Riding Herd
“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”
by LEE PITTS
– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL
February 15, 2016 • www.aaalivestock.com
Volume 58 • No. 2
BFF By Lee Pitts
I
don’t get it. Admittedly, there are a lot of things in life I don’t understand, but one of the more puzzling phenomena is rancher’s support of the NCBA while the organization is doing everything possible to hurt American ranchers, including killing COOL. At the same time those ranchers seem to despise R-CALF who has had the cattlemen’s back every step of the way. People will flock to an NCBA convention in San Diego in droves while R-CALF could hold theirs in a meeting room at the Ramkota Best Western in Rapid City. Is it the pursuit of a swag bag full of free stuff at the NCBA trade show that sucks cattlemen in? Or, is it just a social club whose members want to party like there’s no tomorrow in a goodtime town? Sadly, for NCBA’s cattle-feeding members, there will be no tomorrow because they went from boom times to bankruptcy faster than you can explain the convoluted and complex relationship between the NCBA and the Beef Board. It can’t possibly be NCBA’s policies that keep people coming back for more.
Curious Coincidences
NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING
I’m not a big believer in coincidence. For example, I don’t think that the two most profit-
able periods in the cattle business during the last 40 years occurred, first, during the time that R-CALF got our northern border shut to incoming Canadian cattle while Canada dealt with her mad cow issues. The second boom occurred during the time period after R-CALF led the effort to get country of origin labeling made mandatory for beef so that the American consumer might know, for instance, that the hamburger they bought at Walmart came from a dozen different countries. When both of those R-CALF supported measures ended we witnessed major market meltdowns and in the latter case, cattle futures at the end of last year when COOL was cooked, suffered their biggest drop in 34 years. Beef futures dropped 16 percent at end of 2015, a percentage decrease not seen since 1981. Oh, and
The best way to appreciate how another person rides is to get on their horse. after COOL was killed in cold blood and the NCBA was worshipping at the alter of globalization, our exports of beef went down 12 percent while at the same time our imports were increasing by another 20 percent. Ask an NCBA supporter why cattle prices were high and they’ll point to exports as the reason. I don’t know if they’re just gullible or they really don’t know that the money we bring home through beef exports is dwarfed by the dollars we pay out to producers in 32 different countries we have graciously let tap into the richest beef market in the world. That would be us ... as in the U.S. If you don’t believe me about R-CALF and their role in helping ranchers pad their
wallets get a calendar and your checkbook and see for yourself. It’s fact, not coincidence.
Bolder Than Bandits While the NCBA was busy selling trade-show booths and giving sustainability speeches, R-CALF was asking a Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the 2015 cattle price collapse. Specifically, R-CALF asked the Committee, “to investigate 13 specific issues including the cause for the dramatic, unprecedented collapse of U.S. cattle prices in 2015; whether there are structural problems in the U.S. cattle market that contributed to the price collapse in 2015; and whether dominant meatcontinued on page two
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done? BY RENA WETHERELT
I
was there as a witness in the famous Montana Hunting District (HD) 313 standing above Deckard Flats, the first weekend of hunting season 2015, imagining the largest migrating elk herd in North America funneling en masse from their summer home in Yellowstone National Park, north to the alpine meadows of southern Montana, the winter range of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. I saw the vacant animal trails furrowing down the ridge from the horizon worn from the elk streaming single file in jagged rows, shrouded in a cloud of steam and spreading out across Deckard Flats like ants from a hill. My friend, Robert T. Fanning, Founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, described how it was twenty years ago. Horsemen decked with orange riding in as the minute of pre-dawn came and the first shots of the season brought down the first bull elk of a hunting culture passed down since the earliest days of the western frontier. We were alone, except for a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) Warden, there as a matter of bureaucratic habit to make sure no shots were fired before thirty minutes before sunrise-his presence unneces-
sary. There were no elk to harvest, no swarms of hunters to fire. When MTFWP announced the closure of Deckard Flats to hunting a few days later, it was the most drastic bureaucratic admission yet of the failure of the experimental introduction a non-native species of wolf into the Northern Rocky Mountain ecosystem done by a public/ private partnership twenty years ago. The recent question asked by Russian President Vladimir Putin crossed my mind. “Do you realize now what you have done?”
Background The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd numbered over 19,000 in 1995. 2990 Antlerless Permits were issued in HD 313 that year. The District was a General Tag area, home to moose, around 300 bighorn sheep, abundant mule deer and antelope. People came from around the state to fill their freezer with wholesome, nutritious wild meat, crowding the roads and parking lots with horse trailers. Trophy hunters and adventurers from around the world converged on Gardiner and Jardine, Montana. Outfitters with pack mules and horses took paying visitors continued on page twenty
New Age Brandings
R
anch brandings in the future will take on an all new look thanks to squeamish animal rightists who get ill just thinking about all the despicable things we do to our animals to keep them healthy and safe. PETA and their ilk want you to treat your cattle like humans. No, on second thought, they want you to treat your animals better than the typical human in need of medical care at the ER. Which is not that high of a standard really. Here’s how I see a typical branding 20 years from now. A USDA inspector will be on hand to insure that there will be no ear notching, hot iron branding, mugging, dehorning, wrestling, or roping. Which explains why all the neighbors stayed home. Instead of calves being roped a bunch of twelveyear-old computer geeks will sit in comfort back at the ranch headquarters maneuvering drones over calves and gently dropping soft nets over them. A GPS will automatically inform the medical team of the calf’s location. The surgical team will consist of the following: an anesthetist, surgical veterinarian, nurse, vet tech, cowboy A, cowboy B, an ambulance driver and two PCRA certified rodeo clowns. (Not to be confused with USDA or EPA clowns.) All participants by law must be gowned and wear sterile gloves. When the mobile bovine hospital reaches the calf two cowboy paramedics wearing those cute little booties that doctors wear over their $1,500 shoes will jump out of the ambulance to gently retrieve the calf from its net. They will attempt to place the calf in the sterile surgical theater in the ambulance, without the calf’s mother killing them. This is where the PRCA clowns come into play. If the calf’s mom displays extreme anti-social behavior it’s the clown’s job to distract the crazy cow long enough so that Cowboy A and Cowboy B can transport the calf in a loving manner without being gored or trampled to continued on page five
www.LeePittsbooks.com
Page 2
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
BFF packers or other major market participants engaged in unlawful conduct that adversely influenced the cattle futures market and cash cattle market in 2015.” If you haven’t read a market report from your local auction market recently, let us bring you up to date on just how bad the carnage was. • R-CALF provided documentation to the committee showing that independent cattle feeders lost more than $500 per head on cattle sold during the collapse and, consequently, “the very foundation of the U.S. cattle industry’s feeding sector – its independent cattle feeders – was irreparably damaged.” If you are sitting with a full feedlot of over-ripe cattle it doesn’t take much of that action before you’re broke and weeds are growing in your former feedlot. • According to John Nalivka, President of Sterling Marketing, feedyards lost a cumulative unhedged $4.7 billion in 2015. Add the $1.1 billion they also lost in 2013 and that’s almost two billion more that they made in the glorious year that was 2014. A year when we had country of origin labeling, I might add. Even more galling, while feeders were losing two billion, consumers saw little, if any, reduction in the price at the grocery store because multi-national meatpackers were making unprecedented profits. • At the end of 2015 the average price for yearling cattle was $1.66 per pound. A year earlier the same weight cattle were worth $500 more per head. • Even after the big up in the market that followed the HUGE DOWN, Sterling Marketing reported that cattle feeders were still suffering a $383 per head loss on a cash price of $1.32 per pound. I suppose that’s better than losing $500 per head but once you’re broke does it really matter to what degree your level of “brokeness” is? • Industry observer Stephen Anderson says, “Ranchers and private feedlots are poised for vertical integration, about like hog people were in 1998. When they eliminate the private independent cattle feeders, the “competitive markets” for feeder cattle will go too. Then the packing cartel will have the cowman by the throat and will dictate: genetics, delivery date, weight, vaccinations, I.D. policy, and price. The Walmartization of the cattle industry is just around the corner. NCBA calls it Sustainable Beef!” • To illustrate just how crazy the cattle market was in the last quarter of 2015 live cattle were worth $132 per cwt. on the first day of December. Two weeks later they’d dropped to $117 and then another week later it had jumped back to $131. One trader said the market was akin to catching a falling knife and
continued from page one many got bloodied in the process. • I have big stocker friends who paid four dollars per pound for 350-400 pound calves and fed them to fat who are now selling ranches and giving up leases in hopes of avoiding bankruptcy. At next summer’s big video sales don’t be surprised if many of those four dollar-per-pound-players are no longer participating. And just like that, another chunk of the U.S. cattle business is gone. • According to R-CALF, “As cash cattle prices plummeted and cattle futures prices fluctuated with extreme volatility, dominant meatpackers were benefiting from what one industry commentator referred to as gangbuster profits.” • R-CALF’s Bill Bullard says, “Analysts are characterizing the 2015 price collapse with nondescript phrases such as ‘market meltdown’ and ‘psychological upheaval,’ indicating that they either do not know, or they will not say, what actually caused the catastrophic price collapse.” • There was one little item that may have had something to do with the market collapse. Just prior to the calamity, the U.S. Congress, buckling to pressure from Canada, Mexico, the World Trade Organization, and the NCBA, killed COOL so that packers no longer had to keep the foreign cattle separate from domestic ones and they were then free to bring in cheaper beef from around the globe without the consumer knowing it. • I had to laugh at one commentator who wrote, “Packer margins have improved dramatically along with the higher beef prices. As a result, packers have plenty of room to bid more aggressively for fed cattle.” Charitable packers? That’s the very definition of an oxymoron. If you believe that, you are a moron. • R-CALF further briefed the Congressional committee “that extremely tight cattle supplies and growing beef demand were among market fundamentals cited by analysts to support projections for strong cattle prices throughout 2015 and for up to three years beyond. During the first half of 2015, those projections were spot-on. But then something went awry. Cattle prices collapsed farther and faster than during any time in history and the unprecedented volatility in the cattle futures market rendered it useless for price discovery purposes.” • What did your friends, the NCBA, have to say about R-CALF’s request for a Congressional investigation into the market calamity? NCBA officials said there “was no merit in R-CALF’s request for a Congressional investigation.” Although they did host a meeting in December and wrote a letter on January 13, to Terrence A. Duffy, President of the CME continued on page four
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 3
Page 4
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
BFF Group to express their member’s concerns. Gee, would that be the same Chicago Mercantile Exchange that’s listed as a major sponsor of NCBA’s convention, is an NCBA Allied Industry Partner and has had an “ongoing partnership with the National Cattlemen’s Foundation” to sponsor CME Beef scholarships since 1989?” Editor’s note: CME used to be called the Chicago Mercantile Exchange until they started using just the initials. No doubt to be more transparent. I wonder if the NCBA-belonging big stocker operators who are busy going broke feel
continued from page two as comfy and cozy with the CME and NCBA now? Needless to say, for ranchers, feeders and stocker operators taking turns going broke is no way to run a business, let alone an industry. Neither is giving your money in the form of a checkoff tax to an organization that seemingly doesn’t care what country the beef comes from because they get paid no matter what.
NAFTA On Steroids While the NCBA was busy leading the cheers for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, R-CALF was presenting testimony to the
U.S. International Trade Commission to recommend its rejection. If you liked NAFTA you’re going to absolutely love the TPP. R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard testified, “The TPP adopts the mantra of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who told a federal court that “beef is beef, whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán.” Read that sentence again and then tell me that the NCBA is your BFF. (That’s “best friends forever” for you non-texters and tweeters.) “Under the TPP’s product-specific rules of origin,” said Bullard, “the origin of beef is wherever the animal was slaughtered. This renders the origins of cattle irrelevant. It relegates U.S. cattle producers to nothing more than an undifferentiated global supply chain for meatpackers. “The TPP allows U.S.-based meatpackers to float live cattle from Australia, slaughter them here, and export the duty-free beef to Japan with a ‘Product of the USA’ label. This extinguishes competition between U.S. cattle producers and cattle producers from around the world. So not only will the TPP destroy competition, it also allows multinational meatpackers to usurp the good name, image and reputation of the U.S. cattle producer,” Bullard testified. Bullard also said that non-participating countries will benefit from the TPP at the expense of U.S. cattle producers
under the flawed origin rules. He explained that meatpackers can do this now by slaughtering Mexican cattle in the U.S. and shipping the resulting beef with a ‘Product of USA’ label under the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, even though Mexico is not a party to that agreement.” Bullard testified that the U.S. has, “Already accumulated a $22 billion trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries and that the TPP block represents the third-largest cattle herd in the world; it overproduces beef and its production is increasing while its consumption is decreasing. “We will become the dumping ground for cattle, beef and lamb,” he said. According to Bullard, the combination of unlimited imports and no safeguards is what caused the severe shrinkage of the U.S. commercial sheep industry. “Since the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, more than half of our domestic lamb consumption is supplied by imported lamb. The failure to provide safeguards for sheep producers has resulted in the offshoring of our nation’s once vibrant commercial sheep industry.” “The cattle industry is following in the sheep industry’s footsteps,” said Bullard, “with more than half a million U.S. cattle operations exiting the industry since 1980, the liquidation of the U.S. cattle herd was reduced to the smallest size in 70 years! The reduced production output that is now the lowest in more than two decades,
since just before NAFTA.” “Treating the trade deficit as lost sales,” said Bullard, “it is estimated the U.S. economy experienced an output loss of about $8.7 billion and a loss of more than 97,000 jobs as a result of the $2.2 billion trade deficit increase the U.S. experienced with the TPP countries from 2013 to 2014.” The TPP would also weaken U.S. health and safety import standards and subject U.S. laws to review by an unaccountable foreign tribunal inaccessible to most U.S. citizens. That’s not a theory, it’s exactly how the NCBA and their meatpacker buddies got rid of COOL through the World Trade Organization. Bullard said the TPP requires the U.S. to “unacceptably cede a wide swath of its national sovereignty.” As R-CALF supporter Mike Schultz says, “The NCBA does not represent independent cattlemen and there is a BIG difference between the NCBA and R-CALF. NCBA wants and supports more consolidation and a flood of global meat imports, less producers, feeders and packers while only R-CALF supports more producers, feeders and we damn sure wish there were a lot more packers for the simple reason of stopping collusion and increasing competition. Pretty simple and the facts have been on the table for years! Some people just can’t read,” concluded Schultz. As a writer, I certainly hope that’s not the case, but sadly, I can’t think of any other logical explanation.
