LMD june 13

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL JUNE 15, 2013 • www. aaalivestock . com

Ag Gags e’ve grown accustomed to grainy video footage on the nightly news of cops beating a defenseless law breaker with their batons, from the Rodney King thrashing that started the L.A. riots, to the recent episode in Kern County California in which officers are accused of beating David Sal Silva so savagely that he died.

Amy Meyer also witnessed what she considered inhumane treatment. Only in her case it wasn’t a person that made her furious. It was a cow.

Meyer went to Smith & Sons Meat Packing in Draper City, Utah, looking for trouble. At the plant she whipped out her smart phone and started filming the transport of a live cow in a tractor’s bucket. The manager of the plant saw Amy and accused her of trespassing. He also called the cops. Meyer claimed it wasn’t necessary to trespass and that she did all her filming from a public sidewalk. The cops decided Amy had not trespassed and released her. End of story, right?

Amy thought she was in the clear and was free to post her photos on You Tube or Facebook but the beef packer, who also happens to be the Mayor of Draper City, may, or may not have, persuaded the city prosecutor to charge Amy with “agricultural operation interference,” figuring six-months in the Draper City jail would teach her not to

W

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

MARKET

Digest I Volume 55 • No. 6

Education is what you get when you read fine print.

Experience is what you get when you don’t.

by Lee Pitts

stick her smart phone into other people’s business.

In less than 24 hours all charges against Amy were dropped, but not before Amy had become the first person to be charged with a crime under an “ag-gag” law. In doing so the 25 year old also became a “poster child” for the animal rights movement.

R Rated In the past few years these video events have regularly popped up on video and TV screens as animal welfare groups were busy secretly getting their people into packing houses,

chicken sheds, feedlots and hog farms under the disguise of being an employee. They then videotaped incidents of what they considered mistreatment of animals. The Humane Society of the United States has been the biggest producer of these R-rated videos. The R in this case standing for “results”.

In Vermont their video at a slaughter plant led to the plant’s closure and a felony criminal conviction. In West Virginia in 2009, three employees at Aviagen Turkeys were charged with felony animal cruelty as a result of an undercover video by PETA. The HSUS investigation of

Wyoming Premium Farms documented rampant animal abuse and brought charges of criminal animal cruelty for nine workers.

The Humane Society’s biggest hit with the Hollywood crowd was their undercover investigation into the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in southern California. Their video of downer cows being fork-lifted resulted in the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

More than 143 million pounds of beef, most of it destined for school cafeterias, were recalled and destroyed, despite the fact no one got sick from it.

Videos like this have taken down entire companies quicker than you can say “hatchet job”, and have sent several folks to the slammer. But they have also accomplished what the HSUS was hoping for all along: they reduced Americans appetite for beef. A 2010 Kansas State University study came to the conclusion that, “Media attention to animal welfare has significant, negative effects on U.S. meat demand.” continued on page two

Another Federal Government Cover-up?

BY KAREN BUDD-FALEN / BUDD FALEN LAW OFFICES CHEYENNE, WYOMING

his is a plea for help, to raise awareness and public outcry regarding yet another federal government cover-up. The scandal — the Justice and Treasury Departments’ refusal to inform the American taxpayer how much, and for what, their tax dollars are being spent and despite individual well-meaning Congressmen, the inability of Congress to put forth legislation that requires this information to be available to the American public. How can there be reform of a crisis (or how can radical environmental groups prove that our claims of abuse are blown out of proportion) without transparency and an accounting?

According to a study from Drexel University, there are 6,500 national and 20,000 local environmental organizations with an estimated 2030 million members. This study opines that the “environmental movement” dwarfs other modern social movements such as the civil rights or peace movements. Because it would be impossi-

T

Riding Herd

ble to study all 6,500 national groups, we reviewed all the federal district court complaints over a series of years for just three of these groups and found: ■ Thirty-five percent (35 percent) of federal court complaints are filed ONLY based on a missed procedural step under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); ■ Twenty nine percent (29 percent) of federal court complaints are filed ONLY based upon missed timelines under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”): ■ Eleven percent (11 percent) of all federal court complaints are filed because of a failure to complete the process for considering an action under “Section 7” of the ESA. Importantly, these are not cases where the federal court can rule that there is harm to the environment or that additional substantive actions are necessary; the ONLY thing a court can do is send the case back to the federal government for more process.

But that is not why this litigation is filed: liti-

by LEE PITTS

Don’t Miss This One

get a lot of horse sale catalogs and to hear them tell it, none of the horses ever took a wrong step. Just once I’d like to read something like this: Lot #1- Frisbee, a buckskin consigned by Trader Joe. So named because he’s hard to catch. Sired by Ivan the Terrible and out of Eulogy, a mare who pulled a plow all her life.

A little humpy in the morning and truly does not like anything on his back. Buy this horse and you’ll soon be doing equestrian feats you never thought possible.

Lot #2- Root Canal, the property of Coyote Charley.

Bay mare sired by the great Horse Face and out of the mare, Boneyard. Root Canal is unregistered, untrained and unwanted, at least around this outfit. Her mother is a full sister to a PRCA horse; that’s right, a PRCA bareback bronc in Cotton Rosser’s Flying U Rodeo, to be exact. Feel free to put your kid up on her, if your kid can ride like Casey Tibbs.

Lot #3- Orwell, consigned

by Kettle Belly Bill, this flea bag pinto gelding was born in 1984. Hence, the name.

Orwell has many features that aren’t hard to miss including an overshot jaw, fistulated withers and lots of color. Yes, lots of chrome but not much under the hood on this one.

Used in a salesyard for years (pulling the feed wagon.)

Lot #4- Buzzard Bait, a sorrel consigned by Lard Bottom Bob and Single Cinch Sally out of Sunfisher and sired by a real famous horse you’ve never heard of. His father had lifetime career earnings of $12.50. Can’t catch, can’t shoe and can’t load but we have shot off him... once. Seems to show a passing interest in cattle.

Lot #5- Old Leather Lip, a roan knothead consigned by Alibi Abe. Sired by Write Off and out of a plug named Dishwater. A true kid’s horse, yes, my kid is selling him because she needs money for college.

She never could ride him but your kid might. Would make a good barrel horse, hauling barrels, that is. Full disclosure: don’t tie this horse up unless you want a shorter set of reins continued on page eight

continued on page three

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 2

June 15, 2013

Ag Gags Seeing Through The Smoke

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

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

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

Subscribe Today

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

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

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

STATE

ZIP

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

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

Emily Meredith, of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, admits that these video clips have been “very effective” over the last 10 years for groups like the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing. “I’m not gonna deny that there are bad apples just like there are in every industry,” Meredith says.

“But these videos are really an unfair portrayal of the industry as a whole.”

So how did our industry decide to counter these damaging videos? We collectively came up what are called “ag-gag” laws, so named because they would gag anyone who would take such a video by promising them jail time and a hefty fine. Factory farmers and others then tried to get states to adopt anti-whistle blower laws that would make it a crime to: a) take a photo or video of a factory farm without permission, b) get work at a factory farm as an undercover reporter, c) make such videos and post them on the Internet and d) require mandatory reporting of instances of animal cruelty to the proper authorities within 24-48 hours.

After all, if what these people are really concerned about is animal welfare why would they continue to document abuse instead of ending the suffering by immediately informing the proper authorities? As cattleman Ryan Goodman told CNN, “There’s no need to edit the footage for content or add a narrative.

Report it to the supervisors, owners, or call the authorities. Be done with it and let the criminal system do its job.”

But animal welfare is not really what’s important to the amateur film makers. It is just a smokescreen to promote what the animal rights groups are really after: a meatless society. One animal rightist admitted as much when she said, “the argument is about whether humans have a right to use non-human animals for our purposes, regardless of how well the animals are treated.”

Meredith says activist videos are edited and manipulated to appear more damning in an effort to promote a “vegan agenda” by any means necessary.

“Those tactics have become very popular and successful for the activist community in their fund raising efforts and in spreading misinformation about the industry.”

The videos have been used in the courts to prosecute farmers and ranchers who may not have even been aware that such abuse was taking place. In the Hallmark case government investigators found that most of the employees, and the employer, were not even aware that such mistreatment had taken place on the Hallmark property.

This issue isn’t just about animal rights, it’s about human rights. Bill Meierling, of the American Legislative Exchange

continued from page one

Council says, “At the end of the day it’s about personal property rights or the individual right to privacy. You wouldn’t want me coming into your home with a hidden camera.”

The whistle blowers and the groups who sponsor them say this is different because this is about the food they eat and the consumers have a right to know how it was produced. They contend that it’s not only about exposing animal abuse, it’s also about unsafe working conditions and environmental problems on industrial farms. You have so many groups coming at this issue from different angles including free speech issues, food safety concerns, animal rights, worker rights and private property rights that it’s hard for the consumer to discern exactly who is right.

Worse Than New Coke?

This issue might appear to be a fresh one but it has been around since 1990 and 1991 when North Dakota, Montana and Kansas were the first states to pass ag-gag laws. In North Dakota, it is a class B misdemeanor to enter an animal facility and use any recording device.

The crime is called “unlawful interference with animal facilities” and violators can go to jail for 30 days. Kansas has their “Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act” which makes it a class A misdemeanor to enter an animal facility that is not open to the public and take pictures or video. In Montana it’s against the law to enter an animal facility to take pictures with intent to commit criminal defamation or to enter an animal facility if the person knows entry is forbidden.

Now, the rest of the country is debating how to deal with trespassers.

■ In Pennsylvania anyone who “records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation” or who uploads, downloads, transfers or otherwise sends the footage using the Internet is breaking the law.

■ A “Commerce Protection Act,” is on the books in North Carolina and it protects not only ag, but all industries. The law was passed even as five employees of Butterball were pleading guilty to the beating of turkeys.

■ Recent whistle blower laws were adopted in Iowa and Utah.

The Iowa law makes it a crime to gain employment under false pretenses with the intent to make a video recording. Violators can face up to two years in jail.

■ In Utah, where Amy Meyer made her stand, the successful whistle blower law was sponsored

by Representative John Mathis who called undercover investigators “animal rights terrorists” and said their recordings are “propaganda.”

While all those states successfully adopted some form of protection for those in ag, there have been a lot more defeats than viccontinued on page three

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

June 15, 2013

Ag Gags tories lately. In just the past couple years ag-gag bills were defeated in Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and New York. California’s ag-gag bill failed big time and one newspaper editorialized, “the cattlemen have committed the worst PR gaffe since New Coke.”

In 2013 there have been at least 12 “ag gag” bills introduced and only one of them became law. That was in Arkansas, home of Tyson, where an improper animal investigation by someone who is not a “certified law enforcement officer” was deemed a Class B misdemeanor with the potential for a civil penalty of $5,000.

Not Our American Idol Tennessee has been the most recent battleground. An ag gag law was written and passed by the legislature and was sent to Governor Bill Haslam for his signature. Then American Idol and now infamous vegetarian, Carrie Underwood, started making threats. She joined Emmylou Harris, Ellen DeGeneres, and other celebrities, as well as the Humane Society in urging the governor to veto Tennessee’s Livestock Cruelty Prevention Act. Underwood is a big fan of the Humane Society and wrote on Facebook, “Shame on Tennessee lawmakers for passing the Ag Gag bill. If Governor Bill Haslam signs this, he needs to expect me at his front door.”

Evidently Haslam didn’t want any visitors, especially Underwood, so he vetoed the bill. As one pundit pointed out, so now someone can feel free to take a secret undercover video on Underwood’s parents ranch that could land them in jail.

Author Will Potter said of the ag gag’s defeat, “It’s a huge victory for Tennesseans, but it also has

CHANGE OF ADDRESS INSTRUCTIONS If you’re moving or changing your mailing address, please clip and send this form to: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194 or FAX to: 505/998-6236

Don’t Miss a Single Issue!

Name

Old Address

City, State, Zip

New Address

City, State, Zip

Page 3

continued from page two

national significance. The tables have turned on Big Ag, and corporate front groups are desperately trying to pick up the pieces of the worst PR blunder in the industry’s history.”

Who’s The New Guy? The changing tide has certainly emboldened the animal rightists for now they are demanding that cameras be installed at every packinghouse, hog barn, chicken coop and feedlot to expose “rampant” animal abuse. Animal rightist, Karin Hauenstein seriously suggested, “How about audio and video wired up to every factory-farm and slaughterhouse facility in the country? All of their rooms and pathway activity should be recorded and sent directly to servers at the USDA! This is 2013, not 1913! With the digital technology we have today — Why are these facilities not required to document and share every single thing that happens within their walls daily? How do you feel about feeding abused animals to your children???

STAND UP AMERICA! DEMAND TRANSPARENCY.” (Emphasis hers.)

Paul Shapiro, senior director of farm animal protection for The HSUS, said, “These draconian bills to silence whistle-blowers show just how far the animal agribusiness industry is willing to go, and just how much the industry has to hide.”

Due to the constitutional issues with ag gags the National Press Photographers Association took a stand against the laws, saying they could “wrap up journalists.” The ACLU says it will continue to fight such legislation and says it feels like a desperate move by industrialized ag that loves to operate in secret. HSUS Lawyers and others say ag gag laws aren’t Constitutional and we

could see someone challenge these state laws all the way to the Supreme Court. The New York Times published a scathing indictment of ag gags under the heading, “Open the Slaughterhouses.”

The animal rightists say that family farmers and ranchers have nothing to fear from them, that they are only after the large confined animal operations. But I wouldn’t feel too safe if I were you. How do you think they feel about hot-iron branding and castration without an anesthetic? I don’t think they’d look too kindly upon roping an animal and is there a sick pen anywhere, whether at a feedlot or a ranch that couldn’t be edited to make you look bad? And the big operations have the means to afford lawyers and PR firms whereas the small operator does not.

If I were you I’d be very leery about any guest who shows up at your at your next branding with a pony tail, PETA hoodie and a camera around his neck. It might already be too late. The groups openly say they have a huge library of video clips they could unleash at any minute.

