LMD Feb 2014

Livestock “The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL FEBRUARY 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com

MARKET

Digest I Volume 56 • No. 2

Dying a Slow Death

by Lee Pitts here are more than 22,000 federal lands ranchers who are currently paying the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service $1.35 per animal unit month to run cattle on 250 million acres of federal land. Truth be told, that rankles eastern, and even some western, ranchers who view the federal lands ranchers, not as cowboy brethren, but as competition who are getting an unfair advantage. Get rid of them, they figure, and their piece of the beef pie would be bigger.

This unholy alliance is joined by greenies and radical environmentalists who want the federal lands ranchers gone at any price.

They believe the West should be reserved, not for people and cows, but for so called “wild” horses and wolves. You can say this for them, they aren’t all dumb, they know that if the federal lands ranchers didn’t have access to the federal grazing ground for part of the year, it’s highly unlikely many of them would be able to continue ranching on the 120 million deeded acres that they do own. Take away the BLM and Forest Service ground and there would be a domino effect, as ranchers and the rural communities they support, would disappear faster than the tofu turkey at a Sierra Club potluck.

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

T

Riding Herd

The best way to appreciate how another person rides is to get on their horse.

Dirty Word A year ago, when Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso was joined by eight other Republican Senators in sponsoring The Grazing Improvement Act the news was hailed by federal lands ranchers, and vilified by angry greenies. The Grazing Improvement Act would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to change the current terms of BLM and Forest Service grazing leases

from 10 to 20 years on federal lands in the 16 contiguous western states, where half of the ground is owned by the feds.

Even better for the federal lands ranchers, the Act would also allow for certain grazing permits to be excluded from constant NEPA reviews.

That’s a very big deal because if you want to send shivers down the spine of any businessman, just mention NEPA. It stands for National Environmental Policy

Act and anyone who has been run through the NEPA wringer will tell you it’s worse than a combined colonoscopy/root canal without anesthesia! It’s a long, arduous and costly process which “requires federal agencies to do extensive environmental analysis and consider alternatives for any “major federal action” that is expected to significantly affect the human environment.” After federal judges ruled in several cases that grazing renewals are “important actions” it meant that to renew your grazing permit you had to go through a NEPA review every ten years. In other words, it’s an environmental impact study for ranchers in which the feds throw the big bureaucratic book at you. Quite naturally, this makes independent ranchers a little nervous and queasy whenever they hear the dirty four letter word NEPA. This NEPA review process continued on page two

Using feed-grade antibiotics for livestock: Changes are coming SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION PORKNETWORK.COM

ecently, livestock producers and veterinarians have been hearing about changes coming in the way antibiotics are used in food animals. In mid-December, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final “guidance for industry” that starts the clock running on some of these changes.

Initially, it’s the animal health companies that will be adjusting their practices —adjustments that will eventually make their way down to the people who prescribe and use the drugs: veterinarians and livestock producers.

The role of livestock antibiotics in contributing to resistant bacterial infections in humans is complex and has been long-debated. Producer associations have seen the writing on the wall for a couple of years now that these changes were coming. But what do they actually mean for producers?

R

What will change: The labeled uses of “medically important” antibiotics for growth promotion and improvements in feed efficiency will go away. The FDA is asking drug manufacturers to voluntarily take these uses off their products’ labels. Because

extra-label use of feed grade antibiotics is illegal, these uses will no longer be legal as well. The companies have until mid-March to tell the FDA what products they plan to do this with.

After that, they have three years to make the label changes, so livestock producers currently using antibiotics for growth promotion will have time to adjust, depending on how quickly the companies switch over.

The list of what FDA considers “medically important” antibiotics is pretty long. It contains older drugs like tetracyclines and penicillin along with classes of drugs that are more critical to human medicine, such as cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. When it comes to growth-promoting antibiotics that fall into this category, it’s drugs like tetracyclines, tylosin, and neomycin that will be affected.

These “medically important” products will shift from over-the-counter to “Veterinary Feed Directive” (VFD) classification – possibly with new label indications for treatment, control, or prevention. The VFD is not a new classification; it’s currently being used for newer feed-grade drugs like Pulmotil® in pigs and cattle and Nuflor® in pigs and fish.

by LEE PITTS

Titanic Two

t must have been very embarrassing for the 74 scientists, who meant to go to Antarctica to validate global warming theories, when the Russian ship they were on got stuck in ice ten feet thick far from where it should NOT have been if the polar cap was melting.

Even more humiliating, ice breakers couldn’t get within ten miles of the frozen ship so the group had to be saved by helicopters and ships burning fossil fuels, you know, those terrible greenhouse gas emitting tools of the right-wing rich.

Couple that event with last month’s polar vortex that sent thermometers plummeting to record lows and it hasn’t been a very good time to be a global warming fanatic, or “warmist” as they are now called. Despite the fact the earth has been in a cooling off stage the last 15 years, the “warmists” still cling to their trumped up theories like a Titanic passenger clinging to a life preserver.

Much to the scientist’s dismay, this aborted scientific expedition will be remembered for suggesting that maybe we aren’t all gonna be cooked medium well; Hollywood isn’t going to drop off into the ocean (darn it); and the leader of this embarrassing fiasco is not going to get good seats, or be a speaker at the next United Nations confab on global warming. I was especially interested in this story because the leader of the scientific team was Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales in Australia, of which I am an alumnus.

When I attended the Australian university I was immediately shocked at the differences between their educational system and ours.

At college in the U.S. tests were based on one’s knowledge of facts; there were right and wrong answers. In Australia in the 1970s a test might consist of one question asking for a defense of your opinion. If you wanted a good grade, and who didn’t, you would mimic back the opinion of your professor. Perhaps this is continued on page fourteen

continued on page twelve

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 2

February 15, 2014

Slow Death also gives radical environmental groups an opportunity to throw their two cents in. They hire high powered lawyers, mostly paid for by the taxpayers, to throw up roadblocks in order to achieve their eventual goal of the complete removal of all livestock from federal lands. And it seems to be working.

All this litigating in the courts has made the NEPA process so long and cumbersome that the federal land management agencies, who are supposed to do the reviews on every allotment every ten years, got seriously behind in their work. As a result, federal lands ranchers have to depend each year on the whims of Congress to allow them to continue operating while the agencies catch up. But they never will. This backlog of work creates serious uncertainty for federal lands ranchers and it’s why when you read some real estate listings for federal lands ranches in the West, the owners seem to be begging, “Here, please take this ranch for less than it’s worth so I can save my marriage, lower my blood pressure and calm my bleeding ulcers.”

So What’s Not To Like?

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Livestock Market Digest (ISSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September, and December in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M. POSTMASTER – Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN . . . . . . . Publisher LEE PITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS . . . . . . . .Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS . . . . .Sales Rep FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES: Ron Archer . . . . . . . . . . . 505/865-6011 archerron@aol.com

Subscribe Today

FIELD EDITOR: DELVIN HELDERMON 580/622-5754, 1094 Kolier Rd. Sulphur, OK 73086

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

Telephone: 505/243-9515 Fax: 505/998-6236 www.aaalivestock.com

STATE

ZIP

My check is enclosed for: o One Year: $19.95 o Two Years $29.95 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF: MARGEURITE VENSEL . Office Mgr. CAROL PENDLETON . . Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER . . . . Graphic Artist

To get a 20-year lease instead of ten years is a very big deal if you are a federal lands rancher.

Better yet, for the cattlemen and sheepherders there is also a provision that would NOT make it mandatory to go through the NEPA process for every lease renewal if you don’t significantly change your modus operandi in the operation of your federal lands ranch.

Many cattlemen groups, like the NCBA and the Federal lands Council, have hailed the Grazing improvement Act and have urged its passage. Others have read the fine print and can easily envision a doomsday scenario where The Grazing Improvement Act is a precursor to the end of the West as we know it.

So what’s not to like about The Grazing Improvement Act?

Once And For All The Grazing Improvement Act bill first proposed by the Republican Senator from Wyoming was a good one. Representative Raul Labrador, a Republican from Idaho, sponsored the same bill in the House. The scrutiny of the issue has brought to light some necessary changes in that version as well.

But keep in mind that the Senate, as currently composed, is still controlled by Democrats. (At least for a little while anyway.) So two liberal Senators marching to the green beat of their supporters, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, were able to add on an amendment that changed the Senate bill from a good one to a disaster with the potential for ending federal lands ranching once and for all. The amendment would create a pilot program which would allow for “voluntary”

continued from page one

buyouts of grazing permits in two states, Oregon and New Mexico, which just so happens to be where the two Senators are from.

So what was passed in the Senate was a substitute that looked nothing like the original measure.

Yet the NCBA and Federal lands Council are still urging its passage. Others have actually read the act, seen behind the ruse and put a little bit more thought into the matter. One of those people is José Varela Lopez, President of the New Mexico Cattle Growers, a group that hasn’t always seen eye to eye with the NCBA. Varela Lopez says that not only does the Grazing Improvement Act not contain many improvements for federal lands ranch families, it does just the opposite, by taking dead aim at ranchers in New Mexico and Oregon. Varela Lopez says, “The bill contains a provision for voluntary relinquishment of up to 25 allotments in New Mexico and Oregon. Those allotments would be mandated to permanently exclude grazing.”

Yes, you read that right. A bill that was meant to improve federal lands rancher’s plight has language in it that would end federal lands ranching. Senate bill 258 as currently composed would require the Secretary of the Interior to accept permits that are voluntarily relinquished by current permit holders. Under the bill, relinquished permits would be terminated and future grazing on land covered by those permits would be prohibited. Forever.

“Hi, I’m Your New Neighbor” We have already seen this movie, as grazing permit retirement has already removed livestock from some federal lands where allotment owners have voluntarily relinquished their grazing permits to the government in exchange for compensation from third parties. In the future when an old rancher wants to retire and no one wants to buy his or her ranch because a big chunk of it is public ground, or if he or she is having a hard time making ends meet and no one in the family is crazy enough to carry on the federal lands ranching tradition, do you think he or she might be a willing seller? Even more probable, say the government has made it almost impossible to run a federal lands ranch, like the feds did with the Hage family in Nevada, or countless other cases we could list, and say some organization like the National Federal lands Grazing Campaign (NPLGC) comes along and offers the ranch family the going rate of $175 per animal unit month for his federal lands ranch. You think he or she would take the deal? After all, it’s probably the best he or she can do. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best for the land, our country or for neighboring ranchers still trying to tough it out amidst a sea of wolf and wild horse sanctuaries.

If you think these scenarios are contrived or far fetched please consider what the National Fedcontinued on page three

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

February, 2014

Slow Death eral lands Campaign is, and who they are. It is composed of Western Watersheds Project, American Lands Alliance, The Forest Guardians, The Center for Biological Diversity, The Oregon Natural Desert Association and the Committee for Idaho’s High Desert. That’s a veritable who’s who of radical green groups; a rancher’s enemy-list if there ever was one. The organization was formed solely for the purpose of buying out federal lands ranches and retiring that ground from grazing.

The supergroup NPLGC was formed for the purpose of getting Congress to pass legislation to authorize the voluntary buy-out and permanent retirement of federal grazing permits WITH FEDERAL FUNDS. In other words, your money. They want this “to reduce the contentious and often adversarial conflicts surrounding the use of federal lands for domestic livestock in the American West.”

Jon Marvel, Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project and the biggest cow-hater in America, says of the NPLGC and their efforts to buy out federal lands allotments: “It will literally change the face of federal lands in the West. It is an historic idea that will make possible the restoration and recovery of public-lands watersheds everywhere.”

They know that to entice federal lands ranchers they have to offer a decent buyout and the amount they propose is almost triple the average value per AUM of federal grazing permits in today’s market. For example, a rancher with 400 cows that graze on federal lands for five months of the year would get $350,000, plus whatever he or she could sell their deeded ground for to some bed and breakfast operator, or to The Nature Conservancy, who will then flip it to the feds for a nice commission.

But you ask, “Where would these groups get the money to buy out allotments?” After all, we are talking here about 270 million acres in 11 western states.

