MD June 2019

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

June 15, 2019 • www.aaalivestock.com

Volume 61 • No. 6

Even When We Win, We Lose A Better Checkoff?

The cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man or take unfair advantage.

BY LEE PITTS

D

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

on’t you get tired of hearing that popular fads and trends start in California and are later picked up or copied elsewhere? In some cases, it’s true, like canvas and denim jeans that got their start in the Gold Rush and can now be seen on a wide swath of the American public. And it’s probably safe to say that some good things like smoking bans in restaurants, Silicon Valley, McDonalds, Apple Computer, the Bakersfield sound (Merle Haggard and Buck Owens), modern theme parks, police helicopters and the organic food movement did get their start in California and have had a positive effect on the nation. But just as many other California exports have had a deleterious effect like Hollywood idiots, the skateboard culture, gangs, LSD, strip clubs, hippies, crystal meth and like, you know, like Valley girl speak.

You know?

Still other trends can either be perceived as good or bad, depending on your perspective, like bottled water, the Beach Boys, food trucks, California cuisine, wine snobs and to a large extent, the beef checkoff.

After all, California was a leader in getting a state beef checkoff and was so instrumental in the establishment of the NCBA that one of the past presidents of the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), John Lacey, was made NCBA’s first President.

Another old pruney was given the dubious “honor” of making the motion at the NCA convention in San Antonio that merged the old NCA with the Beef Board to form the NCBA. On the other hand, it was a

group of 40 Californians who went to San Antonio to lead the fight against the “New Deal” checkoff. In doing so we were pretty much the only people who foresaw that the while the NCBA would be a great thing for multinational packers and bureaucrats seeking high six figure salaries, not so much for the ranchers footing the bill.

Now California is rolling out what they’re calling the California Cattle Council and if done right it could be a different kind of checkoff that could be a role model for other states to follow.

In fact, I’d like to see it replace the beef checkoff, after all, cattlemen don’t produce beef, we produce cattle.

A Steak Is Not A Steer Earlier this year California became the first state in the nation to form a Cattle Council that will collect a dollar per head on every animal over 250 pounds to be used in fighting

the environmental and regulatory zealots that proliferate in the state. In many ways it sounds like what we should have done in the first place instead of gathering up the hundreds of millions of beef checkoff dollars only then to hand it over to multinational packers for their research and the promotion of generic foreign beef.

A referendum took place earlier this year to determine if $1.00 should be assessed on the sale of live cattle to fund the Cattle Council. A cynic could say that this was just another way to gather up a dollar a head after a referendum to double the state beef checkoff to two dollars failed last year in California.

But whereas that referendum to skim off another dollar per head for the California Beef Cattle Council failed, the referendum to take a dollar per head for the California Cattle Council passed with 68 percent voting in favor of its implementation.

The reason for its passage could hinge on the BIG difference between the words “cattle” and “beef”.

According to Dave Daley, a fifth generation rancher, professor of animal science at Cal State Chico and former President of the CCA, “The effort to establish a council that would focus on live cattle issues, separate from the beef checkoff program, has been in the works for three years. In contrast to the California Beef Council which focuses on the promotion of beef as a product, the California Cattle Council is tasked with addressing live cattle issues including topics such as land and water use, wildlife’s interaction with cattle, open space preservation, predators, greenhouse gas emissions and animal welfare concerns.”

Daley hints at something cattlemen should have realized when they first established the beef checkoff and that is, a steak is not a steer. Ranchers who keep the beef checkoff alive don’t sell beef in the grocery store, yet they are financing the promotion and research for the packers and retailers who don’t pay the checkoff. As we’ve all seen, improving the retail and wholesale price of beef does not necessarily equate to higher prices for ranchers. A case can be made that in some continued on page two

Socialism Is Bad for the Environment

BY SHAWN REGAN /NATIONAL REVIEW

A

s the Soviet Union began to collapse, the socialist economist Robert Heilbroner admitted that central planning had failed economically but said we needed “to rethink the meaning of socialism.” Now it was the thing that had to emerge if humanity was to cope with “the one transcendent challenge that faces it within a thinkable timespan.” Heilbroner considered this one thing to be “the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment.” Markets may be better at allocating resources, Heilbroner thought, but only socialism could avoid ecological disaster.

Not long after, however, it became clear that the socialist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were not just economic failures; they were also environmental catastrophes. Economist Jeffrey Sachs noted at the time that the socialist nations had “some of the worst environmental problems in the entire globe.” Air and water pollution abounded. By one estimate, in the late 1980s, particulate air pollution was 13 times higher per unit of GDP in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe. Levels of gaseous air pollution were twice as high as this. Wastewater pollution was three times higher.

And people’s health was suffering as a result. Respiratory illnesses from pollution were rampant. In East Germany, 60 percent of the population suffered from respiratory ailments.

In Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), nearly half of all children had intestinal disorders caused by contaminated water. Children in Poland were found to have five times more lead in their blood than children in Western Europe.

Conditions were so bad that, as Heilbroner acknowledged, the Soviet Union became the first industrialized country in history to experience a prolonged peacetime decline in average life expectancy.

As the Iron Curtain lifted, socialism’s dirty environmental secret was exposed: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were the most polluted and degraded places on earth. “When historians finally conduct an autopsy of the Soviet Union and Soviet Communism,” economist Murray Feshbach and journalist Alfred Friendly Jr. wrote in 1992, “they may reach the verdict of death by ecocide.”

Consider the destruction of the Aral Sea between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which has been called “one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters.” Once the world’s fourth-largest inland body of water, it shrank to less than continued on page four

by LEE PITTS

Thunder Butts

I

’m sure you’ve heard that Progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez from New York and Ed Markey from Massachusetts have said in the Green New Deal that we need to eradicate cows from the face of the earth if mankind is to survive the next 12 years.

New Jersey Senator Corey Booker said, “The devastating impact from emissions from the meat industry must end.” I find this hilarious because Booker is a vegan and it’s common knowledge that vegans eat a lot of beans and legumes. Scientists tell us that the average person has attacks of flatulence 14 times per day (really) but vegetarians and vegans, because they consume more beans and legumes, can easily double that daily production, which explains why Booker is one big gasbag.

The reason I’m not using the same word the Democrats use to describe this bovine flatulence is because my mother raised me to be a gentleman and in our house the word f**t was a four letter word and if she heard one of her kids using it we’d have our mouth washed out with soap. Yuck! The only word that comes close to replacing the word the Progressives insist on using is flatulating, which I’m quite sure my mother wouldn’t approve of either. But in finding an alternative word I found my Thesaurus doesn’t include the word f**t or f**ting. I could change the spelling and use phart or pharting but that’s just beating around the bush.

So I turned to my dictionary which suggested this alternative: “Simultaneous combustion as a result of retention of excessive methane.” But it’s ridiculous to use up that many words in my allotted space so for the rest of this essay I’ll just use the first letters of all the words in that definition which turns out to be “scaaroroem”. Catchy, don’t you think?

My encyclopedia contained all sorts of interesting information about scaaroroem, for example, did you know that in the 19th century there was a Frenchman by the name of Le Potomane who could actually make melodic music by scaaroroeming? Also, did you know that even dead people scaar-

continued on page five

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

June 15, 2019

WIN

Spindle Family

For more than 100 years, Farm Credit of New Mexico has been farmer and rancher owned. Over that time, we’ve helped countless family businesses prosper and grow. Unlike other financial institutions, we’re not a bank. We’re member-driven. What can we do for you?

farmcreditnm.com 1-800-451-5997

ways the beef checkoff actually hurts those who pay the buck a head as it doesn’t discriminate between foreign and American beef.

In promoting the Cattle Council concept the CCA was quick to point out that, “Unlike traditional checkoff dollars, with fifty cents going to national beef promotion and fifty cents staying in the state, the entire dollar per head assessment approved by the referendum stays in the state to address the California beef industry’s unique challenges and needs.

At least that’s what they’re saying now. Only time will tell.

“While the council’s funding can’t be used for litigation or lobbying, it can be used to educate consumers, the public and legislators on how important the cattle industry is to California, both economically and environmentally,” said Daley. (We’d imagine the difference between educating legislators and lobbying them is a very fine line.)

“The urban population doesn’t understand that, and it’s going to be an uphill to get that point across. But cattle producers have a good story to tell — from improving water quality to providing open landscapes and wildlife habitat. The new council will provide the resources and the reach to do that,” said Daley.

This new Cattle Council will be able to use resources to focus on production issues like fire, water and air quality that are unique to the state. A good example of what might be achieved with Cattle Council dollars was the announcement recently that a vaccination for foothill abortion will soon be available to everyone. The vaccine was developed as a joint effort between the CCA, academia and drug companies. If Cattle Council dollars could be used on something similar in the future it would pay for itself many times over. It would make the rancher far more money than the beef checkoff ever did.

Refundable Without Prejudice For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

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

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

Subscribe Today

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

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK

NAME

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF:

ADDRESS

MARGUERITE VENSEL..Office Manager CITY

STATE

ZIP

My check is enclosed for: One Year: $19.94 Two Years: $29.95 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

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

So why did the California Cattle Council pass with producers voting two to one to approve it, yet the vote to raise the beef checkoff in the state to two bucks per head failed?

That’s easy, in all the promotion promoting the Cattle Council it was stressed that unlike the beef checkoff, dollars collected by the Cattle Council are “refundable without prejudice.” As Daley said, “The dollar is not without responsibility. The new California Cattle Council offers an additional level of accountability to the ranchers funding it. Dollars collected on the sale of cattle are refundable upon request, should the Council not meet producer expectations.”

There’s another reason the referendum the Cattle Council passed so convincingly. It was stressed that not one thin dime would end up in the hands of the NCBA. We shall see about that, after all, there was no mention of an NCBA in the promotional literature when ranchers first approved the beef checkoff to begin with. For posterity’s sake we’d like to document this promise and put it in a time capsule to remind ranchers 25 years from now that, “The Cattle Council is not subject to the federal beef checkoff program or influenced by the USDA or the NCBA. All

continued from page one

funds stay in California.”

The folks putting this plan together knew in advance that if they did not include those two key provisions the Cattle Council idea would have fallen flatter than a cow pie on a flat rock.

Which raises a great question. If the refund provision and the exclusion of the NCBA is the right thing for the Cattle Council, why is it not right for the beef checkoff as well?

We’ll Be Watching You! If the Cattlemen’s Beef Board would have included a refund provision when they married the NCBA you’d currently be seeing a huge chunk of checkoff money being refunded as rancher’s only way to voice their displeasure with the NCBA. As it is now all they can do now is join R CALF. If the Beef Board would have kept their promises and not diverted millions to the NCBA they’d never have to worry about the possibility of a future referendum or about lawsuits currently working their way through the courts. In order to save the beef checkoff they also would not have had to swear on a Bible in the Supreme Court and say that the national beef checkoff was a government program after all. They were either lying then or when they sold us the bill of goods in the first place.

