End of BSE legal adventurse in sight

[madcow]

END OF BSE LEGAL ADVENTURES IS FINALLY IN SIGHT. (copied from Agriweek 08/01/05 )
A senior court puts R-CALF and
judge Cebull in their places


The fanatic R-CALF (Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund) had its props
completely kicked out from under it last week by the 9th U.S. District Court
of Appeals in San Francisco. The court issued the detailed legal reasoning
for its July 14 decision striking down a temporary injunction obtained by
R-CALF blocking resumption of Canadian cattle exports and also preventing an
expanded range of Canadian beef products to be exported to the U.S.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge appeals court plainly leaves no
scope for any further legal action based on the reasons R-CALF offered in
its request for a permanent injunction. Click here
<http://www.agriweek.com/agrxa/eve733.pdf> for the entire 54-page court
document.

It thoroughly demolishes both the R-CALF arguments and Judge Richard F.
Cebull's legal reasoning in accepting them. It would be extremely rash of
the judge to proceed with the permanent injunction case. It almost looks
like Cebull was tipped off, because on July 20 he 'vacated' the July 27
hearing date for the permanent injunction without any request for such
action being made by either side.

The appeal court noted, in unusually strong language, that Cebull had
improperly discounted USDA's competence and expertise in developing
BSE-related regulations. The tone of this section implies that the appeal
court considers Cebull as either grossly incompetent or as not giving the
matter the thorough consideration it merits. Any hopes he may have had for
advancement in the court system are probably in tatters.

The detailed decision also sharply criticized R-CALF for bringing the action
at all, on grounds that it had no "likelihood of success on its merits."
Cebull had based the granting of the preliminary injunction on the R-CALF
contention that three different laws had been violated by USDA, including
the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits U.S. government agencies
from actions that are 'arbitrary, capricious [or] an abuse of discretion'.
The court also determined that R-CALF had not made a plausible case to
support its claim that allowing Canadian cattle imports would do
"irreparable harm" to the U.S. cattle industry.

The decision cited numerous precedents where other actions based on this
strategy failed. The appeal decision also held that Cebull, besides
substituting his view of BSE risks for USDA's and failing to respect the
agency's scientific expertise, also improperly sought to impose a zero-risk
policy on cattle imports, requiring the department to "disprove all
scientific uncertainty" associated with mad cow disease. Any "uncertainty
surrounding the current scientific understanding of BSE [is] insufficiently
significant to justify the continued exclusion of Canadian cattle."

The appeal judges further found that Canada has effective mad-cow control
measures and a low incidence of the disease, which is declining further.
Canada could actually have several more cases without changing its
low-incidence status for purposes of the USDA regulations. The decision
cited Canadian regulations for removal of risky central nervous system
tissue from carcasses and its feed regulations, which mirror USDA's.
Resuming Canadian cattle imports would not significantly increase the risk
of mad cow disease to the American animal or human populations.

The appeal judges denied applications for intervenor status in the R-CALF
permanent injunction case sought by the Canadian Cattlemens Assn., Alberta
Beef and the U.S. National Meat Assn., but apparently on grounds that the
action is unlikely to proceed. It may have been another none-too-subtle
signal to Cebull that it would be unwise to proceed with that action.

R-CALF's reaction (e-mail users Click here
<http://www.agriweek.com/agrxa/nhe555.htm> ) was uncharacteristically muted,
appearing to accept the verdict but continuing to insist that its position
is correct. Its website tried to distract attention by presenting a
one-sided summary of a preposterous month-old study by a University of
Florida economist contending that a resumption of Canadian cattle imports
will cause a net loss in U.S. economic output of $7.6 billion between 2005
and 2007. Put another way, the maximum number of Canadian cattle that could
possibly be exported during that period is 3 million head. According to this
so-called study, each of those animals, worth about $1,200, would cause a
loss of $2,533 in U.S. economic activity. For every five head imported,
which take about 35 minutes to process in a modern plant, there would be a
loss of one full-time American job, according to the 'study'.

[farmers_son]

I frankly have a hard time believing that it was R-Calf acting alone against the USDA, against the Bush administration, against the packers, the NCBA and so on.

Is Cebull’s career in tatters or was he simply following orders from higher up. Was the USDA really working to open the border as hard as they could or where they quite happy to let R-Calf take the blame for a continued border closure that was serving U.S. interests on many fronts. Does anyone remember the eleven point manifesto the NCBA had on reasons to keep out Canadian beef, not much better than R-Calf.

If it wasn’t for Phyliss Fong pointing out that the USDA was covering up its BSE positives the USDA would still today be working BSE for all it is worth. The USDA hid that cow for almost seven months. No one should be painting them as free traders, they were deliberately hiding their own BSE, capturing record high prices for American producers and laying all the costs of BSE at Canada’s doorstep.

R-Calf probably wore out some of their welcome with the Bush administration when they took out those half page ads in the Washington Post saying beef wasn’t safe. That was their undoing. Up to that point they were all on the same team as the USDA, NCBA, and the rest of that bunch. R-Calf was not in this alone.

[farmers_son]

I forgot to mention those beacons of free and fair trade the U.S. Senators who voted to pass a Resolution of Disapproval regarding the USDA rule.

R-Calf was not alone is keeping our live cattle out of the United States.

March 3, 2005, Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth today praised the passage of a Senate Resolution of Disapproval regarding the opening of the U.S.-Canada border to live beef trade. Herseth has sponsored identical, companion legislation in the House: H.J. Res. 23.