The cash will come from the same place that many of today’s ranch buyers are getting it: high tech and Wall Street. These two groups are not exactly in tune with the ranching community. It is projected that in the next 20 years we will witness the greatest transfer of wealth from one generation to another in history. A lot of those billions will end up in the hands of greeny urban liberals who don’t want to step in a cow pie next time they go trekking.

The money will also come from the United States Government who will allocate billions of printing-press tax-dollars to expand the scope of their Nature Disneyland.

And just think about the potential for “green jobs” when wildfires are blackening the West without cattle, sheep or foresters to periodically prune the vegetation!

Granted, the buyout program as it now stands would be a “pilot

continued from page two

project” and would ONLY allow up to 25 permits PER YEAR in Oregon and New Mexico to be “voluntarily” relinquished. But many a firmly entrenched federal program started out as a pilot project. Please note that there is no sunset clause or expiration date on the program and if you really think the buyouts will be limited to those two states you probably believed all that malarkey about keeping your own doctor and insurance too.

The Big Unanswered Question Even though the Federal lands Council is supposed to be looking out for the best interests of federal lands ranchers they support the Senate bill, yet they oppose buyouts. They have yet to explain how they justify their diametrically opposed position. “The PLC strongly opposes buyouts — voluntary or otherwise,” says Brice Lee President of the PLC. “Ultimately, buyouts create an issue for the industry due to the wealthy special interest groups who work to remove livestock from federal lands. The language in the amendment addresses ‘voluntary’ buyouts; however, radical, anti-grazing agendas are likely at play. Litigation and persistent harassment serve as a way to eliminate grazing on federal lands and could force many ranchers into these ‘voluntary’ relinquishments, unwillingly. There can be no ‘market based solution’ in which any given special interest group is able to ratchet up ranchers’ cost of operation, and artificially create a ‘voluntary’ sale or relinquishment.”

So how can the PLC and NCBA, of which the PLC is a part, be in favor of a bill that launches a program to buy out allotment owners which they say they don’t condone?

Scott George, the NCBA President when all this was happening, could barely hide his glee in support of the curiously named Grazing Improvement Act. “The act is vital for ensuring the fate of our producer’s permits — livelihoods are depending on the efficiency of the system — which undoubtedly needs restructuring,” said George.

But what difference does it make that federal lands ranchers can get 20 year leases instead of 10 if there are no more leases available because they were retired? What difference does it make that the rate to run a cow on BLM and Forest Service ground is $1.35 per animal unit month if no animals are allowed to graze there?

The Grazing improvement Act has not yet been voted on but if it comes to fruition you can expect to read press releases from both the NCBA and PLC bragging about how they increased the term of leases and tamed the NEPA monster. Hurray for them! There will be no mention that their actions were a significant contributing factor in the slow death of federal lands ranching in America.

Page 3

Livestock Market Digest

Page 4

Rancher Relief Fund helping hundreds of ranchers RAPIDCITYJOURNAL.COM

our short months after the devastating winter storm Atlas struck western South Dakota, the Rancher Relief Fund (RRF) is poised to disburse an additional $3.3 million to hundreds of livestock producers in the impacted area.

Cory Eich, President of the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, noted, “We can’t thank the Rancher Relief Fund donors enough. The outpouring of support from around the country has been gratifying and we’re pleased to be able to distribute over $4 million back to the livestock producers of western South Dakota and neighboring states who lost animals in the early blizzard.”

The Rancher Relief Fund distributed nearly $775,000 to impacted livestock producers prior to the application deadline of Dec. 31, 2013. With more than 600 applications received, the SD Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters (SDVOAD) will be working as quickly as possible to disburse an additional $3.3 million to the qualified applicants in the coming weeks.

All disbursements are based on criteria established by representatives of the founding livestock organizations. In order to qualify for assistance from the Rancher Relief Fund, applicants must demonstrate they are livestock producers and they must have lost a minimum of ten percent of their livestock herd.

“With approximately 600 applicants reporting losses of roughly 43,000 head of cattle, sheep and horses, we recognize the financial assistance from the Rancher Relief Fund will not come close to fully reimbursing the ranchers that suffered devastating losses.

However, we know every little bit helps in the wake of the historic storm,” said Bob Fortune, SD Stockgrowers Association President.

Tax deductible donations are still being accepted for the Rancher Relief Fund and can be made online by going to the Black Hills Area Community Foundation's website at www.giveblackhills.org. Additional funding rounds may be provided to RRF applicants, depending on continued contributions. For answers to frequently asked questions or for more information on the Rancher Relief Fund, please visit www.ranchersrelief.org.

F

Letter To The Editor: he National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has announced that it opposes the farm bill. This farm legislation authorizes provisions that thousands of U.S. producers have been waiting for; none more than the ranchers in my home state of South Dakota, where winter storm Atlas ravaged the livestock industry last October. Yet, NCBA opposes it.

On Monday, January 27, NCBA joined the meat packing lobby to announce its opposition to the farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014).

Speaking for NCBA was its president, Scott George, a dairy farmer from Cody, Wyoming who called COOL a “mistake,” adding that COOL “has already resulted in steep discounts to our producers.”

Discounts?

What discounts? I am a U.S. rancher and I haven’t noticed that COOL has resulted in any discounts. I’d like to see the evidence Mr. George and NCBA can provide for their brash statement. For the week ending January 25, the combined auction markets in my home state of South Dakota reported 500-600 pound feeder steers bringing an average of $211.06. Last year at this time the same class of cattle was bringing $169.48. Markets across the nation are reporting the same sorts of increases.

Let’s face it, U.S. markets set the price for Canadian cattle,

T

so Canadian producers are sharing the benefits of our tremendous cattle markets.

The COOL revised regulations were implemented on November 23, 2013. Cattle markets have continued to increase since then. The sky has not fallen.

Further, Mr. George says Congress’ failure to “fix COOL” will lead to retaliatory tariffs on a host of commodities and that it's “only a matter of time before the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules in favor of Canada and Mexico.”

That’s a worn out argument and it’s premature for anyone to attempt to predict what the WTO may or may not do.

However, USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) believe the COOL revised regulations have brought the COOL program into compliance. Retaliation, if authorized because the US revised regulations are found not to be in compliance with WTO obligations, does not occur before completion of the panel process in Geneva and (if appeals are taken) the Appellate Body process and after arbitration as to the proper level based on the facts. More importantly, if, as the US and groups like USCA believe, the US is in compliance with its WTO obligations, then no retaliation is permitted under the WTO. The briefing process is underway and the parties will have their chance to communicate their views to the

February 15, 2014

WTO panel in the next month with a decision likely sometime in the spring (or later) and the possibility of an appeal by one or all parties. COOL is important legislation and USDA’s regulation is an important regulation. Those of us who have pursued improved labeling deserve the opportunity to have our government confirm the correctness of the changes they made to address the first decision. We applaud the Administration’s pursuit of U.S. rights, and we applaud Congress’s staying the course.

That is what we as a nation typically do in these types of situations. There is no reason to depart from that path on COOL. There is no doubt that the revised regulations do two important things – they address consumer confusion in the marketplace by making clear where muscle cuts of meat are from and second it lets cattle ranchers in the U.S. (and ranchers in our neighboring countries) have their product identified correctly. We know most consumers believe the beef they are buying is from U. S. cattle. Now they can confirm that fact through the retail label. Now is the time we can communicate that fact through factually accurate labels. Similarly, cattle ranchers in other countries have the right to have the origin of meat from their animals correctly identified. When cattle are slaughtered in Canada, the meat products that enter the U.S. have long identified the product as a product of Canada. That is not discrimination

against Canadian product; it is a statement of fact. Indeed, beef (or pork or chicken) processed in any country and exported to the United States shows the country of origin and one has seen that in grocery stores across the country for decades. A free trade area doesn’t change the origin of where cattle are born, nor does it change the origin of where the animal is raised or where it is slaughtered. We are not citizens of North America. We are citizens of the United States or of Canada or of Mexico. It is beyond absurd to argue that telling people where the food they eat comes from discriminates against producers. Canadians are proud of their farm products as are our Mexican neighbors. Certainly U. S. ranchers are proud of what we do in raising cattle to the highest standards. COOL simply informs consumers of the uncontested facts and lets each country’s producers be recognized for their contribution to the product appearing before consumers in retail stores.

Mr. George and NCBA say that the “livestock sector is standing shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition” of the farm bill.

That's not true. The truth is NCBA is standing shoulder-toshoulder with the meat lobby to oppose the farm bill. Saying the livestock sector is unified in its opposition implies that every U.S. rancher opposes the bill and I, for one, do not. This U.S. rancher supports passage of the farm bill just as the vast majority of U.S. producers do.

– Danni Beer

The Best of the Bunch & !) % *&&# &, ( *& * , (. # )* )*&(. /) % - )* &&" % $ ! !) '+( !**) % * *( !*!&% & !(* & ) % & /) &+%*(. /) # * )* -!## %* ( * !% % !%)'!( )*!% *& # ))!

(--0% !,4 &-2/ -& %%60 "--*0 !,$ .!4 !,$ 1(!1 -,+4 ),#+2$%0 /)-/)14 -01!'% 5 1 !++ !$$0 2. 1- ! .-1%,1)!+ 0!3),' -& -3%/

February 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Page 5

Global warmists aim to disempower America

BY RON ARNOLD, WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

rich Jantsch was an Austrian astronomer and technology forecaster, the one man who can plausibly be branded as the scientist who corrupted science into today’s global warming monster.

As one of the seven men who, at dinner on the evening of April 8, 1968, founded the Club of Rome, he possessed the gravitas to evangelize his radical belief that science cannot be neutral.

In order to prevent ecological and social collapse, Jantsch said, Western countries must halt their economic growth and surrender their goods for equitable distribution throughout the world. The alternative: “an eventual worldwide class war.”

His ideas permeated the development of the club’s sensational 1972 work, The Limits to Growth, the hugely influential book of doom which first explained to a mass audience the three things that must be accepted to prevent the apocalypse: computer modeling, anthropogenic global warming, and strong government control.

It reeked of Jantsch’s “science cannot be neutral.”

Jantsch faded into obscurity, but his ideas gained fame as sales of the book soared to 12 million, and it remains the bestselling environment book ever. It was the textbook for the obscene blend of science and politics that is the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change and the insanity that climate scientists are the only bearers of truth.

Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, who wrote an introduction to one of Jantsch’s books, was leery of the artificial certainty inherent in computer modeling. He was indignant that science was obsessed with its own mythology, making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity.

He wrote that scientists who trust too much in “method” risk turning into “miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humor.”

Recently an unsigned editorial in the Investors Business Daily proposed that global warming is a back door to socialism. It seems that United Nations climate treaty hotshot Christiana Figueres praised China as, “able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S.” My experience corresponding with the climate crowd says that’s not an endorsement of either China or socialism, just job protection. I asked a prominent climate skeptic who knows something about socialism what she thought.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen said by email from the United Kingdom, “My take is that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] was and remains ‘a god sent’ for bureaucracies wanting to

E

expand, nothing much to do with socialism. In my humble opinion, Soviet communism was brought down by bureaucracy.”

Boehmer-Christiansen should know. She was born and raised in communist East Germany, moved to Southern Australia for her undergraduate work (geomorphology with climatology and physical geography) earned her doctorate in England (University of Sussex), is lecturer emeritus at Hull University and is a past member of a United Nations Environment Program forum. She now edits the peerreviewed academic journal Energy & Environment.

The corruption of scientific ethics concerns her deeply:

“Some university research units have almost become whollyowned subsidiaries of government departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want.”

Boehmer-Christiansen noted how climate regulations have created private profit centers.

“Carbon counting, trading, ‘controlling’ and investing not only employs an army of counters, etc, but also attracts government money, which can then be redistributed/invested. . . . Is this socialism?”

I doubt that we’ll be overrun by socialist revolutionaries rampaging through our nationalized

infrastructure shouting, “This is my nano-tech laboratory now.”