The founders of the Cattle Council were wise to exclude cattle under the weight of 250 pounds because they knew dairymen would be up in arms if they had to pay the assessment on drop calves, even though they could get a refund. Dairymen are less trusting, it seems.

The assessment is expected to generate $3 million annually and we suspect the lion’s share won’t have to be refunded as long as the Council keeps its promises, doesn’t make it too difficult to get a refund and doesn’t commingle its funds with the California Cattlemen’s Association, California Beef Council or the California Rangeland Trust.

If all they do is help pay office overhead and salaries of the other groups they are no better than strip clubs, Nancy Pelosi, LSD and all those other bad things to come from California.

One thing we’d have liked to have seen changed was that the Cattle Council will be comprised of producers from ALL segments of the California cattle industry, the same as the Beef Council. We feel it should have been limited to cow-calf producers, stocker operators and cattle feeders so that no packers or allied industry folks would have any say at all. We’ve seen how that has been bad for the beef checkoff.

As it is, The Cattle Council Board of Directors will be appointed by the California Secretary of Agriculture and are non-paid appointments. As Daley said, “About 40 other such councils and commissions in California have been successful in repositioning themselves in a positive light with the public and with lawmakers. I look at this as a public relations opportunity. It’s a strategic investment, a proactive and preemptive effort regarding regulation that might be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back for cattle producers. I’m really excited about the opportunity we have. We really owe it to our ranchers to invest … and make some impact in Sacramento and beyond. It’s not

June 15, 2019

WIN a panacea, but it will give producers a way to build bridges and explain their business to the public.”

Holding Them Accountable We can only hope that in the future there’s a vibrant and independent livestock press to act as a watchdog to see if they are living up to their promises.

Currently the beef checkoff is coming under heavy fire because folks aren’t willing to improve it. Already R-CALF has filed papers in federal district court in Montana asking that its motion to declare the beef checkoff practices unconstitutional be expanded to 15 additional states. Those states are: Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. After the Montana Beef Council was caught partnering with a fast food company to promote foreign beef a judge gave R-CALF a preliminary injunction in June 2017 that has cost its state beef council dearly.

R-CALF claims its members are injured by the state council’s private speech because rather than promote consumption of domestically produced beef, which R-CALF believes will benefit its members, the councils promote beef regardless of how or where it was raised. The injury arises because the councils are not accountable to the public, meaning R-CALF cannot employ traditional lobbying techniques to advocate for change.

“The beef checkoff is eliminating opportunities for U.S. cattle producers to remain profitable by promoting foreign beef as if it were equal to domestic beef and by supporting corporate efforts

Livestock Market Digest continued from page one

to consolidate and control our industry. Our members said ‘enough is enough’ and our plan is to put producers back in control of the checkoff, which our lawsuit helps accomplish,” said R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard.

Another of R CALF’s objections is that the state beef councils send checkoff money to third-party entities that are likewise not publicly accountable and that use the money to support the consolidation of the cattle and beef industry. In 2018, the Texas Beef Council, for instance, gave $2 million to the private Federation of State Beef Councils and U.S. Meat Export Federation. Other councils have donated to political advocacy groups like the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Initiative.

“Independent producers of beef are currently being compelled to subsidize the speech of multinational corporations regardless of their wishes,” said attorney David Muraskin, who represents R-CALF. “Hopefully the unfettered misuse of U.S. cattle producer’s checkoff dollars by the state beef councils, many of which are closely associated with NCBA affiliated state cattlemen’s associations that fought to repeal country of origin labeling for beef, will be a thing of the past,” said J. Dudley Butler, former head of GIPSA, Grain Inspection, Packer and Stockyards Administration.

If they do it right, and that’s a big “IF”, perhaps cattlemen in other states may one day follow California’s footsteps in creating a Cattle Council that works for those who pay into it, instead of working only for those who don’t. If that happens, it will be one of the good things to come from California.

Page 3

The Evolving Wildlands Project

BY JUDY KEELER

J

ust like U.S. Representative, Alexandria OcasioCortez’s “Green New Deal” the Wildlands Project was considered, by rational minds, to be so far-fetched it could never become reality.

To the conceptional thinkers it was a utopian dream come true. Building arks that would save every species in the world and allow wildlife to frolic in everyone’s backyards.

The original Wildlands Project’s plan was an 87-page thesis published in the Wild Earth magazine in 1992.

The essential component; to build biological preserves all over the globe that would protect large predators in the hopes of preserving biodiversity.

This concept was not new. It had many supporters including Earth First! members. It was published in Dave Foreman’s 1991 book, “Confessions of an EcoWarrior”.

Once known as the Wildlands Project, it is now known as “Rewilding”. Although presented as sound science, it lacks many of the basics of a scientific project, including the testing of the theory and the ability to replicate.

A widely acclaimed research scientist and university professor, Reed Noss, is credited with developing the design for a biological preserve. However, he admitted in the original thesis that his ideas and words were just a part of a continually evolving text. A text consisting of words, not facts.

To the rational mind, words are not equivalent to scientifically, undisputable facts. The facts indicate that in 1997, Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First! and Jack Humphrey, program coordinator for the Sky Island Alliance, admitted their theory was largely untested.

Introduced to the global community in 1992 during the Earth Summit, also known as the UN Conference on Environment and Development, success for this plan will depend on protecting fragile environments and conservation of biological diversity.

Since Reed Noss held a PH.D. in wildlife ecology from the University of Florida, he was the perfect candidate to tap as a paid consultant to the Department of Interior during former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt’s tenure, 1993-2001.

Dr. Noss also believed that sympathetic agency personnel should be recruited to bring together professional ecologists and other scientists who understand the local ecosystem and wildlife as well as the principles of conservation biology. Grass-roots conservation activists that understood the mechanics of public land management should help design the biological preserves.

One only needs to look at the Wildlands’ original design to understand where the federal land management agencies and the wildlife management agencies will be taking this concept.

Each biological preserve was to consist of a core

reserve, with connecting corridors to other core reserves, surrounded by two buffer zones. Core reserves would be roadless areas, within which all roads would be closed, free from industrial use. The first buffer zone would be strictly protected, while the second, outer zones, would allow a wider range of compatible human uses.

Outside the outer zone would be an area referred to as the matrix. This matrix would exist only in the first stages of a wilderness recovery project. Eventually, the wilderness network would be expanded to dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands.

Also key to the Rewilding campaign was the concept that large carnivores and ungulates require large expanses of land in order to breed and expand. For a minimum viable population of 1000 [large predators], an area of 242 million acres would be required for grizzly bears, 200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves, preferably without human inhabitants.

The Gila Wilderness is a perfect example of an expanding matrix. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently taken a hands-off management strategy for wolf recovery into this area. In addition, Defenders of Wildlife has successfully dumped the financial responsibly for livestock depredation onto our federal government.

Although never ratified by Congress, the concept of biological preserves and conservation biology has been adopted by the federal agencies and trickling down to the states.

This theory and the expanding matrix have a good chance of succeeding as agricultural lands are taken out of production through the Endangered Species Act and the onerous federal rules and regulations that come along with it.

Grazing lands are already a matrix of private, federal and state lands making it easier to test the Wildlands’ theory in New Mexico and Arizona. This agenda is not restricted; it’s raising its dreadful head throughout our nation as the global agenda expands and evolves. It has already been adopted by many elected officials and is being reintroduced in the Green New Deal.

As more private lands are purchased by large, nonprofit corporations and management by our federal agencies continues to expand its chokehold on American agriculture, life on the farm and ranches will not get much better.

Rural communities are becoming keenly aware of all the special interest, non-governmental organizations, claiming to represent wildlife and special interest land user organizations, that are teaming up with progressive, socialist activists and federal and state agencies to ensure the Rewilding hypothesis comes to fruition. As Dave Foreman once said, “if it takes 200 years, it takes 200 years. This land isn’t going anywhere.”

A 5th generational rancher, Judy Keeler and her family still ranch in the Bootheel of New Mexico.

Page 4

Livestock Market Digest

June 15, 2019

TRO Issued Against Hammonds’ Grazing Permit

BY MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI / CAPITAL PRESS

A

federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting two Oregon ranchers pardoned last year on arson charges from grazing cattle on four federal allotments.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon ruled on June 4 that environmental groups are likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government violated its own regulations by restoring the grazing permit of Steven and Dwight Hammond of Diamond, Ore. Simon also determined the 28-day restraining order is justified because the environmental plaintiffs — Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity and Wildearth Guardians — have shown a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm if cattle are turned out on public land allotments on June 7 and July 1 as planned.

The plaintiffs and the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the allotments, are expected to engage in further arguments on June 28 regarding a longer-term preliminary injunction against grazing while the lawsuit is pending.

Both men were convicted in 2012 of setting fire to federal land, but were sentenced to, and served, terms less than the five-year minimum sentenced required by law.

In 2016, the Hammonds were returned to prison after 9th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals found they must complete the minimum sentences. Last year, President Donald Trump issued the ranchers full pardons and released them from prison.

Shortly before leaving office in January, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke ordered the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to reinstate the Hammonds’ grazing permits for four allotments abutting their ranch. The environmental groups filed a lawsuit opposing Zinke’s order.

During oral arguments in Portland on June 4, the federal government claimed the environmentalists lacked justification for a temporary restraining order.

It’s unlikely the plaintiffs can prove that grazing will cause irreparable injury to the greater sage grouse and redband trout, which are sensitive species in the area, said Stephen Odell, the government’s attorney. Their allegations of irreparable harm are based on “generic” testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Clait Braun, who did not distinguish between proper and improper grazing or visit the allotments, Odell said.

“He’s never examined the habitat about which he’s purporting to make expert assertions,” Odell said.

The environmental groups also requested the temporary restraining order several months after the Hammonds’ grazing permit was renewed and several

weeks after cattle were first turned out onto one of the allotments, he said. A temporary restraining order cannot be based on an emergency that the plaintiffs brought about themselves by waiting for so long to take legal action, according to the government.

Most rangeland health standards have been met for the Mud Creek Allotment, where the plaintiff seek to prevent cattle from being released on June 7, the government said. While the allotment has fallen short of the rangeland health standard for protected and sensitive species, that wasn’t caused by grazing but rather due to sagebrush habitat suffering from the encroachment of juniper, invasive weeds and fire, the agency said.

Even before the Hammonds’ grazing permit was revoked in 2014 due to their earlier arson convictions, evaluations of the allotments found that grazing levels weren’t improper or excessive, according to the government.

