LMD July 2019

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

July 15, 2019 • www.aaalivestock.com

Volume 61 • No. 7

E Cows

BY LEE PITTS

W

e have e cars, e cigarettes, e skateboards, e florists, e mail and every other combination and permutation of e stuff. Now, thanks to the USDA, there will also be e cows in the not-so-distant future.

An Answer In Search Of A Problem

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

Remember that mess of an animal identification system called the NAIS that USDA supposedly scrapped several years ago after cattlemen across the country howled in unison and said it was an answer in search of a problem? Well, the USDA has quietly repackaged NAIS and brought it back with hopes they can quietly sneak it past cattlemen without them discovering that this time the USDA has added an all new wrinkle and made it even worse, although we thought that was impossible. The USDA is now going to replace a system that works that they’re currently paying for, with one that you’ll be paying for that may, or may not, work.

You know those free metal orange tags that veterinarians snap in the ears of your heifers after giving them a vaccination that have been used for years to successfully combat brucellosis? It turned out that those tags were also a very good identification system whenever a health problem like mad cow disease or TB popped up. But now the USDA wants to get rid of those tags by the end of this year and gradually replace them with electronic ID tags that you’ll be paying for so that

by January 1, 2023, all cows, bison and rodeo stock in the

country will be sporting individual RFID (electronic) ear tags. (Thankfully, USDA’s plan does not include feeder cattle and other cattle and bison that move directly to slaughter.)

The USDA is implementing their new electronic ID plan in small increments so as to keep the cattlemen’s carping and complaints to a minimum. And in the true tradition of government bureaucracies everywhere, the USDA has managed to take a simple, easily understood program that works, and muck it up to the point that no one, including them, has a clue whether it will be as good as the old system in tracing disease back to its source. Which is, after all, the primary reason they say we are force-feeding all this nonsense down rancher’s throats to begin with.

What We Think We Know Here’s what we know, or think we do: • As of December 31st of this year USDA will discontinue providing those free metal brucellosis tags. Approved vendors, however, will still be permitted to produce official metal tags for one additional year and they will be available for purchase on a State-by-State basis as authorized by each State

Ain’t nuthin’ like ridin’ a fine horse in new country. animal health official through December 31, 2020.

• To purchase official electronic ID tags a premises identification number (PIN) is required.

• On January 1, 2021, USDA will no longer approve vendor production of metal ear tags with the official USDA shield. Accredited veterinarians and/or producers can no longer apply metal ear tags for official identification and must start using only “official” electronic ID tags.

• On January 1, 2023, RFID ear tags will be required on all sexually intact beef and dairy cattle and bison 18 months or older moving interstate, and any cattle used for rodeo or recreation regardless of age, moving interstate. All animals previously tagged with metal ear tags will have to be retagged with electronic ear tags at that time in order to move interstate.

• Accredited veterinarians or producers may purchase official, approved electronic tags directly from manufacturers or

retailers that will appear on a list of USDA approved makers.

• Tag technology can be low or ultrahigh frequency—whichever the State, producer or industry sector prefers. Approved USDA tags must be tamper proof, contain a unique ID, and display the U.S. official ear tag shield.

• Electronic tags can also be purchased that are part of a matched set, one for electronic ID and another for visual identification on the ranch because, after all, an electronic tag in a cow’s ear will be of absolutely no help to a rancher out in the field attempting to identify an animal. For a rancher to be able to read these new electronic ear tags up close he or she must purchase an electronic reader much like the one your UPS or Fed Ex driver uses. What’s next, we wonder, bar codes on the sides of cattle instead of brands?

If you’re thinking you’ll be able to use these new electronic ear tags to store all sorts of useful information like the ancontinued on page two

The Drive to Destroy the Beef Industry (And How to Fight Back)

BY TOM DEWEESE

I

’m not a cattleman and I’m not going to pretend I know everything you are facing.

But I do know that the major weapon being used against your industry is labeled Sustainable Development.

To begin, let’s set the terms and make one thing very clear. The use of the word sustainable may sound like a comfortable term, not threatening. After all, you, your parents, and those before them have probably been successfully working the same land for decades.

That’s true sustainability. But that is not what it means to those forces pushing that term today. Sustainable today means sustained control, sustained power, and very soon sustainable poverty for many.

Most people immediately equate Sustainable Development with environmental policy.

Of course, concern for the environment is the justification most often used for its implementation. However land control is at the heart of Sustainable Policy, and assuming it is simply good environmental stewardship proves to be a serious and dangerous mistake.

The term “Sustainable Development” was born on the pages of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It is basically the policy for the implementation of Agenda 21 which came along in 1992. The announced purpose of Agenda 21 was a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

The Sustainable ground troops are made up of hundreds of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), including the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.

How many of you have heard of the Wildlands Project? In the 1980s one of the most radical environmental organizations emerged – named Earth First! Its leader was Dave Foreman. Earth First! saw themselves as “Eco Warriors” the Esprit de Corp of the radical environmental movement.

Monkeywrenching was their tactic of choice. Sabotage. They destroyed mining equipment, blew up power transmission lines continued on page four

by LEE PITTS

Facts, Figures And Formulas

S

chool sure has changed since I went. Back in the fifties and sixties when I was terrorizing teachers about the biggest thing we had to worry about were pop quizzes and being sent to the principal for running in the halls. Sadly, today kids have to worry about getting shot in the halls or popped in the classroom.

I can honestly say that until I reached high school I can never remember taking home a book to study. All you needed was a binder full of paper and a pencil. Now I see kindergartners with bulging backpacks filled with books and all their worldly possessions.

Even though I was good at it, I hated school and was saved by vocational agriculture and the FFA, although the principal tried to talk my mother out of letting me take “vocational” classes because it wasn’t “college prep” and was beneath me. Our ag department was a long walk from the main campus and we were looked down upon because we learned such pedestrian skills as welding and how to dress out a lamb.

When I proudly wore my FFA jacket to school every Monday we were laughed at and called “farmer” which was used as a derisive word.

Now I see FFA judging teams, speakers and reciters of the FFA creed featured on the front page of local newspapers and FFA is finally being rightly recognized as the best educational organization for young folks in America. It certainly served me well as I’ve never been out of work in my adult life.

When I was a student, teachers attempted to cram all sorts of facts, figures and formulas into our tiny brains which we were expected to regurgitate back to them on true/false and multiple choice tests. Immediately after the test you did a brain dump and forgot everything you just “learned”. It was a stupid way to be educated as I can’t remember being asked to do anything creative or do any critical thinking. The people who got the best grades had the best memories and weren’t nec-

continued on page five

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

E COWS imal’s birth date, weights and vaccination records you can forget it. The USDA’s approved version of the electronic ear tag will not have the capacity to store information so there is no more information on an RFID tag than there is on an orange metal brucellosis tag. There will be NO downloading of information from the tags on to an Excel spreadsheet, or interfacing via Bluetooth to your smart phone.

So those are some of the rules. Got all that?

Good. Now, can anyone tell us how this is all-new and improved electronic system is any better, easier or cheaper than what it will replace?

Deaf And Dumb You may recall that the USDA held a series of 21 public “listening sessions” across the country to get your feedback about their proposed electronic ID program. The USDA said that, “the purpose of these public meetings and comment period was to hear from industry.”

What they found was that 91 percent of cattle producers were opposed to mandatory national animal ID. You may also recall that one of the things that ranchers complained about the loudest was they didn’t like the idea of having to apply for a premise location number from the USDA in order to use the electronic tags. Well, the USDA listened, and will be demanding you apply for a premise ID number to use their new electronic tags.

As usual, it appeared the USDA was both deaf and dumb!

After a while, one has to ask, who keeps coming up with this same set of solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist? Who is it that wants electronic animal ID so badly? In order to answer that question we have to go all

continued from page one

the way back to 2002 when an organization called the National Institute of Animal Agriculture (NIAA) first held meetings to come up with a national animal ID plan. The NIAA was a private organization hiding behind an impressive set of initials but if one dug a little deeper they’d find that it was composed of big agribusinesses like Cargill and Monsanto; veterinary medicine companies such as Pfizer and Schering Plough; national animal industry organizations such as the National Livestock Producers Association and the National Pork Producers Council; ear tag manufacturers and animal tracking systems like Cattle-Traq and Digital Angel.

The self-interest was obvious. For example, before Neil Hammerschmidt was hired by the USDA to be project manager for the animal disease traceability project, he was employed by Allflex, the tag maker. For any sue-happy lawyers reading this story, we are in no way suggesting that Mr. Hammerschmidt would use his new job to help his previous employer earn any part of the fifty million dollar a year that producers would be spending on new electronic ear tags.

Dead On Arrival By the spring of 2003 the USDA had formed a national working group of 100 people representing some 70 organizations and charged them with the task of coming up with an initial plan which they called the U.S. Animal Identification Plan, or USAIP for short. If you sound it out it sounds like “us ape”, which sounds like an apt description to us.

When the first case of American mad cow disease was confirmed in December 2003 it played right into USDA’s rhetoric that we needed a new national ID system! This despite

the fact the mad cow had been traced back to its origin using tools already available. But that didn’t matter. The USDA and others wanted a national electronic ID system and, by golly, they’d get it!

By 2004 USAIP had been rebranded as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

It was this USDA program that the very hip publication, Mother Earth News, called “the most hated federal program in rural America.” That plan, released in April 2005, not only called for electronic ear tags and premise registration but for the tracking and reporting of all animal movement within 48 hours. Any time a rancher moved an animal from one ranch to another, to an auction market or feedlot, the rancher had to acquire a number that was then registered in a national database, along with the animal’s Global Positioning System coordinates and the name, phone number and address of the owner of the cattle.

Needless to say, in the cattle community where you never ask a person how many cows he or she owns, this idea went over like a fresh cow pie in church.

One of the reasons ranchers howled so loudly was because exceptions to the ID rules would be made for animals raised as a group for their entire life cycle, such as hogs and chickens. This gave a huge advantage to CAFO’s, or concentrated animal feeding operations.

By November 2006 the USDA had received so much flak about their proposed ID system that they announced that the plan would be “voluntary at the federal level.” In other words, their new plan was DOA, dead on arrival.

Black Market Beef At this point we thought the USDA had given up on the

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

Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M. POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Telephone: 505/243-9515 Fax: 505/998-6236 www.aaalivestock.com EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN..........Publisher LEE PITTS....................Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS.........Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS......Sales Rep FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES:

Subscribe Today

RANDY SUMMERS, 505/850-8544 email: rjsauctioneer@aol.com FIELD EDITOR:

NAME

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF:

ADDRESS

MARGUERITE VENSEL..Office Manager CITY

My check is enclosed for:

STATE

ZIP

One Year: $19.94 Two Years: $29.95 Single copy: $10.00 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

JESSICA DECKER..........Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER......Graphic Designer

whole ID idea. But we should have known better. The USDA was just letting the hubbub die down. They concluded that all they needed was a different set of initials to hide behind. So they came up with ADT which stood for “animal disease traceability”. But ADT still came with all the baggage and problems its predecessors had, such as, who will pay for it? After all, individual electronic ID chips sell for between $1.50 and $3 each and scanners to read the tags can cost anywhere from $200 to $2,000. A rancher wouldn’t necessarily have to buy a scanner because the tags will be worthless as a tool to identify an animal out on the range. But the rancher would need Internet access and probably a subscription to a national ID database. One study we saw said that even a minimum ID system would cost $900 to $1,000 per year. That alone might be enough to convince a small cattle rancher to start raising goats instead.