I wonder why the picture takers are so selective? I’ve helped make wine and believe me they wouldn’t want to see what’s in the bins when their beloved vino is made. If they are so worried about their food why not send their folks into restaurants and catch cooks picking up stuff that fell on the floor and then putting it on customer’s plates? Or servers spitting on the food of a well known bad-tipper. The fact is the animal rightists do not have a Constitutional right to see how their food is made. And if they really insist on it I have a suggestion for them. Grow your own darn food. And don’t forget to say “cheese”.

Cover Up gation is filed because the courts have the power to delay private lives and livelihoods while the federal government completes more process. The harm to American families is not whether the federal government can comply with a process, the harm is in the endless delay in issuing a decision so that America can move forward. It is red-tape at its best, and radical environmental groups are absolutely making the most of the red-tape and killing American families in the meantime.

Let me give you more details: As stated above, this firm reviewed the federal court complaints to analyze the underlying claims each of their cases; the families that are being targeted by the litigation; and what a federal court could do to grant the relief requested. Over 400 federal court complaints were individually analyzed filed by either the Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”), WildEarth Guardians (“WEG”) or the Center for Biological Diversity WWP’s Policy (“CBD”).

Memos list as a “to do” “Get all cows and sheep off federal lands ASAP!” The WEG uses “ litigation, science, public outreach and organizing, the media, and lobbying” to make progress towards their goals of phasing out fossil fuels, obtaining formal listings of species under the Endangered Species Act; ensuring public lands “are not destroyed” by “over development, over grazing, or natural resource extraction.” CBD is noted as a group that uses litigation and

continued from page one

petitions to “effect change.”

Its campaigns include listing species, stopping unsustainable human population growth and species extinction crisis and opposition to motorized recreation.

For these groups, we documented: The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is the litigation tool of choice for the WWP and CBD, with 58 percent and 36 percent of their complaints respectively including a NEPA claim. NEPA is a process; according to the Supreme Court, NEPA’s purpose is “to ensure a fully informed and well-considered decision, not necessarily a decision the judges of the Court of Appeals or of this Court would have reached had they been members of the decision making unit of the agency.” Thus, the courts enforce the NEPA process, but rarely over turn the substance of the federal agency decision.

The problem however is that the courts are willing to enjoin or stop a project or decision until the federal government complies with the NEPA process. So what does this mean for American families? Consider that 89 percent of the federal district court complaints filed by WWP directly attack livestock grazing by claiming a violation of a NEPA procedure and then seeking to stop (temporarily or permanently) a rancher’s use of the lands he has used for generations because the federal government violated the continued on page four

Livestock Market Digest

Page 4

Cover Up NEPA process. NEPA is a powerful hammer to eliminate these families because if they rely on the federal government to make a decision and the federal government cannot get through enough procedural hoops to make a decision, that American family cannot continue to make a living.

These ranch families are not the only ones under attack because of litigation over process. The industries who produce America’s energy from our natural resources are bearing the brunt of the NEPA litigation from the WEG and CBD, specifically 22 percent and 18 percent of the federal court complaints respectively oppose natural resource producing power plants, energy production and mining. Even “green energy” is now being attacked by the WWP, CBD and WEG as part of their litigation strategy. Again, the issue being litigated is not whether energy production is beneficial or detrimental to the environment, but whether the federal government properly completed the process. And just like the harm to the ranching families, the Courts can stop all movement until the NEPA process is complete and the radical groups cease their litigation wanting more and more process.

continued from page three

Another huge litigation arena is the federal government’s compliance with the timelines in the Endangered Species Act. Over 46 percent of the cases filed by the WEG are ONLY to force the federal government to comply with these time-frames; 30 percent of the CBD cases and 25 percent of the WWP cases contain the same claims. As with NEPA, the courts cannot enforce any listing or critical habitat decision; the court can ONLY hold that the federal agencies failed to comply with the timelines and then pay attorneys fees to these radical groups because the federal government cannot meet the time-frames set

by Congress. Attorney hourly fees can range from $500 per hour to $750 per hour.

And it has cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars paying radical groups to harm American workers.

American families are being targeted by groups being paid your tax dollars to put Americans out of work — not in the name of environmental protection but in the name of procedures and technicalities. Please contact your Congressional Representatives; we have to stop yet another federal government cover-up. We need an accounting now.

DigestClassifieds Auction Schools

COME TRAIN WITH THE CHAMPIONS. Join the financially rewarding world of auctioneering. World Wide College of Auctioneering. Free catalog. 1-800/423-5242, www.worldwidecollegeofauctioneering.com.

BE AN AUCTIONEER – Missouri Auction School, world’s largest since 1905. Free CD and catalog. Call toll-free 1-800/835-1955, ext. 5. www.auctionschool.com.

LEARN AUCTIONEERING for the 2000s!

Nashville Auction School “Free Catalog” 800/543-7061, learntoauction.com, 112 W. Lauderdale St., Tullahoma, TN 37388.

Equipment POWDER RIVER LIVESTOCK EqUIPMENT. Best prices with delivery available.

CONLIN SUPPLY CO. INC., Oakdale, CA. 209/847-8977.

To place your Digest Classified ad here, contact RANDY SUMMERS at randy@aaalivestock.com or by phone at 505/243-9515 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

June 15, 2013

Endangered Species: How close is close enough for gray wolf recovery? It’s Interior’s call PHIL TAYLOR, E&E REPORTER, GREENWIRE

he Obama administration is expected to decide soon whether to maintain federal protection for wolves in the lower 48 states, a decision it says will be based on science but which depends largely on how much recovery is enough for the iconic species – a question science is loath to answer.

In a draft rule leaked months ago, the Interior Department proposed removing Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves everywhere except a small pocket in New Mexico and Arizona, arguing that wolves have mounted a successful recovery in the northern Rockies and western Great Lakes, where they had been nearly extirpated in the early 1900s.

In the past two years, the species was removed from the endangered species list in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, where wolves number nearly 1,700, and Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are more than 4,000 of the animals.

But removing protections in the remaining 42 states has sparked a backlash from environmental groups and some biologists, who argue that the carnivore has yet to return to many parts of the country where it still belongs.

Amid the blowback, the administration told a federal court in late May that its decision had been indefinitely delayed, a move that raised hope among environmentalists that newly confirmed Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was considering shelving the rule.

But that optimism has faded, according to Don Barry, executive vice president at Defenders of Wildlife, who said yesterday he believes the White House has given Interior the green light to officially propose the delisting.

An announcement could come soon, he said.

Delisting wolves would turn over management to the states, relieving the agency of much of the political burden of balancing wolves with people. It would effectively end two decades of federal recovery efforts, save for a small recovery program in the Southwest.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service is just tired of this thing and ready to wash their hands of it,” said Barry, a former FWS attorney who served as assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks in the Clinton administration. “From our perspective, this is declaring victory prematurely.”

While wolves have made a swift comeback in the United States since their reintroduction in the 1990s into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho,

T

wildlife advocates say wolves still need federal protection to recolonize suitable habitat in the southern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, California and the Northeast.

Barry said environmental groups were hopeful that Jewell would chart a new course from her predecessor, Ken Salazar, whose hand was forced by Congress to delist wolves in Montana and Idaho.

Instead, Jewell appears to have backed the plan, having met with Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) in late May to lobby for his support, Barry said.

Hunters, ranching groups and states are backing the delisting plan, arguing that wolves are fully recovered and that state wildlife agencies are best equipped to prevent the animals from preying on livestock or biggame species like elk and moose.

“The delisting would give state agents more flexibility to deal with problem wolves,” said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association. As wolves expand farther west into the state, “we’re going to have more conflict. There is no doubt about that.”

There’s no question that wolves have exceeded recovery plans where they exist – by more than threefold in the case of the northern Rockies. While disagreement remains over what levels of wolf hunts are sustainable, few believe the species is anywhere near risk of extinction.

The Fish and Wildlife Service must now decide how much wolf recovery is enough, a decision that carries high political stakes.

Scores of lawmakers from both parties have tried to sway the agency in recent months, with Democrats pushing continued federal protections and Republicans favoring state control.

How much of the species’ historic range – which includes Maine and New Hampshire, Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, and the Coast and Cascade ranges of the Pacific Northwest – must be inhabited before the wolf can be considered fully recovered?

Science can’t easily answer that question, said Keith Rizzardi, an Endangered Species Act attorney who served in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration.

“This is a values contest, not a science contest,” he said.

Protections ‘far more expansive’ than necessary – FWS Once common across the West, wolves were hunted nearly to extinction.

From 1827 to 1859, more

than 7,700 wolf pelts were traded in the Cascades of Washington state and British Columbia. Provisional governments in the region authorized bounty hunters, known as “wolfers,” to poison large numbers of wolves using strychnine, and Congress in 1915 authorized the extirpation of wolves and other animals that threatened domestic livestock.

While wolf recovery in the northern Rockies was relatively swift, the species has grabbed only a toehold in Washington, Oregon and California and barely sniffed potential habitat in Colorado and Utah.

Still, federal biologists never intended for wolves to reoccupy all of their historic range, FWS said in its draft plan. With the exception of the Southwest, recovery goals have been met.

Wolves were granted blanket protections in 1978 “as an approach of convenience . . . rather than an indication of where gray wolves existed or where gray wolf recovery would occur,” the draft said.

For example, the gray wolf never lived in parts of the midAtlantic and Southeast where it is currently protected, and large parts of the Midwest and Great Plains lack suitable habitat for recovery, it said. In addition, wolves in the Northeast are a distinct population from gray wolves that has long been extirpated and therefore doesn’t qualify for federal protections, the agency said.

“The current amorphous listing does not reflect what is necessary or appropriate for wolf recovery under the Act,” the draft reads. “It is far more expansive than what we envision for wolf recovery, what is necessary for wolf recovery, and even what is possible for wolf recovery in the contiguous United States and Mexico.”

While the draft delisting rule acknowledged that wolves are quickly dispersing into Washington and Oregon, it said those wolves are neither “discrete” from their kin in the northern Rockies and British Columbia nor “significant” enough to warrant protection.

“Rather they constitute the expanding front of large, robust, and recovered wolf populations to the north and east,” the agency said. “We are confident that wolves will continue to recolonize the Pacific Northwest regardless of federal protection.”

Wolves are currently protected by state endangered species laws in Washington, Oregon and California, the agency noted.

Interior officials have declined to discuss the draft, but they have not denied its authenticity.

“I really have nothing to report at this point on wolves,” Fish and continued on page five

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Endangered Species Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe toldGreenwire last week, adding that there is no time frame for a decision.

“There’s been no decision to pull back on any proposal,” he said. “There has been no such decision.”

FWS spokesman Chris Tollefson said yesterday that the robust populations of northern Rockies and Great Lakes wolves reflect “a recovery that is one of the world’s great conservation successes.”

“Building upon this success, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to evaluate the appropriate management status of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act outside of these recovered population areas, using the latest scientific and taxonomic information,” he said. “The draft proposal is clearly a matter that is still under internal review and discussion, and therefore, it is inappropriate for the service to comment at this time.”

‘Museum approach to conservation’ State protections for wolves can fall victim to the whims of state politics, Barry warned.

He pointed to the example of Montana, where lawmakers in Helena this year passed a bill prohibiting the state’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency from establishing buffer zones for hunting wolves along the border of Yellowstone National Park, which is home to valuable research packs.

Hunting and trapping in the northern Rockies led to a 7 percent decline in wolf populations in 2012, a drop that did not concern federal officials (Greenwire, April 15).

“All of a sudden, you have this rush by conservative politicians at the state level to show who’s more anti-wolf than the next guy,” he said.

Moreover, Barry said federal scientists in the past have waited much longer to delist other endangered species, including the bald eagle and American alligator, so that they could inhabit a larger portion of their historic range.

“You’ve got excellent habitat throughout the West,” he said, pointing to places like Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, where he argued wolves would help restore balance to prey species like elk, which currently lack predators.

In the Yellowstone area, wolves have prevented elk herds from overgrazing native plants, leading to regrowth of tree species and songbirds. They are also a prime tourist attraction at the park, generating an estimated $35 million in annual tourism revenue, Defenders of Wildlife said.

Daniel Rohlf, a professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, called FWS’s decision to recover wolves only in a small portion of their historic range “a museum approach to

continued from page four

conservation.”

“Buy a ticket, get a passport,” if you want to see an endangered species, he said. “As long as Fish and Wildlife Service says the wolf is here and unlikely to become extinct in the foreseeable future, we can call it good.”

Without federal protection in the Pacific Northwest, wolves would only exist under “the good graces of the states of Oregon and Washington,” he said.

Rohlf noted that the first purpose of ESA was “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” But he said FWS has not considered wolves' contribution to the landscape.

Jewell ‘not tone-deaf’ Noah Greenwald, endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said he believes the Obama administration is taking a second look at the delisting plan.

He said the Department of Justice, which is litigating a related lawsuit involving Mexican wolves, is “totally befuddled” over the administration’s next move.

He said Interior has received hundreds of thousands of comments opposing the delisting since it was first proposed.

“I think Secretary Salazar was tone-deaf,” Greenwald said. “It seems that Secretary Jewell may not be tone-deaf.”

In a message to supporters last week, CBD said the agency had “yanked” its plan to delist wolves and urged readers to “mobilize as many people as possible, as fast as possible to convince the new Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, to do the right thing.”

“We’re reading between the lines a bit here,” Greenwald said.

“All signals point to this being Jewell listening to all of the opposition to this rule and pulling the plug. We’ve heard as much from at least one inside source, but true that we don't have official confirmation of such.”

But those who support the wolf delisting are calling on Jewell to quickly issue the draft rule.

We “encourage Secretary Jewell to act without delay to remove federal ‘protection’ of gray wolves nationwide under the Endangered Species Act,” said Dustin Van Liew, executive director of the Public Lands Council and director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “It remains well-documented that the states and on-the-ground managers are the most successful at managing wildlife – not the federal government.”

Anna Seidman, director of litigation for Safari Club International, whose members hunt wolves, said wolves have recovered where there is viable habitat.