The environmental groups argued the Hammonds’ grazing permit was restored even though they lacked a “satisfactory record of performance” due to abrupt decision by Zinke on his last day in office in early 2019. Associated documents were not released to the plaintiffs until grazing had already begun on one of the allotments in April, said David Becker, attorney for the environmental groups.

Authorizing the Hammonds’ grazing permit violates federal regulations and will encourage the ranchers to again set fires and otherwise harm the four allotments, which have been recovering during the past five years without grazing, the plaintiffs said.

A temporary restraining order is justified because the plaintiffs are likely to prove the grazing permit was renewed due to the pardons rather than the Hammonds’ track record, which is contrary to federal environmental and land management laws, the environmental groups claim.

Zinke should also have performed an environmental analysis of renewing the grazing permit instead of “categorically excluding” it from such review, which didn’t account for the ecologically important area in which the allotments are located, the plaintiffs said.

Grazing in the allotments will damage sage grouse habitat and streams occupied by redband trout, while the Hammonds won’t suffer much financial damage since they can graze cattle elsewhere, as they did before the permit was renewed, according to the environmental groups.

The temporary restraining order against grazing is necessary because June is a critical month for the sage grouse, whose chicks forage near nests and depend on vegetative cover to protect them from predators, Becker said.

BAD half its original size because of Soviet economic policies.

Fixated on making the USSR self-sufficient in cotton production, central planners mandated industrial agriculture throughout the arid region. Massive water diversions for irrigation reduced the sea’s inflows to a trickle, causing the biggest manmade loss of water in history. Fishing villages became dry and landlocked. Some, such as the former port city of Muynak, now lie more than 75 miles from the sea.

The desiccation of the Aral Sea also caused severe health problems throughout the region. As the waters receded, the sea’s salty floor was exposed, along with pesticides that had accumulated from agricultural operations. All this was then carried by strong winds to nearby communities. Respiratory problems, throat cancer, and other illnesses became more common as the pollutants were deposited in the lungs of millions. The human and environmental consequences are still being felt. Today, infant-mortality rates in the Aral Sea region

continued from page one

remain significantly higher than the national average in Uzbekistan, and children there experience similarly high rates of anemia, diarrheal diseases, and other illnesses caused by exposure to toxic contaminants.

How can this be? “Environmental deterioration was not supposed to occur under socialism,” Cuban-American researchers Sergio Díaz-Briquets and Jorge Pérez-López wrote in a detailed study of Cuba’s environmental legacy. “According to conventional Marxist-Leninist dogma, environmental deterioration was precipitated by the logic of capitalism and its relentless pursuit of profits.”

Socialism, on the other hand, would avoid capitalism’s excesses. “Guided by ‘scientific’ principles, socialism’s goal was a classless and bountiful society,” they explained, “populated by men and women living in harmony with each other and the environment.”

But this was clearly not the case in the Soviet empire. Nor was it in Cuba, whose environmental record after decades of socialist control was described

by Díaz-Briquets and PérezLópez as “far different from the utopian view.” The West, meanwhile, had not only the consumer goods that socialist societies lacked but also a cleaner environment.

One explanation for the disparity is that central planners, unlike markets, grossly misallocate resources, as a matter of routine. Energy prices, for example, were highly subsidized in the socialist economies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. As a result, industrial production was far more energy-intensive throughout the socialist world than in Western European economies — five to ten times higher, according to one estimate — leading to more pollution. A 1992 World Bank study found that more than half of the air pollution in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe could be attributed to subsidized energy pricing during this period.

A related problem was the fixation of socialist planners on heavy industry at the expense of the environment. “The singular dominant fact of the Soviet economic strategy,” Jeffrey Sachs has noted, “was the subordination of all human and economic goals to the development of heavy industry.” Industrial pollution from factories in Eastern Europe was so bad that Time described it as the region “where the sky stays dark.” Acid rain in Krakow severely damaged the city’s historic structures and buildings, some of which required renovations, and even corroded the faces of many centuries-old statues.

Of course, industry behind the Iron Curtain was anything but efficient, and central planning caused excessive use of natural resources. A 1991 study

by Mikhail Bernstam found that market economies used about one-third as much energy and steel per unit of GDP as did socialist countries. Likewise, Polish economist Tomasz

Zylicz found that the non-market economies of Central and Eastern Europe required two to three times more inputs to produce a given output than did Western European economies.

(The former Soviet world, as well as China, also emitted several times more carbon per unit of GDP than the United States did — a trend that continues today.) Simply put, market economies make more with less and are therefore better for the environment.

Socialist planners, on the other hand, lack the knowledge necessary to rationally coordinate economic activity. Moreover, bureaucratic constraints make accurate price-setting impossible. In their 1989 book The Turning Point, Soviet economists Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov offered an illustrative example. To bolster the production of gloves, the Soviet government more than doubled the price it paid for moleskin.

Warehouses soon filled with mole pelts, but glovemakers were unable to use them all, so many rotted. As the economists explained: The Ministry of Light Industry has already requested Goskomtsen [the State Committee on Prices] twice to lower the purchasing prices, but “the question has not been decided” yet. And this is not surprising. Its members are too busy to decide. They have no time: besides setting prices on these pelts, they have to keep track of another 24 million prices. And how can they possibly know how much to lower the price today, so they won’t have to raise it tomorrow?

Therein lies a crucial flaw in socialist economic logic, and one that has real environmental consequences: Whereas a capitalist firm has ample incentive to act on such information to economize on the use of natural resources, socialist planners have no such motivation — Soviet bureaucracies, Shmelev and

Popov noted, were “able only to correct the most obvious price disproportions several years after” they appeared — nor do they have the knowledge needed to accurately set millions of prices at once. And if there are no market prices to convey accurate information about the value of scarce natural resources, there is little chance of conserving them.

Finally, there is the issue of property rights. In a socialist society without them, it is impossible to hold individuals or governments accountable for environmental damages: Planners can increase industrial output without compensating those who bear its costs in the form of pollution. In a capitalist society, property rights offer protection against environmental harms and give resource owners incentives to conserve.

Socialism’s environmental record is just as bad elsewhere.

As Díaz-Briquets and PérezLópez document, in Cuba, socialists’ quest to maximize production at all costs has caused extensive air, soil, and water pollution. And in Venezuela, socialist policies have contaminated the nation’s drinking-water supplies, fueled rampant deforestation and unrestrained mining activity, and caused frequent oil spills attributed to neglect and mismanagement by the state-owned energy company.

As socialist ideas capture the American imagination — and are often portrayed, as with the Green New Deal, as necessary to avoid environmental catastrophe — it’s important to remember socialism’s dismal environmental legacy. Capitalism may be a dirty word these days, but when it comes to producing the prosperity and creativity necessary to sustain a clean environment, it’s still the best system we’ve got.

This article appears as “Price Not, Conserve Not” in the June 3, 2019, print edition of National Review.

June 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 5

Hot Off the Grille: Is California Ready to Legalize Roadkill Cuisine?

CALMATTERS.ORG

L

et’s get the jokes out of the way first.

“Meals under wheels.”

“Bumper crop.”

“Gravel-tenderized meat.”

Chances are state Senenator Bob Archuleta has heard most of them. A Los Angeles County Democrat, he has a bill advancing through the Legislature that would allow Californians to “salvage” recently deceased wildlife from the sides of the state’s roads and highways.

The eyebrow-raising (and for the squeamish, stomach-churning) effort has been the butt of “many jokes here in the Capitol and even in my own hometown” of Pico Rivera, he acknowledged.

But jokes aside, he insists, “this bill is dealing with very serious issues.”

It would allow outdoorsy and culinarily courageous Californians to engage in a very particular form of roadside dining, so long as they apply for a state permit after-the-fact. Proponents say that wildlife and highway regulators could then use the data to identify roadkill hotspots and help reduce human-wildlife collisions.

It would make California the most populous of a string of states—including Western ones such as Montana, Idaho and Oregon—to permit such highway harvesting.

For progressives, there’s the added selling point of not letting good meat go to waste— an argument that has won over many environmentalists and even one of the most zealous of animal protectors, PETA. While roadkill cuisine may not yet be mainstream, it appears to have joined the ranks of bug eating and dumpster diving as a counter-cultural dietary choice once associated with extreme poverty—but now earning the respect of eco-conscious foodies. As High Country News recently observed, “stereotyped hillbilly eating roadkill has been replaced by an environmentally and food conscientious middle-class urbanite.”

Plus, roadkill is nothing if not free range—to tragic excess.

While the bill has no formal opposition and has unanimously cleared the Senate’s Natural Resources and Water Committee, not everyone in the room was won over.

Judie Mancuso, founder of the animal rights advocacy group Social Compassion In Legislation, argued we “should be protecting the animals, not worried about hitting and eating them.”

“It seems insane, I’m sorry,” she said.

Other groups have raised concerns that the bill could enable poaching, jeopardize traffic

safety and lead to food-borne illness.

For decades California law has banned hungry drivers from pulling over to gather bumper-battered wildlife. That’s for safety reasons, but it’s also an artifact of the state’s strict hunting laws. If you want to take a deer out of the wild (or off a highway shoulder), you need a deer tag. No exceptions.

Under state law, “unlawful possession of wildlife” carries a fine of up to $1,000 and a sixmonth jail term. But California Fish and Wildlife officials say roadkill reapers aren’t likely to receive that maximum sentence and that it’s a “very uncommon” citation.

No “freeway to fork” Even so, Archuleta and a coalition of wildlife conservationists and hunting advocates want to make that exception for only a handful of big, meaty animals including deer, elk and wild pigs. (With apologies to squirrel connoisseurs, all other critters are off the menu.)

Under the proposal, the state would launch a pilot program in 2022 that would allow people who accidentally hit one of those animals, or come across one on the side of the road, to cart the animal home as long as they apply for a free permit within 24 hours. Applicants could file their permit on an app that would also include information on how to properly dress the carcass and avoid foodborne illness. They would also be allowed to “dispatch” animals that have been wounded, but not killed.

At the request of California Highway Patrol, interstates are exempt.

Archuleta was born and raised in the swath of east Los Angeles County he now represents, where the vast majority of roadkill wear collars. If he seems an unlikely legislator to rally to the cause highway foraging on his own accord, that’s because he didn’t.

Instead, the proposal arrived on his desk thanks in part to Rennie Cleland, a retired game warden with California Department of Fish and Game. Cleland teamed up with the California Deer Association, a hunting and conservation group, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the state’s National Rifle Association affiliate, to find a legislator open to the idea.

Cleland, more than most, has a passion for roadkill salvage.

As a state worker, he said he helped start a program to deliver a “perfectly good meat source” to local churches and families in need, first in Sonoma County, then in his native Siskiyou. By his own accounting, he helped distribute 37,000 pounds of meat in total—though not without the occasional intervention

of public health officials, who forced him to stop delivering the meat to charities. State officials shuttered the program entirely after Cleland retired.