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Stock Show Breaks 2015 Record Marking the 110th as the Second-Highest Attended Show in History
T
he 2016 National Western Stock Show finishes strong with the second-highest overall attendance in Stock Show history with 686,745 visitors. That is an increase of 4,207 guests over the 2015 Stock Show and second highest in it’s 110-year history. “This is the second consecutive year with more than 680,000 visitors, which is a tribute to our western heritage and stock show fans across the nation,” said Paul Andrews, President & CEO of the National Western Stock Show. The National Western Scholarship Trust is funded by three primary sources, and each source had a tremendous year. The Junior Livestock Auction had a record year, raising $886,250 with a percentage of the total going to fund the Scholarship Trust. The Citizen of the West dinner, hon-
oring Mike Sullivan, sold out the Events Center arena floor. The Coors Western Art exhibit had a great year, and a portion of the proceeds fund the Scholarship Trust. All three of these events will produce enough revenue to fund a projected 80 scholarships throughout Colorado and Wyoming for students studying in the fields of agriculture and rural medicine. “The success of our show is due to the dedication and hard work of the National Western Volunteers, the support of the City of Denver, the Board of Directors, our sponsor partners, the livestock and rodeo committees, and the amazing rodeo and stock show fans that come out every year to celebrate the western tradition we call the National Western Stock Show,” said Andrews.
RIDING HERD death. Once in the surgical theater the anesthesiologist will swab the injection site with a topical pain killer so that the calf will not feel the anesthesiologist’s needle. To reduce separation anxiety the back of the ambulance will open so that the cow can be in contact with her calf during the medical procedure. Should the cow attempt to climb into the ambulance it is the job of any surviving cowboy or clown to persuade her otherwise, without the use of a whip, rope or paddle. Should any cow persist it will be the duty of the USDA observer to call a “timeout”, releasing the drugged calf to her stressed out mother and thereby gaining a permanent exemption. After the sterile draping is in place, the calf’s effected area
continued from page one should be cleaned, disinfected and shaved by the vet tech and then the surgical team will perform a castration or a spaying of the heifer. The vet will also administer all shots and implant a computer chip with a mandatory USDA 32-digit password. All incisions will be closed by the surgeon so that the calf will not be self conscious about his or her scar. This is especially important with heifer calves. Finally, since ranchers need some visible sign of ownership so they won’t accidentally eat their own beef instead of the neighbor’s, a freeze brand will be applied. White calves will be excused. At the end of the branding instead of the traditional beef barbecue we’ll see Cowboy A hanging on for dear life at the top of a Joshua tree preferring the three-inch spines to the 12-inch
horns of the mad momma down below. The USDA inspector and any third party observers will be locked in the front of the ambulance with all the windows rolled up, the doors locked and quivering like a leaf in a 30 mph gust. The two PRCA clowns will be running around the ambulance with a witchy cow in close pursuit. Meanwhile, the calves that are scattered all over the ranch will be waking up from their long naps and any human survivors that are still mobile will head down to the hospital where Cowboy B was medivacced in a Life Flight helicopter. The cowboy crowd will stand vigil until he dies from his wounds or comes out of his coma. Any costs not covered by Medicalf will be borne by the rancher. (Typically $35,000 per calf.)
Page 5
The “grass fed” beef label is going out to pasture, along with “naturally raised” claims for other livestock. Drovers Journal
U
SDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is getting rid of a labeling program focusing on grass fed beef and naturally raised claims on livestock. On January 11, 2016 USDA AMS released a notice withdrawing the U.S. Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims pertaining to grass fed claims on ruminant livestock. The ruling also applies to meat products originating from grass fed livestock, such as cattle. In addition, the standard for “Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock” is being withdrawn.
Page 6
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
The War In The West: Time To Stop Federal Land Acquisition
M
edia attention on the plight of Dwight and Steven Hammond in Burns, Oregon — sent to prison as “terrorists” — has focused more on the activities of some who have come to their “support” than on the cause of the broad-based unhappiness with the federal government. But first it is important to clarify the Hammonds’ “crime.” Most reports note they were prosecuted for arson on federal lands. They were prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, passed following the 1995 bombing of the federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. Bombing a federal building is an act of terrorism. Burning 140 acres of grass, sagebrush and weeds to halt wildfires and remove invasive brush is not terrorism. Ranchers, farmers, foresters and miners homesteaded the
West, often before government reached that far, or states or counties were created. The successors of these landowners are today surrounded by a sea of federal lands. Across the West over half the land and resources are owned by the federal government. In Oregon it owns 53 percent of the land, and 75 percent in Harney County, home of Burns and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The county is over 10,000 square miles in size, larger than nine states. With a population of barely 7,000 people, it is effectively a federal colony, controlled and administered by the federal government. The federal government owns 85 percent of the state of Nevada and 64 percent of both Utah and Idaho — effectively making rural landowners little more than serfs, precluding utilization of natural resources, reducing the tax base and impoverishing local and county governments, which are then unable to fund schools and police. However, this is not the case in the Midwest and the East, where most of the land is owned privately. Iowa has less
than 0.5 percent federal ownership, for example. Evermore onerous government regulations make it difficult for landowners to use their lands and often next to impossible to cross the government lands on historic rights-of-way for access to water and grazing lands. Selective enforcement of laws like the Endangered Species Act can prevent landowners from using land that has no endangered species, but does have habitat the species could use if they were there. The federal government also uses the Clean Water Act to designate dry desert lands as jurisdictional wetlands of the United States because, occasionally, rainwater will pool in some areas for a week or so. Yet even with this hegemonic control of the rural West, the federal government continues to acquire more land. It is expert at making regulatory harassment so onerous that eventually farmers and ranchers simply give up and sell out to the government — becoming what the Feds eu-
phemistically refer to as “willing sellers.” Anger against such treatment arose during the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, when state governments demanded a return of their land and resources and equality with states in the East. That opposition to federal ownership was tempered by the Reagan Administration’s easing of the regulatory regime. But as the federal government has accelerated its efforts to acquire more land and force people off their lands, mounting opposition and calls for change have flourished. Another Sagebrush Rebellion is underway, headed by counties and state legislatures. Several Western states have introduced legislation demanding the return of their lands. Both houses in Utah have passed such legislation and Governor Herbert has signed the law. It is time to place a moratorium on any additional land acquisition by the federal government, to undertake an inventory of government landownership
at all levels, and to begin taking steps towards devolution of federal ownership and return the lands and resources to responsible and caring ownership and stewardship. This would not threaten genuine environmental amenities and values. America has a long tradition of successful private ownership of wildlife refuges, parks, and forests. If, for instance, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were owned by a conservation organization, such as an Audubon Society, it would not be able to bully and harass its farming and ranching neighbors who willingly share their lands with the wildlife, but would have to deal with them in a legal and peaceful manner — while still protecting the wildlife. It is ironic that Americans are still fighting colonial subjugation by a hegemonic government — located now in Washington, D.C., rather that England. James Madison wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort.” That is what Oregon is really about.
Beef Home Study Course 2016
T
he University of Minnesota is hosting a home study course for those wanting to learn more about beef production. This course is designed to offer an introduction to health management of the cow calf herd through each phase of production. Materials will focus on practical information and strategies to promote the health and productivity of the cow calf herd. Lesson topics: Pre-calving
Newborn calf Breeding management Parasite control Vet Feed Directive Course logistics: The first lesson will become available on February 15, 2016 and the following courses will be posted every two weeks. Although the course is selfpaced, participants are encouraged to complete lessons as they are posted in order to participate in the online community. Course access will remain
ELM
open until July 1, 2016. Participants will need to complete all course activities by this time in order to receive a certificate of completion. The registration fee is $75 and you can register online at http://learning.umn.edu. Search for “EXT XAF.0032 - Health Management for the Cow/Calf Herd” Registration will remain open until March 16, 2016 For more information contact Nicole Kenney Rambo at nmkenney@umn.edu or 320/235-0726 ext 2009
FARMINGTON
ROBERT J. SMITH, SENIOR FELLOW, NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH
TO SACRAMENTO HWY 4
STOCKTON
J17 M AR
IPOSA
SALE SITE
RD
VALLEY HOME
HWY 99 OAKDALE
HWY 120 ESCALON
SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS
MODESTO
#N
TO FRESNO
Facility located at: 25525 East Lone Tree Road, Escalon, CA 95320
ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.
LIVESTOCK SALES 3 days per week on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday
MONDAY: Beef Cattle WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle NTS IGNME CONS OME! WELC r more Call fo ation inform ning sig on con stock. your
MIGUEL A. MACHADO President Office: 209/838-7011 Mobile: 209/595-2014
FRIDAY: Small Animals Poultry – Butcher Cows JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866
CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139
www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 7
New Forest Service policy leaves control of water rights to ski resorts In the climate change era, how does industry control of water affect public land management? PAIGE BLANKENBUEHLER, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS
I
n 2011, the U.S. Forest Service issued a controversial water rights directive that would have required ski areas operating under a special use permit on public land to transfer their water rights to the federal government. In response, the National Ski Areas Association, an industry trade group that represents more than 300 ski areas, sued the agency in January of the following year — and won. A U.S. district judge ruled in 2012 that the Forest Service not only violated its own procedural rules and failed to evaluate the economic impact, but also violated the ski areas’ rights. After that ruling, the Forest Service abandoned a water transfer clause and issued a new directive that will go into effect January 29. It requires ski areas applying for new permits or modifying existing ones to demonstrate that they have sufficient water to sustain operations for the permit’s duration and allows them to remain at the helm of their water management. In 2011, the agency’s culture leaned toward federal transfer, or co-ownership, of water, says Joe Meade, director of recreation for the U.S. Forest Service based in Washington, D.C. “That way we knew the water would always be available in the National Forest Service System.” But ski areas consider water rights as assets, and collectively, the industry has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in them, says Geraldine Link, director of public policy for the NSAA. “That’s something ski areas don’t want interference on,” she says. “We’re really good at water management and we know best what we need and how best to achieve that.” Those high-dollar investments have long drawn the attention of the U.S. Forest Service, which worried that as water rights become more valuable, ski areas might decide to sell them to developers. The 2011 rule addressed the resulting concern that future ski operations wouldn’t have the water they needed for snowmaking and for running base area amenities like lodges and restaurants. There is no history of any ski area selling their water to third parties, but under the new directive, a ski area will need approval from the agency to sell them. “The new clause is a huge improvement,” Link says. Ultimately, after the court ruled against the agency, Forest Service officials realized that it didn’t matter so much who owned the water as how sustainably water was being used on public lands. “We’re asking now that water needs be doc-
umented,” Meade says. “If we issue a permit, we want to know that the operations under that permit can be sustained.” The change between the 2011 clause and the new Ski Area Water Rights Directive seems drastic on paper, but in practice, it won’t change the way ski areas do business, because states have authority over allocation even when water originates on federal land. The Forest Service can’t provide more water for operations that show they don’t have enough, and it also can’t tighten the belt on resorts that demonstrate a plentiful supply. What it does do, though, is confirm that a ski area controls its water rights and their day-today management. What results is a missed opportunity that
could have eased uncertainty surrounding public land management as the climate warms and winter precipitation and water storage become more unpredictable. In June last year, the Forest Service withdrew a similar proposal that would have changed groundwater management for oil and gas leases. Much like their ski industry counterparts, opponents of the oil and gas water directive said it would have “infringed on state authorities’ allocation of water.” Under the new ski area directive, the agency doesn’t have control over how much water resorts use, how much they buy on the open market or lease from local municipalities. It also means the agency doesn’t have the power to take water from a ski area and use it for the broad-
er Forest Service system during a climate crisis or prolonged drought periods. As winter recreation faces a more uncertain climate future, the 2015 directive will ensure that while the industry owns water, they will be entitled to their allocation. When it comes to winter recreation on public lands, climate change becomes more of a technological problem, than a regulatory one, says David Corbin, vice president of planning and development for Aspen Skiing Company. As winter conditions become more erratic, Corbin says snowmaking will need to be more efficient and operations will need access to larger on-site reservoirs. “Warming impacts our ability to make snow,” he says. “We need to adapt water storage so we can
act quickly when temperatures are ideal for making snow.” In the previous (and controversial) water directive, the Forest Service took the long view on water management — will public lands have the water it needs 100 years into the future? The new directive gives the ski resorts a bigger role in defining that future, which is not without the risk of industry interests infringing on the agency’s responsibility to long-term management of the resource. “I believe we’ve found a place in policy that’s good for industry, good for the skier and upholds our responsibility to public lands,” Meade says. “As the climate changes, we know we’re all in this together.” Paige Blankenbuehler is an editorial fellow at High Country News.
