed or was trying to throw the case. The lawyer, a Ms Olsen made the rather dramatic statement before Judge Cebull that Alberta beef was high risk for BSE. All the blame cannot be pinned on R-Calf and Cebull.

Know thine enemy. R-Calf is only a convenient fall guy. The USDA keeps feeding them tidbits that they know a rapid dog like R-Calf is going to bite. It has been my impression that Cebull is not in R-Calf’s pocket, he may be in the pocket of the two U.S. Senators who nominated him and Bush who appointed him. If you follow Cebull’s decisions he seems to be sensitive to the federal government’s wishes when making his decisions.

Take R-Calf to court if you want. I think your money would bring you better returns by buying 20 lottery tickets. The downside for me is this action distracts producers from seeking solutions at home and also holds R-Calf up as the target when I think the target south of the border still remains the Bush administration and the USDA who are taking their sweet time opening the border for purely political reasons. Blame R-Calf if it makes you feel better but lets not forget the deliberately ham handed manner the USDA has handled the BSE issue and ask yourself if either the USDA is incompetent or do they really not want the border to open.

I believe R-Calf is just a pawn. In street terms you are going after the corner drug dealer while the USDA drug lord is laughing all the way to the bank. And if this action fails, R-Calf is stronger. Choose your battles carefully.

[rkaiser]

Good points farmer_son, and I believ you are right about the USDA-------------But damn the torpedoes, we need all need a mental boost.

I am soory that I do disagree with you on the point of building up Rcalf if this case is lost. AND if this is what you think, and you also think Rcalf is only a pawn, and nothing to worry about, what would building them up matter.

We can spin away on this one if you like farmer_son, but the point is Canadian ranchers finally have something to cheer about, and I for one, need to see a little blood from someone other than a Canadian producer.

[rkaiser]

Sorry guys, my automatic speed typer wasn't working very good that time, I hope you get my point though.

[kato]

I have also questioned the motives of the USDA in all this. I read the transcript of the trial, and didn't think the USDA lawyers did much of a job. There is much much more to all this than meets the eye. To depend on the USDA to "do the right thing" is a waste of time in my opinion. Best to see it for what it is, and to realize that no one is looking out for us, but us.

USDA could very well be using R-Calf as a pawn, but I believe that the anti-meat lobby groups that R-Calf has signed up with are also using them as a pawn. That could be a much bigger problem in the long run.

If/when a positive case shows up there, these so called allies will be quoting 'American cattlemen' from R-Calf all over the media in their campaign to diminish beef demand for every one of us on both sides of the border.

In the meanwhile, if we don't stick up for ourselves we are only asking for more abuse.... and we will get it, of that we can be sure. Bullies do not respect the bullied.

[Cedar]

In reading some of the transcript of the R-calf injunction hearing, I have noticed: in paragraph (or whatever you call that), line 24, Mr. Edwards states: "Starting the 2nd of January, we discovered one, and then, a week or ten days later, discovered another." Here, according to the dates, he is obviously referring to the Canadian cases of bse, then, why, why, why, pray tell, does he say "we"..????? Since he is representing r-calf, what in the world does he mean by "we" discovered these cases??? It was my understanding that the cfia discovered those cases, or, at least someone in Canada! Did he slip up? What's going on? What does r-calf have to do with discovering bse cases in Canada???? (Or maybe I'm just getting too suspicious in me ol' age!!???)

[farmers_son]

The more thought I give this suit in Montana court, the more I am concerned about it. I appreciate that the thought of possibly giving R-Calf a black eye at $20 per swing is really attractive to Canadian producers. But I am very concerned.

You people seem to have a much higher regard for the Montana judicial system and its ability to issue fair and unbiased, informed decisions than I have. What we are talking about here is engaging in a debate with R-Calf, in Montana court of all places, on the safety of Canadian beef.

I hear Kato’s comments “The crux of the matter is that if Canadian cattle producers sit by and let the lies be spread, then we are by default admitting that there 'may' be truth to them. “ I agree. Other than I would add that perhaps the sad reality of the matter is that Canadian beef producers are not going to get a fair hearing in Montana court. Whether it is Dick Cebull or Boss Hogg that hears the case, a Montana judge is not going to rule in favour of foreign competitors and against salt of the earth, grass roots Montanans.

I am not sure that we want to even get into a debate in the judicial system on the safety of Canadian beef in Canadian courts, but I am darn sure we do not want that debate to take place in Montana court. The decisions these judges make are at best a crap shoot but when the decision on the safety on Canadian beef is made in a red neck, back country Montana court the judges decision will be a foregone conclusion. The USDA and the NMA is one thing, but Canadian beef producers would not stand a chance.