Removing hazards, or creating new ones?

He said he is motivated by principle: A hunter who shoots an animal is required to make an effort to retrieve it.

“It’s against the law to wantonly allow an animal like that to go to waste,” he said. By the same token, seeing large game animals being left to rot alongside the side of the road “always stuck in my craw as a game warden,” he said.

But in appealing to Archuleta, a former reserve police officer with the City of Montebello, the bill’s supporters primary focused on safety. At least 20,000 deer a year are hit by cars in California, a figure that could be as high as 80,000, according to UC Davis researchers. These accidents are dangerous and occasionally lethal for drivers too.

In Idaho, 10,000 roadkill reports have been logged since the state implemented a similar program in 2012, accord-

ing to Gregg Servheen of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He said the department has used that information to decide where to erect warning signs, fencing, and in a handful of cases, highway underpasses to allow wildlife to cross without harm.

But some groups, including the California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association, have raised concerns about the bill’s unintended consequences. By allowing salvagers to apply for a permit after collecting the animal, the law could give the poachers a ready-made excuse when caught with a contraband carcass: “I swear, officer, I just found it on the side of the road!”

Proponents insist wildlife law enforcement will be able to tell if an animal has been hit by a car. And there are simpler methods of poaching that don’t involve reporting an illegal kill to the state.

A legislative analysis of the bill notes that while the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has rarely exercised its authority for wild game, “if the consumption of road kill becomes widespread,

there may well be an important assessment role for it to protect public health.”

Another concern: that the law will incentivize some drivers to…take aim.

Supporters say any grocery savings would almost certainly be offset by the cost of replacing a windshield or removing dents from a car hood. Plus, there’s the question of synchronizing roadkill and reaper. As Servheen from Idaho, says, “That’s going to be quite a meeting of the minds, so to speak.”

At the Senate committee’s hearing last month, chairman Henry Stern called it his “favorite bill of the day”—but later warned colleagues to “ease up on the quips.” Easier said than done.

When Tim Burchett, a Tennessee state senator introduced one of the first laws to legalize the harvesting of roadkill in the continental U.S. in 1999, it drew national attention. Members of the public gleefully sent him gag recipes, song books and (nevermind that felines and dogs are exempt) a bumper sticker that read “Cat—The Other White Meat.”

RIDING HERD

continued from page one

oroem?

What the encyclopedia did not say and the Progressive Democrats seem to be unaware of is that cows don’t scaaroroem. At least not very much.

They belch instead. If there was all this bovine flatulating going on dairymen would all be deaf, and when you branded your calves the stench would drive even the most gross cowboy to load up his horse and go home.

But the bi-coastal Progressives seem to be suffering from nature-deficiency-disorder from hardly ever going outside, so how should they be expected to know that your average teenager scaaroroems more than a cow does.

In an effort to reach across the aisle and educate the ignorant politicians I invited a lead-

quarters and we even took the precaution of sitting on bare wood so there’d be no false positives when one of us slid across a leather seat, for example. The liberal lady was surprised that it was surprisingly quiet, other than a belch or two, no doubt coming from adolescent steers.

Then, all of a sudden, there was this terrible scaaroroem that made me pinch my nose and breath through my mouth.

But the combination duck call and stink bait did not originate from the cattle but was instead what I’d refer to as “friendly fire”, if you get my drift. It turned out that my vegetarian friend took that old Irish saying to heart: “May the wind be forever at your back.”

ing local liberal lady who is always writing letters to the editor about cows scaaroroeming to a stakeout where we would both go to a nearby auction market armed with sophisticated listening devices and catch the cows in the act, so to speak. On the evening of our stakeout the liberal lady vegetarian showed up all in black: black pants, black hoody and hat with her face streaked with black grease paint like NFL football players use. I could hardly see her but we had to go undercover or the cows might be too embarrassed to blast away, they being females and all.

We chose the medicine shack in the middle of the auction yard so we could catch the heavy tail gun fire from the thunder butts from all angles. It was close

ELM

wwwLeePittsbooks.com

FARMINGTON

BY BEN CHRISTOPHER

TO SACRAMENTO

STOCKTON

HWY 4

J17 M AR

IPOSA

SALE SITE

RD

VALLEY HOME

HWY 99 OAKDALE

HWY 120 ESCALON

SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS

MODESTO

#N

TO FRESNO

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

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

LIVESTOCK SALES 3 days per week on

Monday, Wednesday, & Friday MONDAY: Beef Cattle

FRIDAY: Small Animals

WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle

Poultry – Butcher Cows

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

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

JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

Page 6

Livestock Market Digest

June 15, 2019 521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

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

REAL ESTATE GUIDE For Real Estate and Classified Advertising Call Buena Vista Realty at 575-226-0671 or the listing agent Please Call 505/243-9515 Lori Bohm 575-760-9847, or Melody Sandberg 575-825-1291.

Many good pictures on MLS or www.buenavista-nm.com

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY On the Plaza

Donald Brown

Qualifying Broker

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

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

AG LOANS AGLAND LAND LOANS AsLow LowAsAs 3% As 4.5% OPWKCAP 2.9% OPWKCAP 2.9%

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

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

1625 E. Primrose • Springfield, MO 65804 • murney.com • 823-2300

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com Paul McGilliard - Cell: 417/839-5096 • 1-800/743-0336

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130

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

Buena Vista Realty

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

Bottari Realty

• 83 acre wood home with barns, meadows and woods. Fronts State Rd. $545,000

Paul Bottari, Broker

• 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.25 million.

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

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

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

M U R N E Y , ASSOCIATES, REALTORS®

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

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

775/752-3040 Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY www.bottarirealty.com

Bar M Real Estate

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

Missouri Land Sales • MAJOR PRICE REDUCTION! 564 ACRE GASCONADE RIVER FARM. 360 Acres of lush grass/hay/ tillable bottom ground make up this highly productive livestock/hunting property.Well maintained older 4 Bed, 3 Ba home. Only 45 miles east of Springfield, Mo. MLS#60115449 • PRICE REDUCED” DEVELOPMENT, 240 Acres surveyed into small buildable tracts. Hunting retreat (lots of wildlife), recreational (build your dream home overlooking your lake & enjoy!) Then sell surveyed tracts off to finance your retirement/investment. Good roads thru surveyed acreage, only1+ miles from Hwy.60 (4-Lane Hwy). A tract of land this large, surveyed in small acreages rarely ever comes on the market! Owner may divide & sell 160 acres or 80 acres. This property is priced to sell!

MLS 60128270.

• 80 ACRES - 60 Acres hayable, live water only 50 miles east of Springfield, 1/4 mile off of Hwy 60. 3 Bed, 1 1/2 Ba, 1432 sq. ft. home, nestled under the trees. Full basement (partially finished), John Deer Room. MLS#60059808.

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

DUANE & DIXIE McGARVA RANCH: approx. 985 acres Likely, CA. with about 600+ acre gravity flood irrigated pastures PLUS private 542 AU BLM permit. About 425 acres so of the irrigated are level to flood excellent pastures with balance good flood irrigated pastures. NO PUMPING COST! Dryland perfect for expansion to pivot irrigated alfalfa if desired. Corrals & livestock scales. Plus Private BLM permit for 540 AU is fenced into 4 fields on about 18,000 acres only 7 miles away. PRICE REDUCED! $3,195,000 Call Bill Wright. 530-941-8100 BEAVER CREEK RANCH: about 82,000 acres - with 2,700 deeded acres plus contiguous USFS & BLM permits for 450 pair; 580+- acres irrigated alfalfa, pasture, and meadow from Beaver Creek water rights and one irrigation well. 3 homes, 2 hay barns, 4 feedlots each w/ 250 ton barns, 2 large reservoirs, can run up to 500-600 cows YEAR ROUND. Reduced Asking Price $5,400,000. 530-941-8100 NORTH FORK RANCH: approx. 2,822 ac - Winter range west of Cottonwood & Red Bluff, CA. Rolling oaks, stock ponds, seasonal drainage’s, good quality. Beautiful views of Mt. Shasta & Mt. Lassen. Good gravel road access with a good system of dirt roads and trails to access the interior of the ranch. Great recreational opportunities with hunting and fishing. Deer, wild pigs, wild turkey, quail and dove hunting! REDUCED ASK PRICE – now $2,965,000 Call Bill Wright 530-941-8100

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

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

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

WE NEED LISTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF AG PROPERTIES LARGE OR SMALL!

■ UNION CO., NM – 955 ac. +/- w/excellent improvements for a stocker or cow/calf operation, modern ¼ mi. sprinkler, all-weather roads on three sides, 374 ac. +/- CRP.

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

COLETTA RAY

Pioneer Realty 1304 Pile Street, Clovis, NM 88101

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

■ MIAMI SPECIAL – Colfax Co., NM – 40 ac. +/- w/ irrigated pastures, great cattle working & handling facilities & a beautiful home, on pvmt., irrigated from Miami Lake.

■ WE CAN NOW DIVIDE THE PAJARITO RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM as follows: 3501.12 ac. +/- of grassland w/a commercial water well located adjacent to I40 w/ capability of producing large incomes together w/a great set of pens, a 17,000 gal. water storage tank, overhead cake bin, hay barn & other stock wells. 700.89 ac. +/- of grassland can be purchased in addition to the 3501.12 ac. The beautiful, virtually new custom built home w/all amenities and a large virtually new metal barn w/an apartment inside on 40 ac. can be purchased separately or w/the ranch. Adjoins the Boylan Ranch if more acreage is desired.

■ THE BOYLAN RANCH – Newkirk, NM - 2,360 ac. +/w/useable house & pens, a large domestic well for lvstk./ wildlife watering w/potential for commercial water sales, all weather road. Adjoins the Pajarito Creek Ranch if more acreage is desired.

SULTEMEIER RANCH – First time offering of a ranch that has been owned and operated by the same family for over 70 years. Fifteen miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln County. 11, 889 Deeded Acres, 1,640 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State Lease Acres. Grazing Capacity estimated at 300 AUYL. Water provided by five wells and pipelines.

Improved with two residences, barns and corrals. The ranch had a good summer with abundant grass. Good mule deer habitat. Call for a brochure or view on my website. Price: $4,400,000 $4,100,000 19TH STREET FARM – Located just outside the city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres with 5.7 acres of senior artesian water rights. Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, horse barn with stalls, enclosed hay barn with tack room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000 COCHISE RANCH – Ranch property located just west of Roswell, NM along and adjacent to U.S. Highway 70/380 to Ruidoso, NM. Comprised of 6,607 deeded acres and 80 acres of NM State Lease acres. Water is provided by three solar wells and pipelines. Fenced into several pastures and small traps suitable for a registered cattle operation. Improvements include two sets of pens, shop, and hay barn. Price: $2,500,000 Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237 www.ranchesnm.com

■ BROWN CO., TX. – near Brooksmith - 424.79 ac. +/-, very scenic ranch w/one mi. of Clear Creek, highly improved ranch w/fencing, well watered, home, hunting cabin & abundant wildlife.