“The endangered species list was not designed to be a forever place,” she said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said there are an estimated 10,000 wolves in Alaska and about 160,000 wolves globally, including populations in Russia, Europe and portions of North Africa. The International Union for Conservation of Nature calls wolves a species of “least concern” globally.

Barry said that’s no reason not to protect wolves in the United States. If it were, the United States never would have protected grizzlies or bald eagles, which are prevalent elsewhere, he said.

Field, of the Washington cattlemen’s group, said a delisting in his state would give the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife the flexibility it needs to manage wolves consistently throughout the state.

Federal protection was lifted in the eastern third of the state – which contains two wolf packs – but not in the western two-thirds, where only straggler wolves have been reported.

Washington state in April passed an emergency rule allowing ranchers, farmers and other pet and livestock owners to kill wolves they see attacking their animals. But “right now, we’re only able to remove problem wolves in the eastern third of the state,” he said.

Moreover, Washington state has adopted a bold recovery plan for wolves – it must maintain 15 breeding pairs for at least three years to lift state protections – meaning protections will remain when, and if, the federal government delists the wolf, he said.

The state’s plan compares favorably to the federal government’s recovery goals in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, which called for 10 breeding pairs in each state.

No packs have been observed in the federally listed areas of Oregon or California, FWS said.

Page 5

Federal judge says Forest Service must consider critical habitat designations in regional forest plan guidance for lynx

BY BOB BERWYN, SUMMITTCOUNTYVOICE.COM

Decision will trigger new reviews of forest plans and projects in northern Rockies he U.S. Forest Service has once again been called out for failing to live up to its legal obligations to protect endangered species, this time by a federal judge in Montana, who ruled last week that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a regional forest plan amendment.

Dana L. Christensen, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the State of Montana, ordered the Forest Service to re-initiate consultation, but did not block any specific projects on the affected forests, saying that plaintiffs couldn’t show any “irreparable harm.”

The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did formally address the lynx amendment with a consultation starting in 2005, ending with a finding that the lynx amendment wouldn’t jeopardize lynx across the northern Rockies — but that was before the fish and wildlife service designated critical habitat for the wild cats.

T

The USFWS finalized a critical habitat designation in 2009, covering lands on 11 national forests in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, including lynx habitats. Conservation groups raised concerns that that lynx amendment and the critical habitat designation didn’t mesh and later sued the Forest Service for failing to start a new consultation process with the USFWS. The Forest Service’s argument that its forest plans are not subject to legal challenge ring particularly hollow considering that lynx were listed primarily because of the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms.

Judge Christensen also noted that, on some forests in the region, the Forest Service has voluntarily re-initiated consultation since critical habitat was designation, showing that the agency retains discretionary control over the lynx amendment.

The ruling upholds the idea that “big-picture” management is needed to ensure lynx conservation and recovery, and the Forest Service’s habitual tendency to try and piecemeal approval of projects without considering the cumulative impacts doesn’t meet the high standards of the Endangered Species Act.

Reporter John McArdle contributed

ELM

FARMINGTON

June 15, 2013

TO SACRAMENTO

STOCKTON

SALE SITE

HWY 4

J17 M AR

IPOSA RD

VALLEY HOME

HWY 99 OAKDALE

HWY 120 ESCALON

SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS

N

MODESTO

TO FRESNO

Facility located at: 25525 East Lone Tree Road, Escalon, CA 95320

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC. SPECIAL FEEDER CATTLE SALE on June 17

LIVESTOCK SALES: 3 days per week on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday MONDAY: Beef Cattle WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle CONSIGNMENTS WELCOME! Call for more information on consigning your stock.

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

FRIDAY: Small Animals Poultry – Butcher Cows JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

DUDLEY MEYER Field Representative 209/768-8568

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 6

June 15, 2013

The shameful and painful spotted owl saga: shooting stripes to save spot

BY TERESA PLATTS, ENVIRONMENT AND ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

pots versus stripes? Which you prefer? do Our federal government prefers spots and is moving forward with a million-dollar-ayear plan to remove 9,000 striped owls from 2.3 percent of 14 million Western acres of protected spotted owl habitat. Our government is shooting wood owls with stripes to protect those with spots; to stop the stripes from breeding with the spots.

It had to come to this.

The 1990 listing of the Northern spotted owl under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) gave the bird totem status in management decisions.

It didn’t work. Spotted owls declined 40 percent over 25 years. Timber sales on federal government-managed lands dropped, too. Oregon harvests fell from 4.9 billion board feet (1988) to less than 5 percent, 240 million board feet (2009).

Beyond the jobs and business profits from making lumber, the Federal and County governments used to benefit from these harvests, too. Harvests down: tax receipts down. Today, with cutbacks in Federal budgets and sequestration, the States are arguing about how much of your tax dollars the Federal government should give them to keep

S

impoverished County governments afloat in timber-rich areas.

Beyond competition from barred owls, and after years of not enough logging, mega-fires fueled by too many trees now threaten spotted owl survival. An exhausted veteran of the spotted owl wars, who lives dangerously

pensions of government workers figthing fire and those shooting striped owls in order to give, temporarily, an advantage to ones with spots.

All this sacrifice and the spots just keep declining and the stripes just keep on coming.

The Northern spotted owl

Our government is shooting wood owls with stripes to protect those with spots close to a federally-“managed” forest that is expected to go up in smoke soon, explained: You have to realize that even moving a biomass project forward takes a court battle. No salvage of dead or burned timber it just rots. Not much thinning or fuel reduction – without a twoyear court fight the Forest Service usually loses. Hell, the agency is still fighting lawsuits over the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment started in ‘97 – after four revisions and several court decisions – the Greens just keep suing until they get what they want.

National forest growth, removals (million cubic feet).

Taxpayers pay for the conservation plans, recovery plans, and action plans, many stalled in court.

Taxpayers pay for all the lawsuits too, on both sides.

Taxpayers pay the salaries and

might very well be the most expensive avian sub-species on the planet.

Invasive or just mobile?

It is theorized that striped and spotted owls were once the same species of wood owl before separating into East and West Coast versions during the last Ice Age. The common striped barred wood owl (Strix varia) has expanded its range westward, establishing itself at the expense of the less aggressive, less adaptable and smaller spotted wood owl (Strix occidentalis).

By 1909, barred owls were found in Montana. They made their way to the coast, taking up residence in British Columbia (1943), Washington (1965) and Oregon (1972).

A spotted owl family. Are any of these “sparred owl” hybrids?

Hard to tell. The owls, striped or spotted, are so closely related

they successfully interbreed and their fertile offspring, “sparred owls,” are hybrids that look just like spotted owls. The ESA does not protect the hybrids or their offspring so the birds are breeding their way out of the ESA! Says Susan Haig, a wildlife ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, is exasperated by the interbreeding: It’s a nasty situation. This could cause the extinction of the Northern spotted owl.

The ESA measures and categorizes, then stands steadfast against change. It is attempting, by shotgun, to separate the birds.

Are these kissing cousins from the East invasive and unwanted when they turn up out West? Or just mobile and happy to mix it up with their spotted relatives?

Whatever, and wherever, they are, striped and spotted owls are not the only birds moving around.

One hundred and eleven species, almost 20 percent of the total bird species in North America, have expanded into at least one new state or province with 14 species expanding into more states and provinces than the barred owl. Changing climates and habitats are the cause of 98 percent of range expansions. The birds go where the food is. Thirty-eight states or provinces have gained at least 10 new bird species, some moving into a niche inhabited by an ESA-listed avian cousin.

Beyond birds, the last Ice Age killed off the North American earthworm. It’s since been reintroduced, only to be labeled – by our government scientists – as an invasive species, an undesirable.

And – oh no! – earthworms are beating millipedes in the game of survival.

The policy we embrace today for striped and spotted birds can be transferred to other birds and other animals, even earthworms.

If this continues, will we be reduced to digging up and killing earthworms to save millipedes?

The ESA is written thus and lawsuits by “green” groups – many paid for by our tax dollars – are herding us in this direction.

A spotted owl in Arizona – the Mexican spotted owl – considers moving East vs West. Court challenges may kill forest thinning (logging) recommended by scientists for his habitat.

Stripes, spots, species, subspecies and stocks In the Kingdom of Animalia, the Phylum of Chordata, the Class of Aves, the Order of Srigiformes, are two Families of birds of prey: the typical owls (Strigidae) and the barn owls (Tytonidae).

The Strigidae Family is the larger of the two Families with close to 190 species, covering nearly all terrestrial habitats

worldwide, except Antarctica. 95 percent are forest-dwelling; 80 percent are found in the tropics.

The Strigdae Family includes 11 species of the genus Strix, characterized by a conspicuous facial disk and a lack of ear tufts.

They are known as screech owls, wood owls, the great gray, the chaco in South America. The Ural wood owl alone boasts 15 sub-species in Europe and Northern Asia.

Within this Strix genus, in North America, the barred wood owl is broken into three subspecies (the Northern varia, georgica in Florida and helveolain Texas), with a fourth (Strix sartorii) found in Mexico.

The spotted owl species (Strix occidentalis) is broken down into three sub-species ranging across the western parts of North America and Mexico. The “threatened” Strix occidentalis lucidaof Arizona and Mexico, the California spotted owl subspecies, Strix occidentalis occidentalis, and the endangered Northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, the sub-species of greatest concern. The Northern spotted owl ranges from California, through Oregon and Washington, and up into Canada.

The Northern barred owl, Strix varia, is breeding with the Northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, causing hybrid havoc.You can break this down even further, if you’d like, into regional sub-stocks of subspecies. If you have the time (our government does) and the money (our taxes), you can follow family units, individuals, and all the new hybrids, the result of striped owls breeding with spotted ones.

The Wise Old Owl Asks, “Who Pays?”

This summer there will be more megafires in our overstocked Western forests, often followed by mudslides from the denuded hillsides next spring.

Another “green” group will file suit to stop another timber sale or attempt to stop government workers from shooting stripes to save spots.

Since the spotted owl wars resulted in the export of so many timber jobs, Northwest timber communities contribute far fewer tax dollars to the communal treasury, so the costs of megafires, mudslides and lawsuits will be borne by Eastern and urban taxpayers. That’s where the people – and the taxes – are.

The striped owl may be relentlessly working its way West, but its costs are steadily moving East.

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research and a PERC Enviropreneur Institute alum.

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

June 15, 2013

Page 7

Forage Specialist Offers Methods to Cope with Drought NEBRASKA AG CONNECTION

ith a drought as severe as last summer’s, the long-lasting effects require long-term adaptations from producers who are working with the limited water supply.

As producers throughout the region search for ways to deal with the continuing drought, they can try to take advantage of the limited water they can access.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln forage specialist Bruce Anderson suggests how they can do just that.

Many ponds and creeks dried up last year, leaving some cattle producers with only unreliable water sources.

“Maybe rain will replenish them this spring, but this might be a good time to develop more wells or pipelines to reliably put water into tanks,” Anderson said.

Tank water may be cooler and offer easier access than ponds or creeks. It is often healthier for cat-

W

Eat More Beef!

Consumers have even more reason to choose this powerful protein

BY CHEL TERRELL, GULF COAST CATTLEMAN

s beef producers, you continually strive to spread the message to consumers that eating beef is an essential part of a healthy, nutritious diet. Now, you’ve got even more reason to proclaim the message. The American Heart Association (AHA) recently certified three additional fresh lean beef cuts as heart-healthy, making a total of six cuts of beef that have earned the AHA HeartCheck mark.

This special designation is one of consumers most recognized and trusted icons on food packages in grocery stores today.

Nearly 75 percent of shoppers say this mark increases the likelihood that they will purchase the product, and on top of that, the label boosts incremental sales an average of 5 percent, according to the Beef Checkoff.

The addition of three new cuts to the list is an important milestone for the beef industry, as Beef Checkoff efforts over the last few years have ramped up to educate consumers on the positive benefits of beef to nutrition and health. The six extra-lean beef cuts meeting AHA’s criteria for heart-healthy foods are all USDA Select grade, with low intramuscular fat (marbling).

They include: ■ Sirloin tip steak ■ Bottom round steak ■ Top sirloin stir-fry ■ Boneless top sirloin petite roast ■ Top sirloin filet ■ Top sirloin kabob “Independent research and this certification from the American Heart Association confirms to consumers that extra-lean beef can be a building block in an overall heart-healthy diet,” said Cheryl Hendricks, a registered dietitian with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, contractor for the Beef Checkoff Program in a news release.

There are 29 cuts of beef that meet USDA guidelines for lean, including the six mentioned above. Each contains less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat, and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol per 3.5 oz. serving. The variety of cuts makes it easy for consumers to choose beef as part of a hearthealthy diet.

Retailers can merchandise the

A

cuts using the AHA’s Food Certification Program and obtain promotional tools such as onpack labels, posters and recipes to market products right where consumers will notice the most – at the point of purchase.

“We know that consumers are looking to retailers as a trusted source of nutrition information.

Displaying the American Heart Association Heart-Check mark in the meat case makes it easier for consumers to identify hearthealthy extra-lean beef and as a result, grow beef sales among health-conscious shoppers,” Hendricks said.

Be BOLD Calorie-for-calorie, beef is one of the most nutrient-rich foods people can eat. Lean beef provides nutrients such as protein, iron, zinc, phosphorus, vitamin B12, niacin and riboflavin and is a great addition to a hearthealthy diet.

These benefits are supported by research conducted at Pennsylvania State University, with Beef Checkoff support. The Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet (BOLD) study found that consuming lean beef daily as part of a heart-healthy diet lowered total and LDL “bad” cholesterol, which is as effective as the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet.

Louisiana CattleWoman Betsy Moreland pointed out lean beef benefits in her February 2013 Gulf Coast Cattleman article. Quoting from the Beef So Simple newsletter, Moreland said, “It’s hard to go wrong with lean beef. On top of being affordable, 3 oz. of lean beef makes it easy to get 10 nutrients, including protein, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin B6 and niacin, in a 150-calorie package, on average.”