Bulls for the 21st Century
Workshop > Social > Sale marCh 12 and 13, 2016
CommerCial Cattlemen are intelligent, DemanDing, informeD, Progressive anD Deserve to Know everything Possible about the bulls they PurChase
snyder livestoCk has the Complete Bull test sale
sunday, marCh 13 Tri-Tip Lunch: noon • video saLe: 1 p.m.
Evaluation Includes THD ©
Fertility of Bull and Dam Weaning Performance Gain on Test Carcass Ultrasound Information Feed Efficiency Data Conformation Evaluation Muscling Evaluation
The Snyder family believeS in SupporTing you and your operaTion.They inviTe you To make Time To geT off your horSe before you no longer need a horSe.
Tending to Business Workshop and Seminar Nationally recognized agribusiness presenter Jolene Brown (pictured at right) and 10 Snyder business partners – attorneys, bankers, insurance representatives, tax professionals and more will headline the program on Sat., March 12. The event includes a catered Mexican food lunch and Yerington Rotary Club’s Long-on-Beef Hors’ douvres, served during the annual Bull Buyers’ Social.
Join Us the 2 nd Weekend in March in Yerington, Nevada FuNded iN paRT BY gRaNTS FRoM THe CiTY oF YeRiNgToN aNd LYoN CouNTY RooM Tax BoaRdS
THD ©
Page 8
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
Make Sure Your Mineral Feeders Are Full Minerals for the cow also help get the calf off to a good start
BY PETER VITTI, COLUMNIST, CATTLEMAN’S CORNER, COW-CALF
B
eef cows cannot live without minerals and vitamins, which are often deficient or biologically unavailable in many overwintering forage. I advise people to put loose mineral on a regular basis for their gestating cows, so all essential mineral and vitamin requirements are supplemented. Unfortunately, some people don’t always feed enough mineral. With a little effort, cattle producers should calculate the proper amount of mineral, monitor mineral intake and take any action to correct poor consumption.
Critical time Good mineral intake by the pregnant cow herd is important at this time of year. Not only does good mineral intake maintain or build good mineral sta-
tus required by their vital body tissues and immune system, it plays a big part in the last trimester of pregnancy in spring cows. Pre-calving beef cows on a poor mineral feeding program deplete their own limited trace mineral reserves, even before their calves become mineral deficient and they themselves are adversely affected. It is estimated the late-gestation fetus (and placental tissues) use up to 30 per cent of the pre-calving cow’s daily requirements for essential trace minerals. Since, the developing fetus is totally dependent upon the availability of essential minerals traveling through the placenta from its mothers’ blood, it uses its own natural ability to store certain trace minerals such as iron, copper, zinc, manganese, and selenium. It’s a natural instinct of post-calving survival, since colostrum and milk are low in these trace minerals. For example, selenium status in fetal and newborn calf is only a reflection of the selenium and
vitamin E status of its mother during gestation — white muscle disease in newborn calves is cited as a direct result of selenium deficiency in freshened beef cows.
Mineral calculation To prevent mineral (and vitamin) deficiencies, producers should follow the daily recommendations printed on the feed label sewn to each commercial bag of cattle mineral. Most feed companies recommend that between 56 to 112 grams (re: two to four oz.) of salt-free mineral per cow per day. If salt makes up at least 25 per cent of this mineral, one should adjust mineral intakes, accordingly. By my calculations, I use 80 g x three days of feeding x number of cows and then round off to the number of bags that is needed. For a 200 cow-calf operation: (80 g x three days x 200 days) /25-kg bags = two bags/ three days should be provided. From my own practical experience, here are a few considerations I find work to achieve
HeAdquArters West Ltd. ST. JOHN’S OFFICE: TRAEGEN KNIGHT
P.O. Box 1980 St. John’s, AZ 85936 www.headquarterswest.com 928/524-3740 Fax 928/563-7004 Cell 602/228-3494 info@headquarterswest.com
Filling your real estate needs in Arizona
Terrell Land and Livestock Co. 575-447-6041
Tye Terrell, selling ranches since 1972
We know New Mexico and New Mexico needs.
tyecterrell@yahoo.com Los Lunas, NM
Socorro Plaza Realty
Fallon-Cortese Land
On the Plaza
NEW MEXICO
Donald Brown
Qualifying Broker
505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax
#5 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com
521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130
575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax
Buena Vista Realty
Qualifying Broker: A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www.buenavista-nm.com
Missouri Land Sales
139 Acres - 7 AC stocked lake; hunting retreat. Beautiful 2 BR, 1 BA log cabin. Only 35+ miles northeast of Springfield. MLS# 60031816. 82.4 Acres M/L - Horse Lover’s Dream (joins Mark Twain National Forest). Spring fed pond stocked with bass. 4 BR, 1 BA, older home (rented), pasture (rented). 24 miles north of Mt. Grove. MLS# 60034710.
See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com
PAUL McGILLIARD
Cell: 417/839-5096 1-800/743-0336 MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORS SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804
174 acres M/L. Cattle, horses, hunting retreat. Live water year round spring-crawdad creek. 30+ ac open, more land could be opened with brush hogging. Good fencing, 2 miles from S&H fish pay fishing ponds. 8 miles east of Ava on Hwy. 76. MLS# 60029427 GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704; Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com, enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!
P.O. Box 447 Fort Sumner, NM 88119 575.355.2855 office 575.355.7611 fax 575.760.3818 cell nick@ranchseller.com www.ranchseller.com
Bar M Real Estate
SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237 Ranch Sales & Appraisals
daily mineral consumption goals: Invest in a durable mineral feeder — I am not a particular fan of wooden boxes, oil drums cut in half or even feed bunks to feed mineral to cattle. A good mineral feeder should be easily accessible to all cows, but protects mineral from the effects of water, wind, and sunshine. Note — A friend of mine that owns about 200 beef cows mounts each durable plastic feeder on a truck tire to keep mineral out of the rain or snow as well as preventing the odd cow from stepping right into the feeder. n Mineral feeder placement is important — It is also recommended portable mineral feeders should be located where cattle will make frequent visits. Moving mineral stations closer to water sources generally increases mineral intake by cows, while moving feeders farther back from the water will often decrease mineral intake. It is always a good idea to have enough mineral feeders for the
whole herd; one standard recommendation is one feeding station for every 30 to 50 cows. n Check mineral feeders every few days — At the beginning of the winter, mineral consumption by beef cows is often higher than the normal. However, as cows get used to their new overwinter diets, free-choice mineral feeding tends to adjust itself. Some producers mix salt with their purchased mineral, in order to either increase or decrease cow mineral intake. It is common to mix 1/3 salt with 2/3 mineral, and feed it. n Clean and repair mineral feeders — Cattle don’t like to eat stale or leftover hardened mineral. I have seen cattle overeat fresh mineral, when feeders that were fully stocked once again, after not being cleaned for weeks. Damaged mineral feeders (torn rubber flap) should be fixed, while broken or excessively damaged feeders should be replaced. These points remind me of
continued on page nine
Real Estate Guide To place ads here please contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 9
Jack Horton 208.830.9210 Rae H. Anderson 208.761.9553 For complete brochures:
agrilandsrealestate.com
Scott Land co. Ranch & Farm Real Estate
1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott – Broker Krystal M. Nelson, CO/NM Qualifying Broker 800-933-9698 day/eve. www.scottlandcompany.com • www.texascrp.com
CLOUD CROFT, NM - Otero Co. – ¾ miles of the Rio Penasco – 139 ac. +/- deeded, 160 ac. +/- State Lease, 290.27 acre feet of water rights, 2 cabins, excellent grazing, elevation from 7-7500 ft., good access off of paved road. QUAY CO., NM – Box Canyon Ranch – well improved & watered, 2,400 ac. deeded, 80 ac. State Lease, excellent access from I40. TUCUMCARI, NM AREA – 4 irr. farms totaling 1,022.22 deeded ac. +/- with 887.21 ac. +/- of Arch Hurley Water Rights (one farm w/a modern 2 bdrm. – 1 bath home, w/a metal roof, barn & shop) together with 1,063 addtl. deeded ac. +/- of native grass (good set of livestock pens & well-watered). All one-owner, all on pvmt., can be bought together or separately. SUPER GRAIN & CATTLE COMBINATION – Union Co., NM well improved w/15 circles, state-of-the-art working pens, homes, barns, hwy. & all-weather road frontage. UNION CO., NM – Pinabetes/Tramperos Creeks Ranch – super country w/super improvements & livestock watering facilities, 4,650 deeded, 3,357 State Lease, one irr. well with ¼ mi. pivot sprinkler for supplemental feed, excellent access via pvmt. & all weather roads. SAN JON, NM AREA – a 160 ac. unfenced tract & a 145 ac. tract w/new fences. Please call for details! SOUTH CONCHOS RANCH – San Miguel Co., NM – 9,135 total ac.+/-, 2,106 ac. +/- “FREE USE”, 6,670 ac. +- deeded, 320 ac. +/- BLM, 40 ac. +/- State, well improved, homes, barns, pens, watered by subs & mills at shallow depth just off pvmt., on co. road.
STATE OF THE ART – Clayton, NM area, 1,600 deeded ac. +/-, plus 80 ac. +/- State lease, home, barn & pens in excellent condition, all weather CR road. CUCHARAS RIVER RANCH NORTH – Huerfano Co.,CO - buy this well located, choice, grama/western wheat grass ranch & develop the really scenic parts of the ranch for residential subdivisions w/10, 20, 40, 100 acre tracts. 12, 088 deeded ac. +/-, addtl. perks, hunting, fishing, recreation w/a large lake on the ranch together w/the Cucharas River & Sand Creek. FT. SUMNER VALLEY – beautiful home on 20 irr. ac., 3 bdrm/2 bath country home, nice combination apartment/horse barn w/2 bdrms., one bathroom/washroom & three enclosed stalls w/ breezeway, currently in alfalfa, ditch irrigated. RANCHO PEQUENIO – ½ mile E. of Sedan, NM, 320 ac. +/-, all native grass, new fencing, domestic well w/sub, ½ mi. hwy. frontage, one mile of all-weather road. HIGH RAINFALL! ADA, OK. AREA -3,120 ac. +/- of choice grassland w/houses, barns & steel pens, lays in 3 tracts, will divide! WHEELER CO., TX. - 20 ac., East of Twitty, you will fall in love w/the unique, barn-style, rustic yet modern home, panoramic views, native grass, trees, hunting, semi-enclosed horse barn, city water, all-weather road. MIAMI, TX. – Edge of town, 137 ac. +/- well improved w/home, barns, pens, etc., adj. 1,200 ac. of native grass & 1,089 ac. of native grass adjacent to Miami airport. Can sell tracts together or separately!
Please view our websites for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rainfall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX., NM, OK & CO.
MAKE SURE
COTTONWOOD CREEK RANCH: Possibly the most complete combination working/recreation ranch on the market – Owner rated at 500 animal units year long – FREE WATER, spring fed and artesian, provides drought proof irrigation and recreation with possible commercial opportunities – Approximately 440 irrigated acres, producing 1,000+/- tons winter forage for the cow herd - Cattle utilize deeded, private BLM and small private lease with a turnout in mid-April generally running to late December - Steer calves push the upper five weights at weaning in mid-October - One and a half man labor force, plus a a little neighbor social at branding and shipping – High end improvements including owners home overlooking an approximately 20 acre man-made lake which maintains a constant level year-long as well as bordering an additional approximate two acre pond, both providing a warm water fishery for recreation and an occasional dinner – Four each land owner hunting tags assure elk and deer hunting if desired – Plentiful waterfowl and upland game birds – Eastern, OR – Asking $5,285,000 SX RANCH: Starter – Hobby – Retirement – Can’t be matched for the price – Approximately 665 deeded acres with approximately 323 irrigated – FREE WATER – Priority dated 1875 – About 110 sprinkler irrigation (3 wheel lines) with balance flood and sub-irrigated hay and pasture – Approximately ¾ mile Crooked Creek thru property – Combination livestock/farming or a great straight livestock of approximately 100 plus head when shaped up – custom 1,600+/- square ft. home, metal shop and historic barn – located approximately 12 miles north of Lakeview, OR - 2 each landowner hunting tags for Mule deer - ASKING $1,250,000 GOERTZEN BUCKHORN FARM: 1,200 plus deeded acres located in picturesque Wallowa County Oregon – Approximately 609 irrigated with balance in native pasture. Storage water from Wallowa Lake (Farmer’s Ditch Company) offers one of Oregon’s most dependable irrigation sources at a cost of just over $10,000/year – Farm is in hay and pasture capable of generating serious income for the land owner. Management in place for an absentee owner and/or labor force if needed - Modest improvements – Only minutes to Enterprise and Joseph – ASKING $2,700,000. K DIAMOND FEEDLOT & FARM: Licensed CAFO with 2,900 head stocker capacity – 200 deeded acres including approximately 140 acre irrigation (2 pivots) – easy freeway access just north of Baker City, OR. ASKING $1,500,000 THORN CREEK RANCH: Located against the eastern edge of the towering Eagle Cap Mountains in eastern Oregon – Approximately 4,070 deeded acres plus 80 acres landlocked BLM – Partial border against USFS creates a major back yard – approximately 160 acres irrigated – Approximately 40 surface acre reservoir can be used for a combination fishery and/or hay production - Lifestyle investment including custom cedar home with matching outbuildings, riding/ roping arena, two round pens and sorting corrals all newly constructed since 2014 - Currently summering 150 cows on a seasonal basis and selling some hay – elk, deer, turkey, lion, bear and some upland game birds – quick fishery and boating access to Hells Canyon area, Baker City, La Grande, dining, golf and shopping – ASKING $,4,000,000 – Owner/Agent - Approximately 9,500 neighboring acres (deeded and USFS) is also currently available for sale.
continued from page eight
Bottari Realty
a frugal producer I knew years ago, who didn’t want to spend money on a feeder. He used to pour one-half bag of cattle mineral on the ground in front of the cows each morning. By late afternoon, what wasn’t trampled was magically soaked into the wet snow. From the amount of mineral that was wasted, he could have bought an excellent quality mineral feeder, filled it with the proper type of mineral, assuring his cows met their gestation mineral and vitamin requirements during the winter.