■ PECOS RIVER RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM – Scenic, 968 +/- ac. deeded & 519 +/- state lease acres, live water ranch on both sides of the Pecos River (strong flow dialy) between Santa Rosa & Ft. Sumner; wildlife, paired w/water & cattle for the buyer looking for top tier assets in a rugged New Mexico ranch!

■ LOGAN/NARA VISA, NM – 980 ac. +/- w/940.6 ac.

CRP, irrigated in the past, land lays good & is located on the north side of Hwy. 54.

■ TOP OF THE WORLD – Union Co., NM – 5,025.76 +/- ac. of choice grassland w/state-of-the-art working pens, recently remodeled bunk house, barbed wire fences in very good to new condition, well watered, on pvmt.

■ SANTA ROSA, NM – 78 ac. +/- heavily improved for horses, cattle & other livestock w/virtually new barns, pens, cross fences etc., on city water, w/internet access to the front gate.

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

WAGON MOUND RANCH, Mora/Harding Counties, NM. 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres, a substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim into Canadian River.

Has modern water system located 17 miles east of Wagon Mound off pavement then 3 miles on county road. Two bedroom historic house, once a stage stop. Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk. $2,710,000.

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

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

sides of river in places. Horse/cow/chicken/vegetable garden/greenhouse/orchard set up. Country living at it’s finest, in town, but in a world of your own. Very special on river. Appointment only. $650,000.

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

MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality 2,715 sqft adobe home, barn, grounds, fruit trees and mature trees. Extremely private setting. REDUCED$365,000.

This is a must see. Also listed with same house with 10 +/- deeded acres for $310,000.

MAXWELL 19.50 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality extensive remodeled two bedroom, one bathroom home with water rights, outbuildings for livestock in NE NM. Great south facing porch for sipping iced tea cooling off at 6,000 ft elevation. Would make great summer getaway and winter ski base. $260,000.

MORA COUNTY 160 +/- ACRES, 12 miles south CIMARRON ON THE RIVER, Colfax County, NM. east of Wagon Mound, remote, excellent solar well 7.338 +/- deeded acres with 4.040 acre-feet per good mix of sub irrigated and range. Small cabin. annum out of the Maxwell-Clutton Ditch. Custom $154,000. country-chic 2,094 +/- sq ft home. Owns both

June 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 7

Western Trading Post TV Reality Series Season 2 Starts June 2nd!

W

estern Trading Post TV, a weekly reality series filmed in Casa Grande, Arizona at the Western Trading Post, will start its second season on June 2nd at 7:30 PM, EST. Season 1 was a huge success for the Cowboy Channel network.

The Cowboy Channel is available in 30 million households nationwide. https://www.thecowboychannel.com Western Trading Post is located in the Historic District of Casa Grande, AZ. They deal in Western Americana and Native American collectibles and can trace their roots back to the late 1800s and Arizona Territorial days. Not only do they have a gallery with numerous collectible items available, they are also in the auction business.

Western Trading Post TV takes you through some of the antics that happens on a daily basis at the Post.

There are modern-day cowboys, Native American Indians, pickers, collectors, tourists, traders, auction junkies and even a few outlaws and hustlers who stop by. They are all looking to make the best trade possible. A model 1860 Henry rifle. 1940s, “One Armed Bandit” slot machines. A hat once belonging to Dan Blocker (Hoss Cartwright). Chaps worn by Shania Twain on an album cover and in the video for her mega-hit “Any Man of Mine.” A plethora of antique and vintage turquoise jewelry and dozens of other great collectibles are just a few of the things you can expect to see during season 2. Host and co-owner, Bobbi Jeen Olson, is a professional actress, model and stunt double who has appeared in many Western-themed projects and is a recognizable face of the Western Fashion industry. She maintains a strong passion for promoting the Western Way of Life.

Her husband, Jim Olson (historian, published author and former professional rodeo cowboy), manages the day-to-day operations at the Trading Post. He has seen a little bit of everything over the years and not much gets by him! Bobbi’s mom, Betty Whiteley (AKA Grammy) is in charge of the sales floor and is a wealth of knowledge on jewelry, gemstones and old stuff. The Olson’s son, Rowdy James, is a teen-age charmer who loves the ladies and expects to take over the business some day. We’ll see. Together they manage this family owned and operated business. The Olson’s are always in search of Western collectibles and old turquoise jewelry and you are invited to join them each week. You will glean a wealth of knowledge about Western Americana and collectibles and even get “helpful hints” on how to tell the good stuff from the— um, not so good stuff—as you follow along.

USDA Announces Enhancements to Livestock & Dairy Insurance Programs

U

SDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) announced in late April several enhancements to insurance programs that will provide a more efficient level of coverage for livestock and dairy producers. These program improvements to the Dairy Revenue Protection (DRP), Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) and Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) programs take effect July 1, 2019.

“These changes to livestock and dairy programs strengthen risk management options and provide peace of mind in times of unpredictable market fluctuations,” said RMA Administrator Martin Barbre.

Livestock Gross Margin: LGM provides protection against loss of gross margin or the market value of livestock minus feed costs.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 removed the livestock capacity limitation, which allowed the LGM program to remove the individual capacity limitation under the cattle, dairy and swine program. Prior to the revised legislation, the Federal Crop Insurance Act limited the amount of funds available to support livestock plans of insurance offered by RMA to $20 million per fiscal year.

• Updated the Chicago Mercantile Exchange trading requirements to allow for more insurance endorsement lengths to be offered for producers to purchase; • Increased per head and annual head limits - fed cattle and feeder cattle: 3,000 head per endorsement and 6,000 head annually; swine: 20,000 per endorsement and 75,000 annually; and • Modified the Price Adjustment Factor for Predominately Dairy cattle to 50 percent for both weight ranges, which allows dairy

cattle to reflect market prices more accurately.

RMA has also enhanced risk management options for dairy producers.

Dairy Revenue Protection DRP is designed to insure for unexpected declines in the quarterly revenue from milk sales compared with a guaranteed coverage level. The expected revenue is based on futures prices for milk and dairy commodities and the amount of covered milk production elected by the dairy producer.

The covered milk production is

indexed to the state or region where the dairy producer is located.

Improvements for the 2020 crop year: • Modified the minimum declared butterfat from 3.50 to 3.25 pounds, making the range 3.25-5 pounds, and the minimum declared protein range is expanded from 3.00 to 2.75 to 2.75-4 pounds, affording greater coverage flexibilities for dairy producers; • Removed the declared butterfat test to declared protein test ratio to simplify the process for dairy producers; and

• Adjusted the coverage levels - removal of the 70 and 75 percent coverage levels.

Additionally, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 allows producers to enroll in LGM-Dairy or DRP and simultaneously participate in Dairy Margin Coverage, a program administered by the Farm Service Agency.

For more information and answers to frequently asked questions on livestock and dairy risk management options, visit www.rma.usda.gov or contact an approved insurance provider.

THE BEST ADVERTISING VALUE IN WESTERN LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY!

Livestock Risk Protection LRP protects livestock producers from the impact of declining market prices. RMA offers LRP insurance plans for fed cattle, feeder cattle and swine.

Beef producers electing the LRP insurance plan for fed cattle may choose from a variety of coverage levels and insurance periods that correspond with the time the market-weight cattle would normally be sold. Likewise, the LRP plan for feeder cattle allows beef producers to choose from a variety of coverage levels and insurance periods that match the time feeder cattle would normally be marketed (ownership may be retained).

LRP insurance for swine gives pork producers the opportunity to choose from a variety of coverage levels and insurance periods that match the time hogs would normally be marketed.

LRP improvements include: • Expanded LRP coverage for swine, fed and feeder cattle to all states; • Increased LRP subsidy from the current 13 percent for all coverage levels to a range from 20 percent to 35 percent based on the coverage level selected;

Reserve your space now in

Livestock Market Digest’s

2019 Annual Fall Marketing Edition

Call Randy TODAY at 505.850.8544 or email rjsauctioneer@aol.com

ADVERTISING DEADLINE: August 10

Page 8

Livestock Market Digest

Collectors Corner

R.T. Frasier Pueblo Registered Trademark

by Jim Olson

Evolution of the Western Saddle

H

umans domesticated the horse thousands of years ago. Man began looking for an improved way to ride them almost from the start.

The earliest known saddle-like apparatus was more of a riding pad and is said to have been used by the Assyrian cavalry, dating back to around 700 BC. There is recorded history the Sarmatians used an early form of a saddle in the 5th century BC and there are depictions of Alexander the Great in a saddle during the 300’s BC. One of the earliest, solid tree type saddles, was used by the Romans around the first century BC. The Western type saddle, as we know them today, are known worldwide as being “American” style, but actually trace their roots back to the Spanish and Colonial times.

The Spaniards, in turn, picked up much of their equine knowledge from the Moors, who were nomadic horseman

and warriors. As the Spanish settled into what is now Mexico and blended with the Indigenous culture that was already there, a new breed of Mexican cowboy, or Vaquero, as they are called, emerged, and they were fine horseman. These were the guys who were taking care of livestock in the American Southwest and California when the Euro-Americans moved into the area.

From the days of the thirteen colonies thru the Civil War era, most Americans rode a pretty flat type of saddle without a saddle horn, similar to an English style saddle. Along the way however, the Mexican saddle had a growing influence on how Americans rode. This is evident starting from the early 1800s as saddles with saddle horns started emerging, mostly in the west and south. By 1859, Captain George B. McClellan invented a saddle for military use and although many claim he got the

! w o N e b i r c ubs

S

... cation

k publi

vestoc

tive li forma

k c o t s e v i L Digest ost in

est’s m

uthw The So

KET

MAR

3Yes.

Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for:

1 Year at $19.95

few). Nowadays, many of those styles have blended, others have just gone by the wayside.

As important as riding and roping was to the American Antique Saddles cowboy of the late 1800 and idea after touring the Crime- early 1900s, there were bound an War in Europe, it was really to be innovations to their gear. more of a blend of the English This was an exciting time for and Mexican type saddles al- innovation in American history. ready in use. It was light weight, It seems like many were trying had a deep seat, but no saddle to build a better “mouse trap.” horn (like the Mexican saddles Saddles were no different. There did). The military used this ba- were numerous variations such sic saddle from before the Civ- as the Sam Stagg rigging, other il War, right up until the U.S. types of single rigging, double Cavalry was disbanded during rigging, centerfire rigging, wood WWII. Many civilians also used saddle horns, metal horns, large square skirts, short rounded McClellan type saddles.