President Obama panders to the left but seems personally unmoved by Marxism or any of the dozens of socialisms. His visible outrage instead targets our “neocolonial sins,” in remarks like “America has 2 percent of the world's oil but uses 25 percent.”

That harks back more to Jantsch’s “Stop being wealthy and give it to the world,” than to Marx’s “Workers of the world, unite.”

My take is that Obama viscerally hates rich people and corporations, but for their power, not for his ideology. He wants them brought down, which he is

doing to the nation’s power industry now – and consequently the entire nation – with his climate policy.

Obama seems perfectly aware that disempowering America’s energy sources will disempower America’s place in the world.

That’s not socialism, that’s suicide. But that’s exactly what the miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humor and all of the left really wants.

Don't worry about socialist America, worry about powerless America.

RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 6

February 15, 2014

Study Assessing Wolf and Cattle Interaction and Wolf Impact: Economic Impact and New Knowledge

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

he increasing wolf population in the West is having a significant impact on ranchers and livestock. The Oregon Beef Council funded a study project that was begun in 2008, to look at how wolf activity affected cattle behavior. Several ranches in Idaho and Oregon have been part of this project, utilizing GPS collars on a sampling of the cattle and on a few wolves.

Dr. John Williams, Ag Natural Resources, Oregon State University Extension, is one of the people involved with this study. “This is a long-term study and we are only 6 years into it. Some of the spin-offs from it thus far, however, have contributed to our knowledge base to help us answer several resource management questions. We have a good set of data regarding how cattle spend time on the mountains on the

T

range,” he says.

“Even if you disregard the wolf question, the knowledge we’ve gained about how cattle use the range is larger than any other we’ve had. We are collaring more than 80 different cattle every year (10 each from each participating ranch) and we have more than 4 years of data now. Each of those data sets (study sites) brings us to more than a half million data points,” he says. This is a lot more than what can be gleaned with visual observations.

Several graduate students have done their masters theses on various aspects of this study project.

“For instance one of these is a report on how much time cattle spend in a riparian area. Regardless of where they are, on the various ranges, it turns out that cattle spend less than 3 percent of their time within 5 meters of the streams,” he says.

Another graduate student looked at the broader data from the GPS points. “We did one-second collars (giving the GPS location once every second) in a more controlled setting here at the Experiment Station and looked at what cows do, to find out what they spend their time doing in a riparian pasture,” says Williams.

This was done at the Hall Ranch in a long, narrow pasture similar to what is found on many ranches in a valley bottom with a creek running through it.

There were some exclosures along the creek from old research sites on the Hall ranch, but the cattle had access to the rest of the creek. “We put one-second collars on some of the cattle to see how much time they spend eating, how much time they spend lounging, and how much total time they spend within 5 meters of the creek—and where they cross the creek. They were in the creek a certain amount of time, but they picked about 3 spots where they go down to the water to drink and then go back out,”

he says.

“Cows don’t really like to wander around in the water. The gravel streambeds are hard on their feet. We are gaining more riparian knowledge—about where cattle were actually spending their time during our study,” he says.

“We are beginning to get some preliminary results regarding cattle distribution in the areas in Idaho where wolves are, and data on cattle distribution over here in Oregon where there are fewer wolves. We can’t make comparisons with ranches where there are no wolves, because the wolves have already started moving into our county in Oregon, but we are able to compare high density wolf areas with low density wolf areas,” he says.

“We’ve added a couple more cooperator ranches that are located where the wolves are, so we can compare. Data from those ranches complicates the picture when we are looking at all the data, but we can leave those ranches out when we are doing the paired data comparing with and without wolves on the Idaho and Oregon ranches. Right now we have analyzed 2 years of data.

One year was with a collared wolf in the middle of one herd in Idaho,” he says.

The big challenge has been to get wolves collared in the Idaho area where they are interacting with the cattle. “The struggle of getting one of our research collars on a wolf has turned out to be a more difficult issue than we thought it would be. First we had to get permission, and then get the people who can actually put collars on—and then actually catch a wolf and get the collar on.

So far we’ve put collars on 3 wolves. One was in 2009 and we obtained very good data from that one. We put a collar on another wolf 2 years ago, and haven’t seen that wolf since. We don’t know whether it died or was shot by a hunter, or is still out there and we might see it someday. We still have hope, but we don’t know where that collar is, or if we will be able to retrieve it. We collared another wolf more recently—a wolf that had a previously damaged leg that had healed. That wolf did not survive long enough to give us useful data,” he says.

One of the purposes of this study was to try to answer the basic question about how cattle react differently because of the presence of wolves. “This is what we hope to be able to determine after 10 or more years. In the meantime we are learning many other things along the way. We are finding that cattle temperament changes drastically when they have to live with wolves, for instance,” says Williams.

“This winter we are putting collars on cattle and doing some blood tests on the ones that have been living among wolves, and

comparing their stress level (measuring cortisol levels in the blood) with cattle that have not been living with wolves. Our hypothesis is that yes, we will be able to detect this. We are also far enough into this study to know that cows are individuals and some will be stressed more than others.”

“We don’t like to equate it with human emotions or put it into human terms, but if a group of people witness a tragedy (for instance, a shooting in a room with 50 people there), some of those people will be so emotionally upset that they will go to pieces and be in tears for awhile but they’ll get over it and life will go on. Some will be changed forever.

Others will get up and go out of the room and shrug it off and go on with their lives. This same kind of spectrum is what we expect when 50 cows go through a traumatic experience, such as interacting with wolves,” he explains.

“One thing we want to eventually find out about is how long this effect lasts. If we were able to measure the stress on a cow that is attacked, her cortisol level the next day would be very high. Perhaps a month afterward it would be less. What our ranchers have been telling us is that many of these cows’ changed behavior lasts for awhile and in some cows it becomes less pronounced and in some cows it disappears, and in others it does not. We will eventually be looking at a large herd, but we will start with 50 cows and see if we can see a cortisol difference between the cows that haven’t been with wolves and cows that have,” says Williams.

These various studies are helping us learn more about cattle/wolf interactions and what is involved.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WOLVES — Neil Rimbey, a range economist with University of Idaho, has been evaluating the economic impact on ranches in the study. “I’ve talked with the ranchers and gathered information that we’ve used in building representative ranch budgets. We will use those to develop economic models that will be used to assess the economic impact of management alternatives,” he says.

The depredation loss (direct losses, in killed animals) is what gets attention, but the first years of this study have shown that some of the indirect losses actually have more impact on a ranch profitability and sustainability.

“There was a study in Lemhi County, Idaho about 10 years ago in which the calves on that allotment were tagged with special tracking devices at the time they were turned out. In this study, the ranchers and researchers were only able to actually find one out of every 5 calves that disappeared. In rugged country, this is probably typical,” says Rimbey.

“A more recent study in Wyoming indicated that this rate

was actually a little low; in that state they are compensating ranchers on a one to seven basis (figuring a rancher will only be able to find one out of every seven animals killed by wolves).

They are only getting one confirmed depredation for every seven animals that are lost. This recent research in Wyoming also suggests that some of the indirect losses—such as more open cows, reduction in weight gain on the calves, more veterinary treatments for injured calves (or stressed calves that got pneumonia)—should raise the compensation rate (from one to seven) up to one to 13 or 14,” Rimbey says.

The change in cattle behavior when in the presence of wolves not only affects the cattle themselves but also impacts their management and is harder on the land and facilities. Cattle may not stay in the areas where they are put—coming right back down off the mountains to try to get away from the wolves. They may use some areas more heavily while avoiding others. Cattle also crash through fences and are harder to handle.

“Both the Oregon and Idaho ranchers have mentioned the increase in time/labor and costs associated with managing cattle now, compared to before they had wolves. There’s more travel involved when dealing with distant areas; they now have to go more frequently to try to check on the cattle. There must be more time spent meeting with Fish and Wildlife Service to try to get confirmation on death loss, etc.” This can become a drain on the ranchers’ time and energy.

“These are some of the things we are trying to look at. Most people don’t realize the extent of these impacts. Some of the ranchers mention the cattle being more difficult to manage,” he says. They can’t bring dogs along anymore, when working cattle; the cattle just keep attacking the dogs. They can no longer use dogs to help move a herd. The cattle will also attack a person on foot.

“With the budget information we’ve gathered, we will develop some models that will then be used to impose different things on that model. We can calculate what happens if death loss goes from two percent to eight percent, or what happens if the ranch has to hire another rider in the summer, etc.”

The study has helped confirm some things ranchers have suspected regarding behavioral changes in cattle, and it will be interesting to see how the economic impacts calculate out. “For instance, each one percent change in percent of calves weaned in Idaho (using conservative prices) is amounting to about a $1750 change in gross revenue, or nearly $6 per cow. This is just a starting point of this component of the project,” says Rimbey.

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

February 15, 2014

Page 7

Purple Monster and Pony Boy

BY BARRY DENTON

ere I am in Kentucky shoeing some race horses in a large training barn.

The barn was saturated with the acrid smell of burning hooves as I was swedging my own racing plates in those days and burning them on hot. I wonder if that still happens anywhere. The owner wanders in and asks me if we could trim some hooves on his broodmare band.

Keep in mind that the trainer would never ask his racing blacksmith to trim broodmares. I asked him how many he had and he said four hundred and twelve.

At first I thought are you nuts, but the entrepreneur in me took over and I said of course. I had no idea how I would get them done, but I figured I could hire some helpers.

As luck would have it a guy that had helped me in the past gave me a call that very evening looking for work. I told him that he was in luck and could go to work on the broodmares as soon as he got here.

Orvis McCalla was an interesting sort as he had a PhD in some sort of microbiology. However, Orvis preferred ranch life to research labs. He opted to work on Wyoming ranches most of the year and to work somewhere in the warm south during the winter. McCalla’s father had been a great horseshoer in his day and had taught his son very well.

Orvis was very handy with a pair of nippers and a rasp and horses liked him. Even though he was very talented his keen academic mind often got in his way when it came to common sense problems. He was a little sawed off guy with a great big black hat and always had jingle bobs on his spurs. Orvis could never sneak up on anyone as they would hear him coming.

Orvis always walked erect and never slouched. He was very kind to women and animals, but would fight a man if he looked at him cross eyed.

Orvis’s academic curiosity kept him seeking out new ways to train and handle horses. He was never satisfied with the tried and true methods. According to Orvis there had to be a better way.

Gawani PonyBoy was a popular horse clinician at the time and Orvis attended one of his clinics. One thing about Orvis is he listened and retained information quite easily. After he came home from the horse clinic he could repeat just about everything the clinician had said. He was very anxious to put his newly learned horse training techniques to use.

According to him these methods were developed over thousands of years by Native Americans. I never could quite figure that out as the Native Americans have only had horses since the

H

Spanish arrived in the late 1500s. He was armed with new ways of horse handling and trimming broodmares that would give him a chance to try them out.

Orvis finally arrived in Kentucky and was eager to get right to work. The horse farm provided two men to catch broodmares and a groom to hold them for the trimmer. Keep in mind that broodmares are only handled about four times per year and are turned out on big rolling pastures. Needless to say, some of the mares get pretty independent.

Orvis started trimming at first light and was making good progress. Most of the mares were well trained and would settle down with a little encouragement. Right after lunch that day the groom brought up a dark bay mare that stood over seventeen

hands. She seemed a little nervous and the groomed warned Orvis about her. The Big Purple Monster, as she was named, had been a stakes winning mare and her progeny were winners as well.

Orvis tried to comfort the mare by talking to her and petting her which was clear she didn’t like. There was no point in trying to pick up her foot at this point because getting near her was impossible as she whirled around the groom. Next Orvis tried rubbing some pressure points he had learned about to calm her down. The Big Purple Monster’s answer to that was to strike him on the arm and destroy his watch with the silver Navajo watch band.

Why he was wearing a watch to trim horses in is beyond me?

Wrist watches typically get caught on everything around a

horse including manes and tails.

Like I said, there was nothing normal or typical about Orvis.

He lived in his own world and had his reasons. The groom thought the horse broke his arm, but after a few minutes Orvis went back to work.

