Fair Market Beef Lawsuit

[rkaiser]

Has anyone heard if this Lawsuit against Rcalf is going ahead.

And while we are on the topic - How about the Lawyer, Mr. Pallett I beleive, who was going to sue the feds and Feedrite.

One more. Rick Pascal and the group taking the American Government on.

Have any of these projects moved ahead?

[mb_rancher]

Randy,


How are you doing out there?

[cowman]

Nice to see you back, Randy!
I see the boys have been beating you up pretty good over at Ranchers! Better to come over here where we treat you a bit better?
signed the packer and corporation lover! LOL

[farmers_son]

There are websites for these groups.

The group with the Chapter 11 NAFTA challenge, Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade:
http://www.ccft.info/

Apparently the group proceeded with their NAFTA challenge March 15, 2005.

There is a website for Fair Market Beef at:
http://fairmarketbeef.tripod.com/id12.html

The Feedrite/Ridley class action lawsuit’s website is at:
http://www.bseclassaction.ca/


While “sue the bastards” may serve as an outlet for producer’s frustrations, I question whether we will see positive results. When we look at the softwood lumber situation we see the U.S. will just respond with a rude one finger gesture to any NAFTA ruling that is not in their favour.

I do not believe a Canadian will get fair treatment in an U.S. court.

[rkaiser]

I'm not really back guys. It's just that there ain't as much to argue with over here on Agrivation. More fun on ranchers.net.

Things are good manitobaman. Cows are wading in grass and the calf crop looks grand.

I agree AGAIN with farmer_son that these lawsuits are likely useless, just wondering I guess on their progress. Neither website has any info, and we don't hear from our friend Mr. Pallette any more.

As for you cowman, how did you like that packer lover label? Have you been reading about the (S)uper (H)ero we have on ranchers.net lapping up every drop of milk the packers drop his way?

There is a new character in the movie down their named Econo101. He's bin burying these packer lovers with a lot more coothe than I could ever hope to muster.

I've said it before. Rcalf's protectionist ideas are ridiculous and harmful to all beef producers in North America, but their ability to stand up for the rights of primary producers far exceeds the packer infiltrated USDA, NCBA, CCA, and ABP.

Packers are not exactly the enemy, but they are certainly not the ethical industry partners that the dreamers in all of these groups believe either.

What they are is the impeccable capitailist. The untimate players in the world; assisting in making the rules and then taking full advantage of them.
The ones we need to study closely, and learn from as we take this industry back for ourselves via the producer owned packing industry.

[PureCountry]

CAN I GET AN AMEN?!!!!?!!!


:-)Sorry ol' boy, I had too.LOL

By the way, are you done with my bull yet? Load him in the trailer, the wife and beer in the truck, and head North for a weekend.

[Willowcreek]

farmer_son- It looks as tho the old one finger wave paid off in the long run:

WTO Sides with USA on Lumber
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:36 AM

The World Trade Organization says the United States has complied with international laws over Canadian lumber.

The White House is calling the ruling on billions of dollars in duties a vindication, while the federal government calls it a setback.

The WTO panel ruled Monday that the U.S. adhered to international law when it issued a revised finding in late 2004 that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened its mills.

Canada claimed victory after NAFTA rules earlier this month that US duties, which now total nearly $5 billion, are illegal under US law.

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek: For certain there is quite a bit of politicking going on from both sides. Obviously an important issue on both sides of the border. Although NAFTA overrules the WTO apparently the U.S. is saying the WTO ruling refers to something different than the NAFTA ruling.

I liked Quebec Premier Jean Charest comments when he said Sunday” that it's not just about softwood lumber anymore. He said it's about whether NAFTA is going to be part of our trade relationship or whether it's going to be a one-sided relationship”. Heads you win, tails we loose.

On another note, I have been following the news regarding the hurricane and although I know Louisiana is a long way from Montana or Alberta our thoughts are with those people in their time of trouble. It sounds very serious.

[Willowcreek]

farmers_son-- It is going to be interesting If and How NAFTA will survive with the changing moods in both countries...Personally I don't believe in giving either of our nations sovereignty to make trade decisions to foreign groups......

Was watching on the news the catastrophic pictures coming out of the Mississippi Delta area-- sure makes our blizzards, 40 below winters, droughts and grasshoppers seem a lot nicer.....

[cowman]

Randy: Oh I don't mind being called a packer lover...grassfarmer calls me all kinds of names too, and abuses me horridly at times LOL! But that is good because it keeps the interest up?
Every once in awhile I peak in on ranchers and I have to admit SH knows how to stir the pot and keep things hopping! Might be a little too flamboyant for us staid Canadian types but he is entertaining! I actually really enjoy the posts by agman as he seems to be a pretty astute fellow who straightens out most of the R-CALFERS?
I don't think you and I think all that different? The biggest difference is I am a pragmatist while you are an idealist! Which is okay...takes all kinds to make the world go around! I do believe you are starting to realize that tilting at windmills and herding barn cats is a thankless job and quite frustrating? Here is a small piece of unsolicited advice: Take care of yourself first and don't fight all the worlds battles! You'll be a lot happier.