It was after the Civil War, skirts, wood stirrups, metal stirin the late 1860s, that the men rups, on and on. Many of these who would eventually be known early saddles had a “loop” seat as “cowboys,” started driving (the stirrup leathers were exgreat herds of “maverick” cattle posed as they passed over the north out of Texas. They were tree) and they had a high cantle. entrepreneurs trying to satisfy Big swells soon followed. These a hungry Eastern population. It saddles were designed to keep is out of this class of men and a cowboy in them. It was their these events that what we now work station aboard, what was know as the “Western” saddle often, very feral horses. A saddle was developed. It was an adap- to the cowboy of that time was tation of the Mexican vaquero’s the single most important thing saddle, who were a big influence he owned.

As time went on and rodeo on the men who became “cowburst onto the scene as a way boys.”.

What is now known as the for cowboys to showcase their “American” Western saddle, has talents, saddles starting adaptunderwent a few style changes ing again. By the 1920s, you and improvements along the start to see the cantles and way. One of the earliest western swells drop so ropers can get saddle types was known as the out of their saddles easier. The “Mother Hubbard,” which was horns disappeared on saddles basically an improved version specially designed for riding of the Mexican saddles found at rough stock. There were even that time in Texas. Meanwhile, special “trick” saddles built for events. n ... out in California, Vaqueros the performers ofuthose blicatio sadp k Today there are specialty c o t were also improving and modes e livroping, barrel racing, mativfor fordles ifying their saddles. These oguys in t s ’s m and cutting, bronc riding, and just t s e were a little more “flashy” w outh The Ssaddles covered their with leath- about every equine discipline of.T er stamping and silver accents. you canAthink RKE Mtime As went by, collectors As western expansion continbegan searching out the old, ued, certain regions developed getting harder to find, type of their own styles. Each thought to be better suited to cowboys saddles. There was a time when in their areas. There were Mon- collecting saddles was all the tana, Cheyenne, Oregon, Colo- rage and many folk had a “Westrado, and as mentioned, Texas ern” room in their homes with Please to or two as cenan antiqueme saddle and California styles (to name a subscribe the Livestock Market Digest for:

! w o N e b i r c ubs

S

ADDRESS

PHONE

VISA

terpieces. That fad has waned a bit and old saddles now fall into a couple of different categories. There are “decorators” which are basically old saddles without much collectibility in todays market. They are usually in pretty poor shape and often have a lot of repairs or replacement parts. You see them hanging up in bars, restaurants, out in peoples yards, in tourist traps and the like. These saddles, even though they may be old, have fairly small monetary value today.

Then there are old saddles that are “somewhat” collectible, but not top tier items. They are “entry level” collector stuff and generally sell because they are “almost” the good stuff. They are often unmarked (no maker marks), plain (little or no tooling or silver), or not in the best of condition. They have an attraction because of a lower price point.

The saddles most experienced collectors and connoisseurs of western memorabilia search out are the best of the best. Truly old, or rare, items in good to great shape. Usually they are made by well-known makers and have good eye appeal or maybe some historical significance about them. This is where the money is. My best advice is to try and stick with this class of collectibles (saddles or otherwise) if you can. These are the types of items that tend to hold or gain in value over time (no matter what the current market conditions may be).

Great saddles are still being made today. There is no short-formative in mostthe age of them. However, west’s h t u o old saddles The S which help trace the roots and evolution of the M Western Saddle are always getting harder to find, especially in great condition or with some documented history behind them. Who knowns, maybe you will come across one, if you do, it’s a treasure worth adding to Please subscrib your collection! the Livestock Market Dige

e b i r c Subs

o t s e Liv Dig

3Yes.

2 Years at $29.95 1 Year at $19.95 out their help! Should they try to call Farmer

Baxter BLACK

Larry? Would the calf’s innards fall out? Would he bleed to death? Is this an emergency? They NAME NAME agreed it was!

They climbed under the fence and hurried into ON THE EDGE OF Larry’s pasture, picked the calf up, drug him unADDRESS ADDRESS COMMON SENSE der the fence and took him home to their garage for safe keeping until Larry could be notified. www.baxterblack.com They called the Sheriff’s PHONE PHONE office. Officer Johnny arrived and listened to the story. The calf looked pretty rough, like it had been chased, jumped on, E-MAIL E-MAILbob wire, banged on a dragged, scraffed under concrete driveway and tangled in a 20-foot long orange electric cord that was attached to a tipped MC VISA MC VISA over table saw in the back of the garage.

Sofia and Brett were modestly proud…they n rural America, farmers and “rural lifestylers” had saved one of God’s little creatures. Maybe CARD NUMBER CARD NUMBER are often neighbors. Seeking a place to better Farmer Larry will give them a reward? But they raise their children, to retire in peace, or to es- agreed with each other they would not accept cape the continuing anxiety of the city, they move it…heroes don’t charge for good EXPIRATION DATE EXPIRATION DATE deeds…”Love to the country and build a house on a 2-acre plot. thy neighbor as thyself,” etc.

A wire fence separates them from a grass Officer Johnny was thinking whether he should SIGNATURE SIGNATURE pasture or corn field. As the ‘stylers grow accus- arrest them now for cattle rustling, animal abuse, tomed to the habits and chores around the neigh- trespassing, bovine violence or calfnapping.

Payment Enclosed Enclosed boring farm, they sometimes can be helpful. But or He called Larry andPayment told him the story. Larry subscribe unfortunately, their efforts can sometimes turn laughed and cussed and mused. “Officer Johnonline awry! ny,” he finally said, “Explain to them about calv@ SEND TO: SEND LastPAYMENT spring Sofia and Brett (names have been ing and the navel and all, PAYMENT give’m my TO: cell phone changes to protect the stylers) noticed that one number, you can have the calf to bottle raise and AAALIVESTOCK.COM Livestock Market Digest Livestock Market Digest of Farmer Larry’s little two-day old calf’s umbil- if Sofia asks…just tell her I like blueberry pie.

P.O. Box 7458 P.O. Box 7458 ical cord was still attached! They were very conAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87194 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194 cerned, knowing the calf wouldn’t survive with- www.baxterblack.com

2 Y

I

CARD NUMBER

EXPIRATION DATE

SIGNATURE

Payment Enclosed

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

1 Year at $19.95

Edw. H.Bohlin Maker Trademark

Training New Neighbors

E-MAIL

SEND PAYMENT TO:

k c o t s e v i L Digest 3Yes.

2 Years at $29.95

NAME

MC

June 15, 2019

@

or subscribe online AAALIVESTOCK.COM

@

June 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Lawyers, grazing permits, wildlife corridors and beasts on the ballot Attorney’s fees According to a recent memo from Principal Deputy Solicitor Daniel Jorjani the Interior Department will start publicly listing attorney’s fees paid out for legal settlements. The memo says this information will be available on a new page of Interior’s website. Environmental groups have been very successful in filing these so-called citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. A 2016 investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation found that during the Obama administration, “federal agencies paid out $49 million for 512 citizen suits” filed under those three laws.

Environmentalists have also sued under the Equal Access To Justice Act. That act, however, limits attorney’s fees to $200 per hour. It also stipulates the fees can only be awarded to entities with less than $7 million in total assets.

There are no such limits on these type of lawsuits under the Endangered Species, Clean Water and Clean Air acts. Earth Justice, with net assets of $68 million, received $2.3 million from the Dept. of Interior during

Obama’s reign. The Center for Biological Diversity, which has sued the Trump Administration 100 times and has assets of $19 million, also received taxpayer funded fees according to the 2016 investigation.

Congrats to the Department of Interior for the new transparency on this issue. Perhaps it will spur action by Congress.

Let’s also recognize everyone owes a debt of gratitude to Karen Budd-Falen. It was her 2009 memorandum “Environmental Litigation Gravy Train” that first brought national attention to these payouts. You can draw a straight line from that memorandum to the recent secretarial order to publish these figures on Interior’s website. Thank you Karen, and a long-overdue congratulations on your appointment as deputy solicitor for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Hammond’s grazing permit The poor Hammond family. Father and son, Dwight and Steve, for taking action to defend their private property (selective burns), were found guilty of being “terrorists” and sentenced under an anti-terrorism law. They served their sentence, but BLM appealed to the

The View

The Interview

BY BARRY DENTON

(The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this publication)

W

e all know that President Trump has been trying to streamline government and cut departments to make them much more efficient. One thing that we know for certain is that it takes forever for government to accomplish anything as it is so poorly run and cumbersome.

Time and again when you call in private companies they do the job much quicker, better, and more cost effectively.

In 1986 Donald Trump refurbished the Wollman Skating Rink in Central Park, New York City two and a half months ahead of his own six-month schedule and $750,000 under budget. He took over the project after the city had spent over six years and $12 million dollars on the failed project.

The nice thing is that President Trump is making Washington more accountable to the

American people. Talk about taking on an impossible task!

In trying to streamline the Department Of Agriculture with his department head, the former Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue, he suggested that the DOA interview some ranchers, and farmers, that actually live on and work the land, about what the government could do better. Naturally the only employees available to do this job are interns that want to become pensioners at the DOA. Can you imagine having that for an aspiration? It makes me shudder just thinking about it.

The following is how one of those first interviews may have sounded when they talked to an Arizona cowboy.

USDA: “Mr. Cowboy, what is your favorite part of the United States?”

Mr. C: “Grass is my favorite part of the United States.”

USDA: “Are you aware that it is still illegal in Arizona without a prescription?”

Mr.C: “Where do I get a prescription for grass?”

USDA: “You would have to

Ninth Circuit because the mandatory minimum sentence had not been met as established in the anti-terrorism act. The feds won, and back to jail the Hammonds went. BLM employees were so vindictive against the Hammonds they even assumed false names and used government computers to disparage the Hammonds on social media platforms.

President Trump finally stepped in and pardoned the Hammonds, and former Secretary of Interior Zinke, in one of his few pro-grazing actions, ordered the BLM to renew the Hammond’s grazing permit.

This has the enviros furious, so they have, of course, filed a lawsuit.

Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, and Center for Biological have sued to stop the livestock turn out, alleging violations of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others. They claim a violation of FLPMA because the Hammonds don’t meet the “satisfactory record of performance” required by the act and its regulations. They allege a violation of NEPA because the permits were issued using a categorical exclusion, and they claim a violation of the ESA because specific management thresholds were not included to protect the endangered sage grouse.

In other words, they’ve thrown the entire kitchen sink at this hoping something will stick. Problem is, these folks have an excellent record of finding something that will “stick”.

Wildlife migration routes The National Cattleman’s go and see your physician.”

Mr.C: “Can he actually make it rain in Arizona?”

USDA: “Oh, how silly of me.