Moreland encouraged readers to visit www.choosemyplate.gov website to determine the healthy amount of calories for individuals, then find lean beef recipes, sample menus and more information on the BOLD diet website.

Producers should also share the website www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com with consumers, where they can find delicious beef recipes, safety, cooking and shopping tips, more information about the BOLD program and many other helpful facts about the powerful protein, beef.

tle, and they usually prefer it.

When cows walk into ponds and creeks, they stir mud and sediments into the water and often deposit waste.

“No wonder calves consistently choose tank water over ponds when given a choice,” Anderson said.

Reports show that the higher water quality found in tanks provides a boost in cattle gains.

Calves can weigh an extra 50 pounds at weaning when tank water is available, and yearling steers can gain an extra three- to four-tenths of a pound per day.

With this much added performance, pumping water into tanks can pay off in just a few years and offers an even more immediate payoff in the case of dried up ponds.

Another related way producers can adjust to water shortages, according to Anderson, is to grow limited irrigation forages rather than a grain crop. Many irrigated acres may not receive enough water this summer to grow a good

grain or root crop.

“Sometimes you can combine water allocated for several fields onto one field to get a crop, but that still leaves the other acres with little or no water at all,” Anderson explained.

Forage crops also need water for highest production, but at least some useful yield can be gathered when total water available is very low. A perennial forage would eliminate the cost and time of establishing a new crop if water limits continue for several more years.

According to Anderson, switchgrass is one good choice.

It’s less expensive to plant, its primary water needs occur in early summer when water usually is available, and it can be managed for hay or pasture. Other warmseason grass options include big or sand bluestem and indiangrass.

“It may not be what you hoped for, but growing forages under limited irrigation may help you make the best out of a bad situation.”

Livestock Market Digest

Page 8

June 15, 2013

Raising Children Among Wolves CRYSTAL RUNYAN DIAMOND, BEAVERHEAD RANCH

n April 26, 2013 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) re-released two problem wolves just a short distance from our ranch at Beaverhead. These troublesome wolves had been temporarily removed from the wild after numerous accounts of human encounters and livestock depredations. The male, 1133, was captured near Reserve, NM after numerous reports of loitering around neighborhood homes and other heavily populated areas. The female of the pair and I share some history together. Female 1108 is a member of the Aspen Pack, born at Taylor Creek just ¼ mile from our private property which offered the only source of water in the area. In fact, during a routine cattle check in 2007, my husband was the first to discover and report the existence of the Aspen Pack den to USFWS. Area residents were already quite familiar with the pack. Earlier that year a terrified 8 year old stood 20 yards from an Aspen wolf as it attacked and killed her hound dog. The pack later returned to their Catron County home to kill her horse.

While the Aspen female and her pups were denning near our property we suffered three confirmed cattle depredations. That summer we became well acquainted with the new pups. We kept a close eye on the wolves, an even closer eye on our cattle.

In December 2011 I was reunited with an Aspen Pack pup.

Female 1105 was now 4 years old.

During those 4 years she had been very busy. In her first year alone, she and her pack were charged with “officially” killing 12 yearlings on our neighboring ranch, the Adobe Ranch. In 2010 she had

O

Riding Herd or your tack room pulled off its foundation.

Lot #6- Picasso, A real good looking horse if you are blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other. Consigned by Lying Lucy, this white mare will attract lightning like a magnet. Her dam, Jet Lag, was a real good sleeper and her sire was called Eleven And A Half because when you were riding him you were darn near afoot. This mare never makes any sudden moves and is real easy to catch.

She was once clocked at 30 miles per hour, until they unloaded her.

Can’t run but she walks real nice.

Lot # 7- Imelda, so named because she always needs new shoes. This chestnut was consigned

by Not Much Land and Livestock who are only her 15th owner. This barren mare eats real good and has lots of experience. You will too when you get her age. She’s a distant cousin to a horse Trevor Brazille once looked at.

Lot #8- Retread, consigned by the bank for the joint account of Rum Dum Johnson and Tom the Trader. This palomino is out of

Photo by Shabrina Montoya of a collared wolf in Monticello May 8, 2013

bred with a Black Labrador. When USFWS arrived to euthanize her half-dog litter, she and one pup had disappeared from the den.

Disturbing reports of encounters and the habituated behavioral patterns of 1105 were overlooked, as the priority became capturing and destroying the tainted bloodline of the AWOL dog-pup. By Christmas time 2011, the misfit 1105 had found her way onto my front porch. She stood within feet of my 2 and 3-year-old daughters, roughhousing with my border collie. She remained on my porch for the next 12 hours begging to join us, particularly the dogs, inside the house. By the next morning the authorities had arrived. Ignoring all the commotion around my house that day, 1105 was in a full trot returning to the house when she was lethally removed by U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. She was put down 100 yards from my front door; 100 yards from my children.

She was returning to a place she felt comfortable, my home.

The following month, January 2012, my children and I experienced another close wolf encounter. I had parked my vehicle on the side of the road for the

continued from page one

Oklahoma by Midnight. Ridden 30 days. Well, not exactly ridden but has been tied up for that long.

Without a doubt, the poorest example of horseflesh in this catalog.

Lot #9- EGAD! This all-around knuckle-head is consigned by the Wild Horse Ranch. He’s already put two people in the hospital and drove one man to drink and is still a young horse. Lots of potential here! Sired by Hammerhead and out of Miss Understanding. I have drug calves to the fire. Not on this horse, but I have done it. You can go many directions with this horse, mostly up, down and off.

Lot # 10- Mankiller, from Blowhard Bill’s Quarter Horses who acquired this horse at a BLM adoption. You can do it all on him: jump fences, fly off cliffs, and buck so high you’ll see the rings of Saturn. You name it, he’s done it. He’s listed last in the catalog because he’s a home-loving little devil and we have never loaded him up, so we may need a little extra time to get him to the auction come sale day. Don’t miss this one.

sake of my 3-year-old daughter who was prone to car sickness. As I assisted her on the shoulder of the road my 2 year old remained in the vehicle crying from her car seat. I returned my sick child to the car, strapping her in and then proceed to walk around the rear of my vehicle to find a large, healthy, undaunted wolf standing near my open driver’s side door. This wolf circled my vehicle for over 15 minutes, allowing me to take video and photos from my cell phone.

The louder my crying baby hollered from the back seat, the closer he came to the vehicle. Representatives of USFWS could not identify this wolf and offered no explanation for its habituated behavior.

Megan Richardson, owner of the neighboring Slash Ranch, called in late March 2013 to inform me she had learned of a pair of problem wolves scheduled to be re-released near our ranches.

The pair is Male 1133 and Female 1108. Aspen pack female 1108 is the full sister to 1105 removed near my porch. During a prerelease meeting with USFWS hosted in our ranch lodge at Beaverhead, Megan, and many others voice their concerns. It is calving season. We’re in one of the worst droughts New Mexico has seen in years. And if things aren’t bad enough, now Gila cattle ranchers are to be reunited with two killing machines. It’s a hard pill to swallow for Los Adobes manager, Gene Whetten. Gene looks the USFWS official in the face and reminds the room that when 1108 was captured off his ranch after her murderous rampage he was promised she would not be re-released. Megan’s concerns, like mine, are not just the threat these wolves pose to cattle because we’re not just raising cattle, we’re raising children. Discussing compensation for losses to a mother is immaterial and frankly inappropriate. As ranchers living among these wolves, we know their wild behaviors perhaps better than anyone. And the truth is

there isn’t anything wild about them. They kill for sport, they are not alarmed by the presence of humans, and despite what the USFWS continue to tell us, they will not stay in their designated area. Our human safety concerns are met with a textbook response from USFWS. This particular pair is to be released in McKenna Park in the Gila Wilderness based on the lack of human presence in the area. McKenna Park is less than 10 miles from Megan’s doorstep.

Wolves may travel up to 50 miles or more in a day. Despite concerns from area landowners, local government officials, and outraged Ag organizations – the pair is released on April 26, 2013.

On Wednesday May 8, 2013 Megan and her family returned to their farm in Monticello Canyon, just outside Truth or Consequences and well outside of the wolf recovery zone. That afternoon, neighbor Shabrina Montoya shares with them cell phone photographs of a collared wolf she spotted right off the road while returning home from work that day. Shortly after, the wolf photographs appear on internet social media and on the front page of the next edition of the local newspaper. USFWS begin making continued on page nine

Grammar Lessons tew and I were talking about the world we grew up in. A time when family had a much greater influence on children than they do today. We grew up before cable television, texting, i-Tunes, unavoidable soft porn, misogynistic vulgar rap, instantaneous news, a sense of entitlement and electronic isolation. Both of our folks were Bible belt believers and played music.

I’ll let you decide whether it was better or worse, we all have our own story. But I think we’d agree it was a simpler upbringing. In both our growing up, cussing was not allowed. Stew was raised in the bootheel of Missouri and his family were farmers. Grandpa was the patriarch, stern but compassionate.

Grandma’s pride was her bountiful garden. She would not allow a tractor or Roto-Tiller in her garden for fear of oil or gas contamination of the soil.

Grandpa kept a full-grown Poland China boar to breed his

S

sows. He (the boar) weighted twice as much as Grandpa, who himself was 6’5”, 250 lbs! One night the boar got into the garden and tore it up! Grandma commanded, in no uncertain terms, that the boar must go!

It was traditional to castrate boars at least two days before slaughter so the meat wouldn’t be rank. A plan ensued. Grandpa instructed 16-year-old Stew to rope the boar’s hind feet and hold ‘em till he got a hog snare around his nose.

Stew walked into the pigpen with his catch rope and snagged one of the boar’s hind legs. Six hundred pounds of pork exploded like a Funny Car at a drag race! Stew was jerked over in a Forward Headfirst Horizontal Olympic Ballistic Dive and hit the ground like a skipping rock!

When the boar made the first corner, Stew, in a skewed twist, somehow bounced off the boards, flipping him onto his back, where they then caromed

through the hog wallow, throwing a wall of water that blocked out the sun in Cape Girardeau forty miles away, for a full three minutes! Hanging on for life, Stew plowed a furrow in the pit pen soil slush like someone dragging a ham hock through twenty feet of biscuits and gravy!

It was ugly to watch when Stew flopped to a stop emptyhanded. Grandpa walked over to his favorite grandchild. He politely waited for his Uncle and Grandma to quit laughing, which took several minutes. Stew stood, wearing his porcupine stuccocovered shirt and jeans. He looked like a chocolate bunny.

As in all our upbringing there was always a lesson to be learned.

“Better catch him again, boy,” said Grandpa not unkindly.

“If you want that @%&*!#...” was as far as Stew got.

“We don’t use that kind of language on this farm,” Grandpa said. “Here, let me help you up.”

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

June 15, 2013

Wolves continued from page eight

plans to remove this unwelcome community occupant. He is finally captured 30 miles north of Monticello after killing a newborn calf.

Most alarming to the Richardsons is the discovery of his identity. The wolf seen creeping around their farm home is none other than Male 1133. Released 12 days prior, 1133 had traveled over 100 miles from his wilderness release site. He was captured approximately 30 miles from Sevilleta, the breeding facility he knew as home.

During the pre-release meeting at Beaverhead USFWS and U.S. Forest Service representatives were confident the pair would remain in the wilderness location of McKenna Park and were not likely to travel the less than 10 mile distance to nearby ranch homes. Female 1108 is believed to have remained in the wilderness, denning with pups orchestrated by USFWS to be “wild born wolves.”

Many times I have claimed the USFWS just won’t “get it” until one of their wolves kills someone.

“Wait until a wolf takes a kid right out of camp” or “It’s only a matter of time before they kill a hiker or unsuspecting hunter.” These boastful predictions became deeprooted fears when I became a mother. I can’t afford to wait around for a human tragedy to wake the USFWS to the recklessness of their program. The most likely of human victims to fall prey to these killers will be a child. The joyful laughter and distressed cries of children entice wolves. The only natural behaviors I have witnessed of these government bred wolves is their raw predator instinct to hunt. They are different from other forest predators in that they display no fear of humans. They are hunters and I fear my children are easy prey. The USFWS is unrelenting in their mission to establish a viable wolf population, but at what cost? Diminishing elk populations put outfitters and guides at risk of losing their livelihoods. Ranches that have been handed down for generations seem to be sacrificing their livestock as wolf feed rather than raising profitable cattle. Even in the state of our current economy, millions of tax dollars continue to be spent on a failing program. All the elk, all the ranch lands, and all the dollars in the world will be of little concern to a mother who loses a child as a result of this senseless program. The Gila forest hosts a large population of young visitors on weekends and summer months in addition to the countless children living in the area. The concern for too many involved in this wolf program is not for the young, fearful victims living in terror of these creatures. As mothers raising children among wolves we have the additional challenge of protecting our kids from a threat imposed by our own government and funded by our own tax dollars. Mexican Grey Wolves are tormenting our families and terrorizing our children. I beg for your help, in whatever capacity that may be, in protecting our sons and daughters.

Page 9

Western wolf issue is mostly not really about wolves

BY RALPH MAUGHANM WWW.THEWILDLIFENEWS.COM

Wolf controversy is personal and cultural, not over biology xcept for the few people “on the fence” — those who have not chosen sides — the controversy over wolf restoration in the West is not really about wolves.

When the wolves were first reintroduced beginning in 1995, there was some genuine debate over whether it was the best way to restore them, whether the population would grow or wither and die, whether they would greatly reduce, or maybe even increase prey populations, and the effect of wolves on other animals and the ecosystems.

Much knowledge has been gained. There are scores of scientific studies about the reintroduced wolves: their behavior, effects, prospects, etc.

While there were those dead set against wolves or completely for them regardless right from the start, many were genuinely open to information. The militant anti-wolf narrative didn’t develop and spread until about 8–10 years had passed. At first, extreme anti-wolf rhetoric was led by a few prominent politicians like Republican Senator from Montana Conrad Burns (the wolves will kill a little girl before the first year is over) and later, Democratic Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal who argued that the 30 or 40 wolves in the state were literally destroying the economy there.