Paul Bottari, Broker
Ranch Properties now available through Bottari & Associates Realty, Inc Wells Area Farm: 90 acres with underground irrigation water supplied by well . This property is just 3 miles North of Wells on US. Hwy 93. Two homes plus large metal shop/storage building and other storage. Price: $450,000. Pilot Valley Farm: 582 Acres: ALL water righted by permit. Three wells and New pivot just installed and plumbing put in for another. No home but you can put what you want on it! Price: $900,000 Seller terms considered. Ruby Valley: 1190 Acres: Approx. 300 acres with surface and underground water rights and permits and 400 acres with underground water permits. Modest home needs some work as hasn’t been lived in for awhile. On paved highway in pretty Ranching valley! Price: $1,500,000. Will consider selling smaller parcels if you can’t afford the full acreage. Elko Co. 10,706 deeded with BLM Sheep permit: These private sections are in the checkerboard area and are intermingled with public lands. The ranch has historically been a Spring Sheep range. The BLM permit is only 29% public lands. Price includes 50% of the mineral rights on all but 320 acres. Oil & Gas Lease might pay a big portion of the purchase! Price$1,500,000.
TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 125 acres, Henderson County, TX. Excellent grass & water. Square in shape, fronts a good, paved county road. $3500 Per acre. • 240 acres, Recreation, hunting and fishing. Nice apartment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3250 Per acre. • 270 acre, Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.6 Million.
Joe Priest Real Estate
1205 N. Hwy 175, Seagoville, TX 75159 972/287-4548 • 214/676-6973 1-800/671-4548 • Fax 972/287-4553 joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com
775/752-3040
www.bottarirealty.com
A VISTA N E U B REALTY 521 West Second St. Portales, NM 88130 575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com
80 acre irrigated farm - Small 1060 sq. ft home rented out. 2 pivots 1/8 mile watering alfalfa and wheat from 2 wells on pavement 3 miles east of Portales - excellent location, perimeter trees windbreak on west. $267,000 160 acre Mini - Stock Farm, this place was absolutely made perfect with new plumbing, electrical, roofing, fencing etc. - then the lure of a perfect job lured them away. Great gramma grass turf, Savory grazing fenced, new shed for equipment or hay. Only 1 mile off pavement, small community on school bus & mail route. Talk about quiet and peaceful with wonderful small town nearby. See our website at www.buenavista-nm.com for pictures and call office for more details.
O’NEILL LAND, llc
P.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347 land@swranches.com • www.swranches.com
Good inventory in the Miami, Springer, Maxwell and Cimarron area. Great year-round climate suitable for horses. Give yourself and your horses a break and come on up to the Cimarron Country. Miami Horse Training Facility. Ideal horse training facility w/large 4 bedroom 3 bathroom approx 3,593 sq ft home, 248.32± deeded acres, 208 irrigation shares, 30' X 60' metal sided shop/ bunkhouse, 8 stall barn w/tack room, 7 stall barn w/storage, 10 stall open sided barn w/10 ft. alley, 2 stall loafing shed, 14 11' x 24' Run-In Shelters, 135' Round Pen, Priefert six horse panel walker. Many more features & improvements. All you need for a serious horse operation in serious horse country of Miami New Mexico. Additional 150 acres available on south side of road. Miami is at the perfect year round horse training elevation of 6,200. Far enough south to have mostly mild winters. Convenient to I-25. $1,550,000. High Productivity Sub Irrigated Grass Unit, 624.027± deeded acres plus 178± acres grazing. Has supported 80-100 cows since November 2012, with winter supplementation. Exceptional grass producing unit surrounds lake 11 of Maxwell Conservancy and has 70 irrigation shares out of Stubblefield Reservoir. $1,150/deeded acre.
SOLD
Miller Krause Ranch. 939.37± deeded acres. 88 Springer Ditch Company water shares. Mostly west of I;25, exit 414. Big views. $559,000. Maxwell Farm, 280 +/- deeded acres. 160 Class A Irrigation shares, 2 center pivots. Nice barns, small feed lot, owner financing available. Miami Mountain View. 80± deeded acres w/80 water shares & house. $490,000. Miami. 80± deeded acres, awesome home, total remodel, awesome views $395,000. Miami WOW. Big home in Santa Fe Style great for family on 3 acres. $234,000. Miami Tangle Foot. 10.02± deeded acres w/water shares & meter. $98,000. Maxwell. 19.5± deeded acres, water, outbuildings, great horse set up. $234,000. Canadian River. 39.088± deeded acres, w/nice ranch home & river. $279,000.
SOLD
SOLD
Page 10
Livestock Market Digest
We are occupied by the occupiers and Trump tramples on lands transfer
The Bundy Bunch
I
s this a Bundy bungle or Bundy bravery? I’ve been going back and forward on this for two weeks. I wrote in November of last year about the injustice of the trials and sentencing of the
Hammonds for burning 140 acres of federal land. Steve
angus
Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. www.bradley3ranch.com
g•u•i•d•e BEEFMASTER
Annual Bull Sale: February 13, 2016
at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955
M.L. Bradley 806/888-1062 Fax: 806/888-1010 • Cell: 940/585-6471
SANTA GERTRUDIS
Dan Wendt S
BRANGUS
S
S
Santa Gertrudis Cattle Polled and Horned HERD ESTABLISHED 1953
S
Call: 979/245-5100 • Fax 979/244-4383 5473 FM 457, Bay City, Texas 77414 dwendt@1skyconnect.net
RED ANGUS
R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ
HEREFORD
A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240
209/727-3335
Phillips Registered Polled Herefords Cañones Route P.O. Bulls & Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 Heifers MANUEL SALAZAR
FOR SALE AT THE FARM
P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532
Phone: 575/638-5434
RED ANGUS
Spring & Yearlings For Sale CECIL FELKINS • 209/274-4338 Email: CWCOWBOY@ATT.NET 5500 BUENA VISTA RD. IONE, CA 95640
BULLS
Digest
Classifieds 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
ANGUS CHAROLAIS SIM ANGUS HEREFORD
A large selection of two-year-olds, performance records, range-raised and range ready, fertility tested, all virgin. Quality to compare anywhere!
PAT GRISWOLD CATTLE CO Goldthwaite, Texas
817/946-8320 mobile
Hammond and his son were tried, convicted and had served their prison terms. However, the feds appealed, saying the ranchers had been prosecuted under an anti-terrorism law that mandated minimum sentences of five years. The feds won and the Hammonds have headed back to prison, as terrorists. We all know this is not really about fire. After all, the feds offered to drop all 22 charges if the Hammonds would just sign over two thirds of their ranch to the government. Think of the abuse here. Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue said this “is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged. He said the “verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence.” Bushue continued, “This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits.” To the extent the actions of the Bundys and the locals brought attention to this grave miscarriage of justice, so much the better. Then came the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Still there were some positive, educational articles about the history of federal lands, the benefits of livestock grazing and so on. Reporters were actually using terms like allotments, permits, etc. When it became evident the occupiers were there to stay, the dam broke. The Environmental Kingdom ruled by the envirocrats and the environmental groups felt threatened. Stories started appearing about welfare ranchers, artificially low grazing fees, and even how ISIS
February 15, 2016 supported the militia members who were occupying the refuge. Individual members of the occupying group didn’t help themselves with some very stupid statements, and some were disclosed as convicted felons, and others lied about their personal history. The media coverage had turned from favorable, to neutral to decidedly negative. No longer are there discussions of why the feds own so much land in the West, the pros and cons of federal management and what alternatives there are to the current system. Groups and their media buddies are using the militia occupation to tar other attempts, such as that promoted by the American Lands Council, to have an orderly transfer of many of these lands to state control. Some of the GOP candidates for President have weighed in on the issue. Ted Cruz has urged the militia members to “stand down peacefully.” “Everyone has a Constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and threaten force and violence on others,” Cruz said. Marco Rubio says “you can’t be lawless.” “We live in a republic. There are ways to change the laws of this country and the policies. If we get frustrated with it, that’s why we have elections,” Rubio says. And Ben Carson says, “I think right now the government’s handling it in the right way by not being confrontational.” New Mexico U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich has thrown in with the “law and order” enviros by calling for federal action. In a letter to the Dept. of Justice he states he wants the rule of law restored by bringing “those responsible to justice.” He further urges the Dept. to “use all of the resources at your disposal to fully prosecute anyone who has broken the law.” On his Facebook page Heinrich says this whole episode by “armed radicals” is “only the latest example in a well-organized and well-funded campaign to seize and sell off public lands.” As I write this, Ammon Bun-
dy is talking to the FBI and is demanding the negotiations be in public view, while the feds want everything kept in secret. Without knowing the final outcome, it’s hard to know how this will play out for the ranching community as a whole. Will this be just another blip on feds growing control of the people and resources of the West, or will this be a turning point towards a more reasonable, responsible and balanced solution? Stay tuned for Act III. UPDATE: Not long after this column was submitted the news broke of the tragic slaying of LaVoy Finicum and the capture of the Bundy Brothers. Ammon Bundy has been arraigned and has issued a statement asking the remainder of the occupiers to stand down and go home. I believe the question I asked above is more valid than ever and is a long way from being answered. Act III, indeed, has begun. Trump No, Cruz & Carson Yes on lands transfer Donald Trump recently said he was totally against transferring federal lands to the states. In an interview with the editor of Outdoor Life Trump had the following to say: “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land.… And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land.” The idea the only way something can be “great” is for it to be owned by the feds is scary to me. And besides, wouldn’t that also apply to Hotels & Casinos? Ben Carson says, “I think it’s ridiculous that the government owns so much land and that we should enact a program whereby we gradually begin to restore that land to the states,” while acknowledging, “we can’t do it all in one fell swoop because they wouldn’t be able to afford it.” Ted Cruz says, “I think it is completely indefensible that the federal government is America’s largest landlord.” “I believe we should transfer as much federal land as possible back to the states and ideally back to the people,” said Cruz, making exceptions for national parks and military bases. “If I am elected president, we have never had a president who is as vigorously committed to transferring as much federal land as humanely possible back to the states and back to the people,” said Cruz. Till next time, be a nuisance to the devil, and now more than ever, don’t forget to check that cinch. Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner. blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation.