You are talking about grass that grows on the ground.”

Mr.C: “Yes, doesn’t all grass grow on the ground?”

USDA: “Moving on, what is the most important asset to your ranch?”

Mr. C: “Rain.”

USDA: “How much rain do you normally get each year?”

Mr. C: “About 11.”

USDA: That doesn’t seem like much, do you think that is due to climate change?”

Mr. C: “I have been here over 60 years, and I have yet to see the climate change. It is either hot and dry or dry and hot.”

USDA: “How can your government help you become more efficient?”

Mr. C: “I am just about as efficient as I can stand to be. If I was anymore efficient, then I would not exist. Hand to mouth is pretty efficient in my book.”

USDA: “Mr. Cowboy, thank you for this interview and enlightening us to how we could be of more service to you. As a result of your answers we will develop more means for you to get grass and rain in a more efficient manner. Any final thoughts?”

Mr. C: “Just leave me alone and ban the Beef Checkoff!”

While this interview may have been tongue in cheek, it still has a bit of truth to it. Believe me, I am thankful for all that the Trump administration has done so far and they have made more progress in cleaning up government than I would have imagined, but they still

Page 9 Beef Association (NCBA) is working to have former Secretary Zinke’s order 3362 on wildlife corridors rescinded. The NCBA says the order has resulted in “prioritization of big-game habitat conservation and restoration,” and “inappropriate impacts to adjacent private lands.”

They further say elements of Zinke’s order “typically result in inappropriate restrictions on grazing and ranching activities.”

This is no surprise to me. In February of last year I wrote: The order calls for “prioritizing active habitat management.”

That would mean such management or projects would have priority over other uses or projects, such as livestock grazing. The order also says it is “crucial that the Department take action to harmonize state fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors.” It will be interesting to see who “harmonizes” who. We know what that has resulted in historically.

It is nice to see the big boys finally catching on.

Colorado wolf vote High Country Conservation Advocates (HCCA), Rocky Mountain Wolf Project and other wolf advocates want to see wolves in Colorado. This time they are taking their efforts straight to the voter, by way of the ballot. “Colorado is the gap,” said ecologist Delia Malone of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. “We not only need wolves ecologically, but wolves need Colorado to restore connectivity between the population in the Northern Rockies and the populations in New Mexico and Arizona.” If passed, the resolution (Initiative 79) would require the Colorado Wildlife Commission prepare a plan to introduce gray have a long way to go. Thank God, they continue to fight the uphill battle of undoing the stupid things that were done during the Obama Administration and before.

Just a few things that have been done so far to help rural America by the Trump Administration: The USDA announced that it has invested $3billion in electric infrastructure in rural communities.

They have also invested more than a $1 billion per year in bringing improved access to health care in rural communities. This has been effective in over 41 states.

The USDA has invested over 41 million per year to improve

wolves on federal lands west of the Continental Divide by the end of 2023.

Norteños should be watching this closely.

USDA economists Ag Secretary Sonny Purdue has announced the majority of the economists in the Economic Research Service will be relocated outside of the Washington, D.C. area. Purdue defends the move and denies they are political. “We don’t undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to improve performance and the services these agencies provide,” Perdue said.

“We will be placing important USDA resources closer to many stakeholders, most of whom live and work far from Washington, D.C.” Current and former employees have said the specialties of those being asked to move correspond closely to the areas where economic assessments often clash with Trump’s policies, including tax policies, climate change and farms. “This was a clear politicization of the agency many of us loved for its non-partisan research and analysis,” a current ERS employee has stated, claiming that department leaders picked those whose work was more likely to offend the administration and forced them to move “out or quit.”

Personally, I think Secretary Perdue should call this relocation “Operation Rawhide”.

Head’em up and move’em out Mr. Secretary.

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner. blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation

infrastructure in rural America.

President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law which provides much needed tax cuts for ranchers and farmers. Also included in this is the exemption from the death tax for ranchers and farmers. They will also be able to expense 100% their capital investments for the next 4 years.

Granted, there is still a long way to go, but this is the first time that I can remember where the federal government is actually trying to help us since the Reagan Administration.

The other good thing they did was The Utah Public Lands Act. He needs to continue this continued on page ten

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

June 15, 2019

C L A S S I F I E D S Final $600 Million Jaguar KADDATZ

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

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

angus

g•u•i•d•e

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

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

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

210.732.3132 • beefmasters.org 118 W. BANDERA ROAD BOERNE, TX 78006 575/638-5434

Bulls & Heifers

FOR SALE AT THE FARM

Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 MANUEL SALAZAR P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532

RED ANGUS

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

209/727-3335

BRANGUS

CORRIENTE

R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ

1-866-838-3647

T

he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates it will take 50 years to recover the jaguar.

In the U.S., Fish and Wildlife Service says there’s only one male jaguar although seven have been reported at various times since 1996.

In Mexico, there are an estimated 4,100 jaguars of which 1,800 are located in the Yucatan Peninsula, 550 in the North Pacific in Sinaloa and Sonora states, 420 in the Central Pacific states, 670 in the South Pacific states and 620 in the northeastern-central part of the country.

Because 95 percent of the jaguar’s widespread terrain is in Mexico, the agency wrote in its plan that Mexico would then play the largest role in contributing to the recovery. Marit Alanen is a biologist who worked on the plan.

“It makes sense to focus on Mexico because they do have so much more habitat and jaguars than we do in the United States,” she said.

The plan calls for one habitat area from western

T

BEEFMASTER

Registered Polled Herefords

BY MICHEL MARIZCO / FRONTERASDESK.ORG

Mexico into Arizona and New Mexico. A second from eastern Mexico all the way to Argentina.

Environmental groups criticized the plan saying there’s only two portions of the U.S.-Mexico border acknowledged in the plan it where the jaguar could cross into the United States.

“The chances that it’s going to end up in one of the two areas that the Fish and Wildlife Service says will be left open for jaguars is not particularly high chance,” said Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Alanen: “They are in these very rugged cross border mountain ranges that currently do not have any sort of physical barrier within them.”

Whether that changes as the U-S continues building border fences is not yet known. The most recent border fence plans call for construction in New Mexico, Texas and western Arizona.

EDITOR’S NOTE: About 4,100 jaguar are estimated to live in Mexico, not in the United States and Mexico.

ASI Asks Administration to Support American Wool Producers

Ranch-Raised Bulls For Ranchers Since 1955

HEREFORD

Recovery Plan Released

Our turn to serve

he American Sheep Industry Association is asking the Trump Administration to consider the market impacts to the nation’s wool and sheepskin producers as they develop a relief strategy for agricultural producers hit hardest by the trade war with China.

“We ask for your consideration of sheep producers when developing a trade assistance package following the latest round of trade retaliation,” ASI President Benny Cox wrote to United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in mid-May. “American wool and sheepskin producers have experienced significant losses as a result of the retaliatory tariffs

imposed on our exports to China. Increasing the tariff from 10 percent to 25 percent will likely lead to the elimination of key export markets entirely and further losses in the wool and sheepskin markets.”

Prior to trade disruptions and tariffs imposed by both sides, 72 percent of American wool exports and 80 percent of sheepskins went to China. A 10 percent tariff was imposed

by China on all American wool and sheepskins in September 2018 and that tariff is expected to climb to 25 percent just as much of the American wool clip is being marketed to overseas buyers in 2019.

American wool exports to

China have dropped off 85 percent in value and 84 percent in volume in the six-month period since the 10 percent tariff was enacted. Sheepskin prices have dropped so dramatically in the past year that they are actually detracting from the value of slaughter lambs.

President Donald J. Trump has authorized USDA to provide up to $16 billion in support for American agricultural producers affected by the ongoing trade issues.

“These programs will assist agricultural producers while President Trump works to address long-standing market access barriers,” read a statement from USDA.

Animal Disease Traceability Update

A

nimal disease traceability or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when is important to ensuring a rapid response when animal disease events take place.

Although animal disease traceability does not prevent disease, an efficient and accurate traceability system reduces the number of animals and response time involved in a disease investigation; which, in turn, reduces the economic impact on owners and affected communities.

The current approach to traceability in the United States is the result of significant discussion and compromise. Federal policy regarding traceability has been amended several times over the past decade based on stakeholder feedback, particularly from the cattle industry. In early 2010, USDA announced a new approach for responding to and controlling animal diseases, referred to as the ADT framework. Key principles of the

2010 framework include: • Interstate animal movement.

• Administration by the States and Tribal Nations to increase flexibility.

• Encouraging the use of lower cost technology.

• Transparency through the full Federal rulemaking process.

USDA published a proposed rule, “Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate,” on August 11, 2011, and the final rule on January 9, 2013. Under the final rule, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) or other documentation. Covered livestock include cattle and bison, horses and other equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids. The requirements do not apply to livestock moving: Entirely within Tribal land, that straddles a State line and where the Tribe has

INTERVIEW in most of the western states and give this federal land back to the states, especially in western states that have very little private land such as Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and others.

The local folks know much better what needs to be done than the feds do. The Hammonds

a separate traceability system from the States where their land is located.

To a custom slaughter facility in accordance with Federal and State regulations for meat preparation.

Beef cattle under 18 months of age, unless they are moved interstate for shows, exhibitions, rodeos, or recreational events, are exempt from the official identification requirement in this rule. Specific traceability requirements for this group will be addressed in separate rulemaking, allowing APHIS to work closely with industry to ensure the effective implementation of the identification requirements.

If you would like more information on the Animal Disease Traceability Program, please email us at traceability@aphis.usda.gov.

Additionally, you are encouraged to contact your State AnimalHealth Official for more information pertaining to your State’s traceability activities and requirements.

continued from page nine

have been pardoned, which in my book was a win for every rancher in these United States.

Now, if they could just get this mess on the southern border straightened out. At least progress has been made, although not as much as there needs to be.

June 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 11

Greenhouse Gas Guru, Mitloehner, Says Cow-Fart Protestors Spread More Manure than Beef Industry SOURCE: OKLAHOMAFARMREPORT.COM

D

r. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California-Davis, or the Greenhouse Gas Guru, as he is known on Twitter, is a strong proponent of telling the story of sustainability for the beef cattle industry. He recently pushed back against Patrick Brown, founder of one of the more high profile plant-based burger patty manufacturer The Impossible Burger, during an interview on NPR that took place earlier this week.

“Obviously he has a beef with beef so to speak,” Mitloehner quipped about his interaction with Brown. “He said beef is the most destructive technology in use on this planet today and obviously I didn’t agree with that. But he was extremely aggressive

in that regard. I see people like him and others depicting the beef industry as the worst environmental culprit in the world. I mean, it’s getting ridiculous.”

Mitloehner says those who want to denigrate beef in this country do not understand the success story the US beef industry has been putting together for years when it comes to sustainability and relatively low greenhouse gas emissions.

