LMD Nov 24

Saying things that need to be said.

Making A Case For Cows

Isuppose you could call me a “climate denier.” Oh, I don’t deny that the climate changes, it does so constantly. It’s just that I don’t believe that Cadillacs and cow farts are causing it.

You’d have to be a complete idiot to deny that the climate is always changing. For example, in South Dakota in February 1936 it got to be 58 degrees below zero. Five months later it was 120 degrees! And again in South Dakota, one day in 1943 it was minus four degrees and in a matter of TWO MINUTES it was 45 degrees. Some scientists believe it was the biggest swing in history and it wasn’t caused by fossil fuels or flatulent cows but by Chinook winds blowing out of Montana.

supposed threat from “global warming” to “climate change,” that way they’d be covered if it got hot OR cold. But even that claim rings hollow. For instance, the coldest day in America was 80 degrees below zero in Prospect Creek, Alaska, on January 31, 1971. In the continental United States, the coldest day was 70 degrees below zero in Rogers Pass, Montana way back on January 20, 1954. If man-made climate change was actually occurring why haven’t these record temperatures been eclipsed with so many more cars, cows and people in America and the world?

You’d think with all this supposed man-made global warming going on that we’d have set a new one-day record for the hottest day in America, but according to the World Meteorological Organization, the WORLD’S hottest temperature EVER recorded was 134 degrees Fahrenheit way back on July 10, 1913, in Death Valley, California. There were 1.3 million cars on earth at the time. Temperatures got close to setting a new record this year in Death Valley at a time when there are 1.474 BILLION vehicles in the world. If fossil fuels caused global warming we’d have been fried to a crisp a long time ago.

When the climate hadn’t heated up for a period of 18 years the global warming crowd then changed the name of the

on to climate change, just consider these fun facts:

■ The top five of the deadliest tornadoes in America all occurred between 1840 and 1936.

■ The frequency of hurricanes has slightly declined the last ten years

■ The average snow cover in the northern hemisphere has remained unchanged since 1979.

■ Climate change, along with rising oceans and increased carbon dioxide levels can all occur because of ocean temperatures, solar activity, and wobbles of something called the Milankovitch Cycle.

Never give the Devil a ride — he will always want the reins.

If you want more evidence that the climate was changing long before the greenies latched

■ There have been five known mass extinctions during our planet’s history and the weather played a role in all of them. And this was

Automakers Wake Up to Reality on Electric Vehicles

DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH / DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR ENERGY, CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE HERBERT AND JOYCE MORGAN FELLOW AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

Driving through rural Georgia, I have yet to see an electric vehicle or a charging station. After promising the Biden administration that they would eliminate most of the cars Americans want to buy from dealer lots by 2035, GM and Ford are now waking up to reality. They are cutting back on projections of EV sales and lowering production targets for the cars and batteries.

Ford Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said Thursday on a media call, “Given the dynamic EV environment, we are being judicious about our production and adjusting future capacity to better match market demand.” He announced that Ford is postponing $12 billion of spending and investment on EVs, including a Kentucky battery plant, after it halted its $3.5 billion Michigan-China battery partnership in September.

This follows an announcement by General Motors on October 17 that it is pausing expansion of electric pickups “due to evolving EV demand.”

About six percent of new vehicle sales were electric in 2022, and President Joe Biden wants to bring this share up to 60 percent in

continued on page 4

before there were cars or cows. My point is that if Mother Nature decides to cause climate change it doesn’t need Climate

Czar John Kerry’s help with his six houses, 12 cars, two yachts, and a private jet.

So why are we destroying our economy, gagging down plant-based burgers and betting the ranch on a temperamental electric grid when weather forecasters can’t tell you what the weather will be six days from now, let alone in a decade or a century?

In D enial

I’m not the only one who thinks that man-made climate change is a hoax. David Harsanyani, writing for the Federalist said, “Deaths from weather have plummeted over the century, even as doomsday climate warnings about heat, hurricanes, tornados, floods, and droughts have spiked. Extreme weather accounts for only about 0.1 death for every 100,000 people in the United

continued on page 2

DWFI Lands $19 Million Grant To Advance Global Food Security

The University of Nebraska’s Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute has received a $19 million federal grant to coordinate a global network of partner organizations to achieve sustainable irrigation and agricultural mechanization by small farmers in developing countries — a goal crucial to meeting the world’s growing food demand.