The real drive against the wolves that was effective seemed to be related to, or at least paralleled, the rise of tea party and similar thinking.

E

At the time, pro-wolf groups were taken to task by some of their friends for making mistakes both tactical and strategic, but there is a good argument that the current situation of a slowly declining wolf population due to human mortality along with very unpleasant controversy would have happened regardless of any moves the pro-wolf groups made.

The wolf issue fit very well into the quiver of anti-government arguments at large at the time and wolves served too well as a scapegoat to take folks’ minds off the terrible economic disruptions of the Great Recession. While the prowolf argument was and remains about the beauty of wolves, the need of ecosystem for wolves, and their general lack of negative impacts; the anti-wolf position tends toward apocalypse. The wolves are claimed to be the very worst thing that has ever happened to big game, the elk and other herds are said to be in great decline, the ranching economy has been delivered a blow to the gut. Worse still the entire wolf project is a giant conspiracy to bring a huge non-native beast to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming from the far away country of Canada instead of restoring the timid, little seen, and small native wolf of the Rocky Mountains, canis lupus irremotus. The purpose of the great conspiracy is to end hunting, bring more federal control (or perhaps United Nations control) for its own sake, destroy gun rights, and the like. All these things are supposedly based on malice.

Arguments over the issue are quickly personal and based on stereotypes of what one side thinks the other is like. Here is a good example from a recent letter to the editor that argues that most of the time the State of Montana

claims wolves have greatly hurt the elk population, but quickly turns to the opposite argument (too many elk) when that argument is convenient. The comments about the letter are abrasive, and they don’t deal with the writer’s argument. In other words, we see cultural conflict rather than any true argument over wolves themselves.

Wolf advocates traditionally relied on the federal government to offset what they saw as the backward policies of the Northern Rockies states. Unfortunately for them, after friendly President Bill Clinton, there came two Presidents who were of no help or aided their opponents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Neither President was personally involved with wolf policy, but their appointments and nominations to key Department of Interior positions were unfriendly to wolves.

Despite setbacks to those who want more than a bare minimum recovery of wolves, the wolf population is spreading to Washington, Oregon, and perhaps California, which are more friendly states. They are also “blue” states.

While this is very speculative, perhaps twenty years from now we might see wildlife distributed not as much by geography and habitat as by politics. Red states might have big populations of a few large animals, designated as “game,” plus varying numbers of other animals, viewed as varmints. The game would be managed much like livestock, e.g., cows are “slow elk.” Elk are quick cows, good for targets.

Blue states might have a much larger variety of kinds of animals. They would be treated as wildlife as well as game. The category of varmint would be abolished.

Michigan Governor Signs Bill Protecting Wildlife Management from Politics n May 8, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed Senate Bill 288 into law.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Tom Casperson (R-Escanaba), gives the state’s Natural Resources Committee the authority to designate animals as game species. Previously, only the state’s legislature had that authority. Senate Bill 88 in effect removes the threat of referendum from game species designations and allows science and not antihunting politics to be used when

O

making game species decisions.

In effect, game species designations made by Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission can be done through administrative rules. This means that those rules would not be subject to referendum, unlike designations made by the state’s legislature.

Anti-hunting groups have a history of spending significant sums of money in Michigan and elsewhere to run emotionally driven campaigns aimed at stopping hunting at the ballot box. These

Smithfield boosting production of ractopamine-free pork

BY MEATINGPLACE EDITORS

mithfield Foods Inc. will soon convert a third plant to ractopamine-free production as the company positions itself to take advantage of demand for pork without the feed supplement, Chief Executive C. Larry Pope said.

When the third plant is converted on June 1, more than 50 percent of the company’s operations will have no ractopamine as part of its feed rations, Pope said.

Ractopamine is an FDAapproved drug used for many years as a feed additive to produce leaner pork, but China, Russia, the EU and other countries have banned its use.

“We see that as a strong competitive advantage, that we can change the way we raise the ani-

S

mals on the farms, get access to a market that the rest of the industry struggles to do,” said Pope, who spoke recently at an investor conference sponsored by BMO Capital Markets.

Smithfield in February said its plants in Clinton and Tar Heel, N.C., together would supply the market with more than 43,000 ractopamine-free hogs a day when the Tar Heel facility was fully converted by March 1, in time to comply with new regulatory requirements from China.

Pope, at the investor conference, did not specify which plant would become Smithfield’s third ractopamine-free production facility.

A Smithfield spokeswoman was not available by press time to respond to a request from Meatingplace for more details.

campaigns often ignore science and wildlife conservation to push their anti-hunting agendas.

For example, the Michigan legislature recently listed wolves as a game species allowing the state to use hunting as a wolf management tool. This prompted the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to collect signatures for a referendum seeking to overturn the designation of wolves as game species. Senate Bill 288 eliminates this type of action, instead keeping wildlife

management in the hands of the professionals.

“Governor Snyder and the members of the Michigan legislature deserve a big thank you from the sportsmen and women of Michigan,” said Evan Heusinkveld, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Director of Government Affairs. “Most of all, we are proud of the hard work Michigan sportsmen and groups like the Michigan United Conservation Clubs did to support hunting and scientific wildlife management.”

Livestock Market Digest

Page 10

June 15, 2013

My Cowboy Heroes

Mabel Strickland – First Lady of Rodeo

by Jim Olson pretty little gal named Mabel Delong was born in 1897 near Wallula, Washington. Her parents were Mr. William F. Delong, a shoe shop owner and guest columnist for the local paper (The Wallula Gateway) and Mrs. Anna F. Delong. The Delong’s homestead is now under the waters of Lake Wallula, on the Columbia River, behind the McNary Dam — since 1954.

It was her father who first introduced Mabel to horses, at about age three. She took to them immediately. Within a few short years, the young horsewoman was training with Bill Donovan, a local trick rider. In 1913, she entered her first rodeo, the Walla Walla Stampede and won the trick riding. After winning the next two consecutive years as well, she was asked by George Drumheller of “Drumhellers” Wild West Productions fame, to hit the road doing trick riding and relay races across the country. Her parents agreed to let her go only on the

A

condition she be accompanied by a chaperone. After all, she was a beautiful young lady — just coming of age. So began the professional rodeo career of Mabel Delong.

She was a petite gal of fivefeet, four-inches and around one-hundred pounds. Newspaper accounts from the day called Mabel, “The Lovely Lady of Rodeo” and some said she looked more like a “Follies beauty” than a rodeo cowgirl. Author

and Rodeo Historian, Gail Hughbanks Woerner once wrote, “Her features were delicate, her hair was always done in the most attractive style and her western clothing fit perfectly and was always of the most flattering styles.” She soon caught the attention of rodeo champion, Hugh Strickland of Bruneau, Idaho. The two were married in 1918.

After having a daughter (April) and an attempt at settling down to become Idaho farmers, the couple decided to hit the rodeo trail to earn some money as they had gone broke farming.

Hugh taught his wife to ride broncs, rope calves and steers and even steer wrestling. The duo paid their debts with rodeo winnings, gave up the farmer’s life, and never looked back — they were making more money on the rodeo trail.

Mabel went on to become one of the most recognizable and popular cowgirls of the early days of rodeo. It has been said that she was the most photographed cowgirl of all. Photographers loved to take pictures of the lovely little lady as she competed in trick riding, relay racing, roman riding, steer and bronc riding and calf and single steer roping!

She was also a Rodeo Queen and was likely to win at a number of different events on any given day.

Mabel looked more like a model than a champion cowgirl, but her winning ways put her in tight competition with the cowboys. She could rope as fast as most of the them and set several records during her time. (It should be noted here that before 1929, cowgirls competed right alongside the cowboys at most shows. Separate girls events were few and far between.)

There was a growing national concern back then over how competitive sports, such as rodeo, could harm women. Most cowgirls competing in those days were more of the brutish sort, not necessarily portraying the proper image of a lady. Few were delicate and feminine looking like Mabel. The debate reached even the small town (back then) of Pendleton, Oregon, where Mabel had been named 1927 Rodeo Queen. The following was written in her defense: “There is nothing masculine in her appearance and she does not wear mannish clothes. She dresses with excellent taste, whether in the arena or on the street.” – The East Oregonian 1927 Without ever intending to, she was being mixed up into a women’s liberation movement.

She responded to a newspaper reporter once, “I know you think I’m a paradox, but I belong in the saddle for I’ve been there since I was three. I love the open, dogs, horses, guns, the trees, the flowers . . . Still I love dresses and everything that goes

with them. I can’t tolerate the mannish women anymore than I can stand the womanish man.”

When asked about her and Hugh’s relationship she was quoted, “Now, here’s the way it is with Hugh and me: He’s a one-woman-man, and — well, I’m a one-man-woman. My home is my heaven. Hugh’s my husband, and that doesn’t mean maybe; he’s my manager; he’s my daddy sweet-heart and we’re pals right down to the heel of our boots.”

One of the most famous photographs of Mabel was when she appeared on the cover of the 1926 Cheyenne Frontier Days program, featuring her as a bronc rider, from the same rodeo in 1924. Amazingly, she was smiling and waving to the crowd while riding a bad bronc named, Stranger. She was the first woman ever to grace the cover of Cheyenne’s rodeo program.

In all her years of riding, she was only seriously injured once.

Mabel was performing in trick riding at the Madison Square Garden “World Championship” rodeo. She attempted to pass under the horse's neck and grab the saddle on the other side as they go around the arena fullspeed. Even though she had done this numerous times before, somehow, she lost her grip, fell beneath the horse and was trampled. She was severely injured and reported as “near death.” She recovered however, and went on to continue her winning ways.

A few championships credited to Mabel include: Pendleton, Oregon; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Walla Walla and Ellensburg, Washington; Dewey, Oklahoma and Madison Square Garden, New York.

Once, when asked in an interview if she hoped her daughter, April, would follow in her footsteps, Mabel said, “I don’t want her to follow my game. It’s too hard for a woman, and then, maybe when she is old enough, there won’t be any contests.”

Mabel was right, by depression years of the 30s, rodeo opportunities for women had all but disappeared. It wasn’t until the formation of the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association (WPRA) in 1948 that women began competing in all rodeo events once again. (Although this time it was only against other women, not men as well, like back in Mabel’s day.)

During the 1930s, Hugh and

Mabel relocated to Hollywood to work in the movies as many rodeo cowboy of that day wound up doing. They were in high demand for bits in Western movies, which were becoming very popular. Mabel preformed stunt work and had minor acting roles in many films; her pinnacle part being in Rhythm of the Range with Bing Crosby.

While filming a scene for Rhythm, a set was duplicated to look like the arena at Madison Square Garden — where she had been badly injured in 1926. As Mabel walked on set, she fainted in front of a gate looking just like the one where she had been trampled. She was rushed to the hospital where physicians reported a hemorrhage had reappeared at the site of the old wound!

Later Mabel, along with Bonnie Gray and Bertha Blancett, founded the Association of Film Equestriennes, an association of women stunt riders and actresses. Mabel established herself as a sought-after movie actress and stunt woman in Hollywood.

In 1941, Hugh Strickland passed away from a heart attack and Mabel then remarried to a man named Sam Woodward.

The couple lived in Buckeye, Arizona where Mabel served the Appaloosa Horse Club on their Board of Directors from 1949 through 1965. As one of the first women elected to the board, Mabel was active in both the local and national levels. She was respected by her colleagues because of her determination and extensive experience as a professional horsewoman. Mabel owned, bred and showed Appaloosas for many years after leaving the rodeo and Hollywood scenes.

She has been inducted into the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Hall of Fame, the ProRodeo Cowboys Hall of Fame, the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, the Pendleton Hall of Fame and the Cheyenne Frontier Days Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, only the induction into Pendleton’s Hall of Fame happened during her lifetime. Today the Mabel Strickland Cowgirl Museum is active in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Mabel Delong Strickland Woodward died in 1976, at age 79, after a long battle with cancer. Her ashes were spread at her home in Buckeye, Arizona.

She will forever be remembered as the first lady of rodeo.

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

June 15, 2013

New GM crop wave may ease Frankenfood fright

BY CHRIS BENNETT, FARM PRESS BLOG

he average customer strolling through a supermarket is unaware of the historical change brought about by genetically modified crops. The phenomenal performance of GM technology witnessed by farmers across the globe hasn’t yet translated to the grocery aisle, and beyond the rhetoric of GMO labels and apocalyptic Frankenfood warnings, GM crops are an enigma to many U.S. consumers.

However, a new line of next-generation GM crops is just around the corner, with clear-cut benefits to consumers. The power of transgenic corn and biotech soybeans is harnessed on farmland; but GM apples and bananas and Golden rice will make their impact on the grocery aisle, directly appealing to the last link in the food chain — consumers.

The jet-pack GM era has arrived and “is happening now,” Anastasia Bodnar, Biology Fortified biotechnologist, tells Nature in an article titled, “Transgenics: A New Breed.”

GM researchers have produced the Arctic apple, which browns and darkens at a very slow rate. “Making apples that could be processed in such a way without browning could be a real boon for the industry. And if the apples are received well . . . Arctic avocados, pears and even lettuce could be next.”

Golden bananas and Golden rice are getting closer to food industry access. The bananas, loaded with nutrients, carry tremendous health benefit implications for Third World countries. Likewise, Golden rice offers a lifeline to the millions of children that die every decade from vitamin A deficiency. In addition, Golden rice can help

T

prevent millions of children from going blind within the same time frame.

The next-generation queue of GM crops has inestimable value to global food security: lettuce that sprouts year-round; plums without pits for food processing; and crops requiring minimal pesticide use. The new wave of crops shows that GM technology is on the cusp of tangible consumer benefits.

Just recently, Sir Mark Walport, chief scientific advisor in the UK, said the rise of GM crops was “inexorable” and that GM technology was “showing its value.” According to the Telegraph, “His comments suggest that GM technology is rapidly gaining influence after years of public hostility and despite fears about the so-called ‘Frankenstein foods.’”