Or some small producers might just decide to raise black market beef and sell to friends, neighbors and locals, thus bypassing entirely the national ID system. If that’s the case then ADT will make the problem of identifying animals in a disease outbreak more difficult than it is now.

Most ranchers are independent types and some will probably conclude that ADT steps all over their Constitutional and private property rights. And what about the deeply devout cattlemen like the Amish and others whose religious beliefs prevent them from using electricity, computers, and smart phones necessary to implement such a program. Will they be forced out of business?

According to R CALF CEO Bill Bullard, we’ve already lost 25 percent of our local livestock auction yards, 75 percent of our independent feedlots and nearly 80 percent of all beef packing plants since 1980. Mandatory animal ID could wipe out another big chunk of cow calf operators. But maybe that’s the point... for big ranchers to force the little guy out of business so that their share of the beef pie will get bigger. After all, the cattle business has a long history of big ranchers warring against the small going back to the Lincoln County War. Will all this be just another chapter?

Then there’s still the be-

lief that big factory farms and feedlots are getting a break on animal ID. Will it be just like the cattle checkoff where packers and retailers receive most of the benefit but don’t pay a dime for it?

Nor has the USDA solved the “big data” issue of how to keep your information safe from hackers and other government agencies. Will the IRS have access to the info and will they then know exactly who owns what? Will other branches of the federal government impose new cattle inventory taxes based on this new data?

And what about liability? Do the packers and retailers want animal ID so badly so that when a case of e coli pops up they’ll trace it all the way back to the cow so the owner of that cow can then be sued instead of them?

Moving Forward In Reverse It’s hard for us to believe that this newest version of animal ID is just about animal traceability. South Dakota Stockgrower’s President Gary Deering echoes the feeling many of us skeptics share: “It is perplexing,” he says, “how the USDA thinks a tag, tracking interstate movement of cattle, will be the biggest line of defense to disease outbreaks such as foot and mouth disease yet at same time is negotiating deals to import beef from Brazil who has had recent problems with FMD as well as many other disease, sanitation, and inspection issues that have kept them out of the United States for good reason. Why does USDA plan to force USA cattle producers to do ADT and not Namibia?

Not Brazil? Not Ecuador? Imported beef is sucking-the-life from USA ranchers because the cost of enforcements is zip on imported beef.”

The South Dakota Stockgrowers has been involved with the Cattle Traceability Working Group (CTWG) since its inception and the CTWG Animal ID Committee Vice Chairman, Les Shaw, says, “My frustration has grown with the CTWG. I hate to think there was a predetermined agenda, but many times when we have voiced concerns about, liability, retention, privacy, cost, or speed of commerce, we seem to get pushed aside and reminded that we have to move forward!”

July 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 3

DRIVE and spiked trees. That little bit of fun meant they drove a spike into a tree. When the timber company then cut the tree down and sent it to the mill, as the saw blades hit the spike they would explode. Timber production stopped! Victory for the Eco Warriors.

Forman had big plans. He said, “My three main goals would be to reduce human populations to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.” Do you see any room for you and your cattle in that vision?

Oh, but these were just the ravings of a radical lunatic – not to be taken seriously. Well… not so fast! You see, Foreman’s ideas became the basis for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. “Rewilding” became the term to lock away over 50 percent of all the land in every state – back to the way if was before Christopher Columbus came this way.

No human activity. No roads.

No homes. No industry. That became the basis for the whole Sustainable movement.

Foreman got specific about how he saw YOUR future. “Our vision is simple. We live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska.

When gray wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland.” One of Foreman’s fellow Earth Firsters said, “The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”

You see, this “vision” became the driving force for the entire radical environmental movement. It was first expressed in the 1970s in the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference that said, “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of

continued from page one

the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

That is nothing less than redistribution of wealth – or socialism.

Thomas Lovejoy, a Clinton-appointed Science Advisor to the Department of Interior said, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole country and regulate it all.” That is Sustainable Development. That’s why the American beef industry has long been a tasty target of the environmentalists and their allies -- the animal rights movement.

Their selected tactic is to control the land, water, energy, and population of the Earth.

To achieve these ends requires, among other things, the destruction of private property rights and elimination of every individual’s ability to make personal lifestyle choices, including personal diet.

Of course, while these forces have clearly spelled out their goals in such documents as the report from the UN’s Habitat I and the Rio Accord, no totalitarian-bound movement would ever put their purpose in such direct terms for public consumption. That’s where the environmental protection excuse comes in. Instead, American cattle producers are simply assured that no one wants to harm their industry, just make it safer for the environment. The gun industry might recognize that such an assurance sounds a bit familiar. Same source, same tactics, same goals.

So the offered solution to “fix” the beef industry is “sustainable certification”. All the cattle growers have to do is follow a few simple rules and all will be fine, peaceful and profitable.

Enter the players: the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Global Roundtable for Sustain-

able Beef (GRSB), and the U.S, Department of Agriculture.

And the sad fact is, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization you have been trusting to represent your interests, has betrayed you by allowing itself to be used as the Judas Goat to lead the industry to sustainable slaughter.

First, let’s reveal the Sustainablists’ stated problems with the beef industry. What’s not sustainable about raising beef?

According to the environmental “experts” there are ten reasons why the beef industry does not meet sustainable standards: 1. Deforestation – The claim is that farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce food.

The World Hunger Program calculated that if the land was used to grow grain and soy instead of cattle the land could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people. Do you get that – a vegan diet! The fact is, most grazing land in the U.S. cannot be used for growing food crops because the soil wouldn’t sustain crops. It’s also interesting to note that in Brazil, the WWF managed to force that government to lock away almost 50% of that nation’s land into unusable parks.

2. Fresh Water – They claim that the America diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day, including animal drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc. Whereas a vegan diet only requires 300 gallons per day. Those darn thirsty cattle! Of course the irony to that is the Green’s goal to increase wildlife. Don’t the Wolves, Grizzles and the other wild animals drink too?

3. Waste Disposal – Factory farms house hundreds of thousands of animals that produce waste. They claim these giant livestock farms produce more than 130 times the amount of waste humans do.

The interesting thing about this detail is that the actual

sustainable policies they are enforcing to fix this problem destroy the small family farms in favor of the very giant corporate factory farms they profess to oppose. It’s also interesting to note that those global corporations have the ability to ignore many of the “sustainable” restrictions, unlike the small, family farms that are much better at protecting the environment on their own.

4. Energy Consumption - For the steak to end up on your plate, say the Greens, the cow has to consume massive amounts of energy along the way as the cattle are transported thousands of miles to slaughter, market, and refrigerate. And let’s not forget, the meat must then be cooked!

Well this transportation argument is a direct result of the existence of only a limited few packing companies in cahoots with the Green Lords that dictate the market as they work against a more decentralized, local industry. Meanwhile, last time I checked, Tofurkey – made from soy -- also has to be cooked!

5. Food Productivity – say the Greens, food productivity of farmland is falling behind the population and the only option, besides cutting the population, is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing lands to food crops.

As noted in point 1, the grazing land cannot be converted.

Everything dealing with the sustainable argument is based on crisis. Yet we do not have a world-wide food shortage or pending famine. The only places where such shortages may exist are in totalitarian societies where government is controlling food production and supplies – kind of like the Green’s plan for sustainable beef.

6. Global Warming – here we go! Say the Greens, global warming is driven by energy consumption and cows are energy guzzlers.

But there’s more to the story.

Cow flatulence! A single dairy cow, they claim, produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually. Meanwhile, environmentalists want to turn the rangelands over to historic species, including buffalo. And a buffalo, grazing on the same grass on the same lands would emit about the same amount of methane. It’s a non-issue.

Let me share this little tidbit with you. I’m sure you are aware of the sustainable forests policies the federal government is now employing that won’t allow you to clear dead trees out of the floor of the forest. That’s natural – they say. Of course, that’s the very reason why the fires now burn so hot, destroying millions of acres of forests.

But there is also a side affect of that practice. Lying on the floor of the forest are now millions of dead, rotting trees.

What do those dead trees attract? Termites! Their colonies are multiplying by the millions.

Did you know that termite farts contribute one fourth of the methane that makes up the CO2 emissions which the Greens claim leads to global warming? So the very sustainable policies they are using as a weapon against you – are the real contributing factors.

Not long ago many farmers were being harassed by government agents over pollution in streams running through their land. The government charged that the cattle were the cause and demanded they build a fence to keep the cattle from the stream. They demanded, they harassed and they threatened. Then they found that the pollution wasn’t being caused by the cows rather the source was feral hogs.

7. Loss of Biodiversity – What are some of the examples the Greens give for loss of biodiversity? Poaching and continued on page four

Page 4

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

DRIVE black market sale of bushmeat including everything from elephants and chimpanzees to birds. Please explain what this has to do with the American cattle industry – other than a pure hatred of anyone who eats meat of any kind? And that, of course, is the argument from the animal rights/vegan wing of the Green movement that is leading the assault on cattle.

8. Grassland Destruction – Apparently domesticated animals like cows replaced bison and antelope, which, in turn, caused a loss of biodiversity of species. I’ve got two pieces of news for you.

First, the Native Americans so revered by the Greens, hunted bison before the white man arrived. Take a trip to Bozeman, Montana and see the cliff where they used to run entire herds to their death -- not just selectively choosing a few to eat. Second, the Greens’ forced-reintroduction of wolves, not the cattle ranchers, has caused a near annihilation of the antelope and elk herds.

9. Soil Erosion – the Greens claim that U.S. pastureland is overgrazed, causing soil erosion. In truth, as you well know, a great many of today’s cattlemen are third and fourth generation on their land.

Those ranches could not have existed for over a hundred years if they were so careless in taking care of the land. It is vital to their survival to assure the land stays in good shape.

Of course, an environmentalist who has never worked a ranch or farm and rarely comes out of his New York high-rise might not know that.

10. Lifestyle Disease – This is my favorite of the reasons why beef is unsustainable.

In short, it’s because of stupid people! This one is blamed on “excessive” consumption of meat, combined with environmental pollution and “lack of exercise” leading to strokes, cancer, diabetes and heart attacks.

Obviously it’s the beef industries fault that people eat too much and refuse to exercise.

The solution – ban meat consumption. Yet, doctors are now realizing that meat eating is not the problem, carbs are.

So, these are the ten main reasons why it’s charged that beef is unsustainable and must be ruled, regulated and frankly, eliminated. These are charges brought by anti-beef vegans who want all beef consumption stopped. In cahoots are environmentalists who seek to stop the private ownership and use of land under the excuse of environmental protection.

To bring the cattle industry into line with this worldview the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has accepted the imposition of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled, by the World Wildlife Fund, one of the top three most powerful environmental organizations in the world and a leader of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), which basically sets the rules for global environmental policy.

For just one example of how they use their power, the World Wildlife Fund maintains a network of national chapters around the world which influence, if not dominate, NGO activities at the national level.

continued from page three

There they agitate and lobby for government to implement the policies of Agenda 21.

This is the same World Wildlife Fund that issued a report saying, “Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat. Again, experts have said most land used for grazing isn’t capable of growing crops for food, but the lie continues to be spread.