All this time I had been shoeing in the training barn about one hundred feet away. Orvis called me over so I could see the best thing he had learned from Gawani PonyBoy. While I was waiting for my groom to bring me another horse I ventured over to see what was so interesting to Orvis. He then walked up to the nervous mare and proceeded to gently blow in her nostril. With the speed of lightning she reared back and with one swoop of her hoof struck Orvis on the top of the head. It cracked like thunder when it hit.

I swear it drove him into the

ground. All that was left was a smashed black hat. We had to pick up the hat to see if Orvis was still under it.

There he was all crumpled and bleeding, but not moving.

We thought perhaps he was dead so someone went to get some water to throw on him.

The water did nothing other than get him wet. Finally someone brought a truck around and we loaded him in the back of it.

They drove him to the hospital where he still didn’t wake up for a few hours. Around supper time that night Orvis woke up and we were all relieved. You might have guessed that he had quite a headache for about a month and I think he lost an inch in height. After he was awake we all thought it was pretty funny and we made sure he got advance notice of all future horse clinics.

BlACK ANGUS READY FOR WORK

BULL SALE March 10, 2014 SELLING: 100 YEARLING & COMING 2-YEAR-OLD ANGUS BULLS ALSO SELLING: 100 QUALITY BLACK REPLACEMENT FEMALES Wayne Connell – Auctioneer Cattlemen’s Livestock Auction – Belen, New Mexico C A LV I N G

E A S E

•

G R O W T H

•

C A R C A S S

Heartstone Angus, LLC J-C Angus U Bar Ranch Hartzog Angus Cattle BL

AN

AC K

GUS

For catalog call 575/535-2975 or email dogilvie1@hotmail.com Remember: IT’S NOT BLACK HIDE, IT’S ANGUS INFLUENCE!

BL

AN

AC K

GUS

Livestock Market Digest

Page 8

Eliminating grazing won’t reduce impact of climate on rangeland, scientists say

BY TIFFANY WOODS, /HTTP://BIT.LY/OSU_AGNEWS1351

liminating grazing won’t reduce the impact of climate on rangeland, according to nearly 30 scientists in the western United States.

The researchers, who work for nine universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, made this argument in a journal article in response to a debate over whether grazing on western public lands worsens ecological alterations caused by climate change.

“We dispute the notion that eliminating grazing will provide a solution to problems created by climate change,” the 27 authors wrote in the peer-reviewed paper, which was a summary of scientific literature that was published online recently by the journal Environmental Management. “To cope with a changing climate, land managers will need access to all available vegetation management tools, including

E

grazing.”

Some scientists argue that livestock, deer, elk and wild horses and burros exacerbate the effects of climate change on vegetation, soils, water and wildlife on western rangelands. As a result, they claim that removing or reducing these animals would alleviate the problem.

In this latest paper, however, the authors argued that grazing can actually help mitigate some of the effects of climate change.

Climate change, they said, is likely to increase the accumulation of flammable grasses and increase the chance of catastrophic wildfires unless those grasses are managed.

“Grazing is one of the few tools available to reduce the herbaceous vegetation that becomes fine fuel on rangelands,” said co-author Dave Bohnert, the director of Oregon State University’s Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Cen-

February 15, 2014

Beefmaster Breeders United Hires Cummins to Staff eefmaster Breeders United (BBU) has announced that Ryan Cummins, Katy, Texas will be serving as the Marketing and Member Service Coordinator for the Beefmaster membership. Cummins will provide assistance to Beefmaster breeders and commercial beef producers throughout the United States. Cummins will provide consultation and farm visit services to members, while also increasing the Beefmaster breed’s exposure in the commercial marketplace. His responsibilities will include providing classification services, managing commercial marketing programs and supporting BBU educational programs that create visibility and demand for Beefmaster cattle.

B

Cummins is no stranger to the beef industry. Cummins has an extensive agricultural and livestock background, specifically with cattle and the Beefmaster breed. Cummins grew up raising and showing Beefmaster cattle through the Junior Beefmaster Breeders Association (JBBA) and continues to raise and manage a small herd of purebred Beefmasters and commercial cattle.

A native of Brenham, Texas, Cummins attended Clarendon Junior College receiving an Associates Degree in Science and competed on their award winning livestock judging team. Two years later, Mr. Cummins graduated from Oklahoma State University (OSU) with a Bachelors Degree in Animal Science. He was also a member of the

continued on page nine

DigestClassifieds

ANGUS MEANS BUSINESS. A reliable business par tner is HMJ½GYPX XS GSQI F] %X XLI %QIVMGER %RKYW %WWSGMEXMSR®, E XIEQ SJ WOMPPIH 6IKMSREP 1EREKIV W GER KYMHI ]SYV STIVEXMSR XS[EVH WYGGIWW

Radale Tinerr, Regional Manager P.O. Box 203 Hempstead, TX 77445 979.492.2663 rtiner@angus.org

'SRXEGX 6EHEPI 8MRIV XS PSGEXI %RKYW KIRIXMGW WIPIGX QEV OIXMRK STXMSRW XEMPSVIH XS ]SYV RIIHW ERH XS EGGIWW %WWSGMEXMSR TVSKVEQW ERH WIV ZMGIW 4YX XLI FYWMRIWW FVIIH XS [SV O JSV ]S

New Mexico Texas

© 2012-2013 American Angus Association

*VIHIVMGO %ZI 7X .SW [[[

OSU livestock judging team from 2002-2003. Following his educational roles at OSU, Mr. Cummins attended Sam Houston State University where he earned a Masters Degree in Agriculture. Prior to becoming a BBU staff member, Cummins taught agricultural education at multiple Texas high schools.

“We are fortunate to have such a qualified person become a member of the BBU team. Ryan has an immense knowledge of cattle and the Beefmaster breed,” said BBU Chief Operating Officer Collin Osbourn. “Mr. Cummins will be representing the Beefmaster breed throughout the country and I am confident that his skill set and knowledge will be an asset to this great breed.”

KADDATZ Auctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales New and used tractors, equipment, and parts. Salvage yard, combines, tractors, hay equipment and all types of equipment parts.

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

February 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Page 9

Arizona National Livestock Show Honors Pioneer Stockmen he Arizona National Livestock Show and Arizona Pioneer Stockmen Association honored Velma and Leroy Tucker, Roosevelt, Arizona as the 2014 Pioneer Stockmen of the Year. The Tucker’s were honored at the Annual Pioneer Stockmen’s luncheon, December 28 during the 66th Annual Arizona National Livestock Show at the Arizona State Fairgrounds in Phoenix.

The Pioneer Stockmen Association members are true Arizona pioneers. To be a member of the association you have to be age 75 and older and have been involved in Arizona’s agriculture industry.

Leroy was born July 18, 1928 in Greenback Valley at the Flying Pan Ranch. Velma Lucille was born May 21, 1933 in Globe.

They are parents to three chil-

T

dren, Tenna Lucille, Roy Dale and Lee Ann. The Tuckers have been involved in the ranching industry their entire lives. The couple celebrated their 64th anniversary this year.

Leroy and Velma are members of the Gila County Cattle Growers, Arizona Cattle Growers and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Velma joined the Arizona State Cowbelles and helped form the Gila County Cowbelles in 1971. She went through all the chairs for both Gila County and the State, becoming president of Gila in 1976-77 and State Cowbelle president in 1980. While State President she was given a seat on the Board of the Arizona Beef Council. In 1981, Gov Bruce Babbitt appointed her to that Board and she was reappointed by Gover-

nors Mofford and Mecham before retiring in 1996. Velma was proud to be appointed to the National Livestock and Meat Board in Chicago where she chaired the Education Committee and the Research Committee.

While serving on the board, Velma helped develop the promotions “Where’s the Beef” and “Beef, it’s What’s for Dinner.”

Velma was named Cattle Women of the Year by the Arizona State Cowbelles in 2010.

Leroy served as president of the Gila County Cattle Growers and later became the sales chairman for eleven years for the Gila County Annual Yearling Sale. He has graded bulls for over twenty years at Cattlemen’s Weekend in Prescott. Leroy also sat on the Arizona Stabilization Conservation Board.

NASA & NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues

BY DR DAVID WHITEHOUSE WWW.THEGWPF.ORG

n mid January in a joint press conference the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) have released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.

Statistically speaking there has been no significant trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within the error bars of 0.1 deg C. The trend is less than this and is statistically insignificant. There is no statistical case for representing the post1997 data as anything other than a constant line. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.

When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.

NASA has a temperature anomaly of 0.61 deg C above the average of 14.0 (1951 – 80) making it the 7th warmest year. Note that it is identical to 2003 and only 0.01 above 2009 and 2006. Taking into account the errors there has been no change since last year.

NOAA also has 2013 as the 4th warmest year, at 0.62 deg C above the global 20th century average of 13.9 deg C. Note that only 0.09 deg C separates their top ten warmest years.

Each year has an associated error of 0.1 deg.

I

The Leroy and Velma Tucker Family.

Photo by Anna Aja.

Grazing ter in Burns.

Globally, grazing is used for a variety of vegetation management objectives, in addition to fine fuel reduction, said lead author Tony Svejcar, a research leader at the USDA’s office in Burns who also has a courtesy appointment in OSU’s Animal and Rangeland Sciences Department.

The scientists also said that it’s unclear how removing grazing would overcome the effects of large-scale climatic changes such as reduced snow packs.

The authors also pointed out that some criticism of grazing has been based on decades-old studies, when the scars of unfettered foraging were still fresh on the landscape. They added that in some places it's hard to tell if impacts from grazing are from current practices or if they are left over from the homesteading era when grazing was unregulated.

continued from page eight

“Before the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, it was a first-come, first-served competition, with the winners taking as much of the forage as they could because if they didn’t someone else would,” said Bohnert, who is a beef cattle specialist with the OSU Extension Service and a professor in OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences. “Since then, we’ve learned more about the ecology and management of rangelands.

Ranchers are constantly looking at ways to be more sustainable in their grazing practices.”

Collaborators on the paper are from OSU, the University of Arizona, Brigham Young University, the University of CaliforniaDavis, the University of Idaho, Montana State University, the University of Nevada-Reno, Utah State University, the University of Wyoming and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 10

February 15, 2014

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

Real Estate GUIDE %) '&* * 1%.$ $!!+ !,(%. *) '" *" .$! (%)!, ' ,%#$.- ,! %) '/ ! ,% ! ,! /,,!). %' ,%''%)# %) .$! ,!

1%.$ ++,*2 ,!- *" -/," ! 1 .!, ,%#$.- */. *" .$! /( *' . %0!, ++,*2 (%'!- -. *" '&* 1%.$ !-- *).* ,*+!,.3 %- %) .$! + .$ *" ) /-.,% ' !0!'*+(!). ) '-* $ - - ) ) #, 0!' +*.!).% ' */' ! .$! $ 3 -! "*, .$! +,*+!,.3 *0! ,% ! $%- -$*/' ! #** %)0!-.(!). +,*+!,.3

"2*3 &8"3 &8$&-&/4 1"3452& 1"6&% 20"% '20/4"(& )5(& -",& ."/3*0/ )0.&

To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515

$"44-& 2"/$) 0' -"2,36*--& ! &% *6&2 0 /*$& #2*$, )0.& #"2/3 1*1& '&/$&3 (00% %&&2 )0(3 %5$,3 )5/4*/(

20/43 INTEREST RATES A S L OW A S 3% Pay m en t s Sch ed u l ed o n 25 Year s

"$

024)". &8"3 5/4*/( "/% $"44-& 79

2*/*49 05/49 8 /&84 40 "69 20$,&44 " 4*0/"- 02&34 &"54*'5)0.& 4)"4 -00,3 06&2 " /*$& "$2& -",& 420/( 7&-- %&&1 (2"33 "2/3 $"44-& 1&/3 -'02

J o e Stu b b l ef i el d & A s s o c i at es 13830 Wes ter n St ., A m ar i l l o , TX 806/622-3482 • c el l 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Mi c h ael Per ez A s s o c i at es Nar a Vi s a, NM • 575/403-7970

&7 0.& #"2/3 2&% *20/ $0/3425$4*0/ "44-& 3)07

Fallon-Cortese Land

NEW MEXICO

79

%

!