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 11
Colorado cannot afford release of wolves BY NATE GILBERT, DENVER POST
T
he Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Jan. 13 voted to adopt a resolution to oppose any wolf reintroduction efforts in Colorado. The adoption appears largely symbolic to some as the real decision will come from the state legislature, which maintains authority over the reintroduction of species. Painting wolves into our picture has no measurable, beneficial impact not already provided by other thriving species, including the mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, lynx, and, yes, man. Mountain lion populations alone have surged dramatically in the past few years, thanks
Study Finds Feral Cats Likely Driving Disease Among Deer BY THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
F
ree-roaming domestic cats (Felis catus) are widely understood to have substantial negative impacts on wildlife. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists cats among the world’s worst non-native invasive species, and cats on islands worldwide have contributed to 33 species extinctions (Lowe et al. 2000, Medina et al. 2011). In the United States free-roaming cats are the top source of direct anthropogenic mortality to birds and mammals, killing approximately 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals each year (Loss et al. 2013). The indirect impacts of cats on wildlife are less obvious, but one of the greatest emerging threats from free-roaming cats is infection with Toxoplasma gondii. T. gondii is a parasitic protozoan that can infect all warm-blooded species but relies on felids to complete its life cycle. According to a new study published in EcoHealth, feral cats are likely driving white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) infections in northeastern Ohio (Ballash et al. 2014). Cats that host T. gondii excrete oocysts into the environment in their feces, and a single cat can deposit hundreds of millions of oocysts, which may remain infectious for up to 18 months (Tenter et al.2000). The study’s authors collected white-tailed deer continued on page eighteen
largely to efforts by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, an organization with strong focus on hunting and fishing opportunities for Colorado residents and visitors. Claims of significant economic impact from “wolf tourism” strain credulity in Colorado. Even if other states were able to report significant tourism dollars from wolves alone — as in, “I came to the state just to see the wolves and would not have done so otherwise” — Colorado does not suffer from waning tourism interest. Wolves would have a severe and noticeable impact on Colorado elk-hunting opportunities. Those who tout the supposed $35.5 million benefit from wolf tourism conveniently overlook
(or more likely, purposefully omit) the fact that hunters spend $465 million annually in Colorado, with an economic ripple effect of $763 million. These numbers include significant populations of non-residents who consider Colorado a dream hunting destination. Compromising an industry that provides a potential billion-dollar impact for a few tourism dollars in a state with absolutely no problem attracting visitors is a fool’s errand. Is it honestly the position of those working to reintroduce wolves that there is a subset of tourists who are avoiding Colorado because we don’t have significant wolf populations? It may be easy to forget in
our cozy Denver bubble, but farming and ranching serve more than a historical role in the Colorado economy. Even if, as recently claimed, only 1 percent of cattle alone in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho were reportedly killed by wolves after their reintroduction efforts, that’s more than 60,000 cows, according to the latest published data from Beef2Live. In Colorado, 1 percent would mean more than 24,000 cows gone from our herds. With current cattle trading prices, conservatively assuming $2,000 per head, that is a staggering $48 million in projected loss from wolf reintroduction in the Colorado cattle ranching sector, versus a supposed
and unsupported claim of $35.5 million in “wolf tourism.” I hope that the grocery stores will be able to line their coolers with cuts of prime tourism. As it stands currently, the trade-offs fail to meet a minimum standard of acceptability to be considered worth it for the citizens of Colorado. Wolf reintroduction compromises cornerstone Colorado industries for paltry gains that have yet to be demonstrated. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has taken the first step in curbing these projected losses. We can only hope that the legislature sees the wisdom in blocking wolf reintroduction efforts. Nate Gilbert is a Denver attorney specializing in hunting and fishing law.
Page 12
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
Wyoming Rancher is Awarded 2016 US Livestock Industry Leader of the Year
J
im Jensen, a fourth generation Wyoming cattleman and owner of Lucky 7 Angus, was named U.S. Industry Livestock Leader of the Year during this year’s National
Western Stock Show. Jensen/ Lucky 7 Angus was presented the honor on January 15th during the rodeo. This award is jointly sponsored by the National Western and the Green
(l to r) Kay Jensen (mother), Bodie Jensen (son), Dan Green (Award presenter), Jim Jensen, Jessie James Jensen (daughter), Ethan Jensen (son), Jamie Jensen(wife)
Family Foundation, who has been continuously recognizing livestock industry leaders since
1946, among the first awarded was Warren Monfort. Jim Jensen is the head of a
family operation that dates back to 1895. The ranch began when Jim’s great-grandfather immigrated from Denmark to the Boulder, Wyoming area in 1895. That first winter proved to be a struggle in a region known for snow and persistent bitter cold. James would clear snow with a shovel to provide access to grass for his 3 horses and 7 head of cows. He was a cowman that strived to put others before himself and to be the best at what he did. That goal remains the driving force of his great-grandson to this day. On the wall of the main office at Lucky 7 headquarters hangs a plaque that reads: ‘Our Goal is to have the Most Profitable Customers in the Livestock Industry’. Jensen has taken great strides in achieving this goal, and certainly his accomplishments prove that. To protect their high elevation breeders, he was the first to create minimum standards in PAP Testing, which set a benchmark of 90 percent of the bulls tested at 7200’ having a PAP score of 44mmHg or below. He was the first Angus only seed stock producer to purchase and implement the GrowSafe Feed Efficiency Test System, leading the way to profitability through feed efficient genetics. He was the first and only Angus seed stock producer to offer a 4-year guarantee on bulls. His leadership in profitability has propelled the family ranch to grow from a 350 cow operation 21 years ago, to a 2300 cow operation today. Jim’s commitment to the livestock industry is honored by this award. When asked for a comment, Jim simply said “We have a great team at Lucky 7 Angus and I am honored to have been chosen to receive such a prestigious award.”
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 13
Page 14
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
Federal Official Declares “Forest Service Does Not Own a Single Acre of Land in Arizona” ARIZONADAILYINDEPENDENT.COM
O
n January 12, 2016, Jim Upchurch, Deputy Regional Forester for the Southwestern Region told attendees of the legislative briefing hosted by Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen what most already knew; the federal government does not own the federally managed land within the borders of Arizona. “Over about 100 years ago, the first chief of the Forest Service coined the phrase, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and that phrase is still applicable today as we manage the national forests. We are trying to manage for the greatest good – for the greatest number and that is not an easy task. It is a challenging one. Within the State of Arizona we have six national forests and they are represented by the forest supervisors and manager here. You know them by their names: the Coconino, the Kaibab, the Prescott, the Apache-Sitgreaves, the Tonto, and the Coronado. These forests represent some of the best
landscapes within the state and are really prized possessions of the citizens of Arizona,” stated Upchurch. “Contrary to what you might have heard lately about federal ownership of lands, the Forest Service does not own a single acre of land in Arizona,” continued Upchurch. “We don’t own a single acre of any land in the United States.” Had he concluded with that statement, his candor would have been astonishing, but he did not. Instead he told the people of Arizona their land was being managed for “not only the local population but populations of people in New Jersey, New York, and California.” What the people of New Jersey, New York, and California see of Arizona’s forest is vastly different from what the residents of Arizona’s rural counties see. While the city slickers see great vistas, as they stroll or hike on carefully crafted paths, the people of the West see their big sky filled with black smoke. The people of the West are being choked by the black
smoke emanating from their forests as federal agencies are being choked by self-described environmental groups, who use anti-western people’s rhetoric in their fundraising materials and line their pockets with the settlements they win in nuisance suits against the government. Meanwhile, the visitors from New Jersey, New York, and California return home to watch the national news reports of those crazy renegade ranchers in the west. They are sold the idea that those ranchers are simply anti-government radicals. They do not know that while the Forest Service and BLM allow the land to be ravaged by wildfires, it is the ranchers who are scrambling to keep the forest and range lands from going up in smoke. Who can blame them though? The people of New Jersey, New York, and California do not understand what it means to live off the land. As a result, they do not understand that to live off the land, one must conserve and protect it. In his book, Alligators in the Moat: Politics and the Mexican Border, Arizona rancher Ed Ashurst discusses the ravaging forest fires that have consumed range land in the Southwest and the federal government that allows it. He writes of the fires set by the Mexican cartels’ mules as they cross the wide-open border. “On May 8, 2011, Border Patrol agents tracked four illegal aliens to the Burro Springs area. A short distance ahead of where the Border Patrol agents turned around, a fire had started and several Forest Service first responders were in the area also
with plans to attack the fire. Before the Forest Service personnel or the Border Patrol agents got to the place where the fire originated a short distance from Burro Springs the Forest Service employees and federal agents were given orders to evacuate. The fire would grow in stature and fame and would burn from the eighth of May until the twenty-fifth of June. The federal government would spend in excess of fifty million dollars fighting it, and it would eventually burn a total of 222,954 acres, or 350 square miles. The fire would go down in history as the fifth largest wildfire in Arizona history and would become known as Horseshoe Number Two. The origin of the fire was never officially investigated. The first responders were ordered to evacuate before they reached the exact location where the fire started,” writes Ashurst. The Hammonds burned 140 acres and they are villainized, the cartels burned 222,954 and more. The ranchers’ reality is something no one can really understand. One rancher described finding one of his cows tied to a tree out on a southern border land range. Because she was not free to graze, she died of starvation. He was torn up at the thought of the painful death. The cartels, who tied her there, did so to let the rancher know that his death would be as painful should he ever make a misstep. Ashurst speaks for all ranchers when he writes, “The U.S. Forest Service is managed, or should we say, supposed to be managed under the umbrella of
the United States Department of Agriculture. The very name “Department of Agriculture” connotes a sustained effort to promote a viable plan or course of action to harvest a product off the land. Sadly, in twenty-first-century America, in the case of the Forest Service (and the Bureau of Land Management), nothing could be further from the truth.” Greenlee County Supervisor Robert Corbell told his constituents after the Allen hearing that it was important to be there and be heard. “I think that my being there for the people of Greenlee County and the state of Arizona was important. I know that these kinds of meetings are generally outside of Greenlee, but if you are not at the table and have some input on the issues then you are on the menu.” The feeding frenzy continues. News of the ranchers and their fight keep the mainstream media busy as they slice and dice the facts to suit the radical rancher narrative. But the truth be told; you will never find a tougher, meaner, gentler, more sensitive and tree-hugging group of people in the world than the western rancher. “The federal government is obsessed with putting a constantly increasing amount of land under its control, yet it does not increase the appropriation to care for that land. We see massive forest fires that destroy not only trees but the land and habitat for wildlife, including endangered species,” stated Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem. “Arizona has a continued on page fifteen
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Baxter BLACK ON THE EDGE OF COMMON SENSE www.baxterblack.com
Pleasant Valley
O
nce upon a time there was a beautiful little valley called Pleasant Valley. Pristine streams ran down from wooded hillsides. Wild game was abundant. Fish flourished. The peasants tilled their farms and irrigated them with mountain water. The livestock grazed the grassy meadows. It was a contented community, though lacking in material wealth. Word of the scenic beauty of Pleasant Valley spread. People came to admire it. Some stayed. They brought with them treasured flora and fauna from their homes far away. Others followed to do their laundry and build their homes and teach the children of the newcomers. Those that came formed a committee to preserve the beauty of Pleasant Valley. A planned community was envisioned. Architecture and public buildings were required to conform to a style pleasing to the committee. Streams were diverted to do the laundry of the newcomers. To water the lawns around their houses and bathe their children. The town became a city. Muddy tracks from the farm trucks detracted from the image Pleasant Valley hoped to project. Animal smells wrinkled eco-sensitive noses. The peasants were encouraged to move to a neighboring valley.
Pleasant Valley grew. The committee imposed wood burning bans, zoned restricted agricultural areas, stressed cart pooling on the golf course and recycled the Cultural Center newsletters. After agonizing consideration they built a nuclear plant because it was the cleanest and least ecologically depleting fuel. Hydro-electric power was unthinkable since it required damming a natural stream. Eventually, the natural streams could not supply enough water to support the environmentally safe service industries that had become the lifeblood of Pleasant Valley. The committee again considered damming the stream but the Concerned Citizens of Pleasant Valley rallied and prevented the dam’s construction. They agreed to put bricks in their toilet to save water. The committee, in desperation approached the peasants, “We want to buy your water and pump it to Pleasant Valley.” The peasants asked how they would irrigate their crops and water their stock if they gave up their streams? “It doesn’t matter,” explained the committee, “You will be rich.” So they took their water. Then they said to the peasants that were left, “We need a place to dump our nuclear waste...”
FEDERAL OFFICIAL continued from page fourteen
proven track record of caring for the land it has control over. We have done a far better job than the federal agencies in caring for the land.” Whatever the truth may be, it is the truth that will save our forests, and range lands. Until all stakeholders commit to ascertaining the truth, the western lands will be managed for the people who experience them from well-manicured paths and have no understanding or appreciation for the western way of life…. or the life of our lands.