It’s only been 16 years since widespread use of GM crops began. The benefits to agriculture and global food security represent a historical benchmark. PG Economics estimates the global farm income gain over the 16-year period at $98.2 billion — a result of diminishing weed and pest pressure, improved genetics, and a major drop in the overall cost of production.

The anti-GMO campaigners will continue to march in full force, beating a luddite drum and grabbing headlines for boldly mowing down another field trial of GM crops. But as the flow of genetically modified crop benefits grows stronger and swifter, possibly the next generation of grocery-aisle GM crops will succeed in diminishing the volume of rhetoric from the Frankenfood cult.

Mark Lynas, former anti-GM apostle and pioneer, said it best during his road-to-Damascus speech on Jan. 3, 2013: “The real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.”

Page 11

ASI conducting 2013 Sheep Photo Contest ttention all photographers: It is time to start thinking about the American Sheep Industry Association’s (ASI) 2013 Photo Contest. The contest is open to all who wish to enter, which means you do not have to be involved in the U.S. sheep, lamb or wool industries to participate.

The only rule is that your photograph must include sheep. Entries must be postmarked by Aug. 16, 2013.

Entries will be judged on clarity, content, composition and appeal.

More than $1,000 will be awarded, with awards of $125 going to the grand-prize winner in each of the four categories listed below; $75 for the first runner-up in each category; and a $50 prize for the second runner-up in each of the four categories.

The winning photos will be highlighted in the October 2013 issue of Sheep Industry News and will be available on Oct. 1 at www.sheepindustrynews.org. Only the grand-prize winner, first runner-up and second runner-up in each category will be notified of their winnings.

Four categories: Action – Photographs of activities such as shearing, wool classing/skirting/baling, moving/trailing sheep, lambing, tagging, feeding, etc.

Scenic (East) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located east of the Mississippi River. (Photos entered in this category cannot include people.)

Scenic (West) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located west of the Mississippi River. (Photos entered in this category cannot include people.)

Open Category – Photographs with subject matter that does not fall into the three above-listed categories.

A

Other Contest Rules: ASI can use or reproduce all entries at the discretion of ASI. In addition, entries will not be returned.

ASI is not required to notify photographers when photos are used in materials.

Pictures taken with digital cameras can be submitted via hard copy or electronically.

All entries must be at least 3"x5" color or black-and-white high-resolution pictures.

Entries must be submitted in the name of the person who took the photograph.

Entries are limited to two per category.

Only photographs that have been taken in the past six years can be entered.

Photographs submitted in previous ASI photo contests cannot be reentered.

The following information needs to be included with each submission: title of photo; category (from the four listed above) into which it is being entered; photographer's name; mailing address; phone number; email address; and approximate location/date of photo.

Entries should be mailed to: American Sheep Industry Association; Attn: Photo Contest; 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360; Englewood, CO 80112.

Entries should be emailed to amy@sheepusa.org with the subject line of ASI Photo Contest.

The UN’s climate-change hypocrisy

BY TERESA PLATT, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT & ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

recent United Nations report admonished the world for not becoming “climate neutral” fast enough to avoid the “catastrophic consequences” of climate change . It’s an odd complaint for the U.N. to make, considering that the international body has failed to reduce its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The average human generates 4.637 metric tons of GHGs each year, not including the air he exhales. U.N. workers emit an average of over 8.2 metric tons of GHGs each year — just in the course of their professional lives.

There are over 215,000 workers at 54 U.N. agencies scattered in 530 duty stations around the globe. In 2008, these U.N. workers emitted 1.741 million metric tons of GHGs. Air travel contributed 4.02 metric tons per worker, 48 percent of the total.

By 2010, emissions had risen to 1.766 million metric tons, with air travel accounting for 51 percent of emissions.

While the U.N. urges the rest

A

of us to take the bus, public transportation accounts for less than 1 percent of its emissions. It spends over $300 million a year acquiring new vehicles. Its fleet now accounts for 13 percent of its emissions.

This hypocrisy isn’t surprising.

The U.N. World Food Program still uses Freon in 80 percent of its air conditioning systems, in violation of the Montreal Protocol, a U.N. treaty in force since the 1980s.

The U.N.’s plan for reaching climate-neutral nirvana includes a miserly commitment to reduce GHGs “4 percent by 2013 compared to 2009,” to replace plastic water bottles with drinking fountains, and to increase recycling from 45 percent to 60 percent.

The 950 workers at the U.N.’s Vienna Ecological Center use 400,000 sheets of paper each workday, or 100 million sheets a year. It’s progress, by U.N. standards, if this office switches to two-sided printing, reducing its volume by half, to 50 million sheets annually.

Ironically, the worst offenders are the U.N. environmental agencies.

“Reducing our emissions is our priority, as it should be for all

organisations around the world, and we will continue to lead by example,” stated a representative of the U.N.’s Environment Programme (UNEP). Yet, UNEP’s greenhouse gas emissions are increasing: The average UNEP worker emitted 11.2 metric tons of GHGs in 2010, up from 9.56 metric tons in 2008, a whopping

17 percent rise in just two years.

Air travel accounted for 94 percent of the UNEP’s emissions in 2010, up 9.3 percent from 2008.

The 95 workers at the U.N.’s Convention on Biological Diversity measured in at a shocking 36.1 metric tons per worker in 2010, 45 percent from air travel.

P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194 505/243-9515 • Fax 505/998-6236 caren@aaalivestock.com www.aaalivestock.com

Have that “hard to buy for” friend or relative?

Why not gift them with a subscription to the Livestock Market Digest? They will get a reminder of you every month AND stay up with the news and views of the livestock and ranching business!

~Gift Certificate ~ To:_________________________________ From:_______________________________ You have received a ____ year subscription to the Livestock Market Digest.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1-year $19.95, 2-year $29.95

Livestock Market Digest

Page 12

June 15, 2013

A Review of Wildlife Translocation

BY SAM SMALLIDGE

ildlife Specialist & Kyle Tator, Valencia County Agricultural Agent / New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service Wildlife translocation is defined as the transport and subsequent release of live wild animals from one location to another (Conover 2002). Wildlife translocation is often associated with humanwildlife conflicts or damage (Craven et al. 1998), but can also be used in conservation of rare or endangered species and for stocking game. This newsletter reviews the science behind translocation of individual animals responsible for human wildlife conflicts.

Wildlife damage management has shifted emphasis in the past few decades to focus more on the individual problem animal (Hone 2007). As a result, translocation has increased as a method to address human wildlife conflicts.

The public often perceives this approach as humane and preferable to lethal control. Further, a common belief that follows is translocated animals will “live happily ever after” at their new location. Although translocation does serve to address the problem behavior by removing the animal, exclusion or habitat modification methods often represent superior long term solutions.

Further, when used for problem animals in a wildlife damage context, euthanasia may be an appropriate and more humane alternative than translocation.

Unpredicted and unintended consequences of translocation are among the top concerns when considering its use. Because the primary objective for translocation of a problem animal is to reduce or remove the problem, there is often little attention given to possible consequences. There is limited scientific information regarding consequences of translocation. However, points of concern include: spread of disease and parasites (Griffith et al. 1993, Woodford and Rossiter 1993), humanness of translocation (Massei et al. 2010),

W

movement of relocated animals, impact to resident species at relocation area, and genetic consequences for wildlife species at relocation area (Craven et al. 1998, Massei et al. 2010).

Translocations may also take a toll on the individuals being relocated. Stress of captivity and relocation may predispose individuals to harassment from resident animals, increased predation, and increase the difficulty in acquiring resources such as food, water and shelter. Research on a variety of species demonstrates survival rates range from similar to non translocated individuals to approaching near total mortality (Mosillo et al.

1999, Conover 2002). Individual survival is dependent on several variables including species behavior, season of release, habitat characteristics, and environmental conditions.

In addition to animal welfare issues, individuals may resume problem behaviors at the new location. The problem behavior has then been introduced or moved to a new area continuing the human wildlife conflict. For example, urban raccoons translocated to rural environments tended to den near rural homes (Mosillo et al.

1999).

The concerns cited above have prompted wildlife professionals involved in conservation, game management, and wildlife damage manage to revisit translocation as a common practice and consider appropriate criteria for its use in wildlife management.

Species in New Mexico that should not be translocated are raccoons, skunks, and foxes as they represent common species known to carry rabies. The American Veterinary Medical Association is strongly opposed to translocation of these species because of the demonstrated potential to translocate rabies with the individual (AVMA 2009). A classic example involves rabid raccoons moved from Florida to North Carolina (Nettles et al. 1979). Similarly, spread of parasites by relocating wildlife is concerning yet poorly documented (Cunningham 1996).

ng Space NOW! Reserve Your Advertisi

f For the 2013 Edition o s t’ Livestock Market Diges ION IT FALL MARKETING ED

The best read annual publication in the livestock industry!

FEATURING THE . . .

cuss Please contact me to dis your advertising plans!

5-6011 RON ARCHER, 505/86 om ol.c @a ron her arc Livestock Market Digest 87194 7458, Albuquerque, NM Box P.O.

Euthanasia is especially preferred when a species has a potential for disease transmission. Guidelines for euthanasia are available through the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA 2007).

Summary Translocation of common wildlife species has little value from an ecological perspective (Craven et al. 1998). Translocation of some species may promote expansion or introduction of disease and parasites. Humaneness of translocation should not be assumed; captivity, transport and release into unfamiliar environments are high stress situations that may affect an individ-

ual’s ability to survive.

Continuance of problem behavior means the problem has been relocated to a new area. State and federal laws often influence how individuals may move or euthanize wildlife. Translocation as a tool to address human wildlife conflict should be weighed carefully before being used. Areas for animal release should be carefully and comprehensively assessed to determine ecological and social acceptability before problem animals are relocated. The public’s perception that translocation is humane and preferential to alternatives for addressing problem animals is not fully informed from ecological, animal welfare, and social perspec-

tives. Euthanasia, habitat modification and exclusion often represent better and more humane approaches to address human wildlife conflicts.

Literature Cited: American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2007. AVMA guidelines on euthanasia. Accessed via internet on 17 January 2012: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/eutha nasia.pdf American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

2009. Rabies Backgrounder. Accessed via internet on January 2012: 17 http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/rab ies_bgnd.pdf Conover, M. 2002. Resolving human wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Craven, S., T. Barnes, and G. Kania. 1998. Toward a professional position on the translocation of problem wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 171 177.

House panel erupts over Endangered Species Act debate

BY MEGAN R. WILSON, THEHILL.COM

ouse Democrats recently decried the vilification of so-called sue-and-settle tactics by Republicans and business groups, calling the criticism a “scare tactic” used against liberal groups.

The debate broke out in a House Natural Resources Committee hearing about potential reforms to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which environmental advocacy organizations have used as a platform to sue – and settle with – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in order to safeguard species under the law.

Democrats claimed factors – such as small budgets and political obstruction – often keeps federal regulators from doing their job, bringing on the suits.

“Sue and settle is a catchy phrase,” said Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), in her opening statement. “However, the fact that the majority is using it as an excuse to shut down the right of people to protect the actions of their government is inappropriate and runs counter to its own Tea Party principles.”

The practice generally occurs when a regulator fails to issue rules – or in this case, list a species as threatened or endangered – by deadlines set by law. Although some court settlements have ordered the FWS to put a species on the list within a certain time frame, the protections don’t kick in until the animal is officially listed.

Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said it waged “fish-in-the-barrel litigation” against agencies, wasting precious resources.

The Chamber of Commerce recently released a study showing environmental groups successfully sued the federal government in 2011 and forced them to schedule more than 720 plants and animals for placement on the endangered species list.

“This mega-listing case that people are talking about . . . those are schedules. They make no substantive decisions,” Patrick Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School and a litigator of several sue-and-settle environmental suits, told the House panel. “Unless those decisions are made, that recovery process cannot even begin. The ESA does not mandate recovery, that’s a flaw in the statute.”

Republicans focused on the sue-and-settle’s impact on local governments and how to initiate the first ESA reform in nearly three decades, pulling its three witnesses from state and tribal agencies.

H

“Nobody wants to see species go extinct,” said Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wa.). “I think the issue that we’re looking at is how best to preserve species.”

Tyler Powell, the deputy secretary of the environment for the State of Oklahoma, said federal regulators are able to mess with statelevel efforts to drum up a collaborative recovery effort with the industry to help endangered or threatened animals.

“The state really has no purpose once a listing is done,” he said. “The federal government comes in and takes over all coordination of the species. The state serves as just a general commenter, like any other individual.”

While state and federal wildlife agencies do not coordinate on species listing, biologist Dr. Reed Noss, a professor at University of Central Florida, told lawmakers the “perceived conflict between the federal government and its activities” with other governments is a “red herring,” adding that he was surprised when he heard the topic of the event.

“Everywhere I’ve worked in my 40-year career, I’ve seen generally really good cooperation” between federal and local regulators . . . literally on a daily basis,” he said, noting his work in Ohio, Oregon, California and Florida on wildlife protection plans.

Critics say the suits force the federal government to prioritize its actions to environmentalists’ will.

The Chamber of Commerce report released last month found the ESA designations stemming from the two lawsuits in 2011 used 75 percent of FWS’ $20.9 million endangered species and wildlife habitat budget that year.

“The suggestion that our courts are there to rubber stamp collusive agreements is insulting to our judiciary,” said Parenteau. “They do not do that.”

Judicial consent decrees between regulators and outside groups must be posted in the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final. Critics of the process argue that, by that time, the damage is already done.

Republicans at the hearing blamed green groups for not actually being willing to sit down to reform and improve the ESA – instead attacking any efforts as an attempt at weakening the law –while Democrats blamed the other side for not giving regulators a seat at the table.

“The fact that neither one of the agencies were invited to appear in the June 2012 hearing or in today’s re-run reflects the continuation of a troubling Republican strategy of fear mongering rather than a fair oversight effort,” said Bordallo.

June 15, 2013

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Tom Growney Equipment acquired by Colorado Machinery

T

om Growney Equipment has been acquired by Colorado Machinery, The John Deere Construction, forestry, and Agriculture equipment dealer in Eastern Colorado and Wyoming. The acquisition tool place, June 1. The combined operations will be renamed “4 Rivers Equipment.”

