Riding Herd
“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”
by LEE PITTS
– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL
August 15, 2016 • www.aaalivestock.com
Volume 58 • No. 8
Indecent Exposure
The Politics of Beef A I BY LEE PITTS
NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING
was talking to a longtime reader of the Digest the other day and he asked me if I’d be voting for Hillary, “Me being a Democrat and everything.” I spit out the tea I was drinking, had a coughing fit, choked and said, “Are you kidding? I’m a Republican. Always have been. (I don’t know if that’s a boast or a confession.) I’ve always voted for the Republican nominee for President, even though there were a few times I had to hold my nose to do so. I’m a devout believer in conservatism, country, the Constitution and capitalism with a conscience. Whatever gave you the idea that I’m a Democrat?” He was shocked and said, “I assumed you were a Democrat because you seem to support R CALF and don’t care much for the NCBA and everyone knows R CALF is for Democrats and the NCBA is full of Republicans.” Now it was my turn to be shocked. I’d never heard that theory before. At first I was a little proud he couldn’t tell my party affiliation by my writing and then I began to wonder if I’m being a traitor to my people when I cast my lot with R CALF instead of the NCBA? What’s next, a Bernie bumper sticker on my electric Smart Car? How does the reader’s theory about political party affiliations
Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled.
jibe with an article I wrote many years ago titled, “Is R CALF Dead?” This was after founder Leo McDonnell and 13 R CALF committee chairman left R CALF and later formed the United States Cattleman’s Association. I chuckled at the time because one industry observer called those who stayed at R CALF a bunch of “right wing fundamentalist extremists.” Is that any way to describe a bunch of Democrats? I began to wonder if there was any truth to what the reader had said and surmised that the only way to tell is by looking at
the “platforms” of the NCBA and R CALF, after all, in many ways they are very much like political parties.
Trickle Down Economics Can you name one thing R CALF, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders all have in common? They are all against the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. (You know things are getting weird when a billionaire capitalist and an avowed socialist agree on anything.) NCBA is one of TPP’s biggest cheerleaders while R-CALF was the only witness represent-
ing the U.S. cattle industry that opposed the TPP in hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The USITC estimates that net exports of beef over the first 15 year span of the TPP pact will be worth $457.1 million more than if the TPP was not implemented. R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard put this amount into perspective, “This means that even under the USITC’s overly optimistic estimate, the best our industry can hope for is that in 15 years we will market barely over one day’s kill in additional cattle. This exceedingly small economic benefit does not outweigh the huge concessions our industry will be forced to make if the TPP is passed.” The Republicans at the NCBA want you to assume that all those extra dollars will trickle down to the U.S. cow calf producer. After all, Republicans continued on page two
Ranchers Have Held Up Their End of Wolf Bargain BY TODD NASH AND RUSTY INGLIS / FOR THE REGISTER-GUARD
O
regon’s ranchers want to set the record straight on wolves. The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation opposed wolf reintroduction from the beginning, knowing the toll it would take on our livestock producers. Nevertheless, the ranching community worked with environmental groups and state regulators and agreed to the conditions of the Oregon Wolf Conservation & Management Plan in 2005. This cooperation came at a significant expense to producers who expended resources to reduce the risk of attack on their animals. The wolf plan has worked. In fact, it worked extremely well. State wolf populations have exploded since reintroduction, with a 36 percent increase in 2015 alone, bringing Oregon to a population of 110 wolves and 11 breeding pairs. To put this in perspective, the threshold in the plan for consideration for removing wolves from the state’s list of endangered species is four breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Populations are currently well above that level. Ranchers worked hard to live up to their obligations in the plan. Unfortunately, instead of doing the same and applauding Oregon’s
rural communities for their efforts in promoting wolf recovery, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and out-of-state environmental litigation groups have once again filed a lawsuit — this time over a decision that in no way impacts wolf management in Oregon. This is what these groups don’t want you to know: Delisting does not change current wolf management or conservation requirements for wolves. Wolf management is governed by the wolf plan, which is up for review this year. Wolves in Oregon have always been and remain one of the best-protected species in the state, and their population will continue to increase. This begs the question: Why are environmental activist groups suing on the delisting decision? In short, they want to use this lawsuit to force changes to the Wolf Conservation & Management Plan. And these groups want these negotiations to take place in confidential settlement discussions instead of through a public forum. We believe that the public discourse of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, the legislative process and the upcoming Wolf Conservation & Management Plan review are the correct places for these important decisions. Private settlement negotiations that cut continued on page four
s hard as this may be to believe, I don’t like what I see when I look in the mirror. Whenever I am even close to a mirror it immediately flashes a warning sign, “Objects in the mirror are even uglier than they appear.” I’m no clothes horse; more of a clothes nightmare. I’m no fashion plate either. (Not even a fashion saucer). I just don’t have any interest in clothes, or shopping for them. Never have. When I come out of the closet it looks like I was dressed by Goodwill Industries. Actually, I have no need for a closet because I carry my wardrobe on my back and it consists of jeans, tee shirt and ball cap. If I add a flannel shirt it’s formal wear. One smart aleck friend suggested I could be arrested for indecent exposure even when I’m fully dressed. If I do have any style at all I guess you could call it “cowboy chic.” I have holes in my jeans and my tee shirts are ripped and often sport offensive phrases like, “Al’s A1 Septic Service where the grass is always greener.” When I do have to dress up, like to go to the Dollar Store, I might wear a bluer pair of jeans and tuck in one side of my shirt. My mother would kill me if she could see me now. Part of the reason I’ve never liked to dress up is that fashion is confusing to me and involves far too many decisions. Take cowboy hats for example. Do I wear felt or straw? I know, there are rules about that sort of thing but another thing I don’t do well is follow rules. If I wear a black felt hat I look like a rebel outlaw but if I wear a white hat I look like a banker or a purebred auctioneer. I’ve found that I can avoid these sorts of questions by wearing a straw hat. But do real cowboys wear a hat with three holes in the side for air conditioning? And how do I want the hat shaped? See, there are far too many decisions. So I just wear a free ball cap from an auction market to hide my oddly continued on page nine
www.LeePittsbooks.com