Page 15
Page 16
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
The View FROM THE BACK SIDE
Shelly Cow Project BY BARRY DENTON
W
hen you go to the sale yard you may see one or two. Some folks say how awful, but I always tend to think of the winters, droughts, and thickets they have been through. You also have to admire them for their craftiness in eluding you all these years. Yes, the cow should have been shipped years before, but somehow she avoided each round up. I am certain that I get more sentimental as I get older. For the first time I realize that I am much closer to being “shelly” and not the youngster I seemed to be for so long. The good thing about that shelly cow is that she was very independent and did not really bother anyone else in the herd. You might see her grazing alongside of them, but she was never leading them. Now she is older than the hills and quit being useful quite awhile ago. You finally got her caught and shipped her. The business person in you says that this was one of your dumber blunders and you know better because it is not helping your herd. Twenty years ago we never would have thought twice
about culling her, but as we get older we have to fight harder to be practical where once it seemed so easy. You kind of enjoyed catching a glimpse of her every now and then although you knew she was detrimental to your herd. The shelly cow is like an old foe that you fought so hard with and then you are sad when the old foe dies. The other thing you realize is that it is your fault that she got in such bad shape to begin with. It is always better to err on the side of practicality than sentimentality. The bottom line, is cull your herd when you need to and everyone will be better off. After watching the antics of many of our elected officials over the last 20 years I have determined that it is time to get rid of the political shelly cows and the folks that they have appointed. I am so happy that this is an election year. Although it seems that the last two election cycles have just made things worse, I will be the eternal optimist here. I would venture to say that this election may be our last ray of hope if we want to sustain the good things about our country. For the last seven years public officials have done nothing but make it harder on the indepen-
dent rancher or worker to make a living. Each year officials of both political parties try harder than the year before to destroy your freedom. The way they are doing that is primarily through taxes. Just think when your taxes go up that erodes your freedom to do as you please with that money. It is especially hard to swallow when an official is taking a lavish vacation and you are not taking any because there is no money left over after paying your taxes. There is also no time left to take a vacation because you are working those two weeks to keep up with your taxes. When politicians spend more, we work more. If politicians were truly interested in freedom, governmental budgets would shrink, not grow. Freedom, now there is an interesting word. How come virtually no politicians are interested in that word? When is the last time a politician ran on giving you your freedom and independence back? Most never mention the word unless it is part of a platitude to free some other society in a foreign land. How about letting the foreigners take care of themselves and we start helping our fellow Americans? I’ll bet you smile when you are told your taxes are going to forced charity such as welfare, saving whales, global warming, etc. Who are these folks running our government? Surely these are some of the worst Americans. I can remember when the government made an effort to work with you and now they do their best to work against you. I can go on for days about the abuse of citizens by elected officials, but let’s cut to the solution. My solution is called “The Shelly Cow Project”. The first step in dealing with what we have would be to cull the herd. Do not vote for any politician who has been in office over three terms. They are used up and detrimental in that they will soon be retired and the American worker will be paying them not to work. Have you ever wondered why a government official would accept a pension? Frankly, I do not know how they sleep at night knowing they live off the backs of the very people they over tax. My second part of this project would be to not vote for anyone who doesn’t pay for their own campaign. If a politician is not successful enough in his own life to be at the top of his or her game then why would we citizens want to hire them? I would like to see our government made up of volunteers who are the best and brightest in their field. If they have to take funds and beholding to outside interests then let’s send them to the sale. Let someone else fatten them and try to get some good use out of them. American taxpayers have been living with too much mediocrity. Let’s demand performance from our politicians and only reward them for results. continued on page seventeen
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 17
History of Public Lands Grazing Part One: These Lands have always been Grazed But Homestead Laws Favored the Farmer BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS
S
tockmen have been using the grasslands of this continent ever since the first Spanish settlers arrived in the early 1500s; North America has a history of nearly 500 years of livestock grazing. Prior to domestic cattle and sheep, herds of native animals, including bison and elk, used these lands. There was never a “pristine” condition in which the plants were not periodically eaten. The vegetation of North America evolved under grazing pressures from a variety of animals, and the natural condition of grasslands was grazing. Spanish ranchers settled what is now Mexico in the early 1500s and expanded their holdings into what would be the American Southwest by the early 1600s. By the time the 13 eastern colonies declared independence from England in 1776, Spanish ranches and missions were thriving in California and the Southwest. The American livestock industry, stemming from westward movement of the early American colonies, started later. After the buffalo herds were decimated by hide hunters, the grasslands of plains and mountains became ideal livestock country. Cattle herds were driven north from Texas and eventually most of the open range was used for stock-raising. The timbered areas of the East were cleared for farms. The arid parts of the country (Great Plains and western mountains) were settled last, mainly because of the lack of water for crops; much of the arid West is best suited for grazing rather than farming. As America expanded westward, the farming culture and stock-raising tradition eventually clashed, since the early stockman depended on open range and the farmers were fencing it and plowing it up, claiming it as
SHELLY COW Funny thing, but no one pays me for doing a lousy job. How about you? A merit based system would cause them to always do their best. There are too many in government who have been doing a lousy job for decades. Just because you have voted for someone before does not mean you should vote for them again. There could be another choice listed on the ballot entitled “None Of The Above”. In other words if “None Of The Above” wins the election they have to present an entirely new slate until they get it right. This would especially
their own. FAILURE OF THE HOMESTEAD LAWS – The Homestead Act of 1862 was the first major law governing disposal of land. But the eastern legislators’ only experience with land was fertile agricultural land with ample rainfall. The Homestead Act had major flaws for settling the dry West. America was built on the concept of private property, the right of every man to own his own land. Pre-emption, the right to settle on a piece of ground and later buy it, was basic in our country. England had discouraged private appropriation of lands, and this was a major complaint in our Declaration of Independence. Our American system was founded on the right to own property and our government was geared to parcel out the land to private owners. America had a vast amount of land waiting for people to settle it. Immediately after the Revolutionary War, thousands of pioneers moved westward and settled on public land, with no authorization to do so. They were trespassers, just as the stockmen in the West in later years were trespassers. In 1828 a Public Lands Committee reported to Congress that it was impossible to prevent settlement and that the settlers who had made roads, bridges and other improvements at their own expense should have a privilege over other purchasers. The General Land Office had been created in 1812 to handle the growing number of land applications. The first settlers were all squatters; they expected Congress to grant them a first right to buy their land, and this same feeling prevailed elsewhere on the frontier (and later with the range ranchers, but they were not able to gain title to their grazing lands). The 1841 Pre-Emption Act made legitimate the farmer-trespasser on the public domain. In 1849 the Department of Interior was created, and the General Land Office that supervised land sales and homestead claims
continued from page sixteen work now in the computer age. Many public officials will tell you that this will not work, but only because they know it will work against them. These are just a few of the highlights of this project. It is hard to layout the entire program in a short article, but it would be worth making the “Shelly Cow Project” a reality. In contrast to John F. Kennedy’s great quote “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, we have too many politicians asking the opposite. Let us not vote for anymore shelly cows!
became its major unit. The 1812 Homestead Act allowed settlers 160 acres free; they could gain title to the land after living on it for five years and paying the paperwork-processing fee. The limit was 160 acres because a settler could not clear trees from a larger parcel in the timbered East nor plow more than 160 acres of Iowa or Illinois prairie with the equipment of those times. The homestead law worked well for the eastern half of our country, east of the 100th meridian, but farther west a settler needed more than 160 acres. He needed 2,000 to 50,000 acres to raise livestock; the grass was sparse and it took 10 to 100 acres per cow, depending on the land and rainfall. Attempts were made to amend the Homestead Act (with the Timber Culture Act, Desert Land Act, etc.) allowing a few more acres, but this still didn’t help the stockman in the West, as pointed out by a U.S. Geological Survey Report in 1879 which put the minimum practical acreage for a rancher in arid country at 2560 acres. The Secretary of Interior suggested leasing land in large blocks to responsible cattlemen for a term of years that would justify fencing, but Congress refused. Most of the remaining public land was best suited for grazing livestock (rather than farms), requiring large tracts. Presidents Grant and Hayes realized this; Hayes in his 1877 message to Congress said the lands were practically unsaleable under the existing laws, and that a system of leasehold tenure would make them a source of profit for the United States, “while at the same time legalizing the business of cattle raising.” Major John Wesley Powell proposed 2560-acre homesteads in 1879. He suggested that
survey lines should take water sources into consideration, as the Spanish-Mexican lands did. Powell thought it absurd to waste money and time marking off square sections, thousands of which would have no value as independent units since they had no water. Survey lines utilizing the greatest number of water frontages would have made almost all the western lands usable. But as it was, ranchers were compelled to settle on the tracts with water, and these often contained the only available stock water for miles. As a result, more land remained in the hands of the government than would have been the case if it had been surveyed and distributed according to topography and water. In the late 1880s the only ownership of property on most western ranches was the claim to buildings and “accustomed” grazing rights to certain ranges. But this ownership was tenuous. Even though the Homestead Act had been in effect since 1862, most of the northern plains and mountains had not yet been surveyed, and technically were not opened for homesteading. The stockmen’s ranges would soon be settled by homesteaders, however, unless ranchers themselves could gain title. Usually all they could legally gain title to were the 160 acre tracts where the ranch buildings were located. Some ranchers had their family members and employees apply for homesteads in order to gain enough grazing land to create a viable ranch. Congress’ uncompromising position on homestead laws led to fraud and overcrowding of rangeland because no one had uncontestable rights to their grazing areas. One reason the laws were not properly amended was due to lobbying by the General Land
Office (GLO) government employees, opposing efforts of stockmen to gain title to their ranges. The land office was practicing self-interest politics; its annual budget was determined in part by the total number of claims filed, and the officials at each land office received fees and commissions for processing claims. Their jobs depended on the amount of business they did. They often strung it out as long as possible, which led to inefficiency and red tape. They preferred to deal with a large number of small homestead claims and didn’t want any changes that would dispose of land in larger blocks. THE EVOLUTION OF RANGE RIGHTS – Out of necessity, the rancher pastured his stock on public domain next to his private holding, in local custom developing a “range right”. But there were no fences, nor laws to define ownership of a specific range—no legal way to keep newcomers from crowding in and overstocking the land. Eastern lawmakers wouldn’t help, so the cattlemen made their own laws. The customs and rules they created gave stock-raising some semblance of order and set many traditions, including community roundups and branding. Early stockmen ignored the inadequate land laws and acknowledged each others’ rights to particular pieces of range or water sources. Like the early squatter-settlers in the East, western ranchers laid claim to what they needed, and hoped they could someday buy it. But this was not to be. There was no way the rancher could actually keep newcomers out. As early as 1885 experienced stockmen were thoroughly alarmed at the flood of newcontinued on page eighteen
Page 18
Livestock Market Digest
HISTORY OF PUBLIC LANDS comers. They knew the arid grasslands could not support the ever-growing numbers of cattle and sheep, especially in drought years. They fought against the overstocking, and begged Congress for some kind of legislation to give order to the range. Similar grasslands in other countries had been developed with orderly methods for grazing, but not in America. Provisions for stock-raising leases had been made in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, with longterm tenure and legal right to transfer the leases to heirs. In Australia, grazing homesteads of 30,000 acres or more were available for 30-year leases. In Alberta, leases were issued for 20-year periods, and in Saskatchewan for 33 years. But a stockman arriving in the American West in 1890 could not lease even one acre. Compared to the settlers on American grasslands, Australia’s homesteaders had fewer failures, since they had enough land for stock raising. The small homesteads here in the West often “starved out” due to lack of water for crops. On the northern plains, there were hundreds of 160-acre homesteads, thousands of 320-acre homesteads,
February 15, 2016
and only slightly less than a 100 percent rate of failure. The continued existence of the rancher in the West depended on acquiring title or lease to his range. Stockmen didn’t think of themselves as temporary occupants, as Congress seemed to classify them, permitted to use the land only until the farmer arrived. Roy M. Robbins, in his book Our Landed Heritage (U. of Nebraska Press, 1942) bemoaned the fact that the settlement laws “came to be used not so much by the actual settlers as by the cattle and sheep interests.” But the stockmen considered themselves to be permanent settlers and felt they had some right to a legitimate claim to the land also. Why should the farmer be allowed land, but not the stockman? Many ranches were taken over and broken up into farms as homesteaders moved in. Some were left alone because they were completely unsuited for crops. The range right evolved as an integral part of the western ranch, in regions where there was abundant land that couldn’t be used for irrigation or dry farming. The stockmen on these last frontiers stayed and fought for their land, staking
continued from page seventeen claims for the home ranch acres (the amount they could apply for under the land laws, often having several family members apply—in an effort to gain title to enough land to make it work) and using adjacent public pasture for grazing. In the Southwest, the claims were staked where there was water, for whoever had title to the land with water controlled all the surrounding grazing land. In the mountains and northern plains the small valleys or river bottoms were claimed—the acres that had water for irrigation and could grow a little hay, while the cattle spent the summer on public land. On these lands that were left, the stockman tried to make a permanent home. But such permanency could only be gained by control of the range. Without some sort of order on the public domain, the range livestock industry would destroy itself by overcrowding. GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWALS OF LAND – In March 1891, President Harrison created the Timberland Reserves, removing part of the public domain. More forest reserves were soon created and controversy over grazing arose. Some Conservationists wanted
no grazing in the forests, but since these lands had been traditionally used for grazing, it was allowed under a permit system. Prior use by the rancher, his need for the range, and the amount of base property owned, were taken into consideration when assigning permits. As America marched westward, the rules continued to be made in the East. Westerners tried to make a living from the land, but seldom owned the land they struggled on. Some of the land was homesteaded, some was granted to the states for support of schools, construction of roads or railroads. Later the government withdrew more land for parks, wildlife refuges, Indian and military reservations, forest reserves, water power sites, etc. The remaining public domain was administered “pending ultimate disposal” but much was left in government ownership because the homestead laws were not workable for stock-raising. By the end of the 19th century some people challenged the philosophy of transferring federal lands into private ownership, which led to a policy of permanent retention of large areas in federal ownership. In the early 1900s the government
withdrew millions of acres in the West from future settlement or public use. Westerners responded in anger and bewilderment, because in earlier years these lands had been theirs to use. During the last years of homesteading, several new laws were passed, including the Stock-Raising Homestead Act (640 acres) in 1916. But all of them were inadequate for the rancher in arid country, and only served to encourage farmers to plow up more fragile arid land, resulting in more failures, abandonment of homesteads, and much soil erosion. Thousands of deserted shacks and rusted windmills dotted the plains, symbolizing the ruined hopes and wasted years of people who tried to make rangeland into cropland. Destruction of the range was a tremendous loss, not only to the stockmen of that day who lost their ranges, but also to those who later tried to make a living on the land. By 1936, 25 million acres of range had been plowed and abandoned, and 50 million more acres of good range had become marginal cropland, at risk for erosion. With the drought of the 1930s, the plowed lands became the infamous Dust Bowl.