Herseth said, “This is another positive step in helping to ensure a safe domestic beef supply for consumers and producers in the United States. Following yesterday’s Federal Court injunction delaying the scheduled March 7th border opening, I am encouraged that pressure is growing to keep the border closed until serious questions about Canada’s BSE control efforts have been answered fully and effectively.”

[madcow]

f_s ,I agree with you 100%,and I'm afraid we have a hard road ahead yet.Who knows who and what their next tactics will be.And I don't see things improving much on the home front.Very few outside the industry understand the troubles we face.The provincial govt. here thinks they are helping us with the cull cow problem for example. They are helping a plant get up and running that will screw us at home rather than having to go to Ontario to get screwed.The N.S.cattle producers have explained that getting rid of the cow isn't the big problem here,getting a reasonable dollar is the problem.If BSE hadn't been discovered we would still be hard pressed to survive.Fuel costs keep rising, insurance,keeps rising,,fertilizer? haven't bought any for 5 years,repairs and maintenance?duct tape ,twine and hay wire.Lime? we need it but have let that slide since 2000. 2001/02 were drought years here and we all know 2003. Our margins were small at the best of times .Add that to some family hurdles,three kids to young to help out,my wife's carpel tunnel troubles and surgery that have had her off work since May( but she has improved ) and my little impediment,I belong to Nova Scotia Farmers with Disabilities,I refuse to say I'm disabled ,I prefer the term' prosthetically enabled'.The baler and I had an argument in July /99,the baler won that dispute but I survived minus my right leg just below the knee.It slowed me up for five months but now I do everything that I always did ,wore out three complete legs in five years.I know I'm way off track , but I volunteer here and try to spread the word that injury is not the end and you can get going again.I'll post a topic later about Canadian Farmers with Disabilities with some contact info for anyone that's interested.We're here to talk ,or listen, need volunteers and welcome new members.We promote farm safety ,peer counseling etc.
Gotta get off my butt and do something ,still raining ! .I wish all Canadian Ag could get organized and work together,make some changes around here and put some power back in producers hands.This slave to big business/ price taker crap is getting hard to swallow.

[grassfarmer]

Good posts f_s and madcow,
Madcow you say "I wish all Canadian Ag could get organized and work together,make some changes around here and put some power back in producers hands." - I couldn't agree with you more.
"Very few outside the industry understand the troubles we face" - In light of the previous statement I sometimes question "how many inside the industry understand the troubles we face!"

[grassfarmer]

I think that some folks outside the industry have a better grasp of the challenges facing us, the BSE crisis has drawn much to the attention of those who would not otherwise give farmers a second thought. I do sense among many of my non farming colleagues the impression that the border being open has solved all the problems in the livestock industry.

[cowman]

Well opening the border has not solved all our problems but it sure has helped us survive in the short term?
But no doubt the writing is on the wall, at least for the small guy? Your days are numbered...actually have been for one hell of a long time? When the kids started flocking to the cities the end was in sight?
In this new "global economy" we are not necessary? Someone else can do it cheaper? It really doesn't make sense to try to raise food in an artic climate, when they can do it cheaper somewhere else? Sad but true.

[madcow]

To raise food in an 'arctic climate' may not make perfect sense,my argument to that has been for some time;money is only of use to the nation as a whole if it is kept in circulation.I have had this discussion with some neighbors.Why should they support my higher than brazil priced beef??? So I can buy their lumber to build, hire the local mechanic to fix my truck,buy the truck from the dealer in the first place,buy gas from the local service station, use other locally provided services,pay my taxes,help maintain my neighbors property value by not having them live in a community filled with fields overgrown by bushes. I can't support the local economy if the locals don't support me ,and that theory applies to us all,no matter what we produce or provide.It's more environmentally sound to buy local than transport half way around the world. And what future can a nation have if they don't have the ability to feed themselves. If this trend continues ,Canada will lose the ability to feed itself.People say it's cheaper from here or there! How much cheaper will the imports be once the domestic supply they must compete against are gone.I'm just a 'small guy' but I'm not going to go quietly!

[madcow]

cowman,the grumpy red face is not aimed at you ,but at the situation you described and I find myself being squeezed into.

[kpb]

madcow, I agree completely with your post regarding why people should support their domestic industries. But, on this board and in the beef industry as a whole, you will find that people believe that increasing our export sales and expanding overseas is the way toward prosperity.

Never mind that history has shown that this is not the case in agriculture, never mind that the Canadian farmer is not as well often now as when just the domestic market was served, never mind that increasing export sales in our industry clearly benefits only the multi-national packers who can source cattle from all over the continent, we, as an industry continue to support increased export sales.

As long as we continue such a policy we can expect other countries to export their product into our marketplace. And that, over the next five years, will include Brazil which can produce a calf for $40 to $50.

kpb

[cowman]

kpb and madcap: The problem here is the powers that be don't care about the local yokel who supplies you! In the big picture they too, are expendable!
All that really matters is the "important people"....read that the big corporations!
Now I realize in the end that doesn't make much sense, as wealth has to belong to the people of a nation, but who said big business was ever rational?
Six months(or maybe only 3 months) defines business! If you don't make a big profit, move on to something better! Don't ever consider the long term goal! This is exactly how corporations basically view things.
If the profits in meat packing actually started to drop, Cargill, IBP and others would bail so fast it would make your head spin! They have no real concern for what got them there...it is all about money?