It’s interesting to note that the “Principles for Sustainable Beef Farming,” issued for the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef by the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Working Group (SAI), follow the exact guidelines originally presented in the United Nations’ Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development blueprint.

Agenda 21 divided it into three categories including, Social Equity, Economic Prosperity and Ecological Integrity.

The SAI plan for Sustainable Beef uses the following headings for each section of its plan: Economic Sustainability, Social Sustainability, and Environmental Sustainability. What’s the difference?

Under Social Sustainability are such items as Human Rights, Worker Environment, Business Integrity, and Worker Competence (that means that workers are required to have the proper, acceptable sustainable attitudes and beliefs). Under the heading Environmental Sustainability are Climate Change, Waste, and Biodiversity, for the reasons already discussed.

Regulations using these principles impose a political agenda that ignores the fact that smaller, independent cattle growers have proven to be the best stewards of your own land and that for decades have produced the highest grade of beef product in the world. Instead, to continue to produce you will be required to submit to a centralized control of regulations that will never end and will always increase in costs and needless waste of manpower.

To follow the sustainable rules and be officially certified, you, as a cattle grower, must agree to have much of the use of your land reduced to provide for wildlife habitat. There are strict controls over water use and grazing areas. This forces you to have smaller herds, making the process more expensive and economically unviable for the industry. In addition, there is a new layer of industry and government inspectors, creating a massive bureaucratic over-

reach, causing yet more costs for you.

The Roundtable rules are now enforced through the packing companies. Your ability to get your cattle to market is getting harder every day - unless you comply with rules that are simply designed to put you out of business. And yet, if you do comply, you will certainly go out of business.

Do you understand the game that is being played on you? You are not supposed to win – you are supposed to quietly comply and then die. You cannot reason with them. You cannot compromise with them. You follow their rules. They own the game.

The packers now control the feedlots. They force the feedlots to comply with sustainable certification for the cattle they will buy from the growers. If the beef they obtain isn’t grown according to the sustainable beef principles then the packers refuse to buy it. That has quickly put smaller feedlots out of business. Consequently it also destroys the cattle growers who rely on the feedlots to take their product.

As you know, there are only four main packing companies in the United States. They are now working hand in hand with the Roundtable, working side by side with the World Wildlife Fund to force sustainable certification on the cattle growers.

It’s interesting to note that one of their first tactics was to remove the country of origin labeling from packaging so that consumers have no idea from where their product is coming.

So as the packers force their expensive, unnecessary, and unworkable sustainable certification on American cattlemen, they are systematically bringing in cheaper product from other countries that don’t necessarily adhere to strict, sanitary, safe production. As a result there is a noticeable rise in news reports of recalls of diseased chicken and beef in American grocery stores.

Some have tried to fight back by creating new packing companies to compete and provide an honest market. However the costs to do so are huge, as high as $50 million. The packers in the Green Cartel simply respond by drastically reducing their prices to the grocers, thereby destroying any hope of establishing a market for a new, cattle-grower-friendly packing company.

This then is the situation that is threatening the American beef industry. If one reads the documents and statements from the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program and others involved, it is not hard to realize that the true goal is not to make

beef better, but to ban it altogether.

And believe it or not, the fact that some of the foreign beef sold in stores is becoming lower grade and even diseased actually works in the Sustainablist’s favor too – because the ultimate goal is to stop the consumption of beef. Fear of disease is a valuable tool.

The question must then be asked. Why is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association allowing this to happen and indeed, is joining with the Sustainable Beef Roundtable to force these policies on its members? The answer is actually quite tragic. They have beaten you into submission with that word Sustainable. American ranchers, farmers and livestock growers have been targets of the environmental and animal rights movements for years.

You just want to be left alone to work your farms and herds like your forefathers have done for more than a century. But the pressure is growing day by day.

So, many of you have come to believe that if you just go along – put the sustainable label on your product -- this pressure will stop. In short, it would be a pressure valve release.

I’m sorry to tell you that it is not a release. Compromising and trying to play ball with these zealots is not going to make it go away. You must understand that the goal is not about improving your industry or environmental protection. The tragic reality is this is a drive for the destruction of your industry.

Remember, the UN calls this the “reorganization of human society”. You and your way of life are to be reorganized to fit their view of human existence.

The attack has now grown to major proportions with the Green New Deal. Beef eaters have no place in the sustainable paradise of city apartment dwellers who accept government controls to choose for them what they are permitted to eat.

R-CALF has managed to slow the Sustainable capture of the industry. But the packers’ control is a major roadblock if you can’t reach the market.

R-CALF has filed Abuse of Conduct suits to shed light on the anti-trust activities of the monopoly tactics of the packers. It’s a good and valuable start.

However, the beef industry cannot recover on its own.

Your story must be told to the consumers. They must become outraged about the real reasons prices are soaring and quality is going down as the danger to their own health is increasing.

You must focus on how to get your message out to consumers that a force loose in our country is robbing them of

the freedom of choice for their own dinner plate, perhaps even for their own health. You know these facts – but the average American doesn’t. So how do you reach the general public?

You are in a crisis situation.

That calls for drastic, creative measures. I have a modest little suggestion as to how you can get the attention of the entire nation – and start a nationwide discussion on your plight. Are you ready?

Start a cattle drive right down the main street of cities across the country. Drive your cattle right to city hall or the state capital. As you pass through town people are going to be very startled and curious, to say the least. Take advantage of that by passing out leaflets that tell your story.

Now that you have everyone’s attention, tell your story.

Hold a news conference right there on the steps of city all.

The first step is to demand that “Country of Origin” labels be put on all beef products so you and the American public know where your food comes from.

Second, demand that the Department of Agriculture reject this sustainable myth and protect the American free market that has always provided superior products.

Third, expose the packers by name. Help the American consumer become your ally in every grocery and steak house in the nation. Demand American beef for Americans!

Above all, publicly call out the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to get its collective head out of the sand and join you before its entire industry is destroyed. Expose the fact that the NCBA is working directly with the World Wildlife Fund which believes that beef consumption must be stopped in order to save the earth.

At your news conferences ask this question of the NCBA: Why would the WWF be welcomed into any part of your industry? It means they can effectively destroy you from the inside. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Can you imagine the impact this would have if you had five cattle drives in five cities in one day. It would get international attention. The only way you can survive is to fight.

So-called sustainable policy is not a free market. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly that is little short of a criminal enterprise. This is a dark, evil force with a one-sided goal designed to put you out of business while it takes control of what Americans have left to eat.

If you intend to survive, you must all become modern day Paul Reveres. That means taking direct, creative action. You must reach the nation’s beef consumers and rally them to your cause. The very future of our nation and its ability to feed itself, while remaining free and strong, depends on the choices you make today.

As martyred rancher LaVoy Finicum said, “It matters how you stand!”

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center is an internationally recognized property advocate. Author of three books including, Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private property and Individuals.

DeWeese has been featured by Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and other media nationwide. www.americanpolicy.org.

July 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 5

To Reduce Wildfires & Save Utilities, Newsom Wants $10.5 Billion From Ratepayers

BY TARYN LUNA / LA TIMES

C

alifornia Governor Gavin Newsom is asking the California Legislature to extend an existing charge on utility customers’ bills in hopes of generating $10.5 billion for a new wildfire fund, one that power companies could use to pay for fire damage — but only if they meet the state’s safety standards.

Under pressure from Wall Street analysts to take action, the governor disclosed a broad outline of a plan Friday that seeks to shore up the finances of the state’s utilities amid rising costs for wildfires.

The proposal stops short of meeting investor demands that the state change its doctrine of inverse condemnation, which holds utilities responsible for wildfire damage linked to their equipment.

But Newsom’s advisors said they were confident that a fund coupled with a new safety certification process will stabilize the industry’s finances, ensure that wildfire victims can recoup losses and reduce fire risks.

They said the plan would create incentives for utilities to safely manage the thousands of miles of power lines and equipment that crisscross the state.

“Financially unstable electrical utilities will put wildfire victims in jeopardy and cause California families to see their electrical bills skyrocket,” Newsom said. “In the coming days, I will continue working with the Legislature to turn this framework into a package of bills that make the changes we need.”

The issue of wildfire liability has vexed the Legislature since state regulators, in an unprecedented 2017 case, blocked San Diego Gas & Electric from passing off costs to ratepayers that exceeded the company’s insurance coverage.

The pressure to take action mounted following the Camp fire in November, which killed 85 people and reduced Butte County towns to ash. Pacific Gas & Electric subsequently filed for bankruptcy, citing as much as $30 billion in potential liability costs. That triggered concerns that Southern California Edison could similarly fold if lawmakers failed to lessen the financial exposure of utilities.

The Legislature established a commission that issued several recommendations last month.

Newsom and his team of advisors have also spent months studying the issue and paid top law firms and investment analysts $6 million to help them develop a solution by July 12, a deadline he imposed on lawmakers to pass a bill. Credit rating agencies have threatened to downgrade Edison and SDG&E if the Legislature fails to approve legislation to significantly reduce the financial risk for utilities.

“I feel confident that we’ll get something done this session,” said Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat who heads the utilities committee in the lower house. “There is a lot of education that we’ll have to go through with not only the members but with the community at large.”

Under the governor’s proposal, the state would establish a new wildfire division within the California Public Utilities Commission to enforce safety standards, according to administration officials.

Each electrical utility would have to undergo an annual review process and earn a safety certification before the start of next year’s wildfire season in order to tap the wildfire fund.

Certification would depend upon more than just the company’s efforts to prevent wildfires. The companies would also have to agree to tie executive compensation to safety performance and establish a safety committee on its board of directors, according to officials in the governor’s administration.

The utilities have already committed to spending $3 billion in ratepayer money on safety measures. Tapping into the fund would prevent the companies from earning a 16 percent return on that investment, according to the administration.

The governor’s office is suggesting two different options for the wildfire fund.

The first model, which Newsom’s team calls a liquidity fund, would raise up to $10.5 billion over 12 years to provide short-term loans to utilities to pay wildfire costs that exceed insurance coverage. The goal is to ensure that utilities have access to a line of credit to pay claims, according to the administration.

The state would finance this model with an indefinite extension of an existing Department of Water Resources bond, paid

for by a charge on electricity bills. The bond program was established during the California energy crisis that began in the summer of 2000 and is otherwise set to expire next year.

The state would require utilities to pay back the liquidity fund after the CPUC approves a cost recovery plan, officials said.

A second approach would augment the $10.5 billion from ratepayers with another $10.5 billion from the utilities. Instead of serving as a short-term line of credit, all of the wildfire fund monies would act as a second insurance policy, administration officials said.

Wildfire costs that exceed a company’s individual insurance coverage would be paid out through the fund. If the utility behaved prudently, the fund would pick up costs from the wildfire that typically fall on ratepayers. If the company acted negligently, the utility would be required to reimburse the fund, under a cap that has yet to be disclosed, the Newsom administration said.

PG&E would be barred from participating in the fund until it pays 2017 and 2018 wildfire claims and emerges from bankruptcy without raising rates for its customers, officials said.

The state’s utilities would be given 15 days from the enactment of the wildfire fund legislation to decide whether to provide the additional $10.5 billion. The proposal would apply to fires that begin in 2019 and subsequent years, according to the administration.

Newsom’s plan would also

shift the burden of proof for liability away from the utilities for the first time in California for companies that earn the safety certification before a wildfire starts.