Growney has been a longtime John Deers dealer with locations in Albuquerque, Hobbs and Farmington, New Mexico as well as El Paso, Texas.

All of these locations were acquired by Colorado Machinery and will fall under the 4 Rivers Equipment brand.

4 River Equipment’s heritage dates back to 1926 with a small John Deere agricultural dealership in Holly, Colorado. In the 1960s the construction division was created in Colorado at the same time the Growney organization was forming in New Mexico. Throughout the years Colorado Machinery and Tom Growney have been top John Deere dealers receiving many

awards for service and excellence.

Keith Olson, General Manager of 4 Rivers Equipment, said “We are excited to work with our New Mexico and Texas customers, and hope they will appreciate the way we do business. 4 Rivers Equipment is here to look out for the best interests of our customers, just like a partner would. The “Your Working Partner” slogan, used by Colorado Machinery for many years, will continue to be our guiding factor.”

Combining the operations and resources of the two groups into 4 Rivers Equipment will offer customers a greater depth of resources for their business needs. With over 300 equipment professionals the 4 Rivers Equipment team will be ready to provide customers with better solutions. “We are proud to offer our customers a wider selection of new and used equipment, onhand parts availability, as well as highly trained parts and service people,” said Olson.

Yamaha Supports Future of Outdoor Recreation with 2013 Renewal of National FFA Partnership amaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., has extended its partnership with the National FFA through Yamaha’s Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access Initiative by sponsoring the FFA’s Outdoor Recreation Proficiency Award for 2013.

The National FFA’s Outdoor Recreation Program encourages students in projects that develop a thorough understanding of income-producing outdoor recreational business enterprises such as vacation cabins and cottages, camping and/or picnic areas, fishing, hunting, winter sports, shooting preserves, guide services and trail rides among others.

“Yamaha has made a long-term commitment to U.S. agriculture, farmers and farm families through its leadership in promoting safe, responsible OHV use,” said Steve Nessl, Yamaha ATV and SxS marketing manager. “The National FFA continues to be a valuable partner in promoting this message for the future of the agriculture industry and community.”

The National FFA Agricultural Proficiency Award program reaches thousands of students each year, encouraging them to cultivate skills in specific areas of agricultural entrepreneurship and placement. FFA member students compete throughout the year, and the Proficiency awards are announced at each year’s National FFA convention.

“The National FFA Foundation appreciates the continued support that Yamaha gives through their OHV Access Initiative,” said Maggie Halferty, senior regional director for corporate contributions, National FFA Foundation. “The investment

Y

Yamaha makes in our student members through their support of the National FFA Outdoor Recreation Proficiency helps provide a learning platform that integrates safety, sustainability and financial literacy and further helps us realize our mission to help develop a student’s potential for personal growth, premier leadership and career success through agricultural education.”

The Yamaha OHV Access Initiative is the industry leader in Guaranteeing Responsible Access to our Nation’s Trails (GRANTs).

For more than five years, Yamaha has contributed millions of dollars to directly and indirectly support OHV access to thousands of miles of trails, maintained and rehabilitated countless riding areas, improved staging areas, built bridges over fish-bearing streams and partnered with local riding communities across the country to improve the OHV experience.

Each quarter, Yamaha accepts applications from non-profit or tax-exempt organizations including OHV riding clubs and associations, national, state and local public land use agencies and other members of the OHV community in the United States. A committee then reviews each application and awards GRANTs to deserving projects such as the National FFA Outdoor Recreation Proficiency award.

Yamaha is actively seeking qualified projects at local, state and federal levels. The current OHV Access Initiative GRANT application form and submission guidelines are available here.

More information and applications are available at www.yamahaohvaccess.com.

Page 13

Shorthorn Junior National offers leadership opportunities uniors Today – Leaders Tomorrow” is the theme for the 2013 National Junior Shorthorn Show and Youth Conference (NJSS) to be held in Des Moines, Iowa, June 24 to 29.

The goal for this year’s event to is to teach juniors about leadership, communication, stewardship, education, teamwork and mentoring.

The NJSS not only offers Shorthorn juniors a great opportunity to exhibit their cattle, but to participate in new activities and meet new people. A schedule filled with educational and fun activities has been tailored to the theme of the event created by the Iowa planning committee and the American Junior Shorthorn Association (AJSA).

Many contests are available to juniors throughout the week.

“J

Juniors can show off their artistic skills in several contests including arts & etc., poster, graphic design or photography. For the public speaker, there is a speech contest that offers both a prepared and extemporaneous division depending on the age group.

If juniors are looking to challenge their knowledge of the industry, there’s a quiz bowl for that! Team fitting, team salesmanship and the beef cook-off contests offer a great opportunity for juniors to work together to accomplish a common goal.

Don’t forget about the very competitive livestock judging and showmanship contests!

These are always a hit!

Gwen Crawford, ASA Director of Junior Activities, is encouraged by the participation of all ages.

“My favorite part about helping put on this amazing event is watching everyone get involved.

Whether it is the youngest of our members participating in the Shorthorn Sidekicks and the Mentor/Apprentice program, or the contests, youth conferences, educational seminars and exhibiting animals for the older youth, to the fellowship of the adults, there is something for everyone,” Crawford says.

“Shorthorn Junior Nationals may only be a week long, but the friendship and memories that are made last a lifetime,” she adds.

Late entry and substitutions for entries must be postmarked by May 15, 2013. A full schedule of events, in addition to the entry form, rules and regulations, contest rules and hotel accommodations are all available at www.shorthornjuniornationals.com

Farmer’s death puts national focus on killer bees

BY CHRIS BENNETT IN FARM PRESS BLOG

hen Larry Goodwin was stung to death by thousands of Africanized honey bees on June 1, the story had a near-fiction quality for many Americans. Goodwin, 62 years old, who farmed near Waco, Texas, was killed when he disturbed a hive while moving brush. The hive contained 40,000 killer bees and according to Goodwin’s family, he was literally swarmed over his entire body — 3,000 stings.

Exterminator Allen Miller, who removed the hive following Goodwin’s death, told US News & World Report, “It’s amazing what killer bees can do. With killer bees, all 100 percent think they’re supposed to save the queen and be killers. They terrify people out of their gourds because there are so many of them.”

In the 1950s, Brazilian scientists attempted to breed Tanzanian queen bees with European honey bees, hoping to develop a bee strain with strength in tropical climates.

In 1957, 26 of the African queen bees escaped (or were released — accounts vary) and their descendants began pressing north. The Africanized bees, or killer bees, reached Texas in approximately 1990 and California in 1994. No longer confined to the Southwest and Western states, killer bees are established in Florida and Georgia, and have made inroads in Louisiana and Arkansas.

W

The Africanized bees are nearly indistinguishable from European honey bees.

“There’s no way to tell if honey bees are Africanized without DNA testing. They look about the same as the European honey bee. They tend to be a little darker than European honey bees and a little smaller.

What sets them apart is their intensive defensive behavior.

They’ve been known to chase their victims a quarter of a mile,” said Eric Mussen, Extension apriculturist, UC Davis. “As an area becomes colonized, the Africanized honey bees will show their true colors — they will exhibit their intense defensive behavior.”

After a sting, Africanized honey bees release a bananascented pheromone that draws other bees to attack and the chain creates the swarm effect.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, killer bees have killed over 1,000 people in Brazil since the 1950s. Several months ago, in Florida, a park ranger, Rodney Pugh, was nearly killed after suffering 100 stings while trying to move trash with a front-end loader. Pugh knocked over a hive hidden in an old tire and the swarm was on. “It was like a thousand little knives poking me in my body,” he told ABC News. “It’s the worst feeling, because you just had so many and they wouldn’t stop.”

And in Arizona, where 100 percent of wild honey bees are Africanized, Reed Booth, popularly known as the “Killer Bee Guy,” has a booming extermination business. “They were

first introduced to Arizona in 1993, and they started breeding quick with the European bees. I started getting calls from ranchers like, ‘We’ve had bees on our property for 60 years, we like bees, they never bothered anybody. But now they’re stinging the horses and everything else,’” Booth told Modern Farmer. “I’ve had some real angry bees; one time they chased my truck for two miles.”

Along with the Larry Goodwin incident in Texas, another recent case catapulted killer bees into the national media spotlight; this one occurring in Arizona. Steven Johnson, 55 years old, was killed while climbing a mountain near Tucson. When he didn’t return from a weekend climb, friends went looking for Johnson — and found him hanging 70 feet off the ground and in full climbing gear; stung to death by a hive of killer bees. Investigators speculated Johnson may have disturbed the hive while hammering a climbing spike into the rock — his climbing rope was hanging within a few feet of a hive.

“He had anchored himself to the wall as he was going down so he was actually anchored and he must have been attacked and was not able to climb back up or go back down,” said Sheriff’s Lt. Raoul Rodriguez, according to the Daily Mail.

Africanized honey bees are continuing to colonize and move north across the U.S. Killer bees — a lab experiment gone wrong.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 14

June 15, 2013

U.S. sued over policy on killing endangered wildlife

BY JULIE CART, LOS ANGELES TIMES

nvironmental groups are taking the Justice Department to court over a policy that prohibits prosecuting individuals who kill endangered wildlife unless it can be proved that they knew they were targeting a protected animal.

Critics charge that the 15year-old McKittrick policy provides a loophole that has prevented criminal prosecution of dozens of individuals who killed grizzly bears, highly endangered California condors and whooping cranes as well as 48 federally protected Mexican wolves.

The policy stems from a Montana case in which Chad McKittrick was convicted under the Endangered Species Act for killing a wolf near Yellowstone National Park in 1995. He argued that he was not guilty because he thought he was shooting a wild dog.

McKittrick appealed the conviction and lost, but the Justice Department nonetheless adopted a policy that became the threshold for taking on similar cases: prosecutors must prove that the individual knowingly killed a protected species.

The lawsuit charges that the policy sets a higher burden of proof than previously required, arguing, “The DOJ’s McKittrick policy is a policy that is so extreme that it amounts to a conscious and express abdication of DOJ’s statutory responsibility to prosecute criminal violations of the ESA as general intent crimes.”

WildEarth Guardians and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance said they intend to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Arizona, one of the states where Mexican wolves were reintroduced. The Times received an advance copy of the lawsuit.

Federal wildlife managers who are responsible for protecting endangered animals have long criticized the policy as providing a pretext for illegal trophy hunters and activists.

A June 2000 memo from the law enforcement division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Wyoming warned, “As soon as word about this policy gets around the West, the ability for the average person to distinguish a grizzly bear from a black bear or a wolf from a coyote will decline sharply. Under this policy a hen mallard is afforded more protection than any of the animals listed as endangered.”

Earlier this year, a man in Texas shot and killed a whooping crane, telling authorities that he thought it was a legally hunted Sandhill crane. He was not charged under the Endangered Species Act but was prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which carries lesser penalties.

Wendy Keefover of WildEarth Guardians compared the policy to “district attorneys rescinding speeding tickets issued by traffic

E

cops when then speeder claims he or she believed the legal speed limit was greater than what was posted, and that he or she had no intention to break the law.”

The unspoken attitude toward endangered species among some western ranchers is summed up by the expression: “Shoot. Shovel. And shut up,” suggesting that

the most efficient way to deal with the unwanted bureaucracy associated with protected species was to quietly remove them.

Mexican wolves have been decimated by illegal shootings, causing the death of more than half of the animals released in the wild since the start of the reintroduction program in 1998.

Forty-eight Mexican wolves

have been illegally killed, according to the lawsuit. It notes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that illegal shooting and trapping was likely to be a major impediment to recovery of the species, but the agency thought that strong enforcement could discourage the illegal acts.

Wolves are often killed by hunters who say they thought

they were shooting at coyotes, which may be shot on sight in most states.

Mistaken identity is also frequently given in mix-ups between black bears and grizzly bears that lead to grizzly deaths.

The Wyoming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo included continued on page fifteen

Real Estate GUIDE To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515 or at randy@aaalivestock.com Missouri Land Sales ■ 675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your Own Plane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2ba home down 1 mile private lane.

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

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

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

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

Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres in grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-bedroom, 1-bath rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641 ■ NEW LISTING - RARE FIND - 226 ACRES 1.5 miles of Beaver Creek runs along & thru this "Ozark Treasure." Long bottom hay field, walnut grove, upland grazing, excellent hunting, deep swimming hole, 4 BR, 2BA older farm house. Don't snooze and loose on this one. Call today! MLS #1303944

Q uay Co u nty , N ew M ex i c o 32,170.7 Deeded Acres, More or Less 6,687.5 Acres New Mexico State Lease 1,360.0 Acres - Free Use 40,218.2 Total Acres, More or Less EASTERN NEW MEXICO RANCH This extremely well improved working cattle ranch is located near Tucumcari, New Mexico. The terrain varies from low lying flats to elevated rocky mesa side slopes. Fences are good to excellent and the ranch is one of the best watered properties in Eastern New Mexico. Improvements include a good ranch home, new barns and outstanding shipping pens and working pens. Everything is extremely well maintained. This is a rancher’s ranch priced to fit a rancher’s pocket book at only $325 per deeded acre. Offered co-exclusively with WIN Realty.

Descriptive brochure available.

Offered exclusively by:

Chas. S. Middleton and Son www.chassmiddleton.com 1507 13th Street Lubbock, Texas 79401 (806) 763-5331

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

June 15, 2013

Page 15

Animal-rights groups release report on zoonotic disease JOHN MADAY, MANAGING EDITOR, DROVERS CATTLENETWORK

he World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and Compassion in World Farming last week released a report titled “Zoonotic diseases, human health and ani-

T

mal welfare,” implicating intensive animal agriculture for outbreaks of human illness.

In 2012, the groups commissioned researchers to compile a series of reports examining the public health threat posed by some of the major zoonotic diseases and the effects of farming systems on this threat. The

report summarizes their findings and provides policy recommendations from the two groups.