! "

!

! !

"

Bottari & Associates Realty

#

: "8 +0&12*&342& /&4 : +0&12*&342& &"24)-*/, $0. %

-& "*, /' *.. ,% ,*&!, $$$

! !

W-R RANCH

111 *.. ,%,! '.3 *(

Missouri Land Sales ■ 675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your Own Plane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2ba home down 1 mile private lane.

New 40x42 shop, 40x60 livestock barn, over 450 ac. in grass. (Owner runs over 150 cow/calves, 2 springs, 20 ponds, 2 lakes, consisting of 3.5 and 2 ac. Both stocked with fish. Excellent fencing. A must farm to see. MSL #1112191

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARD Cell: 417/839-5096 1-800/743-0336 MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORS SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

&"(06*--& !

:

&7 5$ 7 1 2 &

5 ( ' 81

18,560 ACRES 20 MILES NORTHEAST OF ROSWELL, N.M.

■ 113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.”

Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres in grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-bedroom, 1-bath rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641

❙

680 Deeded Acres

❙

17,900 State Lease Acres

■ NEW LISTING - RARE FIND - 226 ACRES 1.5 miles of Beaver Creek runs along & thru this "Ozark Treasure." Long bottom hay field, walnut grove, upland grazing, excellent hunting, deep swimming hole, 4 BR, 2BA older farm house. Don't snooze and loose on this one. Call today! MLS #1303944

❙

927 BLM Acres

❙

300 Animal Units Year Long

❙

Good fences; 4-strand barbwire

❙

Newly remodeled Southwestern Home

❙

Good water; windmill and submergible tanks

❙

$1,800,000

BAR M REAL ESTATE New Mexico Properties For Sale...

Six Shooter Ranch – Located approximately 15 miles west of Carrizozo, New Mexico in western Lincoln County. The ranch is comprised of 640 ± Deeded Acres, 961.4 New Mexico State Lease Acres and 11, 246 Federal BLM Lease Acres. Grazing capacity is controlled by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit for 175 Animal Unit on a yearlong basis. Improvements include one residence, which has recently been remodeled, hay barn, storage sheds and corrals, all functional. Water is provided by three wells and an extensive buried pipeline system. Much of the water system has been replaced or installed new within the last five year.

The Carrizozo Malpai lava outcrop forms the entire eastern boundary of the ranch. Access to the ranch is gated and locked from Highway 380. Public access is by permission only.

Price: $1,300,000.

Border Ranch – Located approximately 10 miles east of Columbus, New Mexico along the international boundary with Mexico along and on both sides of State Highway 9. The ranch is comprised of 1,910 ± Deeded Acres, 11,118 NM State Lease Acres and 52,487 Federal BLM Lease Acres. Grazing capacity is set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit for 613 Animal Units. Livestock water is provided by three wells and a buried pipeline system. Five sets of working corrals are situated throughout the ranch. Adjoins the Mt. Riley Ranch to the west. Price: $1,100,000, but negotiable, come look and make an offer. Seller wants the ranch sold.

Mt. Riley – Located approximately 30 miles northwest of Santa Teresa, New Mexico along and on both sides of State Highway 9. The southern boundary of the ranch is the international boundary with Mexico. The ranch is comprised of 160 ± Deeded Acres, 6921 NM State Lease Acres and 74,977 Federal BLM Lease Acres. Grazing Capacity is set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit for 488 Animal Units on a yearlong basis. The biggest portion of the ranch is located north of the highway. The headquarters is located approximately one mile north of the highway. Headquarters improvements consist of a camp house, maintenance shop, storage sheds and a large set of working pens with scales. Water is provided by four wells and a buried pipeline system. Adjoins the Border Ranch to the east. Price: $725,000, but negotiable, come look and make an offer. Seller wants the ranch sold.

Bar M Real Estate www.ranchesnm.com

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

SOUTHERN PLAINS LAND

CHARLES BENNETT United Country / Vista Nueva, Inc. 575/356-5616 www.vista-nueva.com

*(#

!+#, &) *.-%# ,#+1 &!# &'#, *$ #/ #)!#, &)#+ ', */, !+#, &) *.-%# ,&!# *)" 0!#''#)- #)!#, !*/, !+#

#!" ; #%3'4 '#45 0( #--+/)'3 "'9#4 06545#/&+/) 8#5'3 4:45'.

30&6%+/) 0+- 8'--4 '9%'--'/5 *6/5+/) $&3. $5* *'#&26#35'34 .+/'3#-4 /')05+#$-' $ ; #%3'4 /035* '#45 0( #--+/)'3 "'9#4 #% 0( %6-5+7#5+0/ 1#4 563'4 *0.' 8+5* )#3#)' #/& # %#3 %#31035 -#3)' 4503#)' $#3/ )3'#5 *034' (#%+-+5: 1+1' %03 3#- -#,' #/& 5#/,4 )3'#5 /#5+7' )3#44 %07'3 #)' )00& *6/5+/) .+/'3#-4 /')05+#$-' '0/ #/%' 8/'3 30,'3

!+#

,-#*0.# ; #%3'4 +/ '(-03' #/& #5+.'3 06/5+'4 0( ,-#*0.# '9%'--'/5 )3#44 %07'3#)' 1#4563'4 53#14 .+-'4 /'8 ('/%' #%3'4 0( *#: .'#&08 9%'15+0/#- %#55-' 01'3#5+0/ 8+5* /'8 %033#-4 #/& )308 -05 /'8 %'.'/5 %0..0&+5: $#3/ *#: $#3/4 4*014 4'5 0( 4%#-'4 *:&3#6-+% %*65'4 07'3*'#& (''& $+/4 %0/%3'5' (''& 5306)*4 01+/) #3'/# 42 (5 30%, *064' 8 #1#35.'/5 #/& $#5* /'8 42 (5 $3+%, *0.' #/& # /'8 42 (5 ' &06 $-' 8+&' 8 %#31035 3+%' +/%-6&'4 '26+1.'/5 9%'--'/5 %#55-' 3#/%*

$"

; #%3'4 +/ 0-#/ 06/5: #%3'4 +/ 30--+/) *+--4 -64* 1-#+/4 +&'#(03 (00& 1-054 8#5'3 8'--4 463(#%' 5#/,4 '9%'15+0/#- *6/5+/) 456%%0 *0.' 08/'3 8+-%0/7': .+/'3#-4 3+%' 50 !'-'8 '9+%0 ; #%3'4 ; /035*'#45 0( 048'-- '8 '9+%0 +/ *#7'4 06/5: 6450. $6+-5 *0.' 5*#5 +4 # 536' 5'33+503+#- '8 '9+%#/ 42 (5 #/& # (03'.#/<4 *0.'

42 (5 #/& # 4'1#3#5' -0&)+/) (03 3#/%* *#/&4 03 *6/5'34 %0.1-'5' 4'5 0( %033#-4 8+5* 4%#-'4 #/& 07'3*'#& (''& 4503#)' #%3'4 &''&'& #%3'4 :06 .645 4'' 50 3'#--: #113'%+#5' 5*' 26#-+5: 0( 5*+4 3#/%*

03 #110+/5.'/5 .03' +/(03.#5+0/ 03 .03' -+45+/)4 %#-- 03 '.#+#/%* #/& 0 .#+- 3#/%*'4 3#/%*-#/&%0 %0.

888 3#/%*-#/&%0 %0.

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

February 15, 2014

Margin Influencers

Stocker Programs on Rangeland F.T. MCCOLLUM III, PAS-ACAN TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSION AMARILLO

tocker programs on rangeland are opportunistic, marginbased enterprises. Opportunistic from the standpoints of utilizing excess grazing capacity not allocated to cow/calf production, utilizing forage seasonally to capitalize on forage quality or achieve other management objectives, adding value to ranch-raised or purchased calves prior to finishing for beef, or adding a revenue stream from custom grazing.

As climate conditions hopefully stabilize and improve, stocker grazing may be one of the strategies to manage recovering rangelands and utilize carrying capacity as cow herds are eventually rebuilt. Annually allocating a portion of the ranch carrying capacity to stocker cattle, whether as purchased calves, custom grazing, or retained ownership of ranch-raised calves, adds flexibility to grazing plans and serves as a buffer against climate and forage production risk.

S

Challenges in Today’s Environment Climate and rangeland conditions – although the last few months have brought some relief from the drought conditions, the rangelands in the region still need time, precipitation and patient management to fully recover. A concern is the climate outlook for several years out. The prevailing oceanic temperature conditions that influence precipitation amounts and patterns in this region suggest that the region will be subject to more variable and less desirable conditions over the next several years.

Operating capital, equity requirements – the reduced cattle inventories and relatively good demand for beef have continued to push calf prices to higher levels.

Costs of all other inputs have also increased. With these increases, the equity/capital required to finance operations has also increased and may present challenges to some that wish to consider stocker production. Economic policy has held interest rates at low levels.

Value of weight gain – The relationship of purchase price and sale price determine the amount of gross margin available to cover production costs. To paraphrase an old adage, the first cost is the most important cost. Value of weight gain across a period of time is calculated by dividing the buy/sell margin by the total weight gain.

For instance, if a 450 lb steer is purchased for $200/cwt, or $900, and is projected to market at 750 lb for $163/cwt, or $1222.50, then steer weight increased 300 lbs while steer value increased $322.5. Value of weight gain is $107.5/cwt gain and total cost of gain must remain below this in order to profit. Value of weight gain can vary seasonally and at times among different weight classes of cattle.

Value of added weight reflects the value difference among different weight classes of cattle on a given market and can vary across times of the year. The value of added weight may be a decision point determining the weight class to purchase initially. For instance, assume the prevailing steer calf market is: 400 lb @ $220/cwt ($880), 450 lb @ $200/cwt ($900) and 500 lb @ $190 ($950). The first 50 lb weight increase adds $20/hd (or $0.40/lb added weight) and the second 50 lb increase adds $50 (or $1.00/lb added weight), and the entire 100 lb increase adds $70 ($0.70/lb added weight). The differences in value of the added weight may affect the decision of which weight class of calves to purchase.

The value of added weight should be a decision point when considering whether to apply management practices (such as supplemental feeding) to increase sale

weight. For instance assume the market is applying a $6.00/cwt slide on feeder cattle and projected steer market is $165/cwt @ 700 lb ($1155). A producer is considering a management practice that will add 30 lbs of sale weight; the projected value for the 730 lb strs would be $163.20 ($1191.36). The added 30 lbs of market weight is worth $36.36 or $1.21/lb. The $1.21/lb value of added weight provides the benchmark to evaluate the cost and efficacy of the management practice.

Health management for incoming calves – Health management for calves is the first management challenge in a stocker program. Morbidity and mortality rates vary and are dependent on many factors ranging from the background history of the calves to the procurement and transportation process to the conditions, labor, and management after arrival. The cost of morbidity in calves is the sum of antibiotic therapy, death loss, chronics, and reduced performance by the calves that were sick and recovered.

In order to provide an estimate of the cost of morbidity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted with varied morbidity rates and the following inputs: purchase 450 lb calves @ $195/cwt, market value of $165/cwt at 675 with a $6 slide, 306 lb base weight gain for healthy calves, 12 percent reduction in gain for morbid calves, 8 percent case fatality rate for morbid calves, 45 percent retreatment rate for morbid calves, $15 antibiotic cost per treatment. Pasture costs were priced on about $0.57/gain. Other feed, labor and equipment costs were not varied by morbidity rate.

Using this approach, each 1 per-

Page 11 cent of morbidity reduced profit by $1.22/head. Sawyer (2006) estimated losses at $0.8772/hd for each 1 percent of morbidity based on 2006 markets. The difference in Sawyer's estimate and the current reflect the difference in calf prices and value of gain between 2006 and today. Independent of associated treatment costs and reduced performance, Sawyer (2006) estimated that 1 percent mortality reduced profit by $6.64/hd while in the current analysis 1 percent mortality reduced profit by $9.01/hd.