Similar to a model practiced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, any party that intervenes in a regulatory cost recovery case and seeks to block a utility from recouping its wildfire losses from ratepayers would have to prove the company failed to reasonably manage its system or acted negligently. The existing regulatory structure in California generally requires utilities to prove that they prudently managed their systems in order to raise electricity bills after a wildfire.

Ratepayer advocates will likely bemoan the change because it assumes utilities behaved prudently. It could make it easier to shift costs onto ratepayers under the “liquidity fund” model. But some lawmakers say utility bills would increase anyway if the Legislature did nothing.

“I think the cost of inaction is much higher than acting and we’ve got to act,” said Assemblyman Chad Mayes (R-Yucca Valley).

The governor’s office had three weeks to convince lawmakers to approve his proposal. Newsom has not yet introduced his plan in the form of legislation and lawmakers said they were waiting to see language before judging the proposal. A broad sketch of the plan provided by the administration lacks important detail.

Why Banning Fur Will Hurt the Environment

BY WILL COGGIN WWW.BAKERSFIELD.COM

C

alifornia is moving forward with some of the most sweeping anti-pollution legislation to date. On the heels of banning plastic straws, a bill recently passed the Assembly that would ban lodging establishments from supplying guests with small plastic bottles for shampoo and other products unless they ask

for them.

Clearly, the Golden State has made being a clean state a priority. So why did the Assembly just pass a bill that would likely increase plastic pollution?

Hot on the heels of local fur bans passed in Los Angeles and San Francisco, fury over fur has arrived in Sacramento. Animal activists including PETA and Berkeley-based Direct Action Everywhere are pushing for the

RIDING HERD essarily the smarted kids in the class.

Now we have gone overboard in the other direction and just like when I went to school, kids are getting high school diplomas who barely know how to read or write. And the tests they take are much different. Instead of regurgitating back facts, figures and formulas typical questions on today’s tests might include: 1. What is the proper spelling of the word “cafeteria”? You may use your smart phone and Wikipedia to help you find the answer.

2. If you have 500 Facebook friends and your sister has 700 Facebook friends but you have 300 more You Tube subscribers but 100 less Instagram followers who is more important?

3. In a twelve word essay discuss the difference between hip hop and rap.

4. Typing with your thumbs, how many words that aren’t really words can you type in one minute? Hint: R, U, LOL. 5. What would you do if you saw an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?

Briefly discuss how the plant might feel. Alternative question: Is it vegan for vegetarians to

statewide fur ban, known as AB 44. These activists, who are also against wool and leather, demand people wear fake fur instead of the natural kind.

But Californians who care about the environment should know a dirty little secret these activists won’t tell you: fake fur pollutes.

Generally composed of nylon and polyester, faux fur is designed to have tiny “hairs” that mimic its natural counterpart. continued from page one

eat animal crackers?

6. Explain why ripped and faded jeans are worth way more than brand new ones.

7. 4 out of 5 people have trouble with fractions. Circle the number 4.

8. Draw the first tattoo you ever got and explain its meaning.

9. Explain how you feel when adults keep asking you how you eat with a metal ball stud attached to your tongue, or how you feel when your grandmother keeps staring at your green and orange hair or lip jewelry and says, “Back when I was a kid... blah, blah, blah.

10. If a bisexual marries a transexual who mows the lawn and who washes the dishes?

Extra credit: Name the President of the U.S. If you can name the Vice President CONGRATULATIONS, you will automatically receive your high school diploma.

Note to students: There really are no wrong answers and grades will not be assigned because it might hurt someone’s feelings and destroy their self esteem.) wwwLeePittsbooks.com

The trouble is, plastic clothing leaches microplastic particles when cleaned. According to one study, a single fake fur coat could shed 100,000 of these microparticles in the wash.

These tiny particles then get into the water supply.

This matters because microplastics are a major pollution threat to our oceans. In fact, the notorious Great Pacific Garbage Patch is principally composed of these tiny microplastics.

Microplastics impact us too.

It’s not unheard of for these

tiny particles to be found in fish or shellfish that end up on your dinner plate. What’s more, scientists aren’t even fully aware of the negative effects these microplastics have once they’re ingested in the human body.

Faux fur is also a part of the trend towards “fast fashion,” which encourages consumers to dispose more clothes than ever before. But what happens when faux fur is disposed?

While real fur will biodegrade continued on page 6

Page 6

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

Unlawful Law Enforcement

Law enforcement capers and Forest Service job corps forever

M

arjorie Haun at Free Range Report broke the story that on June 13, William Woody, director of BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement Services (OLES), had his gun and badge stripped from him and that he was escorted out of the Department of the Interior headquarters in Washington D.C. Woody had previously worked for BLM, was then transferred to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and then transferred back to the BLM in 2017. According to Haun’s source, Woody was pushed out of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “amid allegations of lavish travel spending and arbitrary pay hikes of all agents under his supervision.”

Haun reports that Woody, “reportedly buys the loyalty (and silence) of his agency underlings with unwarranted promotions and fat salaries. According to our informant he is in the process of upgrading all his 60-odd investigators from GS-12’s to GS-13’s. With their special salary rate included, that’s a $17,347 raise per person. He also promoted 15 or so supervisory investigators, all earning $128,882 as GS-14’s ($19,817 raise) and two additional GS-15’s, who received a $22,718 raise, which equates to an expenditure of $1,383,511 in additional tax dollars spent each year.”

Haun also informs us of other Woody activities over the years that have caused concern: overruling a senior law enforcement official on a hiring decision so he could bring in a female with whom he reportedly had a “relationship”; misuse of a government vehicle while working in D.C.; illegally hiring a female staffer at a top federal pay grade to handle his public relations disasters; and extensive and unnecessary travel for meetings, often with with large groups, and visits to sportsman’s shows and other unofficial activities.

You will remember Dan Love (extravagant expenses at Burning Man and the abuses and bungling of the Bundy case) and how pleased we were when he was removed from office by former Secretary Zinke. Well not so fast. Haun reports that Woody, “helped Dan Love receive a medical retirement instead of being fired.”

I have a copy of the memo to William Woody, signed by Casey Hammond, Principal

Deputy Assistant Secretary. It is dated June 11, 2019 and only mentions the use of a government-owned vehicle for hometo-work commuting from July of 2017 to June of 2018. It states this was done without authorization and that Woody knew he needed approval to do this and acknowledged that he had not done so. Further Hammond states, “I find your presence in the workplace during the investigation period…will jeopardize legitimate Agency interests” and placed him on paid administrative leave.

The Office of the Inspector General has already highlighted the government vehicle issue, so no one seems to know what the “ongoing investigations” are mentioned by Hammond in the memo. Many folks with experience at Interior believe there must be something else going on, beyond the vehicle use.

What is clear to me is that the BLM has chosen to create a huge law enforcement bureaucracy that goes beyond the original intent of Congress. Section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act states: “When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

Please note the maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials. Does anyone believe the BLM has complied with this language?

How much of the annual law enforcement budget is actually contracted out to local officials?

Considering the example after example of mismanagement and abuse that has occurred, it is time the Department of Interior get this beast under control and the quickest way to do that is to comply with the clear intent of Congress.

Smokey and the welfare bandits In late May, Secretary of Agriculture Perdue announced the USDA had decided to end a U.S. Forest Service work program that trains at-risk youth.

The program — known for op-

erating the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers — was to be transferred to the Labor Department. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christianson told employees, “Perdue has a goal of efficient and effective government,” adding that the secretary believes the mission of the program better aligns with the Labor Department. In a letter to the Labor Department, Perdue wrote the move would help the Forest Service prioritize its “core natural resource mission to improve the condition and resilience of our nation’s forests, and step away from activities and programs that are not essential to that core mission.”

As part of the move, nine of the 25 job corps centers were to be shut down.

Hooray for Secretary Perdue.

I’ve had personal experience with this program, as they built a trick tank on our allotment.

First, there was the Forest Service. We asked they put the trick tank on a ridge where we could have gravity flow in all directions. Instead, the Forest Service had them place the tank where the flow was in only

one direction. Thus began a huge waste of resources. Then there was the construction of the trick tank, which seemed like it took forever. We noticed there was never the same number of job corps members at the worksite. We also took note that of those present, not all of them worked. Some would be sitting under a tree, while others remained in the government van that had brought them there. Finally, my cousin asked the foreman why this was the case. He replied that it was totally up to each job corps member whether or not they left their rooms in Mountainair and reported for work on any particular day. He also said that after they reached the worksite, it was up to each job corps member if they worked the full day, a few hours or not at all.

This was my first exposure as a youngster to a government jobs program. And here we are six decades later with essential-

Baxter BLACK ON THE EDGE OF COMMON SENSE www.baxterblack.com

Talkin’ Dirty

I

n this column I have often mentioned scours, abscesses, big tits, bad bags, cancer eyes, foot rot, slurry pits, afterbirth, retained placenta, castration, heat cycles, sheep pellets and snotty noses.

Over the years I have received the occasional letter castigating me for talkin’ dirty.

It is never my intention to offend the sensibilities of my readers. My poems and stories are always written with the idea that people who read them regularly are livestock people. In

real life I’m not comfortable cussing or telling blue stories in mixed company and I’m no different writin’ this column.

So, if I’m talkin’ to a cattlewoman I assume she knows what bull semen is. That she has had scourin’ calves in her house and knows what it means when someone says it’s rainin’ like a cow peein’ on a flat rock.

Those subjects are part of her lifestyle. I feel no need to ask her to leave if I’m doing a rectal exam on a cow.

Farm kids are the best example. They are what we have taught them and what they have experienced. Fifteen years old who are learning to artificially inseminate learn the proper words for the anatomy involved. Uterus had never been a dirty word to them.

FUR in less than a year, faux fur can take more than 1,000 years to break down.

Advocates of banning real fur who champion faux fur as “sustainable” are misleading at best.

This is especially obvious when it’s pointed out that real fur is already sustainable. Fur comes from a renewable resource, whether from farms or as part of wildlife population management. This is not to mention that a fur coat can be passed down through the generations—quite different from the faux fur of fast fashion that only lasts a season or two.

Some people don’t want to wear fur, and that’s absolutely their choice. But why should state lawmakers meddle in the personal decisions of Californians who want to buy the real McCoy? As a new Gallup poll documents, a majority of Americans view natural fur as morally acceptable.

If Sacramento starts being the fashion police on

ly the same wasteful entity.

Alas, as I finish writing this column, Secretary Perdue has withdrawn his proposal for further review. The Trump administration received pushback on the issue from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) and the labor union that represents Forest Service employees.

Republicans have joined with unions to prevent “efficient and effective” government. No wonder we are in such a mess at the national level. We have gravity flow in only one direction – more spending and more waste.

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and 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

Children on a dairy farm learn to spot cows that are in heat. Washing the bag or tit dip does send them into fits of teenage giggling.

Helping a newborn get his first meal is not a titillating experience. Mucking out the horse barn is hard work but it’s not ‘ooky’!

All of us who spend our lives tending livestock are aware that our daily working vocabulary is not always proper amongst people from outside the real world (gentiles, I call them). When the new preacher, who hails from Chicago, is introduced to us, we don’t immediately invite him to the oyster fry next Tuesday.

I would guess the people who are most conscious of this “cowboy vocabulary” are new spouses marrying into a livestock raising family. I’ll bet they could write a book!