The world’s population is heading toward a projected 10 billion by 2050, up from the current 8 billion. Adoption of sustainable irrigation and agricultural mechanization by small farm operators is a key tool for reaching the needed production increase, the World Bank and other international development organizations have said.

In recognition of that need, the U.S. Agency for International Development has selected the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute to lead a global, multi-partner collaboration focusing on smallholder irrigation and mechanization needs. The project will pursue a comprehensive approach encompassing not only direct technical aspects of irrigation and agricultural mechanization, but a set of practical, related issues that must be addressed if developing countries are to achieve long-term success in managing water to enable food security.

Examples of such needs include workforce development for the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of irrigation equipment; efficient collaboration with private-sector companies; public health considerations; and climate

continued on page 4

Riding Herd

by LEE PITTS

If Only I’d Have Known

With the onset of old age come the regrets and remorse of how I should have lived my younger life if only I’d have known then what I know now.

Why didn’t anyone tell me that it would be the last time I gaped in wonder at the Grand Canyon, the mighty redwoods, the beauty of Lake Tahoe and the haunting Badlands. If only I’d have known it would be the last time I saw a show in Vegas, listened to the poets in Elko, rafted the Rogue or flew into Seattle and Sydney, Australia, on a sunlit day. I wish someone would have warned me that I’d never again experience enchanting New Mexico, the Alamo in San Antonio, the Lincoln Memorial, the village of Williamsburg and the music on Bourbon Street. If I only knew I’d have lingered a little longer.

I would have said goodbye a little differently if I’d known it would be the last time to tell my mom I loved her, to give my horse Gentleman one last carrot and my dog Aussie a big old bone. I would have been with my Grandpa the day that he died instead of regretting it the rest of my life. I wish I would have asked Grandpa to teach me how to troll for fish and how to barbecue a steak. I should’ve paid more attention when Grandma tried to teach me how to play the piano. Who knew that I’d one day become a leatherworker and would have benefited greatly by letting my mom teach me how to put in a zipper, construct a gusset and the proper maintenance of a sewing machine? After all, she kept us all fed by working 14 hours a day as a seamstress.

I wish I’d have made a list of all the books I ever read so that I’d never read the same book again. Life is too short to read the same book twice. If only I’d have taken advantage of the opportunities given to me to learn how to operate a backhoe, truck crane, milling machine and lathe. Why didn’t I learn to speak Spanish better than I did after studying it for five years in school? I wish I’d have read more novels, fewer People magazines and definitely more directions. (Hey, what can I say, I’m a man.)

continued on page 3

States each year and the fact is that humans have never been less threatened by the climate.”

How many Americans have perished from the oppressive heat, you may wonder? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 400 people a year die when heat is the underlying cause. “And that’s terrible,” wrote Harsanyani. “But, also, it’s around 3,600 fewer people than those who drown every year.”

So why are we not banning swimming pools?

The Lancet is highly respected peer reviewed medical journal with extremely high standards and it’s been around for 200 years. According to a study in The Lancet cold is far more lethal to humans than heat and even the left-leaning Washington Post said,”For every death linked to heat, nine are tied to cold.”

So, if we were really worried about saving human lives shouldn’t global warming be seen as a good thing?

The same Lancet study said that human mortality related to climate has declined during the last hundred years of “climate change.”

Another climate change denier is H. Sterling Burnett who has written extensively denying that man-made climate change will kill us all. In his book Planet Is Good, No Climate Crisis in Sight, Burnett wrote, “Regarding all the false climate stories hyped in the corporate media, real-world data shows fewer people are losing their lives to extreme weather events and non-optimal temperatures than ever before. Hunger, malnutrition, and deaths from starvation have fallen more and faster than at any previous time in history, thanks primarily to record-setting crop growth assisted by increased carbon dioxide.”

So, tell me again why are we banning fossil fuels and trying to rid the world of cows?

Margin For Error

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has for years been trying to bring the real truth about climate change to light and its director Benny Peiser, Ph.D., said, “It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends documents just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modeling rather than observational evidence.”

GWPF quoted Dr. Ole Humlum, professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, who also examined temperature records and trends for the atmosphere and oceans and for weather events. Among Humlum’s conclusions were...