A news release from the WSPA leads with a statement that “The intensification of modern farming is an increasing hazard for human health.” The report cites incidents of foodborne illnesses from campy-

lobacter, salmonella and E. coli, and zoonotic diseases such as bird flu and swine flu, concluding that concentrated production, animal transport and associated stress and disease exposure are to blame for outbreaks.

The authors offer the following recommendations:

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

Call Someone Who Specializes in Ranches & Farms in Arizona MARANA BRANCH

SCOTT THACKER, Assoc. Broker • P.O. Box 90806 • Tucson, AZ 85752 Ph: 520-444-7069 • Email: ScottThacker@Mail.com www.AZRanchReaIEstate.com • www.SWRanch.com

Pomerene Ranch – Benson AZ, 81 head yearlong, 92 Acres Deeded, 7650 acres AZ State Lease, nice ranch with many new improvements. Ask Scott Thacker about the current FSA loan, EQIP Projects, & the Range Rest Rotation payments. Asking $425,000 New Listing! Dripping Springs Ranch – Globe AZ, 202 Head Year Long, 1687 Deeded Acres plus State and BLM, some irrigated pasture, manufactured home, mineral rights. Asking Price Greatly Reduced, Call Agent for Details!

The Historic Fourr Ranch – Dragoon AZ: 225 Head Year-Long on 1200 Deeded Acres, State and Forest leases. Perfect mix of a functioning cattle ranch, rich history, and amazing headquarters. 4 Houses plus a main house and an indoor swimming pool.

The ranch might be a guest ranch or large family estate. Asking $2,800,000 Split Rock Ranch – Paradise AZ.: 6,000 acres deeded, 200 head year long, State, BLM, Forest, Increased AG production could be developed, basic ranch housing, beautiful setting. Asking $3,631,800

We have more ranches available, please check our websites.

All properties are listed by Arizona Ranch Real Estate, Cathy McClure, Designated Broker

Ranches are SELLING! looking for We have many qualified buyers ranches. Please call us if you’re considering SELLING!

Arizona Ranch R E A L E S TAT E

Scott Land co.

! %*' + ( ) ( %' $ % %$ ) ( &'%& '), $ # $, %) '(

Ranch and Farm Real Estate

– Lipscomb CO., TX. - 2,403 ac. +/- of sprinkler irr. farmland w/excellent improvements for livestock, pvmt. & all-weather roads, excellent area for corn, seed milo, peanuts, cotton & alfalfa. Section of native grass can be purchased w/property.

McDonald’s will no longer offer Angus burgers

– 1,200 ac. +/-, irrigated farm, river pumping rights. 800 mature pecan trees, highway frontage, very scenic.

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

CHERRY CANYON RANCH: Secluded ranch located in the foothills of the Capitan Mountains in southeastern New Mexico. 10,000± total acres located in limestone hill country. Grazing capacity estimated at 200 A.U.s year-long. Improved with a two residence, mobile home, barns and corrals. Livestock water provided by three wells and pipelines. Abundant wildlife to include mule deer and Barbary sheep. Price: $1,800,000 – call for more information.

SOUTH BROWN LAKE RANCH: Southeastern NM cattle ranch for sale. 5,700 total acres located in good grass country. BLM grazing allotment for 164 A.U.s year-long. Nicely improved with a modern residence, barns and corrals. Livestock water provided by three wells and pipelines.

Easy to manage and operate. Sellers would like to retire. This is as good a buy as there is around. Call or view the information on my website.

Bar M Real Estate www.ranchesnm.com

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker

– Ada area -3,120 ac. +/- of choice grassland w/improvements, lays in 3 tracts, ',() "

$

Paul Bottari, Broker • 775/752-3040 www.bottarirealty.com

NEVADA FARMS & RANCH PROPERTY

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

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

e can confirm that McDonald’s will be removing the Angus Third Pounder burgers from our national U.S. menu to make room for new and exciting choices for our customers,” McDonald’s spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement recently.

“While these burgers will no longer be available in our restaurants, they may still play a future role on our menu.”

Angus snack wraps are also reportedly on the chopping block.

In March, the chain confirmed that it was weighing the future of the Angus Third Pounder as it cut Chicken Selects and a salad from its national menu.

“W

Bottari Realty

See this property, other listings and YouTube videos at www.nm-ranches.com Keith L. Schrimsher O: 575/622-2343 • srre@dfn.com C: 575/520-1989 www.nm-ranches.com

MEATINGPLACE.COM

800-933-9698 day/eve www.scottlandcompany.com • www.texascrp.com 1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027

Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Roswell Ranch is located 20 miles east of Roswell, N.M., adjacent to Bottomless Lakes State Park. 8,679 total acres with 3,910 deeded acres. Private gated access off pavement. Significant improvements; custom 3,300 sq. ft. residence, apartment, 3 good barns, stables, fencing, and water infrastructure. These assets will support a meaningful depreciation schedule that once allocated will make the bargain price of $256 per deeded acre an even more attractive deal!

BY DANI FRIEDLAND,

%)) "(%$ '%! '(

Farm near Wells, NV: 90 acres in hay; 2 homes; shop and storage three miles from town. $450,000

Ensure health – by developing farming policies for humane sustainable food supplies that ensure the health of animals and people. This includes using animal breeds, diets and management conditions that minimize stress and optimize animal welfare and immunity.

Surveillance and vaccination – helping minimize the spread of disease.

Limit transport – ensuring animals are slaughtered humanely on or near to the farm where they were raised.

Invest in research and knowledge transfer – helping support farmers to develop and implement higher welfare livestock systems.

Reduce non–therapeutic antibiotic use – limiting the risk of antibiotic resistance.

Encourage consumers to eat less and higher welfare meat – reducing the risk of exposure to food infected with Salmonella, Campylobacter or E. Coli.

Read the full report from the WSPA and Compassion in World Farming.

!1)2 %7!2 %7#%,,%.3 0!2341% 0!5%$ 1/!$ &1/.3!'% (4'% ,!+% -!.2)/. (/-% ). 3(% 2(!$/6 /& !,,!2 %#,4$%$ ,!+%2 31%%2 %7#%,,%.3 '1!22 4.3).' &)2().' $1%!(/-% 2)3%2 !# !. !$$ -/1% !#1%2 /.,8 -),%2 /43 /& !, ,!2 #!33,% 1!.#( /& ,!1+25),,% %$ )5%1 / .)#% "1)#+ (/-% "!1.2 0)0% &%.#%2 '//$ $%%1 (/'2 $4#+2 (4.3).'

6)3( ! "%$1//DING!.$ 2(/0 N'!1!'% "!3( !.$ !E P#!1 E L A S &/1 /6.%1 &).!.#%$ 6)3( #!2( $/6. /13(!%7!2 !# 4.3).' !.$ #!33,% 1/.32 68 9 !33,% !.$ /-% )3% 0!

ENDING 9 LE 6P2(/0 SA!,,!2 9 4.3 /4.38 7 2411/4.$%$ "8 ,!1'% (/-%2 %7#%,,%.3 2#(//,2 0!

68

%!'/5),,%

9

9 !7 */%01)%231% .%3 9 */%01)%231% %!13(,).+ #/-

U.S. sued continued from page fourteen

this example: In May 1996, a man hunting for black bear in Wyoming shot and killed a collared grizzly bear, an endangered species.

The hunter and three friends moved the bear carcass, destroyed the collar, dug a hole, dumped in the bear, poured lye over it and covered the hole.

When the animal’s remains were recovered, the man said he thought he was shooting at a common black bear.

The U.S. attorney’s office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute it, citing the McKittrick policy.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 16

Climate change science is biased he majority of developed nations fund research scientists and rely on them for policy guidance. It is in the best interest of these government-funded scientists to ensure their fields, and therefore their jobs, are deemed of great importance, says Patrick J. Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

This is a problem, however, when it comes to environmental science.

■ In the United States, government-funded scientists are required to produce a National Climate Assessment every four years.

■ The assessment is produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 13-agency behemoth with multi-billion dollar annual funding.

■ Under its empowering legislation, the assessments are “for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in the formulation of a coordinated national policy on global climate change.”

The research program and the individuals who write such reports are the largest consumers of federal largesse on climate science. Would they ever produce a report saying that their issue is of diminishing importance, so that EPA regulations of greenhouse gases are simply not needed? No, not unless they are tired of first-class travel and the praise of their universities, which are hopelessly addicted to the 50 percent “overhead” they charge on science grants.

T

The perils of science-by-government-funded-committee became apparent in the first assessment in 2000. The models they used were worse than no forecast at all.

■ The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s computer models were given a multiplechoice test with 100 questions and four possible answers each. Simply spitting out random numbers would, within statistical limits, get around 1 out of 4 (25 percent) correct.

■ The initial assessment, however, would get only 1 out of 8 answers correct (12.5 percent), essentially performing twice as badly as a random series of numbers.

■ The research program was aware of this problem but published its report anyway.

The reigning assessment is the 2009 version, which has been considered authoritative and is largely the basis for the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations.

Later this year, government science goes international with the release of the next Scientific Assessment of Climate Change by the United Nations body that tracks the issue. It suffers from the same problem as the draft research program document, because the same people produced both reports. It, too, will serve as the basis for policy, and it, too, will be obsolete the day it is published.

Source: Patrick J. Michaels, “‘My Scientists Made Me Shrink Your Car’: How Government Scientists Plunder the Till in the Name of Science,” Washington Times, May 28, 2013.

June 15, 2013

Maryland farmers vindicated in Waterkeeper lawsuit ANGELA BOWMAN, STAFF WRITER PORKNETWORK.COM

fter years of costly legal battles, the verdict is in: Alliance Waterkeeper failed to prove that Alan and Kristin Hudson’s chicken houses polluted a nearby tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, according to a report by the Baltimore Sun. That’s what presiding Judge William N. Nickerson concluded nearly two months after the trial began in early October. In a case that pitted agricultural producers against environmentalists, the court’s decision may finally bring some relief to the Hudsons, who run a family farm located in

A

Maryland’s Eastern Shore region.

Nickerson’s 50-page decision was announced on Thursday and vindicated both the Hudsons and Perdue Farms. Nickerson concluded that Perdue should be “commended, not condemned” for its program to minimize and prevent pollution from their chicken farms.

The decision reverberates far beyond the courtroom. Many of the country’s agriculture producers waited with bated breath. If the Waterkeeper Alliance had been successful, it could have set a harmful precedent for many of the country’s large- and smallscale family farms.

Waterkeeper Alliance said in

a statement that it disagrees with the verdict and will review the judge’s opinion to consider a possible appeal.

The Waterkeeper Alliance’s lawsuit dates back to 2009 when another environmental group, the Assateague Coastkeeper, flew a plane over the Hudson's farm and reported what appeared to be a pile of chicken manure draining into a nearby ditch. The material was later confirmed by the Maryland Department of the Environment to be treated sewage sludge from Ocean City, Md., which was used by the farm as fertilizer.

Despite the corrected information, the Waterkeeper Alliance proceeded with its lawsuit.

Pima judge’s conduct censured

BY VERONICA M. CRUZ, ARIZONA DAILY STAR

ima County Superior Court Judge Carmine Cornelio has received a public censure from the Arizona Supreme Court stemming from his behavior during settlement conferences in two separate cases.

An attorney in a January 2012 settlement conference involving possible exposure to toxic mold complained to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct that Cornelio made inappropriate comments, causing the 19-yearold plaintiff to cry, using profanity and “mishandling and endangering an expensive magnifying glass” used by the plaintiff, according to commission documents.

The second complaint was filed over Cornelio’s conduct in a series of settlement conferences from May 2011 to March 2012 for a Cochise County case “involving the sale of family property.”

In those conferences, Cornelio

P

used profanity, yelled at “recalcitrant” parties, told a client her attorney was incompetent, threatened parties if they failed to reach an agreement, directed personal insults and called one party a name, engaged in ex-parte communications and “behaved in a coercive manner,” according to documents.

Cornelio “acknowledged his conduct was not always patient, dignified and courteous as required by the Code,” documents state.

Settlement conferences are informal, off the record, proceedings in which the judge helps parties settle a dispute without going to trial.

As the presiding judge for Pima County’s Civil Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution program, Cornelio oversees between 70 and 80 settlement conferences a year, according to documents.

Cornelio said he met with a representative of the judicial commission to discuss the complaints

and they “reached a resolution that is mutually satisfactory.”

In addition to the censure, it was agreed Cornelio will be assigned a mentor in at least 25 percent of his settlement conferences for six months. He is allowed to offer suggestions for who his mentor should be.

“I’m working with the conduct commission on finding a mentor with the idea that I’ve been doing these a long time and been successful at it, there’s always something I can learn,” he said.

In addition, Cornelio agreed to attend at least one educational course “related to appropriate judicial demeanor,” documents state.

Cornelio was previously censured in 2010 for cursing and showing his middle finger to an attorney, who was a personal friend, at a settlement conference.

In 2007 he was reprimanded for confronting “a court employee on a public street” and making a “hand gesture in an accusatory manner.”

Working to Protect the Rich Tapestry of the West What They are Saying About Us… • The $206,098,920 Endangered Species Act Settlement Agreements — Is all that paperwork worth it?

• Leveling the Playing Field: Support for the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011 • Support for the Governmental Litigation Savings Act of 2011 — Reform of Excessive Litigation Pay-outs • Foreign & Domestic Train Wreck in the Making — More of the ESA • The Secret World of the Animal Rights Agenda TO SUPPORT THESE CAUSES AND MORE, JOIN US!

I am/our organization is committed to protecting the open spaces, private property, private businesses & ensuring the responsible use of public lands. Please list me/my organization as a member of the Western Legacy Alliance.

I have included my membership dues and my $____________ additional contribution.

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Organization: _______________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ City: __________________________ State: _____ Zip: __________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ______________________

Individual Membership: $25 Association Membership: $500 Corporate Membership: $1,000 Help You Can

936 West 350 North • Blackfoot, ID 83221 westernlegacyalliance@gmail.com • 208-681-6004 www.westernlegacyalliance.org

JOIN TODAY!