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek: It is highly unlikely that NAFTA will not survive. I would point out that our mutual frustration with NAFTA stems from different causes, mine because NAFTA has been unresponsive to seeing normal trade resume with beef and live cattle and no doubt your perspective would be that NAFTA has not kept those darned Canuck cattle on the right side of the border.

On the subject of trade, although Canada and the U.S. are exchanging words over softwood lumber at least prominent Americans have not as yet not threatened to shoot our Prime Minister. I am thinking our government should be giving the same amount of attention to seeing normal trade resume in beef as they are to seeing 2X4s cross the border. The restrictions the U.S. has on trade or non trade in our live cattle are costing our producers way more than any tariffs being paid by the softwood lumber people.

I would say just one thing. While your preference would no doubt be to see no imports of beef and cattle, whose imports would you prefer? Would you prefer Australian and South American imports or would you prefer North American cattle which operate in at least a similar cost structure as you do? While in a perfect world we would have no imports while enjoying export sales the world does not work that way from my vantage point.

But let’s imagine a scenario where the U.S. protectionist lobby was successful in keeping out what are seen as competing imports. This is what I would think would happen… There would be a brief period of higher prices while the U.S. beef herd increased in size by a maximum of 5% to make up for the displaced imports (assuming there was room in the industry for expansion against competing uses of the land). After which the packers would return prices paid for live cattle to previous levels or more likely even below prior levels to limit production and maximize their profits. Packer concentration would increase, competition for live cattle would decrease, resulting in lower prices being paid for live cattle. If that sounds like producers cannot win for losing let me explain.

I believe supply and demand do not explain the prices paid for commodities, rather a lack of competition for live cattle and the inability of the primary producer to obtain a competitive advantage does. Attempts by domestic producers to limit or short the commodity supply will not have a lasting effect on producer’s profitability unless some way is found for them to increase their competitive position in the marketplace. The method to address that problem in Canada is seen by many producers as a few properly structured producer owned packing plants to create competition in the marketplace. Frankly I think Canadians are on the right track in seeking solutions to chronically low producer returns when compared to the American producers who are simply seeking to block imports rather than seeking to improve their competitiveness with the packers.

[cpallett]

Randy,

Good to know you missed me. Not so good to hear that you think there is no information at www.bseclassaction.ca Have you read the statement of claim yet? Lots of information there, including the fact that the lawsuit is aimed primarily at what used to be known as Agriculture Canada, as well as Ridley.

On November 15th and 16th Regional Senior Justice Warren K. Winkler (originally from Pincher Creek) will be hearing arguments from all parties on the issue of whether there is a viable claim here in the law. The test, as Justice Borins says is: "It is not necessary for the plaintiffs to show that they are going to win their case. All they need show is a case fit to be tried - a case which will get them past the door to the courtroom."

Justice Winkler has tremendous experience in class actions, and is very bright, tough and fair. We are lucky to have him. If he says that this intended class action passes this threshold test then it will be time for everyone, including the Feds, to sit up and take notice. I'll keep you posted.

All the best.

[farmers_son]

cpallett: I understood your group approached the ABP for support. How did you make out with that?

[rkaiser]

Thanks Cameron. Read the statement of claim and your research is very well done.

My own personal interest will be whether the feds stand by their claim of BSE transmission or whether they talk of the "potential of transmission", and the "potential of spontaneous cases". I notice you used "most probable" in the claim, and that is likely the feds route as well.

Wish that time didn't have to be such a factor. Nov. 16th is a long way off yet.

Good luck
Randy

[nicolaas]

I was reading the paper today, said that the Canadian Government is getting "serious" about the USA's protectionist policies. It seems they may put a tarriff on feed corn coming into the country in retaliation for softwood and other disputes we are having. What kind of #$%holes could dream up this spineless retaliation? Another thing, why is it always agricutural related? The yanks probably just love this crap. How is that going to hurt them? All they will do is increase subsidies to their farmers to make up the difference. They must get quite a chuckle out of this. Personally I have had enough of this, Canadians are better than the slaves to the US corporate interests that we act like. If our government actually had any balls, including FEDERAL and PROVINCIAL, they would put on a provincial export tax on all of alberta's fuel/ oil heading south, say matching what the pricks are charging us on our softwood lumber and wheat, and then we can redistribute it back to the affected companies. Just like those so called "free enterprisers" do. TIT for TAT. THat is the only way to get those peoples attention. Get 'em where it hurts, and yes, they will still pay for our oil as they need it. They won't have to though as they will be back at the bargaining table so fast your head would spin. PS. I work in the oilpatch and depend on it to support my farm, but enough is enough. Time to grow a spine and call their bluff. I'm getting a little tired of this exploitation of us and our resources.