According to him, the US beef industry only accounts for 3.3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions generated domestically. In contrast, those industries that consume fossil fuels account for 80 percent of emissions, 28 percent of that contributed by the transportation industry alone. Mitloehner points out that the beef industry has and continues to study its environmental im-

pact and has pledged to make continuous improvements toward greater sustainability in response to consumers’ environmental concerns. Regrettably, the beef industry’s proactive efforts to increase its sustainability have not been effectively communicated to consumers, allowing activists like Brown the opportunity to spread false or misleading information.

“Our ‘special friends’ are using global numbers that are always higher than national numbers. We are the leader in the world on the beef side.

We are very advanced and it’s high time for that information to get out because our ‘special friends’ are claiming the opposite is true,” he said. “Our ‘special friends’ tell people if you want to improve the environment - stop eating meat and that’s just wrong and they

know it. But, they do it anyway and consumers become confused.”

Listen to today’s Beef Buzz to learn how Dr. Mitloehner is using the facts about greenhouse gas emissions to change the public’s misconceptions about the beef industry that are being promulgated by ac-

tivists, with Radio Oklahoma Ag Network Farm Director Ron Hays.

The Beef Buzz is a regular feature heard on radio stations around the region on the Radio Oklahoma Network and is a regular audio feature found on this website as well.

Click on the LISTEN BAR below for today’s show and check out our archives for older Beef Buzz shows covering the gamut of the beef cattle industry today.

Send ASI Your Sheep (& Dog) Photos in 2019

L

ivestock guardian and herding dogs are just as much a part of the industry as lamb and wool, which is why the American Sheep Industry Association wants to recognize their contributions in the 2019 ASI Photo Contest.

In a major change to this year’s photo contest, ASI has eliminated the fine wool category and replaced it with a division honoring a sheepherder’s best friend. The catch is that any photos submitted in the working dog category must be of dogs and the sheep they protect and/ or herd.

“We had so many great dog photos submitted in other categories in the past couple of years,” said Sheep Industry News Editor Kyle Partain.

“Some of them won awards, but we’ve never really had a category that catered to this aspect of the industry. Photos that include aspects of wool - such as shearing and classing - can still be submitted for consideration in the action or open categories.”

Mark your calendars now, as the deadline for the 2019 ASI Photo Contest is Aug. 1. All entries must be submitted by 5 p.m. mountain time on that date. The top three finishers in each category will receive a cash prize and be featured in the October issue of the Sheep Industry News.

Other than the new category, rules and prizes for the 2019

contest haven’t changed. Photographs entered in the contest will be judged on clarity, content, composition and appeal.

More than $1,000 will be awarded, with awards of $125 going to the first-place photographer in each of the five categories listed below; $75 for the runner-up in each category; and a $50 prize for third place in each of the five categories. Again, entries must be received in the ASI office by 5 p.m. mountain time on Thursday, Aug. 1, to be considered.

Only the top three photographers in each category will be notified of their winnings.

Photographers are advised to submit photographs in the largest file size possible. Also, judges and ASI staff encourage entrants to provide both horizontal and vertical photos. This will better assure these talented and creative photos can be shared in future issues of the Sheep Industry News, as well as in the 2020 ASI Calendar and other industry publications.

Below are the five categories in this year’s contest: 1. Action - Photographs of activities such as moving/trailing sheep, lambing, tagging, feeding, etc.

2. Scenic (East) - Photographs of sheep outdoors located east of the Mississippi River.

Photos entered in this category cannot include people.

3. Scenic (West) - Photographs of sheep outdoors locat-

ed west of the Mississippi River.

Photos entered in this category cannot include people.

4. Working Dogs - Photographs in this category should show livestock guardian dogs and herding dogs in their natural environments. Photos must also include sheep in some fashion, as proof that these truly are working dogs.

5. Open - Photographs with subject matter that does not fall into the four above-listed categories.

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.

Photographs can be submitted via hard copy or electronically.

All entries must be at least 3 inches by 5 inches, color or black-and-white, high-resolution photos (larger sizes encouraged).

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

Entries are limited to two per category per person.

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

Photographs submitted in previous ASI photo contests cannot be re-entered.

The following information

Democratic Plan Could Spur Bigger Sale of Arctic Drilling Rights

BY JENNIFER A. DLOUHY/ BLOOMBERG FIRST WORD

T

he U.S. govt could be forced to sell more drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to satisfy a revenue requirement advanced by the House of Representatives, according to Interior Dept’s Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Joe Balash.

“If we have to hit a certain threshold for sales revenue at the initial auction, then we are going to offer every acre necessary in order to achieve that goal,” Balash tells reporters on sidelines of the United States Energy Association meeting in Washington “I don’t think that is in the interest of the people in the area who depend on the porcupine caribou herd for example or the members on the Hill who care about conservation,” Balash said A provision in the House interior spending bill would require bids to be high enough to ensure the govt takes in at least half the amount Congress said the effort would raise as part of the 2017 tax reform law Interior Dept is on track to hold an auction of leases in ANWR’s coastal plain this year, Balash says, following the possible publication of a final environmental impact statement in August.

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

If there is a particular story or background information that

goes with the photo, please include that, as well, with the entry. Entries should be emailed to kyle@sheepusa.org with the subject line of ASI Photo Contest.

Those mailing photos should send them to ASI; Attn: Photo Contest; 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360; Englewood, CO 80112.

Page 12

Livestock Market Digest

June 15, 2019

Rural Council: It’s About Control

BY HENRY LAMB (DECEASED) FIRST PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 14, 2011

A

l Gore was beside himself when the Senate failed to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994. Gore had spent the first two years of his Vice-Presidency developing what he called his “Ecosystem Management Policy.” This new policy was nothing more than preparing the agencies of government to implement the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Agenda 21. These three policy documents were adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development.

Agenda 21 was the only document that was not an international treaty. It was, instead, a non-binding “soft-law” document that was designed to avoid the necessity of Congressional debate or Senate ratification.

Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) — es-

pecially to implement Agenda 21 administratively — without oversight or interference from Congress. The agencies of government have done a masterful job of infecting almost all urban communities with some form of government control under the guise of “Sustainable Development,” which is the objective of Agenda 21.

Now, the Obama regime intends to impose the same kind of control over rural America through his White House Rural Council, also created by Executive Order.

The rather bland 18-page Convention on Biological Diversity came with an 1140-page instruction book called the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Page 993 of this instruction book says that the Convention’s plan for protecting biodiversity is “...central to the Wildlands Project recently-proposed in the United States.” Page 15 of the Wildlands Project says: “... at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones ... assuming that

most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone.”

Since the President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created, agencies of the federal government, and complicit environmental organizations, have been working overtime to get people out of rural areas, and into “stack-’n’-pack” high-rise so-called “sustainable” communities. Under the guise of “preserving open space,” unelected bureaucrats ignore the property rights of the people who own the open space, and write regulations that sometimes require as much as 40 acres to build a single home. Quite often, development of any sort is absolutely prohibited. These regulations are typically delivered to a community through a comprehensive land use plan.

In more rural areas, especially in the farming and ranching parts of the country, these measures have not been as successful as the government wants.

That’s why a new extension of the PCSD is needed. This time, however, they are calling it the White House Rural Council.

This Council, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and consisting of the heads of 25 government departments and agencies, is charged with extending “sustainability” to that part of the country that has not already been subdued by the measures implemented by the PCSD. How will they do it? Let us count the ways.

Consider the Department of Transportation’s recent announcement of its intention to reclassify farm vehicles and implements as “commercial” vehicles and require all drivers of these vehicles to hold a Commercial Driver’s License.

Applicants for a CDL must be 21 years of age; submit a medical record, a complete driving record from any state in which a license has been obtained; and pass rigorous written and driving tests. CDL holders must keep a log of their activities available to law enforcement at any time; must not work more than 12 consecutive hours; must carry at least $750,000 in liability insurance; and many more requirements that farmers and

Cover More Ground with CKP The USDA Risk Management Agency helps protect your Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage

© Henry Lamb

Texas Rural Land Value Trends Published

Proud Premier Spons or N ew M exico C attle Growe s of the rs’ Asso ciatio n

Let CKP Help You Protect Your PRF Our trusted risk advisors are trained to help you analyze complicated insurance data so you: • Protect your land and livelihood against potential losses during times of drought.

• Make the most informed decision for your business.

• Never purchase unnecessary coverage and pay more than you need.

11

Why now?

• Very affordable – Government subsidized • Premiums are not due until October 1 • No adjusters needed • No record-keeping • Protects your cash flow

SOURCE: TEXAS AG LAW BLOG

E

“Anyone can sell you a policy. But CKP invests the time to understand your individual needs and develop a strategy that will produce the best coverage results.”

Contact your CKP Trusted Risk Advisor today.

877-CKP-INS1 (877-257-4671) ckpinsurance.com NOVEMBER 2017

ranchers just can’t meet.

Farm children have always helped by learning early how to drive farm vehicles. Grandpa could drive the tractor, when he could not do the heavy lifting he did as a youngster. This DOT regulation will end farming and ranching as it has always been known in this country. Farmers and ranchers cannot afford to pay professional CDL holders to come plow the fields, mow the hay, or harvest the corn.

Farmers and ranchers who can no longer make a living from the land will have no choice but to sell their land and move to a “stack-’n’-pack” sustainable community. The only potential buyers for these farms are corporate agricultural conglomerates, land trusts, or the government. Since comprehensive land use plans, or other government regulations preclude the possibility of development in the open space, farmers and ranchers will never get the real value of the land.

To add to the hardship on rural families, the Department of Agriculture is still planning to require every farm animal to have an electronic identification ear tag, which will add more costs and bureaucratic red tape to farming and ranching operations.

Every agency that is a member of the White House Rural Council can, and will, find some regulation that rural land owners must comply with in order to stay on their land. This new Executive Order has but one purpose: to further tighten regulatory control over people in rural communities to ensure that their life-style becomes “sustainable,” or in plain language, government-approved.

NOVEMBER 2017

11

ach year, the Texas Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers publishes the Texas Rural Land Value Trends report. This document provides helpful, interesting information for Texas landowners on both average property value and lease rates for agricultural land across the state.

The state wide average price per acre increased, up to $2,779/acre. This is up 5.1 percent from a year ago. The publication divides the state into seven regions, within which are multiple sub regions. Land is broken down into different categories applicable to the area, such as irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, native pasture, and improved pasture.

The report then provides average land values, average lease rates, and more for each sub region. Additionally, this publication offers average hunting lease rates.

To obtain a copy of the most recent version (2018), visit www.txasfmra.com/wp-cont e n t / u p l o a d s / Te x a s - R u r a l Land-Value-Trends-for-2018. pdf--