FERAL CATS
continued from page eleven samples at the Cleveland Metroparks as part of a deer management program. Cat serum samples were collected from cats in a trap, neuter, release (TNR) program in the Greater Cleveland area. TNR programs spay/neuter feral cats and then release them into the environment. Nearly 60 percent of whitetailed deer and 52 percent of feral cats tested positive for T. gondii. Older deer and deer in urban environments were more likely to be infected, suggesting horizontal transmission from environmental exposure. The study’s findings have implications for people as well. Widespread environmental contamination increases the likelihood of human infections. In people, infection has been linked to schizophrenia and can lead to miscarriages, blindness, memory loss, and death (Torrey and Yolken 2013, Gajewski et al. 2014). Due to the creation of tissue cysts in infected deer, people that consume undercooked venison can also acquire T. gondii and the subsequent disease, toxoplasmosis. The Wildlife Society actively supports the humane removal of feral cats from native ecosystems. See our position statement and fact sheet for more information on how feral and free-ranging domestic cats impact wildlife. This article was written in cooperation with the American Bird Conservancy.
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
Page 19
Retallick Accepts Director of Member Programs Position at American Gelbvieh Association
K
elli Retallick has served as the data services coordinator for the American Gelbvieh Association (AGA) for more than a year and has recently accepted the position of director of member programs. In her time at the AGA, Retallick has proved to be capable of outstanding leadership among staff, dedication to the AGA and skill in developing association programs. Recently the AGA has changed the structure of the staff to better accommodate member programs for both the AGA and the American Gelbvieh Junior Association (AGJA). Retallick’s role as director of member programs will encom-
pass beneficial programs for the AGA as well as the AGJA. Her responsibilities include accuracy of the online registry, administering the Smart Select Service, development of new programs and coordinating junior activities to name only a few. Retallick earned her bachelor’s degree in animal science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She then went on to Kansas State University to complete her master’s degree in animal breeding and genetics. This background makes her a perfect fit to continue to develop programs for AGA members and customers as it pertains to
database service and breed improvement as well as the AGA’s new Smart Select Service. Growing up, Retallick was involved in her family’s registered cattle operation and when time allows she continues to be involved as much as possible. Retallick also served on the National Junior Angus Association Board of Directors and brings a unique perspective to the AGJA through that experience of serving on a junior board. “I am really excited about taking on this new adventure,” says Retallick. “I strongly believe that junior livestock associations can foster some of the
best leaders in the industry. I hope I am able to foster that type of environment to build the next generation of leaders in the business.” The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) recognized the skill set Retallick possesses. During the 2015 BIF Research Symposium and Convention in Biloxi, Mississippi, Retallick was asked to lend her expertise as a speaker on the topic of measuring feed efficiency. BIF also recognized the new Smart Select Service that the AGA now offers commercial cattlemen and women; Retallick was instrumental in the develop-
ment of that program. “The AGA sources the most skilled talent in the industry to serve on the staff. Kelli is an example of those talented individuals the AGA seeks out and finds to work as a team for the improvement of the AGA,” says Myron G. Edelman, executive director of the AGA. “Kelli will be an excellent resource for AGA’s members and their commercial industry customers as well as the junior members.” Retallick assumed her new role on January12, 2016. She can be reached at the AGA office at 303/465-2333 or via email at kellir@gelbvieh.org.
Page 20
Livestock Market Digest
DO YOU REALIZE into the most beautiful backcountry, teeming with the wildlife nurtured there for more than a hundred years. The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd was used to seed elk in areas all across the nation. On the southern border of the Yellowstone National Park, where resident elk remained in the rugged Tetons near Jackson Hole, Wyoming, winter feeding stations were set up. Volunteers and state wildlife managers fed hay to the elk during the deep snows of winter. The basic tenants of the North American Model of Wildlife Management were followed from the earliest days outside the Park… The wildlife belongs to the people, is managed by the best available science, and management is funded by the sale of hunter, angler, and trapper licenses. To augment state game and fish departments, the federal government established a Pittman-Robertson Fund using taxes from the sale of firearms, ammunition and other sporting equipment, and by law distributed the proceeds to the states. This model was responsible for the abundant wildlife, including wolves, living here in a healthy forest paradise in 1995. Man, in a reasoned fashioned, guided by laws and regulations was the apex predator when wildlife left the protection of the Park. The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd provided a wholesome source of wild food and a robust economy for the generations living that culture. Then, everything changed. The latest computer modeling calculates the current Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd at approximately 4000. Anguished locals over the last twenty years have been forced to stand by and watch their beloved wildlife be chased down, hamstrung, sport killed, starved down, drowned in rivers and lakes and eaten alive by voracious packs of Canadian wolves. In the 2015 elk survey, so few bulls were counted in what is left of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, the herd is in danger of collapsing into what biologists call a predator pit; the condition
of not being able to raise enough calves to sustain the herds’ survival. When heavy snow about a week later was expected to trigger the migration MTFWP declared Deckard Flats off limits to hunting for the first time ever. They did not, however, increase the harvest quota of three wolves. Science is not guiding wildlife management anymore.
What Happened? In 1993, twenty years after gray wolves were placed in the Endangered Species List, the US Congress appropriated funds for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to do an Environmental Impact Study regarding wolves in Yellowstone National Park. The resulting study considered five different scenarios, from allowing nature to take its’ course, to introducing a non-native species of wolf. A panel of wildlife experts was polled, concluding that the prey base could sustain a population of 78-100 wolves grown slowly over twenty years. In one of the actions covered under the description of the Clinton Administration’s War on the West, Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt ordered the USFWS to chose option number five; introduce a non-native, experimental species of wolf. USFWS opened a public comment period. Cattle and sheep producers, outfitters and sportsmen objected vehemently. Western state Congressmen saw to it that funds to implement wolf introductions were not appropriated. Flurries of lawsuits were filed. Despite the opposition and Congressional denial of funds, in 1995, USFWS with assistance from private organizations flew to northern British Columbia, Canada and returned with canus lupus occidentalus, North America’s largest wolves. Earthjustice and a Wyoming couple, Jim and Cat Urbigit, whose hobby it was to study the native wolf, each filed lawsuits on behalf of canus lupus irremmotus, the native timber wolf. Cat Urbigit’s 2008 book Yellowstone Wolves chronicles their personal
continued from page one attempt to save the smaller, more coyote-like, more solitary subspecies. She notes in her book, canus lupus irremmotus, first defined by A.E. Goldman in 1944 was a medium to large wolf. Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, entitled EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS, allows the Secretary of the Interior to release an experimental population, “but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.” In order to carry out this option the USFWS had to ignore the administrative record of hundreds of wolf sightings over the years. US District Judge William Downes granted an injunction pending litigation ordering the USFWS to cease the operation, but stayed the order on the grounds that the released wolves be collared and tracked. In January of 1996, with a further trimmed budget and despite a Newt Gingrich led debt ceiling battle resulting in a “government shutdown”, again this public-private coalition imported and released more Canadian wolves on the unsuspecting native wildlife bringing them in by helicopter to the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area of Central Idaho near the magnificent Lolo Herd, and releasing more near the Montana border of the Park just below Deckard Flats. Robert Nowack former USFWS Office of Endangered Species employee wrote the forward in “Yellowstone Wolves”. He writes, “Cat provides the best available compilation of reports showing that wolves occurred in the Yellowstone region from the 1920s, when they supposedly had been extirpated, until the 1990s when the introduction of Canadian wolves occurred.” Her position as he put it, “The grand plan to move wolves from Canada - from another subspecies to Yellowstone in the 1990s was not a true reintroduction but an introduction of a non-native and aggressive life form that would genetically swamp the surviving native wolves.” Five years later
News With A View & A Whole Lot More...
I
February 15, 2016
THE most effective advertising medium in ranching today!
f you have livestock, a product or service that stockmen and their families need, they will find out about it quickly if you advertise in the Digest. Digest readers know value when they see it and they respond rapidly to a good offer. Before you plan your advertising budget, think hard about how to stretch your dollars and where they are spent the most efficiently. Are you paying more to reach fewer qualified potential customers than you woud receive in the Digest? The Digest’s circulation is concentrated in the most important livestock producing states: Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington and Texas. The Digest caters to the most active readers in the livestock world - who ARE the buyers and sellers of livestock, the ones who show up and speak up. It is the ONLY place to get Lee Pitt’s perspective on the world and how we are going to thrive into the future. To plan your advertising, contact Caren Cowan at: caren@aaalivestock.com or 505/243-9515, ext. 21
Downes ruled for the Urbigits and Earthjustice, ordering the removal of the experimental population. The decision however was appealed to a higher court and overturned. The mantra from the coalition of wolf stakeholders was, “Wolves are here to stay. We just have to learn to live with them.” The lovely and illusive irremmotus was the first casualty of an enormous wolf with-as it turns out-Eurasian genetics and diseases.
Living With Wolves Living with wolves means living with death. A Jackson Hole area man wrote of going to a winter elk feeding station by snowmobile and finding “20 to 30 dead or dying elk, some with their mouths and noses shredded, some with partially eaten hind-quarters unable to get up.” The man said he threw up, went home and has been unable to sleep since. Montana biologist, Kurt Alt, testified before the Montana State Legislature in 2003 that moose in the affected area were in a predator pit. At an outfitters rally in the town square of Jackson Hole in 2010, grown men, their voices choked with tears, related the conditions on the ground, a virtual killing fields for the Eurasian gray wolf. One local outfitter related how the bighorn sheep had to cross Deckard Flats along the same path as the migrating elk. As they come across, he said, “...wolves are just wiping them out”. Central Idaho’s Lolo Herd, treasure of the rugged, inaccessible River of No Return Frank Church Wilderness Area was likewise devastated. The adjoining Bitterroot Valley of Montana, another national hunting destination was completely destroyed by over predation. Outfitters went out of business, mules and other equine hunting partners sold off, unaffordable. Hospitality businesses counting on millions of hunter dollars every fall now dusty and run down or closed. Lion hunting hounds are a magnet for wolves. Local residents shared the grief of families who found their beloved dogs on the hunt for lions, ripped to pieces. Livestock producers have suffered tremendous loss. Elk have been displaced from the forest, seeking refuge and food in the valley ranches eating hay and tearing down fences. Montana biologist Caroline Sime et al in a report titled, “Gray Wolves and Livestock in Montana 19872006” reported “62 percent of all Montana livestock producers experienced at least one confirmed wolf kill. Only 50 percent of reported wolf kills were confirmed. 85 percent of confirmed livestock kills occurred on private property. One study found that confirmed wolf losses were a fraction, 1/8th of actual wolf caused losses.” With each of these losses, including horses, llamas, guard dogs, sheep, goats, cattle and pets, comes grief and rage for ranch families whose sole purpose is to protect and nurture their livestock. Producers in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colora-
do, California, New Mexico, and other states are now dealing with the invasive species. The wolf is infested with a deadly, cancer-like parasite Echinococcus Granulosus (EG). The State of Idaho has been proactive in testing the experimental wolf for the parasite. A 2014 study conducted for Idaho by Colorado State University traced the genotype strain of EG with which the wolves are almost 100 percent infected, to “an equally aggressive Eurasian genotype not native to North America”. Quoting from a letter by the Tim Kemery, Field Coordinator Custer County WPCA, “One very significant issue that has been highlighted by this Sampling Project has been the Invasive Origins of the G8/G10 Strains of Echinococcus. Both Strains are Eurasian and are not native to our Western States.” Humans and wildlife in the region are now infected with the “wolf worm”. The introductory statement from the 2014 European Scientific Council on Companion Animal Parasites included the following statement, “Alveolar Echinococcus and Cystic Echinococcus are neglected “malignant” parasitic diseases deserving the same attention as cancer.” Neglected perhaps because the spread of the parasite worldwide has coincided with the introduction and protection of the main vector worldwide, the gray wolf, and the gray wolf has powerful promoters.