So, to those of you sensitive folks who read my column with some reservations, or have neighbors who sit at your dinner table and talk about how to get cow manure stains out of a good shirt, I beg your indulgence. It’s not dirty to us…it’s just grass and water. www.baxterblack.com

continued from page six

fur, it won’t stop there. The animal activists who want to ban fur also want to ban Californians from buying leather and wool — as well as meat, cheese, milk and other food that comes from animals. Does the state legislature really want to get into the business of legislating morality when it comes to consumer choice?

Californians want animals to be treated well, and there is an opportunity for a compromise in this bill: requiring all fur in California to be humanely certified by an independent third-party body under a program that is strictly designed for animal welfare and sustainability. California would be the first state in the nation with such a requirement. Even the proposed bill to ban plastic bottles in hotels still allows for consumer choice by letting hotels provide these amenities if guests request them. Why can’t we do the same here?

Unfortunately, Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, the ban’s sole sponsor, has publicly rejected this reasonable compromise. Friedman’s rejection of any middle ground may win over some animal liberation radicals, but it’s hard to believe that’s an approach most Californians want.

One thing’s for sure: it’s difficult to see how people being forced to switch to fake fur is going to actually improve living conditions for the animals on land and sea that rely on a pollution-free ecosystem to thrive.

Banning fur would be two steps back for California, dealing a blow not just to the environment but also to consumer choice.

Will Coggin is the managing director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group fighting for the rights of the American consumer.

July 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 7

Selling residential, farm, ranch, commercial and relocating properties.

COLETTA RAY

Pioneer Realty 1304 Pile Street, Clovis, NM 88101

REAL ESTATE GUIDE

Bar M Real Estate

SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237 Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

575-799-9600 Direct 575.935.9680 Office 575.935.9680 Fax coletta@plateautel.net www.clovisrealestatesales.com

WE NEED LISTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF AG PROPERTIES LARGE OR SMALL! ■ PRICE REDUCED! MALPAIS OF NM – ■ PECOS RIVER RANCH – Guadalupe Co., Lincoln/Socorro Counties, 37.65 sections +/- NM – Scenic, 968 +/- ac. deeded & 519 (13,322 ac. +/- Deeded, 8,457 ac. +/- BLM +/- state lease acres, live water ranch on both Lease, 2,320 ac. +/- State Lease) good, useable sides of the Pecos River (strong flow daily) improvements & water, some irrigation w/water between Santa Rosa & Ft. Sumner; wildlife, rights for 2 pivot sprinklers, on pvmt. & all-weather paired w/water & cattle for the buyer looking road. for top tier assets in a rugged New Mexico ■ UNION CO., NM – 955 ac. +/- w/excellent ranch! improvements for a stocker or cow/calf operation, ■ LOGAN/NARA VISA, NM – 980 ac. +/modern ¼ mi. sprinkler, all-weather roads on three w/940.6 ac. CRP, irrigated in the past, land lays sides, 374 ac. +/- CRP. good & is located on the north side of Hwy. 54.

■ MIAMI SPECIAL – Colfax Co., NM – 40 ac. ■ TOP OF THE WORLD – Union Co., NM – +/- w/irrigated pastures, great cattle working & 5,025.76 +/- ac. of choice grassland w/statehandling facilities & a beautiful home, on pvmt., of-the-art working pens, recently remodeled irrigated from Miami Lake. bunk house, barbed wire fences in very good ■ WE CAN NOW DIVIDE – THE PAJARITO to new condition, well watered, on pvmt.

RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM as follows: 3501.12 ■ SANTA ROSA, NM – 78 ac. +/- heavily Buenawater Vistawell Realty at 575-226-0671 ac. +/- of grassland w/aCall commercial improved for horses, cattleor&the otherlisting livestockagent w/ Bohmof575-760-9847, or new Melody 575-825-1291. located adjacent to I40 Lori w/capability producing virtually barns,Sandberg pens, cross fences etc., on pictures onwater, MLS w/internet or www.buenavista-nm.com large incomes together w/aMany great good set of pens, a city access to the front gate.

17,000 gal. water storage tank, overhead cake ■ OTERO CO., NM – 120 scenic ac. +/- on bin, hay barn & other stock wells. 700.89 ac. the Rio Penasco is surrounded by Lincoln +/- of grassland can be purchased in addition National Forest lands covered in Pines & to the 3501.12 ac. The beautiful, virtually new opening up to a grass covered meadow custom built home w/all amenities and a large along 3,300 feet +/- of the Rio Penasco. This virtually new metal barn w/an apartment inside property is an ideal location to build a legacy on 40 ac. can be purchased separately or w/the mountain getaway home. ranch. Adjoins the Boylan Ranch if more acreage ■ TEXLINE SPECIAL – 472.4 ac. irr., on is desired.

Dalhart/Clayton hwy. in New Mexico, adjoins ■ THE BOYLAN RANCH – Newkirk, NM - 2,360 the Grassland w/Organic Potential. ac. +/- w/useable house & pens, a large domestic ■ GRASSLAND W/ORGANIC POTENTIAL well for lvstk./wildlife watering w/potential for – Union Co., NM - adjoins the Texline Special, commercial water sales, all weather road. Adjoins 927.45 ac. +/-, on pvmt. the Pajarito Creek Ranch if more acreage is desired.

■ FT. SUMNER, NM – 17 ac. +/- w/water ■ BROWN CO., TX – near Brookesmith - 424.79 rights currently planted in alfalfa & a beautiful ac. +/-, very scenic ranch w/one mi. of Clear Creek, home built in 2007 w/3 bdrms., 3 bathrooms, highly improved ranch w/fencing, well watered, an oversize garage & a 24X50 metal shop. home, hunting cabin & abundant wildlife.

505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax

AsLow LowAsAs 3% As 4.5% OPWKCAP 2.9% OPWKCAP 2.9%

775/752-3040

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott - Broker Krystal M. Nelson - NM Qualifying Broker 800-933-9698 • 5:00am/10:00pm www.scottlandcompany.com

Donald Brown

Qualifying Broker

AG LOANS AGLAND LAND LOANS

Paul Bottari, Broker

www.bottarirealty.com

On the Plaza

116 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

Bottari Realty Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY

INTEREST RATESAS AS LOW 3% INTEREST RATES LOW ASAS 4.5% Payments Scheduledon on2525 Years Payments Scheduled Years

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista Realty

Joe Stubblefield & Associates 13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX 806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Michael Perez Associates Nara Visa, NM • 575/403-7970

Qualifying Broker: A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www.buenavista-nm.com

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 83 acre wood home with barns, meadows and woods. Fronts State Rd. $545,000 • 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

Rural Properties around Portales, NM 1242 NM 480 - Nice home on 59.7 acres, grass 427 S Rrd P 1/2 - Large nice home, lots of barns 24+ ac 1694 S Rrd 4, Great home, barns, cattle pens, location 2344 S Rrd K east of Dora, NM, great - Near wind farms All properties excellent homes & can have horses, etc.

See these and other properties at www.buenavista-nm.com

• 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 $1.25 million.

• 840 Immaculate, Hunt Co, TX. Ranch. Pastures, 40 tanks, and lakes. Beautiful home, barns, and other improvements. Some minerals, game galore. All for $1.35 million.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCH PROPERTY 31 years in the ranch business - see www.ranch-lands.com for videos & brochures

DUANE & DIXIE McGARVA RANCH: approx. 985 acres Likely, CA. with about 600+ acre gravity flood irrigated pastures PLUS private 542 AU BLM permit. About 425 acres so of the irrigated are level to flood excellent pastures with balance good flood irrigated pastures. NO PUMPING COST! Dryland is perfect for expansion to pivot irrigated alfalfa if desired. Plus BLM permit for 540 AU is fenced into 4 fields on about 18,000 acres only 7 miles away. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $3,125,000 BEAVER CREEK RANCH: about 82,000 acres - with 2,700 deeded acres plus contiguous USFS & BLM permits for 450 pair; 580+- acres irrigated alfalfa, pasture, and meadow from Beaver Creek water rights and one irrigation well. 3 homes, 2 hay barns, 4 feedlots each w/ 250 ton barns, 2 large reservoirs, can run up to 500-600 cows YEAR ROUND. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $5,400,000.

BEAR CREEK RANCH: Approx. 1,278 acres winter range ground and recreational property. Located on Bear Creek and accessed from South Cow Creek Valley Road. Should be great hunting for deer, wild turkey, wild pigs, quail & owner states good trout fishing in Bear Creek. Deeded access easement thru neighbor ranches.

No improvements & very private inside the ranch.

Now only $700 per acre - $894,600

BILL WRIGHT, SHASTA LAND SERVICES, INC. 530-941-8100 • DRE# 00963490 • www.ranch-lands.com

SULTEMEIER RANCH – First time offering of a ranch that has been owned and operated by the same family for over 70 years. Fifteen miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln County. 11, 889 Deeded Acres, 1,640 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State Lease Acres. Grazing Capacity estimated at 300 AUYL. Water provided by five wells and pipelines. Improved with two residences, barns and corrals. The ranch had a good summer with abundant grass. Good mule deer habitat. Call for a brochure or view on my website.

Price: $4,400,000 $4,100,000

U N DEARCT CONTR

19TH STREET FARM – Located just outside the city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres with 5.7 acres of senior artesian water rights. Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, horse barn with stalls, enclosed hay barn with tack room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000 COCHISE RANCH – Ranch property located just west of Roswell, NM along and adjacent to U.S. Highway 70/380 to Ruidoso, NM. Comprised of 6,607 deeded acres and 80 acres of NM State Lease acres. Water is provided by three solar wells and pipelines. Fenced into several pastures and small traps suitable for a registered cattle operation. Improvements include two sets of pens, shop, and hay barn. Price: $2,500,000 Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237 www.ranchesnm.com

O’NEILL LAND, llc P.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347 land@swranches.com • www.swranches.com

CHICO CREEK RANCH, Colfax County, NM. NEW LISTING. 6,404.26 +/- Total Acres, Located approximately 10 miles east of Springer New Mexico. 3,692.60 +/- deeded acres with balance in state lease. Excellent grass and water. Two plus miles of the Chico Creek meandering through the center of the property.

Additional wells and dirt tanks. Nice historic head quarters privately located with shade trees and excellent views of the property. Shipping pens in central portion of property. $2,837,318 WAGON MOUND RANCH, Mora/Harding Counties, NM. 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres, a substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim into Canadian River. Has modern water system located 17 miles east of Wagon Mound off pavement then 3 miles on county road. Two bedroom historic house, once a stage stop. Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk. $2,710,000.

MIAMI HORSE HEAVEN, Colfax County, NM. Very private approx. 4,800 sq ft double walled adobe 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home with many custom features, 77.50 +/- deeded acres with water rights and large 7 stall barn, insulated metal shop with own septic. Would suit indoor growing operation, large hay barn/equipment shed. $1,375,000.

FRENCH TRACT FARM, 491.55 +/- deeded acres, Colfax County, NM two pivots, some gated pipe, 371 irrigation shares in AVID, House, barn, close to exit 419 off I25 on HWY 58. All in one contiguous parcel with access on all sides. $700,000.

CIMARRON ON THE RIVER, Colfax County, NM. 7.338 +/deeded acres with 4.040 acre-feet per annum out of the Maxwell-Clutton Ditch. Custom country-chic 2,094 +/- sq ft home. Owns both sides of river in places. Horse/cow/chicken/ vegetable garden/greenhouse/orchard set up. Country living at it’s finest, in town, but in a world of your own. Very special on river. Appointment only. $650,000.