Breaking down the $1.22/head/ percent morbidity loss in the current analysis, 55 percent is attributed to calf mortality, 29 percent to reduced performance of morbid calves, and 16 percent to treatment costs. The greatest impact of sickness on profit is death loss. Managing the purchase and managing the calves to reduce the incidence sickness is a first objective. But, managing to reduce the severity of disease and reduce case the fatality rate (percent of calves that were treated that died) are a close second. In the analysis above, at 30-40 percent morbidity each 1 percent decrease in case fatality rate increased profit/hd by about $3.50. Adequate labor and time to identify and treat calves, prudent and timely use of metaphylaxis, providing palatable feed and water, and low stress handling procedures and management processes are important.

Rate of gain and total gain – Stating the obvious, rate of gain and total gain are keys to profitability.

More marketable weight dilutes the associated production costs.

Some factors that affect weight continued on page twelve

Livestock Market Digest

Page 12

February 15, 2014

Feed-grade Antibiotics

The Price of Ivory n the north side of Denver abides the city of Commerce City. There, last fall, U.S. officials dumped millions of dollars worth of ivory tusks, carvings, and jewelry into a steel rock crusher and pulverized it into dust and tiny chips.

The officials’ objective was to reduce the slaughter of tens of thousands of elephants each year.

ECONOMICS 1: What happens to a commodity’s demand and price when you reduce its availability? DUH . . . The price goes up!

For instance, cattle prices are at an all time high because . . . the U.S. Cow herd is down to its lowest since 1952. Average horse prices have plunged due to the elimination of horse slaughter, which flooded the country with unwanted horses.

Ivory’s value is primarily intrinsic, meaning it serves no essential purpose, though it does work as a forklift and weapon when still on the elephant. That’s unlike other precious stones and metals like diamonds, silver, gold and uranium, which can be used in all sort of engineering processes, high tech manufacturing and dentistry, in addition to jewelry. The value of these minerals is also increased because there is a finite amount on our planet.

So how can we help the ivory problem?

O

Flood the market, that’s how.

Elephants continue to reproduce, thus manufacturing ivory. How ‘bout increasing the number of elephants? A great example of this solution is the salmon industry. Twenty years ago wild salmon from Alaskan fisheries was priced out of the range of the average family. Then the world started “farming salmon” commercially. Now it is readily available.

Would elephant farming be practical? If people want ivory, why not make it available? Maybe grow your own elephant in your backyard. Let capitalism work.

Look at the economics of the illegal drug business. As long as selling marijuana is illegal, the price will be high. Make it available to everyone, as it appears to be doing, and the price will get lower as the numbers of users get higher!

Another solution would be to encourage the farming of alternative sources for ivory; narwhals, hippos, walruses, etc.

Workable, you say? Stick up a wanted poster in Mt. Pleasant, TX for tusks from feral pigs and wild boars and turn the red necks loose! In twenty years people will be farming hogs for ivory. Make pigs a threepurpose animal; meat, hunting and jewelry.

I can see it now, our own Cable Network show; we’ll call it . . .THE PIG DYNASTY!

This means that before a producer can obtain (for example) CTC (chlortetracycline) crumbles for his calves or pigs, he will have to obtain a VFD form filled out by his veterinarian. The form will specify the farm and animals to be treated, the duration of treatment, and which drug is to be used. The feed mill or distributor would need to have a properly completed VFD before they could supply the feed.

The VFD forms will be easier to manage. Everyone’s recordkeeping requirement will be cut from 2 years to 1 year. The forms will be able to be transmitted and stored electronically.

And thankfully for this veterinarian, they will no longer have to include an estimate of how much of the medication the animals will consume in the given time frame (this was hard to accurately guess a lot of times). The form will need to simply specify the inclusion rate of the drug, the number of animals to be fed, and the duration of the feeding.

What won’t change: The ability to use feed-grade antibiotics to treat, control, or prevent bacterial diseases. The term “prevention” is used in the situation where there is a very high risk of illness if you don’t administer the antibiotic. However, producers will need to obtain a VFD for these products as explained above.

How one uses and obtains non“medically important” feed grade products. Examples of these include ionophores like Rumensin®, Bovatec®, most coccidiosis medications, and certain growth-promoting medications like bacitracin (BMD®). Since they’re not used very often if at all in human medicine, there will be no changes in their use.

Uses of water and injectable antibi-

continued from page one

otics—yet. There are proposals out there that would move water medications to “prescription” status like many injectable antibiotics.

Extra label uses of feed-grade medications. Any use of feed grade medications not in accordance with their label is illegal now, and it will remain so.

The ability of current distributors and feed mills to supply these products.

Yes, there will be more paperwork related to more VFD forms, but these new proposals do not limit these businesses in what they can carry or manufacture.

The need for veterinarians to be involved in decisions about feed-grade antibiotics. There is no better source of information about the proper uses of these products in livestock populations than the herd veterinarian. A close relationship with a veterinarian means that producers may avoid wasting time and money on ineffective uses of these products. Better yet, it may result in practical advice on how to prevent illnesses that would necessitate the uses of these products.

Antibiotic resistance is a complex and sometimes contentious topic among animal and human health professionals. The complexity of the issue means that a “silver bullet” solution is not going to present itself any time soon. All of us involved in using these products—in animals and people alike—play a role in ensuring that they continue to work for the sake of our animals and our family members.

Understanding these proposed changes and proactively deciding how they will work into your operation is a great first step that we can all take.

NOTE: Product trade names are used for purposes of illustration only and do not constitute an endorsement of those products.

Stocker Programs gain are not directly manageable – genetic potential for gain in purchased calves, and seasonal and annual variation in forage quality are a couple. Morbidity can reduce weight gain (12 percent reduction was used above based on published data from Pinchak (2005)) and can be influenced by management.

Other means of altering weight gain, such as stocking rate/forage availability, use of growth implants and feed additives, and provision of supplemental feeds, are under direct managerial control.

Forage allocation – Supplements, additives, and growth promoting implants can be used to enhance weight gains but the primary factor setting the base for performance is the amount and nutritional value of forage available to the cattle. Stocker performance is closely related to forage availability and although the amount and quality of forage produced annually is basically beyond the control of the manager, forage allocation via grazing management practices is under managerial control.

As stocking rates (head/ac) increase gain/hd declines as nutrient intake is limited and energy expended to harvest nutrients increases. As a rule of thumb, following stocking guidelines for moderate (approximately 25 percent

continued from page eleven

harvest efficiency of annual forage production) will ensure the higher weight gains possible by stockers.

However, this may not be the economically ($/ac) optimum stocking rate.

Supplemental feeding – Although supplemental feeding of stocker cattle in winter months is common to maintain thriftiness and health, heavier feeding rates to promote higher gains during the winter or supplemental feeding in the spring/summer is not common in this region. In addition to enhancing gain, supplemental feeding in the summer may prove valuable by settling cattle and improving handling during gathering and shipping. This may reduce shrink and improve weighups.

The decision to provide additional supplement to enhance gains should estimate the relationship between marginal cost of gain from the supplement and the marginal value of the added gain resulting from the supplement. The value of added gain was discussed earlier. If a practice increases gain by 10 lb/hd, what is the net increase in value ($/hd) as a result. The cost of the marginal gain can be estimated from supplement efficiency. Supplement efficiency is the lbs of supplement/lb of added gain. For instance, on rangelands where for-

age quality declines in the late summer/early fall, feeding the equivalent of 1 lb of a high protein supplement such as cottonseed cake has been shown to increase daily gain about 0.3-0.4 lb/hd/d. The supplement efficiency rate in this case is 1 lb supplement/0.35 lb added gain or 2.8 to 1. Cost of added gain is the $ cost per lb of supplement multiplied by the supplement efficiency. So, if the supplement in the previous example cost $400/ton (or $0.20/lb) then the cost of the added gain is $0.56/lb added gain. If the value of added gain is greater than the cost, then supplementation may be considered.

Supplement efficiency varies from 2:1 to over 10:1 depending on forage quality, type of supplement, and the quantity of supplement offered. At supplemental feeding rates that would be employed in most range settings, the efficiency more likely ranges from 2:1 to 6:1.

With the value of added gain in today’s markets, supplementation to enhance gains and market weights may be more attractive than in the past when value of added gain hovered in the $0.50 to 0.65/lb range.

Ionophores – Monensin (Rumensin) and lasalocid (Bovatec) are feed additives that can improve weight gain in grazing

calves. These additives have a different mode of action than implants (see below) and their effects are additive. Based on numerous studies with grazing calves, ionophores are expected to increase gains about 8-12 percent.

These are delivered to cattle in selffed mineral supplements or can be included in hand-fed supplements such as range cubes. Comparison pricing of mineral supplements with and without ionophores may cause some to avoid the mineral supplements that contain ionophores. However, the cost of the additives are about $0.020.03/hd/d; the cost of the ionophore-containing mineral supplement appears high because the $0.02-0.03 is being delivered in 0.20.25 lb of supplement.

Implants – Numerous studies over the last 40 years have demonstrated the efficacy of that growthpromoting implants in stocker cattle. Across varied conditions and base rates of gain, implants will increase weight gains about 14 percent on average. At higher rates of gain, the absolute response (lb/d) is greater than at lower rates of gain.

However, this response has been demonstrated at base rates of gain as low as 0.5 lb/d. At a base gain of 0.5 lb/d, the expected gain with an implant would be about 0.57 lb/d.

This response would add about 6.5 lb gain/hd over the life of the implant, or between $6.50 and $7/hd for an implant cost $1.001.30. At base gains of 1.5 lb/d, the expected gain with the implant would be about 1.7 lb/d or a difference of about 18 lb/hd ($18-20/hd) over the life of the implant. Use of implants for grazing cattle will not hinder performance once the cattle enter a finishing program.

Other approaches to “stockers” Historically stocker programs have involved growing calves to heavier weights for feeders.

However if one applies the “temporary” and “opportunistic” and “value-added” characters of stocker enterprises, there may be other “stocker” opportunities to consider given the current status and outlook for the domestic beef industry. Low cow inventory, expected expansion of the cow population, reduced beef supplies may add some different facets to stocker production such as developing bred heifers for resale, upgrading cull cows for slaughter, turning open cows into bred cows for resale. These would all be evaluated as margin operations just as enterprises growing calves for resale as feeder cattle.

February 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Page 13

Federal Takeover of Montana Water Rights Part Two – An Unfair Compact

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

onflicts over water in western Montana have been brewing for several decades but recently came to a boil.

The surface issue is the quantification of the federal reserved water rights for the tribes on the Flathead Reservation, but the deeper issue is a “taking” of private state-based water rights and giving them to the federal government, via the current Compact document. This document is supposed to negotiate “the equitable division and apportionment of waters” between “the state and the people” and the federal reserved interests—which include the reserved water held in trust for Indian tribes on the various Indian reservations.

Compacts for the other 6 Indian reservations in Montana were accomplished without problems, but this one is different.

The question is not whether the Indians have water rights. It is whether the tribes, the state or the federal government will control those rights—and those of non-Indian landowner irrigators on and off the reservation. The outcome of this conflict may affect all of Montana (and not just the Flathead Reservation) and eventually the West.

A BIT OF HISTORY — The Flathead Indian Reservation is an open reservation, meaning it was opened by Congress to settlement in1908. The reservation was established for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) in 1855 by the Treaty of Hellgate. With this treaty the Tribes ceded 12 million acres of western Montana— the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins—in exchange for $120,000 and a 1.3 million acre reservation between Flathead Lake and Missoula.

Dr. Kate Vandemoer, a hydrologist and water manager with more than 26 years of experience working with Tribes on quantification, management and development of federal reserved water rights on Indian reservations points out that there are many different Acts and laws relating to this particular reservation. “The Flathead Allotment Act of 1904 allotted lands to individual Indians and in 1908 opened the reservation to settlement by non-Indians. The Flathead Indian Reservation is the only reservation in Montana that was opened to settlement. The federal government built an irrigation project to serve all lands on the reservation. This opening of the reservation is permitted by Article 6 of the Treaty of Hellgate,” she explains.