■ There is no evidence of a dramatic change in snow cover, rates of sea level rise, or storm activity.

■ Global tide gauge measurements suggest sea levels are rising on average between 1 and 2 mm per year, consistent with the historic rise of the past few hundred years, with no recent acceleration or deceleration in the rate of rise.

■ Average snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere has been stable since the onset of satellite observations in 1979. Autumn snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has been slightly increasing, the midwinter cover has remained virtually unchanged in extent, and spring snow cover displays a slight decreasing trend.

■ The most recent data on global tropical storms and hurricanes show accumulated cyclone energy is well within the range observed since 1970 and the number of hurricanes making landfall in the

continental United States remains within the normal range for the entire observation period since 1851.

Humlum writes, “All temperature records are affected by at least three sources of error, each of which differs among the individual station records used. So much for the breathless claims made almost every year by politicians, government-funded researchers, environmental lobbyists, and the corporate media that new global average high temperature records have been set yet again, almost always citing land-based measuring systems compromised by a growing urban heat island bias. When each new ‘record high’ temperature measured is within the margin of error, it’s hard to establish definitively any new record has been set.”

“The empirical observations I have reviewed,” wrote Humlum, “show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis. In the end, most of the alarming claims made about a looming human-caused climate apocalypse are based on flawed computer model projections, not physical measurements of changes in the climate. The general circulation models widely used by the climate alarm community grossly overestimate warming. As a result, they have been unable to portray past or present temperatures or temperature trends accurately.”

On The Wrong Path

No one in our business has shot more holes in the global warming theory than Frank Mitloehner, Professor & Air Quality Specialist Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis. Often times it felt like he was the only one in the news countering the claims of the

anti‐animal agriculture advocates, portraying the idea that livestock is to blame for a lion’s share of the contributions to total greenhouse gas emissions.

For years Mitloehner has crisscrossed the country debunking the myth that cows are responsible for anywhere from 18 to 51 percent of greenhouse gases you hear so much about in the news. (It was the World Water Watch that said 51 percent of all greenhouse gases are produced by livestock.)

In his many presentations, Mitloehner says, “Many Americans, perhaps even a majority of them, now believe that farm animals are now comparable to all transportation sectors from sources such as cars, trucks, planes, trains, etc. It was this argument that gave birth to the Meatless Mondays movement in this country.”

But according to Mitloehner, “Leading scientists throughout the U.S., as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have quantified the impacts of livestock production in the

U.S., which they say accounts for 4.2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), very far from the 18 percent to 51 percent range that advocates often cite. Comparing the 4.2 percent greenhouse gas emission contribution from livestock to the 27 percent from the transportation sector, or 31 percent from the energy sector in the U.S. brings all contributions to greenhouse gases into perspective.”

Continues Mitloehner, “Breaking down the 4.2 percent EPA figure for livestock by animal species, shows the following contributors: beef cattle 2.2 percent, dairy cattle 1.37 percent, swine 0.47 percent, poultry 0.08 percent, sheep 0.03 percent, goats 0.01 percent and other (horses, etc.) 0.04 percent. It is sometimes difficult to put these percentages in perspective,” says Mitloehner. “However, if all Americans practiced Meatless Mondays, we would reduce the U.S. national greenhouse gas emissions by 0.6 percent. One certainly cannot neglect emissions from the livestock

sector but to compare them to the main emission sources would put us on a wrong path to solutions, namely to significantly reduce our anthropogenic (man-made) carbon footprint to reduce climate change.

“Globally, the U.S. livestock sector is the country with the relatively lowest carbon footprint per unit of livestock product produced,” says Mitloehner. “The reason for this achievement largely lies in the production efficiencies of these commodities, whereby fewer animals are needed to produce a given quantity of animal protein food.”

A Nail Looking For a Hammer

While Mitloehner’s voice may be the loudest, his isn’t the only voice being heard speaking up for cows. Will Coggin the managing director of the Center for Consumer Freedom says, “With the rise of concern about climate change, sustainability and the environment have become marketing tools.”

According to Coggins, “Researchers calculated that even if all 300 million-plus people in the United States went vegan tomorrow, it would only reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6 percent. And that’s only the U.S., which itself is a fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. While raising livestock only accounts for about 4 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, that figure is about 4 times higher for the meat industry globally. That’s because other countries’ agricultural practices aren’t as advanced as those of American farmers and ranchers.