RATON MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Colfax County, NM. 97.68 +/- deeded acres in 2 parcels with excellent home, big shop, wildlife, a true million dollar view at the end of a private road. $489,000. Also listed with the house and one parcel for $375,000.

MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality 2,715 sqft adobe home, barn, grounds, fruit trees and mature trees. Extremely private setting. REDUCED $365,000. This is a must see. Also listed with same house with 10 +/- deeded acres for $310,000.

MAXWELL 19.50 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality extensive remodeled two bedroom, one bathroom home with water rights, outbuildings for livestock in NE NM. Great south facing porch for sipping iced tea cooling off at 6,000 ft elevation.

Would make great summer getaway and winter ski base. $260,000.

MORA COUNTY 160 +/- ACRES, 12 miles south east of Wagon Mound, remote, excellent solar well good mix of sub irrigated and range. Small cabin. $154,000.

Page 8

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

Texas Tech Celebrates Funding, Legislative Approval for School of Veterinary Medicine

T

exas Tech University System officials recognized all who played a part in helping secure funding from the Texas Legislature that will help establish the Texas Tech University School of Veterinary Medicine, a first for the State of Texas in more than a century in mid June.

On June 15, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law the state budget for the next two years, which includes $17.35 million appropriated for the

School of Veterinary Medicine in Amarillo that will go toward operational needs in order to get the school up and running.

The appropriation included language directing Texas Tech to use funds to initiate curriculum design and development, faculty recruitment and other processes necessary to attain accreditation of the program.

Donors and civic leaders already have pledged $90 million toward infrastructure and construction of the School of Vet-

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

g•u•i•d•e

erinary Medicine on the site of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) in Amarillo.

“The Texas Tech School of Veterinary Medicine represents a historic opportunity to serve the needs of our state, and reflects the efforts of many people, who recognized a significant veterinary need in Texas and supported this important initiative,” said Lawrence Schovanec, Texas Tech President.

“The support for the School of Veterinary Medicine by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Speaker Dennis Bonnen, and the Texas Legislature, will enable Texas Tech University to enhance opportunities for students in Texas seeking careers as veterinarians. We are particularly grateful for the leadership of our Lubbock delegation, including Sen. Charles Perry and Reps. Dustin Burrows and John Frullo, for their leadership and their commitment to this important cause that benefits not only West Texas, but our entire state.”

The Texas Tech School of Veterinary Medicine in Amarillo will offer innovative, worldclass curriculum to address the critical shortage of veterinarians, which is threatening small, regional and agricultural communities throughout Texas. It is a cost-efficient school that will attract students with a passion

for rural veterinary care and graduate career-ready veterinarians to serve the state and its multi-billion-dollar agriculture industry.

“This was one of the most consequential legislative sessions in the history of Texas Tech and the Texas Tech University System,” said Tedd L. Mitchell, Texas Tech University System chancellor and president of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

“Securing legislative backing for the new Texas Tech veterinary school in Amarillo was made possible by countless groups and individuals who committed a tremendous amount of time, energy and passion to achieve this historic milestone. We thank Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Speaker Dennis Bonnen and all members of the Legislature – particularly our West Texas delegation – for supporting this important priority. I also wish to thank everyone who played a part in this success.”

Texas Tech’s model will recruit and select students who will most likely practice and succeed in rural communities and utilize a curriculum focused on the competencies and skills necessary to be successful in a rural practice. Also, in order to keep student debt down, the model eliminates the need for a costly teaching hospital and,

instead, places veterinary students in cooperative rural practices to provide clinical learning through collaboration.

“Amarillo and Texas Tech have long been partners in the mission of serving the needs of this region and providing much-needed education and care for our citizens,” said Amarillo Mayor Ginger Nelson.

“Legislative approval of the Texas Tech University School of Veterinary Medicine is arguably the most impactful initiative for Amarillo in decades, and it will have ripple effects felt statewide. We look forward to all the opportunities that will come from this veterinary school and strengthened partnership.”

The School of Veterinary Medicine anticipates opening in the fall of 2021 and will enroll a target class size of 60 students as well as providing opportunities for other professional students.

With the crucial startup funding and legislative guidance secure, the School of Veterinary Medicine’s professional degree program must receive approval from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). The Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree program was submitted to the THECB in February and is currently under review, with a decision anticipated within the next 6-8 months.

Hiring Employees in the Activist Age SOURCE: ANIMALAGALLIANCE.ORG

575/638-5434 angus

CORRIENTE

Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. 70+ Charolais Bulls 200+ Angus Bulls

— BULL SALE — FEBRUARY 15, 2020 At The Ranch NE Of Estelline, Texas

www.bradley3ranch.com M. L.: 940/585-6471 James: 940/585-6171.

Ranch-Raised Bulls For Ranchers Since 1955

RED ANGUS

BRANGUS

R.L. Robbs

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS

520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240 Willcox, AZ

209/727-3335

BEEFMASTER

210.732.3132 • beefmasters.org 118 W. BANDERA ROAD BOERNE, TX 78006

A

re the employees working on your farm or ranch there to help care for your animals? Do their goals align with your business? Unfortunately, it’s a common strategy for some animal rights activist organizations to have individuals go “undercover” on farms to record videos that can be taken out of context, stage scenes of animal mistreatment or encourage abuse to record it without doing anything to stop it.

The Animal Ag Alliance, a non-profit dedicated to bridging the communication gap between farm and fork for more than thirty years, monitors animal rights activists and offers these tips regarding hiring: • It is vital to thoroughly screen applicants, verify infor-

mation and check all references.

• Be cautious of individuals who try to use a college ID, have out of state license plates or are looking for short-term work.

• During the interview, look for answers that seem overly rehearsed or include incorrect use of farm terminology.

• Search for all applicants online to see if they have public social media profiles or websites/ blogs. Look for any questionable content or connections to activist organizations.

• Require all employees to sign your animal care policy.

Provide training and updates on proper animal handling training.

• Require employees to report any mishandling to management immediately.

• Watch out for red flags, such as coming to work unusu-

ally early or staying late and going into areas of the farm not required for their job.

Always trust your gut – if something doesn’t seem right, explore it further. Be vigilant and never cut corners on your hiring process, even if you need to hire someone quickly. Doing your homework on every job applicant may be time-consuming, but it can ultimately save your business’ reputation. As always, it is important to work with local legal counsel to ensure compliance with federal and state laws for your hiring process.

You can find farm security resources and background information on animal rights activist organizations at www.AnimalAgAlliance.org or reach out to the Alliance at Info@AnimalAgAlliance.org or 703-562-5160.

Undercover Activist May Have Incited Abuse at Fair Oaks Farms: Media Reports

BY RITA JANE GABBETT MEATINGPLACE.COM

A

witness has stated that Fair Oaks Farms employees who were video recording undercover for the animal activist group Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) coerced their coworkers to perform the acts they recorded, according to multiple media reports.

The Rensselaer Republican quoted Newton County Prosecuting Attorney Jeff Drinski as saying, “A third party witness has come forward to corroborate the allegations made by a suspect that the ARM employee

encouraged or coerced the behavior depicted in the portions of the video that have been released publicly. Detectives continue to investigate these claims through additional interviews and written discovery.”

The ARM video sparked an investigation and has so far resulted in a suspect being arrested last week and outstanding warrants for two more suspected of animal cruelty at Fair Oaks Farms, a dairy producer and popular agritourism destination in northern Indiana.

Fair Oaks Farms founder Mike McCloskey, in a statement responding to the footage

earlier this month, said he was disgusted by the actions seen and took full responsibility. Four of five workers in the initial video released were employees of the farm, and the fifth worked for a transportation company.

The company fired the employees identified in the video.

In a pledge of accountability posted on its website, Fair Oaks Farms said it is commissioning an independent auditor to conduct frequent, unannounced audits at the farm. It is also installing camera surveillance and hiring a full-time animal welfare specialist to manage the company’s practices.

July 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

The View FROM THE BACK SIDE

Ancient Agriculture and a Wall

BY BARRY DENTON

(The views expressed in this column are not necessarily the views of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association or this publication.)

I

have an entire list of things that I wonder about, so I will just give you the short version in this article; otherwise, you would be reading for days. I was hoping that maybe, some of you would have answers for me.

Rarely do I analyze events, but today it seems to be in my head.

I have noticed there are many thousands of painted pictures of Jesus Christ. That only makes sense because he has been the most popular figure in the world down through the ages. In the majority of those old pictures, there is always a sheep or a shepherd included.

Now, I realize that sheep were the livestock of choice in his area and artists are trying to be accurate in their depictions, but did he ever see an old ornery cow? Just a minute, there was supposed to be an ox in the manger scene when he was born in Bethlehem. Obviously, he saw a bovine then.

There are mentions of cattle throughout the Bible, but not near as many as there are of sheep. I assume that sheep were the most economically feasible livestock at the time. Besides, I would imagine that they would have been more convenient to sacrifice at the temple. From the way I read it, you had to sacrifice a lamb twice a year if you were a peasant family. I believe you were required to purchase the lamb from the temple after you got there. That is probably how the priests maintained the temple. Obviously, they had to have their own shepherds to maintain the temple herds.

My question is, did a temple shepherd make more or less than an independent shepherd?

Were their perks? What was their average wage? Did they get paid at all? Isn’t it funny that part of this same scenario, was repeated with the Spanish Missions in California and the southwest many years later only with cattle? Think about the cattle herds, vaqueros, and the dons that ended up controlling the area. Can you imagine if the 23rd Psalm started out “The Lord is my Cowboy; I shall not want…

Another man in history I was always curious about was the Greek, Xenophon. He is credited with having written the first book on horse training. Now he says in his book that it was Simon who first wrote about horse training, but Simon’s work cannot be found, so onto Xenophon.

If you are not familiar with him he lived from 430BC to almost 354BC and was widely respected as a mercenary, his-

torian, horseman, philosopher, and ardent student of Socrates.

Keep in mind that he made his living for many years on the back of a horse. He fought and led many military campaigns.

Xenophon is highly thought of as a great military tactician still today.

After reading his treatise on horse training I am convinced that he was half horse himself and knew them inside and out.

Most of what he talks about concerning horses is still in use today. Look at how many hundreds of years we have spent training the horse.

No wonder we are good at it, and our horses are so close to our heart. One of Xenophon’s greatest quotes still rings true, “The horse is a thing of beauty…..none will tire of looking at him as long as he displays himself in his splendor.”

I suggest you read his book as there is so much good knowledge about horses. However, like anyone you may find a few things that you don’t agree with, but the majority of it you will.

Things change as time goes on, but basics really do not.

Probably the first thing you ought to learn about training horses is this little tidbit: “Now, whereas the gods have given men the power of instructing one another in their duty by word of mouth, it is obvious that you can teach a horse nothing by word of mouth.

If, however, you reward him when he behaves as you wish, and punish him when he is disobedient, he will best learn his duty.”

He also goes on to talk about the value of the chirp and the cluck when training a horse. You can learn a lot from this man of Athens, so give it a go. There are good reasons to be an occasional historian. One is to continue good ideas, and the other is to eliminate bad ones. You will learn many things reading the works of Xenophon.