Who Did This? With abundant prey, the gray wolf’s numbers exploded. Southern Montana, northern Wyoming and Central Idaho reached delisting targets in 2002. The USFWS delisted the wolf in 2008, 13 years after the first releases. But there was a hitch. Defenders of Wildlife and a dozen other environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department objecting to the delisting on various grounds, including the claim that there was no “genetic connectivity” between the wolves in the three states. The judge found in favor of the plaintiffs and wolves were back on the Endangered Species List safe from any management. Again in 2011 USFWS delisted the wolves. Again, a similar group sued the government, and again, the same judge ruled in their favor. A close examination of the lawsuit revealed the reason law firms are so eager to donate their time, and why so many groups are lined up as plaintiffs. The judge grants the prevailing party costs and attorney’s fees, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the judge awarded them, “such further and additional relief” as he deemed just and proper. Environmental groups are being paid damages as well as attorney fees by the taxpayer when they prevail. Karen Budd-Falen, a Cheyenne, Wyoming attorney launched her own personal investigation of the amount of money being funneled to not-for-profit corpocontinued on page twenty one
February 15, 2016
Livestock Market Digest
DO YOU REALIZE
continued from page twenty
rations through the Endangered Species Act. She learned that the Paperwork Reduction Act, also passed with much fanfare in the Clinton Administration, released some Executive Branch agencies from the burden of reporting how much they are paying out in damages; however she uncovered in her words, billions-and why not? The same groups, with their handy Washington, DC lobbying arms, helped write the legislation and regulations they now exploit. Defenders of Wildlife partnered with the USFWS on wolf releases from the beginning. From an article on their website titled, Historic Reintroduction Continues Despite Budget Cuts (01/22/1996), “The endeavor was temporarily stalled by a $200,000 funding reduction and the government shutdowns until Defenders of Wildlife and two other private organizations came forward to help finance the capture and transport of the latest set of wolves.” The article quotes then President of Defenders of Wildlife, Rodger Schlickeisen, “Although our country had made a national commitment to restore threatened and endangered species, some Members of Congress want to renege on that promise by cutting the funding for wolf restoration and other programs.” Not-for-profit corporations were not the only private partners in the fraudulent release. Rosa Koire, head of the California group, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, exposes how wealthy international hobbyists “such as Ted Turner, are using the release of large carnivores to destroy our wild food sources, the well armed hunting culture, and the cattle ranching industry of the west, furthering their agenda to turn the west into vast tracks of land where humans do not dwell.” Turner’s private foundation continues to facilitate wolf introduction efforts across the west. In the late days of the Clinton Administration, Congress noticed a suspicious lack of money in the Pittman-Robertson Fund. USFWS Law Enforcement Officer Jim Beers was called in to investigate. He reported back to Congress that 40 to 60 million dollars had been illegally diverted by USFWS and used to build a new office in San Francisco, pay bonuses to their top people, and introduce wolves into the Northern Rockies. Jamie Rappaport Clark, then Director of the USFWS, went on to become President of Defenders of Wildlife, telling Congress that her boss Bruce Babbitt told her she could spend the money any way she wanted. Jim Beers tells the story in Scott Rockholm’s expose` Yellowstone is Dead. Although this was a clear violation of law, the new HW Bush Administration did not want that fight and no one was ever held accountable. In an article titled Bennett V Spear The Endangered Species Act Fall From Grace Harvard Law Review author J. B. Ruhl cites the majority opinion in a
ruling that reveals the Supreme Court’s recognition of the subversion of the Endangered Species Act. “But the Court found that the ranchers did in fact have a protected interest under the ESA through the requirement in section 7 that the agency base its decisions on the ‘best scientific . . . data available.’ That requirement, the unanimous Court explained, is intended ‘to ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation’ and ‘to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives.’” Not only are zealots in Executive Branch Federal Agencies abusing the ESA, through partnerships with private organizations, they are supporting United Nations goals and agendas. Congress has given up oversight of the bloated Executive Branch and ignores the influence by UN connected lobbyists. The Rule of Law will never be restored with the laws themselves corrupted. The Endangered Species Act has created a cottage industry and source of revenue for zealots whose goal at the top is to get control of the land, water, mineral and energy resources of the West.
Restoring the Rule of Law Should a wave of reason sweep the land, the Endangered Species Act would be repealed and collective efforts to remove invasive weeds and animal species, manage predator populations, and treat or mitigate the spread of diseases, in other words create a healthy environment, could be done locally by each state. The long abused public/private partnerships should be outlawed. It is a tried and true technique used by the elitists around the globe to control land and people. A move-
Page 21
Martin Joins American Gelbvieh Association Staff
T
he American Gelbvieh Association (AGA) would like to welcome Mary Bea Martin to the staff as Member Services Specialist. Martin grew up in Georgia, where she participated in junior livestock activities. She and her family actively showed cattle, lambs, and hogs and she considers the pinnacle of her junior livestock experience to be exhibiting the 2003 Reserve Champion Steer at the National Western Stock Show. Martin graduated from West Texas A&M University in 2006 where she was very active on campus with several student and community service organizations. Martin brings several years of customer service experience to the AGA staff. After graduation, Martin worked for Scarborough Specialties, a promotional product company in Amarillo, Texas. She then returned to her home state to work as an outside sales representative for Godfrey’s Feed Feed in Madison, Georgia. In this position Martin was very involved in the state’s youth livestock program. After five
ment has started in the west to require the Federal Government to transfer the lands they have “held in trust” in the western states since statehood. Since the government is utterly corrupt and has proven its inability to separate science from geopolitics, it should not be given power over our lives. A wave of reason would include holding our public employees accountable for breaking the law. Transfer federal lands to the states, extinguish all the federal environmental bureaucracy, and leave land and wildlife management to the people who know and love that land and wildlife. We would then have a fighting chance to interrupt the entrenched influence in the federal government. It will never be done, however in time to save the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. That requires immediate action.
years, she moved back to Texas and worked in the synthetic turf industry. In addition, Martin was also a founding member of the Georgia Junior Livestock Foundation which raises money for junior livestock programs in the state. She is still an active board member for this organization. She has also served on the Georgia Cattlemen’s convention committee. “I am very excited about returning to my livestock roots and to embark on this new venture with the American Gelbvieh Association,” says Martin. “Mary Bea combines an active livestock background with customer service and sales experience in the agriculture industry. She will put those skills to work assisting AGA members and customers in the programs and services the AGA provides,” says Myron G. Edelman, executive director of the AGA. Martin started with the AGA on Tuesday, January 19.
Restoring the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd MTFWP is now taking public comment on changes to hunting regulations in HD 313. Their suggestions include shortening the season, or limiting bull elk permits to 75, and closing part of the unit. Deckard Flats is still a killing field for the now greater percentage of animals migrating out of Yellowstone National Park and yet, MTFWP’s quota for wolves in the unit is three. Reason and best available science requires man to step in and remove the large predators from the region. Long-range and night shooter teams could be camouflaged along the trail to take out wolves that are preying on the migrating elk. Collared wolves can be located and the entire pack taken out using aerial gunning. After the wolves are
cleared out and once again safe for hunting dogs, send in the lion hunters. Bears, including the now over populated grizzly should be taken out of the unit as they emerge this spring. None of these large predator species are endangered, just protected by zealots at the expense of the local people, our way of life, and the animals we love. The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd is endangered due to over predation by large carnivores. Remove the large carnivores and the herd will immediately begin to recover. Wolves taken in Montana should be tested for the thirty or so diseases of which they are vectors. If the wolves are infected with EG, mange, parvo, distemper, Moose Tania, etc., this experiment should be officially deemed a failure, and all of the wolves removed from the West.
Page 22
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016
Federal lawyers warn of lesser prairie chicken ‘death spiral’ CORBIN HIAR / E&E REPORTER
T
he Obama administration told a federal judge last week that overturning Endangered Species Act protections for the lesser prairie chicken could put the bird on a one-way road to extinction. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Junell for the Western District of Texas handed the administration a surprising defeat last year when he overturned the Fish and Wildlife Service’s spring 2014 decision to add the
lesser prairie chicken to the list of threatened species in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado. The bird’s native grassland and prairie habitat had shrunk by 84 percent because of drilling, wind farms, road building, grazing and plowing. But the Permian Basin Petroleum Association and four southeast New Mexico counties that are flush with oil successfully fought the listing. Junell ruled that FWS had failed to consider the extent to
which a rangewide conservation plan crafted and administered by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and supported by energy companies and landowners, would ameliorate those threats (Greenwire, Sept. 3, 2015). Federal attorneys are now asking Junell to amend his ruling. Instead of scrapping it altogether, they want him to send it back to FWS so the agency can make a new listing determination taking WAFWA’s plan fully into account.
But if the bird doesn’t receive any federal protections, the administration argues that energy companies and farmers will continue to destroy the chicken’s vanishing habitat with impunity. “The loss and fragmentation of even relatively small amounts of existing and suitable habitat can easily put the species on a path towards a ‘death spiral’ from which it cannot recover, as the Service has seen for similar prairie grouse species such as the now-extinct heath hen and endangered Attwater’s
prairie-chicken,” Department of Justice attorneys wrote in a Jan. 27 filing. The U.S. attorneys emphasized that “the main threat to the species is habitat fragmentation, and the lesser prairie-chicken’s habitat is highly fragmented, with a Service analysis finding only 20 habitat patches remaining range-wide of the size necessary to support the species over the long-term.” During the course of the litigation, DOJ said, development interests are threatening the remaining patches of 21,000 acres or more. In addition to existing developments that FWS has previously addressed to the court, there are “several additional prospective wind projects in Oklahoma and Kansas that would occur in currently suitable habitat for the species,” wrote the administration. These and other projects can go ahead without any legal requirement to consult with FWS about ways to minimize impacts to the prairie chicken, DOJ argued. “In Oklahoma alone, there are at least seven pending highway improvement projects with federal involvement in suitable lesser prairie chicken habitat where the vacatur will prevent the Service from requiring appropriate mitigation measures as part of an [Endangered Species Act] consultation,” the filing said. “In addition, given that potential developers have no legal requirement to communicate with the Service in the absence of listing, there is every reason to believe that projects other than those known to the Service are proceeding without sufficient protections for the species.” Industry defends, Ashe critiques WAFWA plan In a filing made the same day, lawyers representing the Permian Basin Petroleum Association countered the administration by claiming that “WAFWA has achieved notable progress in implementing” the rangewide plan. They also downplayed the extent of habitat that is currently slated for development. “WAFWA estimated that these five wind energy projects would impact only about 0.1 percent of the estimated range of the [lesser prairie chicken, or LPC], and it concluded that even impacts 100 times greater than that would not likely have a ‘demonstrable impact on the probability that the LPC would be placed in danger of extinction,’” the oil industry attorneys said, citing testimony provided by the state wildlife regulators. While they acknowledged that habitat is important to the continued on page twenty three
February 15, 2016
FEDERAL LAWYERS continued from page twenty two
survival of the bird, the oil group and its partners argued that “few factors have greater influence on the condition of LPC habitat than moisture. Drought causes the population to contract, while periods of normal or above-normal precipitation cause the population to expand, as it has done in recent years.” Permian Basin Petroleum Association lawyers criticized the agency for suggesting that a threatened listing was still necessary for the bird, which has seen its population increase for two consecutive years (Greenwire, June 26, 2015). “This Court has instructed them to evaluate the [rangewide plan] and other conservation efforts in a forward-looking manner by making informed predictions about the likely future success of those efforts,” industry lawyers said of DOJ’s case. “Their argument that the Service’s action could simply be reissued on remand betrays either a misunderstanding of, or a refusal to recognize, that this Court has decided a fundamentally different kind of analysis is required.” FWS Director Dan Ashe, however, recently cast doubt on its ability to clearly analyze the impact of the rangewide plan. Because WAFWA has still not created a database to track affected land and corresponding mitigation efforts, “the Service is unable to determine that the [rangewide plan] is offsetting the impacts to lesser prairie-chickens,” Ashe said in a Dec. 22 letter to a top WAFWA official about an annual report it sent FWS last year (Greenwire, April 7, 2015). “We consider this a crucial deficiency and we must redouble effort to get a successful conclusion,” Ashe said of the nonexistent database. He also criticized WAFWA’s annual report for containing “limited financial information” about which companies have paid to offset which actions that harm chickens. Ashe offered detailed instructions for how the state regulators should summarize the rangewide plan’s finances so that FWS can determine whether its conservation goals are “financially achievable,” he said in the letter, which was provided to Greenwire on condition of anonymity by a source who is closely following the court case. A new ruling from Junell could come any day now. Meanwhile, WAFWA’s second annual report on the effectiveness of the rangewide plan is set to be released in a couple of months.
Advertise to Cattleman in the Livestock Market Digest
Livestock Market Digest
Page 23
Open Season Declared on Cattle & Ranchers There’s a Facebook page now promoting shooting cows on “public” land. It’s been reported by thousands but Facebook replies every time saying it doesn’t violate community standards… even though the page is promotion felony criminal actions! The group page is “Public Lands Hunt Club.” https:// www.facebook.com/Shootwelfareranchers/ Unfortunately according to the link to the page (see above), they are not just promoting killing cattle, but ranchers as well. The page had 305 likes at press time and has been shared way too many times. Please don’t feel the need to share the page.
The page has targeted New Mexico rancher Adrian Sewell in particular, but is also attacking others. There are reports of arrests in Oregon for cow killing since the page has been put up. They claim open season on livestock on public lands and claim to have already killed 23 so far. The page lists a link to www. shootblmblmcows.com . That link doesn’t take you anywhere right now, but redirects you to www2.shootblmcows.com and some apparently unrelated links. There are several things that YOU can do NOW: n If you are a Facebook user, please report the page,
noting that it is promoting the criminal acts of shooting people and animals, as well as animal cruelty n Alert your local law enforcement of the threat to you, your family, your animals and your livelihood n Alert your neighbors and friends of the threat and the need to remain on alert n Contact your local media and ask if they will help spread the word about the danger in your community n If you believe you have lost cattle to this campaign, immediately contact local law enforcement, your livestock inspector, your local game war-
den and the federal or state land management agency(s) you deal with. Document any dead cattle and / or any other signs of damage or destruction on your ranch. Remember that in the past fences have been cut, water tanks drained, bolts removed from windmill or water towers and more. There is actually a whole book on Monkey Wrenching livestock production instructing on how to best harm ranchers. And the thing you shouldn’t do: n Don’t confront anyone engaging in cow killing or suspicious activity on your property, leases or allotments.
Page 24
Livestock Market Digest
February 15, 2016