“Coercing other countries into changing their diets is unrealistic,” says Coggins. “Animal farming contributes to the livelihood of over 1.7 billion people globally and will become more essential as the need for animal protein is only expected to increase. Further, according to a recent study from Tufts University, the UN’s recommended “planetary health diet” is financially unfeasible for at least 1.6 billion people. The planetary health diet also suggests only a single ounce of meat—not per meal but daily. More than a billion people are located in developing countries, areas where

meat is an essential tool in providing vitamins and minerals.

“What’s the best solution to curbing the world’s animal emissions?” asks Coggins. “Export our technology. The US produces 18 percent of the world’s beef with only 8 percent of the world’s cattle. There’s room and an environmental need to spread America’s agricultural advancements globally. Over the past 45 years, advancements have allowed American farmers to produce the same amount of beef from 36 percent fewer cattle. Since 1961, we have doubled livestock production, while slicing greenhouse gas emissions by 11.3 percent. Sharing the know-how that got us to this point, will be the most effective way to lower the impact of farming animals around the world, “ concludes Coggins.

“

What’s the best solution to curbing the world’s animal emissions?”

With a rapidly expanding number of people in need of quality protein the last thing we need to do is cut down, or get rid, of cattle. Not only would humans lose a key source of high-quality protein and numerous other nutrients, over a billion people would also lose a source of income.

At this point, humancaused climate change is an answer looking for a question, a nail looking for a hammer or a bunch of environmental lawyers looking for a cause. Of this we can be sure, we won’t feed nine billion folks with more Meatless Mondays. ▫

IF ONLY ... from page 1

You may laugh but I wish I’d raised a goat. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I raised sheep and cattle for a living, but I’ve always been curious about goats. It seems they have several advantages: you don’t have to sheer them, they aren’t the picky eaters that horses are and the kids are so darn cute.

Speaking of kids, had I known we couldn’t have any I’d have held more babies, been a 4-H leader longer and read to more toddlers. I wish I’d have known how valuable our first cars would one day become then we might have hidden them away for decades. And why didn’t I collect land instead of old and rusty horse bits?

Why didn’t someone tell me to always wear a leather jacket when arc welding, to never wear flip flops in the shop and the right way to sharpen a knife? I should have paid more attention in my one computer class in college. If only I’d have prop-

erly appreciated the eight hours of undisturbed sleep I used to get instead of having to get up at least twice during the night. If only I’d have known to always floss my teeth, eat fewer sweets, run more marathons and walk every day. I should have taken more adult education courses, paid more attention to pool sharks, learned all about diesels from Uncle Buddy, kept on tooling leather after a couple sessions in Cub Scouts and gone to auctioneering school. If only I’d have known I’d one day become a writer I’d have taken a typing class in high school instead of trigonometry. I’ve regretted not knowing enough about electricity. If I knew I’d one day become a cowboy I’d have fallen in love with horses a lot sooner.

If only I’d have known... I would have fished more, worried less, done more doodling and less dawdling.

Why didn’t anyone tell me these things?

Maybe they did and I just wasn’t listening. ▫

Frank Mitloehner reminds us, “The 2050 challenge to feeding the globe is real. Throughout our lifetime, the global human population will have tripled from three to more than nine billion people without concurrent increases of natural resources to produce more food.”

AUTOMAKERS from page 1

2030 and 66 percent in 2032 through regulations from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. These regulations would penalize automakers for selling gasoline-powered cars. California is going further, requiring all new vehicle sales to be electric after 2035.

But there are four reasons that most Americans prefer to buy cars with internal combustion engines: cost, convenience, climate, and China.

Cost

New electric vehicles cost more than gasoline-powered vehicles. As I drive around the Clayton area (median household income $47,000), I see two-door and four-door pickup trucks, some battered and some shiny.

The electric version of the base version of the Ford F-150 pickup truck, the best-selling vehicle in America, costs an additional $26,000. And Tesla’s base prices start at about $40,000 for a Model 3 and go up to almost $100,000 for a Model X. Few Americans can afford these vehicles.