I always read that the Ancient Egyptians were great farmers. Their farming knowledge is astounding and there is a lot written about it. Those guys built their calendar around the Nile River and basically divided it into 3 seasons.

The first season was known as the Aknet and was the time of flooding. The second season they called Peret, and that was the growing season. The third season was known as the Shemu, and it was the harvest season. This was a very simple system, but one that worked, as they tended to be very successful at it.

Wheat was their primary crop along with barley, flax, melons, figs, vegetables, and fruit such as grapes and pomegranates.

Of course, they made their famous linens from the flax they grew. They figured out how to

make beer from the wheat and barley. Since farming was just as seasonal then as it is now, they took time during the flooding season to drink beer, and repair equipment. Since they used lots of slaves it was probably a good time to let them rest up some before the next Peret.

However, there are many accounts where the farmers just gave them other jobs during the Aknet. I am curious about that.

I wonder if the farmers saw the advantage of treating them well so they would work well or if they had so many that they just worked them into the ground?

Whatever their system, it was successful and innovative for many years.

Let’s fast forward to present

Page 9 day and our quest to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico. I think the fact that it works is indisputable. Take the wall between El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Chihuahua.

The murder rate is 10 times more in the Mexican city than in the American city and they are only a few feet apart divided by a wall. It is a pretty simple concept to comprehend. Of course, those infected with the social disease of extreme liberalism cannot understand facts, only platitudes that empower themselves.

We have gone from times where we were all Americans first, putting the general welfare of the country before our

own agendas. What happened to that America? Times have changed and we have a political party in the United States that gains power only through massive illegal immigration. Independent farmers, ranchers, cowboys, horseshoers, veterinarians, and other agricultural folks that have been involved in being Americans for generations are now in jeopardy as evidenced by the newest government in New Mexico.

The new history will not be good if we allow these politicians to become successful in our oppression. The bankrupt and highly taxed state of California should be plenty of a warning. We cannot let this nonsense continue.

Feds Fight Sierra Club at 9th Circuit

BY ELLEN M. GILMER, E&E NEWS REPORTER

L

awyers for the Sierra Club and the federal government spent an hour and a half fighting over President Trump’s border wall in late June.

In the final minutes of arguments before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Department attorney James Burnham laid out stark contrasts between the two sides’ goals.

“Here, the government’s interest is in stopping drug smuggling at the first- and third-highest drug trafficking corridors on the international border with Mexico, where hundreds of pounds of drugs are coming through every year,” he said.

The Sierra Club’s interest, he continued, “appears to be hiking and fishing and the like on the international border with Mexico in drug smuggling corridors where there are already vehicle barriers.”

That’s one way to frame the litigation. The Sierra Club describes it as a critical fight over the scope of executive power and one with serious onthe-ground impacts.

“The catastrophe of Trump’s national emergency declaration goes beyond the ideological; the harm of illegally transferring billions of dollars from the military to fund more border walls will be concrete and devastating,” Dan Millis, who heads the group’s Borderlands program, said in a statement.

The question for the 9th Circuit is whether to allow the Trump administration to start work on two border wall projects that were temporarily halted by a lower court last month.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction for work near Yuma, Ariz., and southern New Mexico after finding the Trump administration may have violated the law when the president diverted money from certain military accounts to fund the wall (Greenwire, May 28).

The 9th Circuit is considering whether to suspend that injunction while it takes a closer look at the legal issues.

Second-guessing the experts?

The three-judge panel had tough questions for both sides. It wrestled with whether the Sierra Club’s claims should be reviewed under the Constitution or a provision of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition have argued that Trump violated Section 8005 of the law, which allows the

government to transfer money from certain accounts to fund “higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements,” but not where Congress has already denied such a request.

Congress already rejected the Trump administration’s request for extensive border wall funding, leading to the longest government shutdown in the nation’s history. The president then issued an emergency order to move the money from the Defense Department.

Government lawyers say the border projects underway now are different from what was requested from Congress and therefore don’t violate Section 8005.

Senior Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, questioned that logic, noting it would allow the administration to simply repackage the border wall as an outdoor movie screen or safety fencing for children to avoid triggering the law’s prohibition on bucking a congressional denial.

The government’s many legal arguments included a contention that the court must view the Sierra Club’s case as a statutory fight, not a constitutional one, and a separate assertion that the group’s claims fall outside the “zone of interest” of Section 8005 — meaning they can’t be litigated.

“Or what I think the administration might be doing is read 8005 out altogether by basically saying, ‘Well, you can only bring a challenge under 8005 and nobody can bring a challenge under 8005, so we’re unchallengeable,’” Clifton said.

Senior Judge Randy Smith, meanwhile, said the case could instead be treated as an Administrative Procedure Act dispute. There, the Bush appointee would be inclined to give the Trump administration deference.

“It seems to me that I’m second-guessing the agency charged to determine what is best for the national interest,” he told American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Dror Ladin, who represented the Sierra Club.

A decision is expected in the coming weeks, or the court could ask the parties to submit additional briefs.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club has asked the lower court to block other border projects in California and Arizona, which would include sections in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; San Pedro River; San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge; and El Centro, Calif., valley.

Other border wall litigation is pending in district courts in California, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Mayfield Ranch Partnership named 2019 AICA Commercial Producer of the Year

A

t the 2019 American - International Charolais Association Spring Board Meeting awards banquet, Mayfield Ranch Partnership was named 2019 AICA Commercial Producer of the year. Mayfield Ranches Partnership is a family owned and operated cow-calf ranch located in southwest New Mexico.

“We purchase yearling Charolais bulls and pasture them on irrigated fields adding supplements to enhance growth,” J.H. (Butch) Mayfield. “While selecting bulls, we look for good weaning weights and grading topped off by sound conformation.”

Mayfield Ranchers Partnership’s repeat buyers confirm the success of their operation. They have sold their calves through Superior Livestock Auction since 1990 building a reputation. The Charolais breed fits into their program and they plan to continue utilizing Charolais genetics in their operation. Mayfield Ranch Partnership was nominated by T. Lane Grau of Grau Charolais, Grady, New Mexico.

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

Applications available for 44 Farms International Beef Cattle Academy Beef industry professionals can apply now to be part of the Class of 2019-2020.

A

pplications are open for the 44 Farms International Beef Cattle Academy. Now in its second year, the academy offers a one-year, comprehensive online certificate program to beef industry professionals through Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.

“Our inaugural class is wrapping up their learning experience, and student feedback so far has been tremendous,” says Reinaldo Cooke, program coordinator and associate professor at Texas A&M University. “We worked to develop the strongest course offerings paired with industry-leading experts, and we anticipate our second program year to be even stronger.”

Applications are available online now and are due by August

2. Class size for the prestigious academy is limited in order to offer an exclusive and customized learning experience. Prospective students should apply as soon as possible.

Comprehensive coursework The 44 Farms International Beef Cattle Academy consists of eight courses at 30 learning hours per course. Courses are taught online with pre-recorded lectures.

“Each week there is an interactive session allowing for one-on-one student-instructor interaction,” says Ky Pohler, program coordinator and assistant professor at Texas A&M University. “Interactive sessions are customized based on the needs and demands of students.”

Courses are taught by world-renowned researchers

and educators. Course topics include:

Cattle welfare and behavior • Forage production and utilization • Nutritional management and requirements • Reproductive physiology and management • Breeding and genetics • Immunology and herd health management • Safety of beef products • Carcass and beef quality • Following online coursework, the academy concludes with an optional residency period and graduation ceremony in College Station, Texas.

Passionate students “The academy covers the most up to date and emerging information in the industry,” says Pohler. “An ideal student

candidate is eager to learn and is passionate about driving the industry forward.”

Applicants should have a foundational understanding of beef cattle production and speak fluent English.

Potential students could include: • Advanced beef industry professionals • Technical services and marketing professionals • Graduate or professional students • Government officials • Breed association personnel • Progressive farmers and ranchers, etc.

The academy’s online learning format allows anyone from across the globe to participate.

Unparalleled value “Students get leading-edge education from world-re-

nowned instructors, without the traditional cost of higher education,” says Cooke. “When students apply course learnings to their own operations and businesses, that’s where the value really starts to add up quickly.”

The current international academy class is completing their coursework this summer.

Students have provided the following feedback regarding the coursework and academy experience: • “The International Beef Cattle Academy was an excellent investment for myself and my operation. It provided an efficient delivery of an extraordinary amount of material that, at a minimum, enhances your awareness of issues and in some cases makes you conversant in them.” – United States student • “For me and my operation, International Beef Cattle Academy has been a real game changer. The materials and classes have opened my mind for so many opportunities and new approaches in our business.” – South American student • “Prior to the commencement of this course, I would have never entertained the thought of feeding grain to my animals. Now I appreciate that the judicious use of grain and supplements to complement what is missing from the animal’s diet in my pasture-based setting is essential to animal health and well-being.” – Australian student • “We can bring our operations and daily routines into the course. The exchange of information has been extremely valuable.” – South American student • “I was confident the material would be very high quality.

What surprised me and exceeded by expectations was the involvement of the instructors and other students.” – South American student The next academy begins in September 2019 and continues through August 2020. Apply today at animalscience.tamu.edu/ ibca/ or email ibca@tamu.edu for more information.

Texas A&M, established in 1876 as the first public university in Texas, is one of the nation’s largest universities with more than 66,000 students and more than 440,000 living alumni residing in over 150 countries around the world. A tier-one university, Texas A&M holds the rare triple land-, sea- and spacegrant designation. Research conducted at Texas A&M represented annual expenditures of more than $905.4 million in fiscal year 2017. Texas A&M’s research creates new knowledge that provides basic, fundamental and applied contributions resulting, in many cases, in economic benefits to the state, nation and world. The school’s Lead by Example campaign is a comprehensive effort to raise $4 billion by the year 2020, making it the largest higher education campaign in Texas history and the second largest conducted nationally by a public university.

Aggies are known for their deep commitment to the success of each other and their strong desire to serve.

Livestock Market Digest

Collectors Corner

by Jim Olson

The Basics

B

uy what appeals to you.

Buy what you like. Buy what speaks to your heart.

If you are collecting with the hope that eventually it is also an investment, get educated and buy the best you can!

“Collectible” means different things to different people. There are many “collectors” out there, but at the end of the day, most of their collections would not sell for much if they really needed to sell, or passed on. And that is fine—if you are collecting for the sake of collecting. It’s kind of like the guy who collected leaves, he really thought he was raking it in!

They say the difference between a collector and a hoarder is discrimination. There is a lot of truth in that! An advanced collector will only buy the best they can. But we all have to start somewhere.

In the early stages of building a collection, we tend to focus on volume. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a good way to get an education. Speaking of education, it is a good suggestion to learn all you can about the items you are collecting.

Talk to reputable dealers, other collectors, join clubs if possible, read books. It is probably better to spend $100 on books about what you are collecting (and actually study them) than it is to go out and buy a $100 item. When you are ready to start making purchases, always buy the best you can with what ever funds you feel comfortable spending.

“I believe that everyone collects. I think collecting is in our blood as humans,” Lynda Resnick, entrepreneur.

Remember, there is more to collecting than just buying items.

There is the education aspect as mentioned above, the thrill of the hunt, the warm feeling of satisfaction, the camaraderie with other collectors and, if you have collected well, the monetary reward at the end of the day—if you ever need, or want to sell.

