![US National Cattlemen's Beef Association representatives Kent Bacus and Mark Eisele at Beef Australia in Rockhampton. Picture Shan Goodwin US National Cattlemen's Beef Association representatives Kent Bacus and Mark Eisele at Beef Australia in Rockhampton. Picture Shan Goodwin](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/38U3JBx5nNussShT8aZyYjc/692fcb19-08b5-4cf8-a385-5aef0ca6299b_rotated_270.jpg/r0_610_1512_1767_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Aligning with beef producers globally could give Australia a far stronger foothold in pushing back against one-size-fits-all prescriptive regulation around deforestation, cattle producer leaders say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
Wyoming cattle rancher Mark Eisele, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in the United States, made it very clear that ranchers would be fighting the European Union deforestation trade regulations.
Speaking at various events at Beef Australia in Rockhampton this month, Mr Eisele said ranchers would also be pushing back hard on what he called the extremist view from Greens groups that big swathes of livestock country should be turned over to forest.
"First of all, we don't have a deforestation problem in the United States," he said.
"What we have is a management problem. The US Forest Service has been held back by red tape. Forests have not been logged and timbered and we therefore don't have lumber available from those sources, so it comes from places like Brazil which have no environmental protection.
"I take offense to the EU suggestion that we are deforesters. You're not sustainable for six generations on a ranch or farm unless you're doing the right thing."
NCBA executive director of government affairs Kent Bacus said in the US, the EU deforestation regulation was being talked about as a trade barrier "because that is exactly what it is".
"The fact they have not put any clear definitions around what compliance will look like or outlined how a country makes improvements and changes their risk is proof of this," he said.
"It's a way to discourage imports. It's not science based, not objective and in many ways it is going to violate a lot of international trade regulations.
"It's something we are being very vocal in our opposition to."