Tribal members got first choice of the 80-acre and 160acre parcels. The National Bison Range was also established on this Reservation. Then the rest of the land on this Reservation was

C

opened to non-Indian homesteaders on parcels of 40 to 160 acres. The federal government built the Flathead Irrigation Project to serve all lands and thusencourage settlement. Congress instructed the buyers of these lands to pay a proportionate cost for constructing the system. Congress then directed the operation and management of the irrigation system to be transferred to the owners of the irrigated lands after the construction costs were repaid.

Today there are a lot of private landholdings within the reservation. Of the total acreage, about half of the reservation is now privately owned land. A lot of the tribal land is mountainous terrain, however, and not subject to irrigation. Roughly 90% of the irrigators (on privately owned land within the reservation) are non-Indian. Yet the language in the present Compact defining the reservation puts all the land, including private land, in reservation status, and by claiming all the land, the Tribes are now claiming all the water.

Indian water rights have always been well supported in U.S. law, along with tribal rights to all other resources on their reservation lands including forests, minerals, wildlife, farm land, etc. “All of the resources have been under federal and/or Indian control for Indian benefit.

In the Pacific Northwest the tribes also have language in their treaties negotiated by Isaac Stevens which secured for them access to hunting and fishing in usual and accustomed places, ‘in common with the citizens of the Territory.’ These are called Stevens Treaty rights,” says Dr. Kate.

“Through litigation in the 1970’s these tribal rights were interpreted to mean that the Tribes had access to usual and accustomed areas and a right to harvest a certain percent of the fisheries. In addition, the Klamath tribes in Oregon won the Adair case in 1983 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, giving them treaty rights to fish and wildlife,” she says.

The CSKT in Montana have also been pushing for more control over their resources, with a goal of having a self-sufficient society and economy. In 1996 their tribal council mission statement promised to regain ownership and control of many Flathead Reservation assets.

“They now share management of the lake’s fishery with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks but disagree with Montana in the major lake fishery management goals. They have tried to take over the management of the National Bison Range from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but were unsuccessful because they were unable to properly manage the reserve,” says Dr. Kate.

They are also involved in the operation and maintenance of

the Flathead Irrigation Project (renaming it the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project). The Tribes are negotiating to buy Kerr dam that supplies the water for the project, but are facing serious opposition from their own members.

Off the reservation, the tribes successfully asserted their treaty rights to fish on the Clark Fork River and Silver Bow Creeks and were awarded $18.3 million in mine tailings remediation damages, using $13.3 million to buy back some of the land within the Flathead Reservation boundaries. The CSKT have been negotiating with the state of Montana ever since the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission was created in 1979, but only recently reached an agreement with Montana on a Compact.

“Unfortunately, the agreement with Montana—the proposed CSKT Compact--is fraught with difficulty, unconstitutional takings, and attempts to take over the management of state water rights from the State,” says Dr. Kate.

The litigation begun by the tribes (suit filed by the federal government on behalf of the tribes) was stayed by the court in 1983. Then in 2005, with the election of Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer, the compact negotiations began again, under an extended termination date for the Compact Commission.

The tribe has held firm on their position that they own all the water flowing through the reservation. “They’ve been very consistent in their demands in this Compact, from the very beginning,” says Terry Backs, one of the landowners inside the exterior boundary of the reservation. “In the state of Montana we have numerous historical documents that show that the state has rejected these claims and arguments by the tribe, even as late as 2008. We have a memo from a man who is now the chairman of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation who said the state will administer the water rights for its citizens,” says Terry.

After 2008, however, the Compact Commission actually conceded ownership of all the water, administration of the water, and the water rights of irrigators to the tribes,which is now proposed in the existing Compact documents. “We don’t know exactly how it came about.

We can tie it to some changes in the political arena. For example, Governor Schweitzer came into office and this is when we began to see the shift toward conceding all of this to the tribes in these compact documents,” she says.

What this Compact tries to do is put all the land, including private land, under reservation status. “This essentially eviscerates private property rights,” says

Dr. Kate. “Now that they’ve claimed all the water, they believe that they should also have the management authority over it—essentially having the state give up its rights, agreeing to remove its citizens out from under the protection of the state laws of Montana and put them underneath the tribe’s laws.” For the citizens living on the reservation, this would be like living in a different country.

“Montana citizens would no longer be under the protection of the laws of the state. This violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Montana Constitutions,” she explains.

FLATHEAD IRRIGATION PROJECT WATER USE AGREEMENT — This water use agreement was negotiated between the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC) for the irrigators and the U.S./CSKT (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes). It was intended to address how the water rights and water usage would be defined for the Flathead Irrigation Project in the future.

“However, the proceeding underway in Montana is supposed to resolve only the federal reserved water rights of the CSKT, not the water rights of the irrigators,” Dr. Kate points out. “As part of the Compact, the CSKT propose to take the water rights belonging to individual irrigators—and entered these negotiations with the express purpose of limiting irrigation water rights. Our Concerned Citizens group believes that the water use agreement should not be part of the negotiation of federal reserved water rights of the Tribes because the tribes do not own the irrigation project (the canals and ditches) nor the water associated with it.” The Flathead

Irrigation Project was constructed for the Indians and non-Indians alike. Yet the CSKT is now trying to use the proposed Compact and the irrigator Water Use Agreement as a way to take full control of the Flathead Irrigation Project.

The 1908 Act opening the reservation and constructing an irrigation projectrequired the project’s operation and maintenance to be turned over to the owners of the irrigated land. The land irrigated by the project is now 90% owned by non-Indians.

The irrigator water use agreement proposed by the CSKT Compact effectively transfers the ownership of privately held nonIndian water rights to the Tribes.

This was legally challenged by a grass roots organization consisting of irrigators who filed suit in District Court to halt the transfer of water rights to the Tribes.

The District Court Judge ruled that this part of the water use agreement was an unconstitutional taking of property rights without compensation. However, some irrigators who are set on giving away their neighbor’s water rights are continuing to divide and threaten the irrigation community to support this water use agreement.

UNITARY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE — Another document included in the Compact is what is called the Unitary Management Ordinance, which forever prevents the state of Montana from administering any of the water within the reservation, even for water users with state based water claims. It proposes to create a Unitary Management Board that will determine how all water issues (state, federal continued on page fifteen

Livestock Market Digest

Page 14

February 15, 2014

National Cowboy Museum Announces Spring Symposium he National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum announces a symposium focusing on rural issues to be held in March. The program titled Surviving the Elements: Land & Water Issues of the West aims to increase awareness of drought and rural issues in the American West, by focusing on stewardship and conservation of land and water.

Ranching and the iconic cowboy are both important aspects of the West and of the National Cowboy Museum’s permanent collections, exhibitions and educational programming. The two intertwined play an important role in building a better connection to the past, present and future of western resources. Surviving the Elements: Land & Water Issues of the West is a series of lectures and panel discussions on such topics as land and pasture management, water usage, conservation measures, livestock/herd management, new resource preservation and enhancement strategies. This educational series augments the story of modern day ranching told in the Museum’s permanent collection.

The Museum aims to make an impact and be a change agent for rural issues by creating a conversa-

T

tion between farmers, ranchers and their industry partners to help create solutions. At the center of this conversation will be the symposium held each Friday in March 2014 from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. and features world-renowned experts on several topics.

Past Influences (March 7, 2014) • Should Ranchers Study History? by Jay O’Brien, Rancher In a lifetime of grazing, Jay O’Brien says, “I paid a lot of tuition by making costly mistakes. Some of that tuition could have been avoided had I paid attention to what ranchers who preceded me had learned from their mistakes. I have had few great ideas myself, but have copied many from others.

My presentation will range from the mundane (cattle handling, castration, horses and grazing systems) to the global (governmental influence and land prices).” The presentation may remind you of your middle school history teacher quoting Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

• The Culture of Water Law in the American West by Donald J. Pisani, Merrick Chair of Western American History, Emeritus, Uni-

Reserve Your Advertising Space Now! For the 2014 Edition of

Livestock Market Digest’s

FALL MARKETING EDITION Please contact me to discuss your advertising plans

Featuring the

RON ARCHER 505-865-6011 ron@aaalivestock.com Livestock Market Digest PO Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194

The best read annual publication in the livestock industry!

versity of Oklahoma Water law is not just a product of geography and climate. The scarcity or abundance of water help shape the laws to allocate and distribute water, but the broader culture and values of people play an even more important role–including their conception of government. Water law represents a series of choices between communitarian and individualistic systems of law, between maintaining stable, egalitarian settlements and generating new wealth. The western states have preferred laws that minimize government involvement and defer to water users themselves. This lecture will examine the legal choices open to westerners, ranging from Hispanic community water systems, to riparian rights and prior appropriation, to local water districts, to direct federal and state control. It will look primarily at the foundation of such laws in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and how these laws have shaped the modern West.

• Dust Bowl and Beyond – A Lesson for the Future from Past Hard Times by Timothy Egan, Author. Based on his National Award Winning book The Worst Hard Time, and the PBS series “The Dust Bowl,” Timothy Egan’s critically acclaimed account rescues this iconic chapter of American history from the shadows in a tour de force of historical reportage. Following a dozen families and their communities through the rise and fall of the region, Egan tells of their desperate attempts to carry on through blinding black dust blizzards, crop failure and the death of loved ones.

Brilliantly capturing the terrifying drama of catastrophe, Egan does equal justice to the human characters who become his heroes and to one of the greatest environmental disasters ever to be visited upon our land and a powerful cautionary tale about the dangers of trifling with nature.

Current Trends (March 14, 2014) • The Challenge of Changing Climate: From the Cowboy to Today by Evelyn Browning-Garriss, Climatologist. Is the recent

drought in Oklahoma connected to global warming or part of a natural cycle? Can we predict when it will end? From the earliest days of the Indian Territory, Oklahomans have coped with dramatic weather swings. No other state has had both the Dust Bowl and weather so wet that it restarted a tropical storm (Erin 2007), creating hurricane force winds. Learn what is causing these swings and what they will bring to our state this year.

• A Look at the Economics of Drought—Challenges for the Agriculture Industry and Affected Communities by M. Ray Perryman, Ph.D. Economist. A sufficient supply of fresh water is as essential to economic vitality as it is to human health and quality of life. Many industries rely on an affordable and reliable source of water, and regions with frequent or long-lasting shortages are at a disadvantage in attracting quality corporate locations and expansions.

Over time, the amount of water needed will grow due to expansion of the population and economy, and the agriculture industry will doubtless face increasing pressure to use less water. Ensuring that future needs are met is a slow and expensive process, but the cost of failing to prepare is immeasurably larger.

This address will focus on the current status of the drought, likely ramifications, and potential solutions.

• Drought and Rangeland Stewardship by Patrick E. Reece, Ph.D. Range Scientist, Prairie & Montane Enterprises. Plant species most preferred by livestock are often highly productive midgrasses or tallgrasses. Good rangeland stewards routinely provide timely opportunities for preferred species to recover after grazing.

They also leave enough residual herbage in grazed pastures to optimize infiltration and minimize soilsurface temperature extremes.

Optimum grazing management practices differ dramatically among environments because of the availability of soil water. The quality of one’s stewardship cannot be fully

Riding Herd best illustrated by showing how I’d spin this example of a typical Australian test question if Chris Turney was my professor: “Question: How would you defend the position that global warming was still occurring if you were a stuck like a tongue on the frozen, sinking hull of the Titanic.”

My Answer: This was just an unfortunate circumstance that never would have happened if the brilliant scientist, Mr. Turney, would have also had on board some aerosol cans, Al Gore and a bunch of cows because they would have emitted so many greenhouse gases it would have melted all the ice in the southern hemisphere.

I’ll admit there hasn’t been any actual scientific evidence of

evaluated until drought occurs because of its profound impact on herbage production. Drought kills plants. Death loss and the amount of bare ground between plants increase as the severity and duration of drought increase. Timely destocking and cautious return to pre-drought stocking rates are critically important for optimizing the resilience of rangeland plant communities. When drought is severe, the Take-Half-Leave-Half mantra will be a kiss of death because taking half of well-below-average levels of herbage production will always leave inadequate levels of residual herbage. Good stewards have learned how to optimize rangeland resilience and livestock production in an ever-changing environment.