A few basis things to remember when collecting: • Start small and collect what you like. As you progress, your tastes and knowledge will evolve and refine.

• Quality is important.

• Things made to be collectible—rarely are. This includes pretty much all kinds of commemorative and mass produced items.

• If your “collectible” says “Made in China” or “Made in Taiwan” on it — it’s not a collectible. It is a decor item, or even a cheap knock-off.

• There is a difference between collectibles and decor.

Decor is rarely collectible, but collectibles can sometimes make great decor.

• Things that have survived a long period of time and remain in good condition are generally sought after.

• Condition is usually a big factor of value. Restoration is generally not desirable in most cases.

• Rarity (or uniqueness) is

also a big factor of value. Things whereby only a few have survived the test of time, or items that stand apart are generally sought after.

• Things do not have to be old to be collectible. Contemporary art by well-known artist as an example. Beware of fads however.

• Always deal with knowledgeable and reputable sellers who will stand behind what they sell. At least until you become expert enough to know more about what you are doing and are willing to take a chance if it turns out to be a bad deal.

“The collector attempts always to acquire the best, and his knowledge of what is best is always widening. His is the task of judging between degrees of perfection,” Arthur Davison Ficke (1883–1945), American poet and collector.

Remember, it’s not always about the money.

I recently dealt with an elderly man who had a large collection of statues he had collected over a period of many years. He was at the point where he needed to sell them, so he sent them to auction. At the end of the day, his check was for less than he had spent on them over all those years. He was down on himself for “Making a bad investment.”

I asked him what he would have done with that money over the years if he had not bought all those statues. He admitted he probably would have just spent it and would not have anything to show for it now. I asked if he had enjoyed decorating his home with his collection all those years.

He affirmed he had. I asked him that if he had gone down to the home decor store and bought generic decorations for his home (likely mass produced in some foreign country), if he thought they would have had any value at auction when he got ready to downsize. He said no, they probably would have just been thrown away or sold for a few bucks at a yard sale. He then looked at it differently and felt there was definitely value in the enjoyment he had gotten from the collecting all those years. The fact that he had gotten most of his money back was an added bonus he would have not realized had he just bought home decor instead.

On the other hand, there are many folks who purchased items and enjoyed them throughout the years, and now, the items have increased greatly in value.

Inflation is often our friend in such cases. There are many who have enjoyed collecting over the course of a lifetime and been able to cash in nicely towards the end, when they really could use the money. To some, it is appealing that they get to stare at their “savings” right there in their home every day, rather than have it locked away in a bank somewhere.

But you should always collect for the enjoyment of collecting.

In the end, the best thing you get to collect is the memories, they are priceless.

Page 11

Vegetarians are ‘Less Healthy & Have Lower Quality of Life Than Meat-Eaters’, Scientists Say Controversial study suggests non-meat eaters are more at risk of physical and mental illness, despite leading healthier lifestyles SOURCE: INDEPENDENT. CO.UK

V

egetarians are less healthy than meat-eaters, a controversial study has concluded, despite drinking less, smoking less and being more physically active than their carnivorous counterparts.

A study conducted by the Medical University of Graz in Austria found that the vegetarian diet, as characterized by a low consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, due to a higher intake of fruits, vegetables and wholegrain products, appeared to carry elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.

The study used data from the Austrian Health Interview Survey to examine the dietary habits and lifestyle differences between meat-eaters and vegetarians.

The 1320 subjects were matched according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status and included 330 vegetarians, 330 that ate meat but still a lot of fruits and vegetables, 300 normal eaters but that ate less meat, and 330 on a more meatheavy diet.

It found that vegetarians consumed less alcohol and had lower body mass indexes, but were still in a poorer state of physical and mental health overall.

Participants who ate less meat also had poorer health practices, such as avoiding attending doctors appointments for preventative check-ups and measures

such as vaccines, the authors found.

Vegetarians are less healthy than meat-eaters, a controversial study has concluded, despite drinking less, smoking less and being more physically active than their carnivorous counterparts.

A study conducted by the Medical University of Graz in Austria found that the vegetarian diet, as characterized by a low consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, due to a higher intake of fruits, vegetables and wholegrain products, appeared to carry elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.

The study used data from the Austrian Health Interview Survey to examine the dietary habits and lifestyle differences between meat-eaters and vegetarians.

The 1320 subjects were matched according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status and included 330 vegetarians, 330 that ate meat but still a lot of fruits and vegetables, 300 normal eaters but that ate less meat, and 330 on a more meatheavy diet.

It found that vegetarians consumed less alcohol and had lower body mass indexes, but were still in a poorer state of physical and mental health overall.

Participants who ate less meat also had poorer health practices, such as avoiding attending doctors appointments for preventative check-ups and measures such as vaccines, the authors found.

It concluded: “Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disor-

ELM

ders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.”

The study’s authors have already defended the research against claims that their work is simply an advertisement for the meat industry.

Study coordinator and epidemiologist Nathalie Burkert told The Austrian Times: “We have already distanced ourselves from this claim as it is an incorrect interpretation of our data.

“We did find that vegetarians suffer more from certain conditions like asthma, cancer and mental illnesses than people that eat meat as well, but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect.

“There needs to be further study done before this question can be answered.”

It concluded: “Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.”

The study’s authors have already defended the research against claims that their work is simply an advertisement for the meat industry.

Study coordinator and epidemiologist Nathalie Burkert told The Austrian Times: “We have already distanced ourselves from this claim as it is an incorrect interpretation of our data.

“We did find that vegetarians suffer more from certain conditions like asthma, cancer and mental illnesses than people that eat meat as well, but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect.

“There needs to be further study done before this question can be answered.”

FARMINGTON

July 15, 2019

TO SACRAMENTO

STOCKTON

HWY 4

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

FRIDAY: Small Animals

WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle

Poultry – Butcher Cows

NTS IGNME CONS OME! WELC ore rm Call fo ation m r fo in g signin on con stock. r u yo

MIGUEL A. MACHADO President Office: 209/838-7011 Mobile: 209/595-2014

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

Page 12

Livestock Market Digest

July 15, 2019

The Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act - What You Need to Know!

BY STEVE BUSCH

T

he 2019 Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act (WCCA) h t t p s : / / w w w. c o n g r e s s . gov/bill/115th-congress/housebill/7232/text is perhaps the most significant attack on private property rights in decades, perhaps ever. A simple look at the list of sponsors of the proposed legislation provides plenty of warning about what this new law portends.

The WCCA was introduced in Congress in May 2019. In the Senate, the bill is being led by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), and was cosponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D- NJ), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Don Beyer (D-VA) and Vern Buchanan (R-FL).

REWILDING advocates and their minions in Congress are ecstatic over what this “ACT” will lead to once it is enacted. Don’t be fooled folks! This legislation doesn’t SAVE wildlife! Non-endangered species such as grizzly bears and wolves don’t need your

private property or more Federal land to survive.

The WCCA is NOT about building “squirrel bridges” over highways so our little furry friends can cross the road safely. It is NOT about reducing highway collisions between motorists and moose. It is NOT about reducing “conflicts” between large carnivores and people.

The WCCA provides for a system of “National Wildlife Corridors” which will affect all future decisions regarding federal land and water management plans and activities. The Act provides corridors for “existing native species habitat” and also for “future native species habitat” as required to insure “species resiliency”.

The WCCA seeks to permanently reverse the “EXTIRPATION” of large carnivore species such as wolves and grizzly bears by insuring population connectivity in the face of human development and/or any other human caused factors including “climate change”. The law will require that land where a particular species is “currently absent” but had historically been present, is “colonized or recolonized by the species” either through “re-introduction or restoration of habitat”.

The new law will empower the

environmental lobby even further by allowing tax payer funded “Regional Climate Science Centers” and “Landscape Conservation Cooperative Networks” to continue operating outside the legislative process and having a disproportionate influence on land management planning and policy.

The WCCA establishes regional “Wildlife Movement Councils” which will involve multiple non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and various stakeholders. Private property owners, such as farmers and ranchers, will be allowed a seat at the table, but they will remain in the minority and are included only to add a veneer of cooperation and consensus for decisions they will be unable to successfully challenge.

The WCCA guarantees that rural communities here in the Inland Northwest will increasingly become surrounded by lands identified as “essential” to the movement of large carnivores species (grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolves, wolverines, lynx, etc.) These movement corridors will come at the expense of other wildlife species, human safety, and private property rights.

“Grizzly bears need room to roam… Grizzly bears don’t follow human boundaries, and often, our

parks are simply too small for this wide-ranging species. When they venture outside of protected areas, they are hunted, hit by cars, or come into conflict with people. But just like how people need highways to get from one place to another safely, grizzly bears, and other species, need wildlife corridors to move from protected area to protected area in search of food and mates. The Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act would provide these essential paths, protect grizzlies and drivers from dangerous highway collisions, and help to reduce conflicts with people by giving grizzlies a safer route around cities and towns.”

[Wildlands Network] Yes, highway wildlife crossings are certainly part of the sales pitch.

We all want safer roads. Nobody in their right mind wants to collide with an animal on the highway.

But the WCCA isn’t about traffic safety! It’s about adding yet another layer of burdensome regulations affecting thousands of square miles of America and changing how our society functions.

As private property becomes increasingly useless due to new and more restrictive land use regulations, conservation easement programs may eventually become the only viable option for bankrupt

land owners. The “Wildlife Movement Grant Program” and the “Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Fund” as outlined in the WCCA, will help insure the continued destruction of property rights in America.

National Park Removes Signs SOURCE: OPINION, CONSERVATIVE FREE PRESS

I

n the heady years of the Obama administration, the National Park Service put out alarmist signs at Glacier National Park in Montana, warning visitors that if they wanted to grab a photograph of these monumental natural wonders, they’d better get it done quickly. After all, they said, these glaciers “will all be gone by the year 2020,” thanks to the evil influence of climate change.

Embarrassed by the inconvenient fact that the glaciers are…you know, still there… and you know, not going anywhere anytime soon….the National Parks Service has quietly taken the signs down.

While this was certainly not done with any accompanying announcement saying, Oh yeah, we really botched that prediction, a sharp-eyed environmental blogger noticed the change almost immediately.

If the NPS had any integrity, they would have simply left the signs down. Instead, they replaced them with new signs that still warn of climate change and its effects on the glaciers…but do not outline a specific date where visitors can expect them to have melted away.

“When they completely disappear, however, will depend on how and when we act,” the sign now says (ominously).

Humorously, the glaciers have actually grown in size since those Obama-era signs were originally placed there.

In 2019, a record-breaking snowfall in Montana put the glaciers and their eventual disappearance even further away from the Democratic administration’s dire timeline.

“That’s not to say the glaciers aren’t in danger,” reports the Daily Wire. “They’ve been melting little by little since they formed in the last ice age. Since they formed, the glaciers have retreated around 70% and will continue to melt so long as the Earth doesn’t cool, but the rate will be much slower than anticipated just eight years ago.

Now, the USGS and the National Parks Service say the glaciers will still be around until at least 2030, if not until 2080.”

But signs telling us that the glaciers will be gone in another sixty years don’t really ring with the same clanging alarm bells that the climate hystericalists like to hear. Oh well, reality once again proves to be at odds with the strange and wonderful science of climate prediction. Don’t expect Lester Holt to be talking about it on the evening news, though. We like to keep these embarrassments on the down-low.