Future Demands & Solutions — Part 1 (March 21, 2014) • The Oklahoma Mesonet: A State-of-the-Art Network for Weather and Soil Monitoring, Ronald Elliott, Ph.D, Registered Professional Engineer, Environment and Natural Resources, Emeritus, Oklahoma State University. As the National Research Council’s “gold standard” for statewide weather networks, the Oklahoma Mesonet is a long-term collaborative effort of the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The Mesonet’s extensive network of field stations provides an unparalleled suite of realtime weather and soil observations and value-added information products. Mesonet data sets and decisionsupport tools are widely utilized by individuals, government agencies and businesses engaged in agricultural production, drought monitoring, fire management, natural resources stewardship, public safety, weather forecasting, education, research and other areas of application. In order to better understand and respond to our natural environment, it is critical that we monitor and measure that environment, and bring relevant information to bear in effective decision making. The Oklahoma continued on page fifteen continued from page one

global warming the last 15 years but according to my great teacher, Mr. Turney, there’s a good explanation for that. Coincidentally, during that time frame the U.S. cattle herd was shrinking, therefore it can easily be deduced that fewer cows equals less methane gas being emitted, equals cooler temperatures. If anything, this just proves that the United Nations should immediately assume a leadership role in regulating the number of cows in America. The U.N. could limit U.S. cow numbers by levying a cow tax, the funds to be used in supporting the thousands of people like my wonderful teacher, Mr. Turney, who are currently making a very good living in the global warming

industry.

We’ve had many climate events lately that have all been caused by global warming, including hurricanes, tornadoes, polar vortexes, hot summers, cold winters, drouths, floods and blizzards. The recent experience of my truly gifted professor being frozen stiff like an intellectual popsicle, clearly shows that governments should take a far more aggressive role in combatting climate change by having their hand firmly on the earth’s thermostat. We can’t let the hopes and dreams of the warmists, like my brilliant teacher, Mr. Turney, be frozen in all that ice, because as we all know, the weather is far too important to be left up to Mother Nature.

February 15, 2014

Spring Symposium Mesonet is a 21s t century asset serving a citizenry that knows very well the impacts of weather and climate variability.

• America’s Water Crisis and What To Do About It by Robert Glennon, Author and Water Resource Expert. Are we running out of water? Water policy expert Robert Glennon goes indepth on the irony and tragedy of America’s water crisis. Sharing eye-opening and sometimes humorous stories, Glennon reveals the wanton extravagances and everyday inefficiencies that are sucking the nation dry. Glennon argues that our water problem is very real, and, if not addressed, our water shortages will not only impact the environment, but every aspect of American life. Using an economical perspective, Glennon offers suggestions on what we can do to reclaim and conserve this finite resource and why we must look at water as both a commodity and fundamental human right.

• What is the Future of Rangelands? Natural Resources and What Can Be Done to Restore Them by Allan Savory, President & Co-Founder, Savory Institute. Livestock, mainly cattle, when greatly increased in numbers and properly managed, can reverse the serious desertification taking place in America, and consequently, the decline of western culture, rural towns and the public vilification of cattle. All will be put in global perspective, including America’s role in the most volatile region of the world; where ancient pastoral cultures are being forced into cultural genocide for the same reasons the cowboy culture is fading.

This presentation will address solutions rather than a doomsday outlook—and how this process can be reversed by managing holistically embracing modern science and traditional knowledge.

Future Demands & Solutions — Part 2 (March 28, 2014) • How can you love the land and still use it? Chet Vogt, Rancher, Silversmith Vogt raises a series of questions to explore special issues of the rancher, the environment, grazing practices and the livestock business. He shares his successes and failures at the Three Creeks Ranch.

• Innovative Solutions for a Dry Future by J.D. Strong, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Executive Director Oklahoma’s past has been plagued with significant drought episodes, from our definitional Dust Bowl of the 1930s to the even more significant drought of the mid-1950s. We know the periodic droughts faced in our past will repeatedly appear in Oklahoma’s future. In fact, many climatologists believe drought will become more prevalent in our future. Combine this ominous forecast with

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

continued from page fourteen

the projections from the 2012 Update of Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) that demand for water will increase by at least one-third over the next 50 years, and it’s clear that water stress will continue to mount in our state. If we hope to continue to grow and prosper without the stress of water shortages frustrating our every move, Oklahoma will need innovative solutions. Just as our forefathers spent great sweat and capital in the decades following the Dust Bowl building the reservoirs and other water infrastructure we enjoy today, so too will current generations of Oklahomans have to make bold decisions and costly sacrifices to ensure reliable water supplies to meet the needs of children and grandchildren. Unlike past generations, the days of simply building reservoirs and giant pipelines to meet these needs are largely behind us. While they are still options, most of the cheap and easy solutions were developed long ago. A water-rich future for Oklahoma will depend more heavily upon water conservation, utilizing existing water supplies more efficiently, tapping marginal and brackish waters to quench certain thirsts, and other innovations not yet realized. Renown for our pioneering spirit and inventive ways, Oklahomans are undoubtedly capable of ensuring that our next 100 years will be at least as bright as our first 100 when it comes to the lifeblood of our economy and existence—water.

• The Farm Grandpa Gave Me by Seth Pratt, Emerging Leader and Former Western Region Vice President of the National FFA Organization Food production in our world is changing under both social and environmental pressure. Global trends of increasing wealth and population, alongside decreasing resources, affect the way farmers and ranchers produce food here at home. The next 50 years will see advanced, modern, agriculture spread to every country on earth and environmental stewardship reach a new height. This age-old way of life can be preserved and revolutionized as generation “Y” steps forward to combine grandpa’s work ethic and love of the land with datadriven management and a new perspective.

The program is made possible by a grant provided by the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO), through a partnership with Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company in Oklahoma City and the Coca-Cola Foundation, has granted $100,000 to the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in honor of the Browne Family.

Registration fee is $10 and includes lunch. Reservations are required and can be made online at www.survivingtheelements.org or by calling 405/4782250, Ext. 280.

Page 15

State Department report finds no major climate impact from Keystone XL pipeline

BY JULIET EILPERIN AND STEVEN MUFSON, WASHINGTON POST

tate Department officials said they were still weighing whether or not to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline even after a recent release of a final environmental assessment that concluded the project’s construction would not significantly alter global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States,” the new environmental report said.

The multi-billion dollar pipeline, which would transport heavy crude from oil sands from Canada’s Alberta province into the heart of the U.S. pipeline network, has become the focus of intense controversy. Foes say it will contribute to climate change and supporters say it will secure U.S. oil supplies from a friendly neighbor and create U.S. construction jobs.

The release of the long-awaited Final Environmental Impact

S

Statement will trigger an avalanche of lobbying efforts aimed at Secretary of State John Kerry, who has made climate change a central focus of his career and will now begin deliberating on the pipeline decision.

The decision remains politically fraught for Democrats. Environmental activists fiercely oppose it, on the grounds that it could leak and spill oil in sensitive areas, accelerate development of the greenhouse gas-intensive oil sands in Alberta, and increase America’s dependence on fossil fuels.

The State Department’s report includes 11 volumes of analysis on how the proposed pipeline would affect heavy crude extraction in Canada’s oil sands, and reaches the same conclusion as its draft report did in March: no single infrastructure project will alter the course of oil development in Alberta.

But a senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss the report’s findings in advance of its release, said Friday the study “is only one factor that comes into the consideration” of whether to give TransCanada, a Calgary-based energy giant, a permit to build the pipeline.

“It does not answer the broad-

Water Rights and tribe) will be managed within the reservation boundaries.

This document delegates the state’s constitutional and legal responsibility to administer water for its citizens to a political board. This is the most damaging aspect of the compact,

er question about how a decision on this potential pipeline fits in with broader national and international efforts to address climate change and climate priorities or other questions of foreign policy or energy security,” the official said.

The official added that while the report notes “the approval or denial or any single project is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction of the oil in the oil sands or the refining of heavy crude on the U.S. gulf coast,” it was based on “a set of assumptions” that could change over time. Those assumptions included pipeline capacity, the price of oil and the costs of both transportation and oil sands development.

Oil industry officials welcomed the fact that the agency had affirmed the idea the pipeline decision did not have a major climate impact. In June, President Obama said he would only sign off on the proposal if it “does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem.”

“Five years, five federal reviews, dozens of public meetings, over a million comments and one conclusion the Keystone XL pipeline is safe for the continued on page sixteen

continued from page thirteen

because this UMO violates the equal protection clauses of the Montana and U.S. Constitutions. It would set a new precedent with far reaching implications, placing the 23,000 non-Indian people living on the reservation under tribal jurisdic-

tion for water rights. There is no precedent for this in the United States. The tribal government’s tenants and principles were set up in 1934. Some people call it tribalism but the principles are communistic. [to be continued . . .]

Livestock Market Digest

Page 16

February 15, 2014

State Department environment,” American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard said in a statement. “This final review puts to rest any credible concerns about the pipeline’s potential negative impact on the environment. This long awaited project should now be swiftly approved.”

“Time and time again, State reaches the same conclusion despite the unprecedented and thorough environmental review,” added Cindy Schild, API’s senior manager for oil sands policy.

Schild added that there are nine criteria for determining whether a project like this serves the national interest, and that API expected Keystone XL to qualify. “When you look at the nine criteria, it is hard to figure out how they could conclude that it is not in the

continued from page fifteen

national interest,” she said.

But in many ways the highprofile decision is just entering a new phase, in which Kerry and his deputies will field both public comments and internal feedback from eight agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency and Defense and Energy Departments. The State Department will open a 30-day comment period on Feb. 5, and the agencies will have 90 days to weigh in. After a decision is issued other agencies have 15 days to object, and if one does, the president must decide whether or not to issue the permit.

The EPA has repeatedly questioned whether the State Department has given sufficient weight to the project’s negative environ-

mental impact. The final environmental impact statement notes that bitumen, the substance that is extracted in Canada and diluted in order to be transported to U.S. refineries, is more difficult to clean up than lighter crude when it spills.

The report also concludes that crude from the oil sands is 17 percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than the average crude oil used in the U.S., but between 2 and 10 percent higher than the heavy crude it would be replacing at Gulf Coast refineries.

When asked whether the president will directly weigh in on the decision, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “There’s a long-term process in place to determine whether projects like this are in the national interest.”

“At this point, the process is now at the State Department and we’re going to let that run its course,” Carney added.

The administration has significant flexibility in when it would issue a final national interest determination on the project: the State Department could issue a decision either before the end of the 105-day agency comment period, or long afterwards.

The State Department official said Kerry “doesn’t really have any particular deadline . . . He’ll need to take the time he needs to take.”

Now, the attention turns to Kerry, whom the official says is “just diving in now” to the process. On Tuesday environmental groups are organizing a “Day of Action” where they plan

to flood Kerry’s office with phone calls and e-mails.

“To some extent Secretary Kerry has gotten a pass to date,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for government affairs. “Now that changes.

This is a really a pivot point, and this is a real opportunity for him to live up to the climate record he has established through his very accomplished career.”

TransCanada, the company behind Keystone XL, just began transporting heavy crude through the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. But it is still waiting for the State Department to decide whether to issue a permit for the 1,179-mile northern leg that would carry predominantly heavy oil from Canada’s oil sands, cross the border in Montana and run to the small town of Steele City, Neb. “Regardless of what the EIS says, the Canadians have admitted that the amount of carbon they’re going to be releasing from the tar sands will increase Canada’s total emissions by 38 percent by 2030 instead of reducing emissions when all the science says that’s what we need to do in order to avoid catastrophic climate change,” said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS INSTRUCTIONS If you’re moving or changing your mailing address, please clip and send this form to:

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Don’t Miss a Single Issue!

Name

Old Address

City, State, Zip

New Address

City, State, Zip

L g D r a M k c to s e iv 8 5 4 7 x o B .O P