Convenience

Many people who love their EVs recharge them at home, overnight. But not everyone has a garage at home. Some live in apartments and homes without garages. Many of these people have to rely on charging stations for their EVs if they can’t run

extension cords from their residences to the parking lot.

At the local Walmart in nearby Tiger, Georgia, and in local gas stations, I didn’t see any charging stations. A lack of charging stations is a major problem in rural areas. Plus, gasoline-powered cars can be refueled in five or 10 minutes at a gas station. Recharging an electric vehicle can take 45 minutes—or much longer if you want a full charge. If someone is in front of you at the charging station, the wait can double. Most people don’t want to let their EV battery go below 20 percent, and the charging rate goes down when it is charged over 80 percent.

Climate

Batteries lose range in cold weather. Many of us have awakened on a cold winter morning to find our car batteries dead and in need of a jump start or a replacement. The American Automobile Association has a fleet of small vehicles whose sole purpose is to rescue troubled motorists in chilly situations.

A study by truck manufacturer Autocar shows that electric vehicles lose, on average, a third of their range in the winter, which reduces the typical 240-mile range to 160 miles. If a heat pump is added to the car, the loss is less, but still, the 240mile range would shrink to 180.

In cold climates, batteries lose 20 percent to 40 percent of their range. That’s one reason only 380 North Dakota residents chose EVs in 2021 and

Alaska had just 1,300.

Temperatures got down to 13 degrees in Georgia last Christmas, and it gets hot in the summer. Batteries lose range in weather above 85 degrees, too, according to a study by the electric battery company Recurrent. Additionally, car air conditioning uses electricity, and so the range is lower when the air conditioning is running— something people prefer in hot weather.

China

The forced push to EVs is making America weaker and China stronger, because almost 80 percent of batteries are made in China.

America is energy independent due to vast resources of oil and natural gas that have been discovered and produced through innovative technology. However, should Biden’s EV goal come to pass, America would become less energy independent and more dependent on China for electric batteries and associated components. One major reason is because China is buying up many of the world’s mines where rare earth minerals used in batteries are found.

As the world has seen from Russia’s cutoff of natural gas supplies to Europe, it is not prudent to rely on an unfriendly country for a vital resource such as energy, because restrictions can raise energy prices and carry disastrous economic and social consequences.

Moreover, the Biden administration’s push for EVs is to supposedly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But in order to produce supplies of batteries for EVs and other components, China is increasing its construction of coal-fired power plants. America has 225 coal-fired power plants (which the Biden administration is trying to put out of business), and China has 1,118 (half of all the coal-fired plants in the world).

Research by Kevin Dayaratna, chief statistician and senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has shown that even completely eliminating all fossil fuels from the United States would result in less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in temperature mitigation by 2100. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)

Biden says that EVs will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that regulations on tailpipe and power plant emissions reduce global warming. But this is a fantasy. Emissions will not be reduced until the biggest producers of so-called greenhouse gases—China, India, and Russia—reduce their emissions, which they show no signs of doing.

Ford and GM are finally realizing that Americans are smarter than their government and are not buying the EV fantasy. If Georgia is any guide, the automakers’ “pause” on EV investment might end up as a permanent stop. ▫

sustainability.

A central goal of the initiative is resilience — a producer’s ability to continue operation, and provide food and income, in the face of disruptions such as climate change or economic downturns. The project will look at the range of challenges for smallholder production, for rainfed fields, as well as those with full irrigation, including study of water security and management beyond the field scale, to include watershed conditions.

The project will draw on the relevant expertise from the institute’s 130 faculty fellows across the university system. The Water, Climate and Health program from the College of Public Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center will be among the partner organizations providing input on public health matters. The National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln also provides a resource for climate analysis.

“This project incorporates many urgent issues under the umbrella of irrigation and mechanization, and it is all interconnected,” said Nicole Lefore, who will direct the institute’s Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Irrigation and Mechanization created by the grant. Lefore is the institute’s associate director of sustainable agriculture water management.

Women account for a large portion of small farmers in the developing world, and this initiative aims to increase economic opportunity in agriculture and food systems for women and young people.

“From workforce development to watershed/basin management to the changing dynamics of women in agriculture, the relationships are there,” Lefore said.

Nepal, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Ghana, Honduras and Guatemala will be countries of specific focus initially for the DWFI project, along with the East Africa and Southern Africa regions generally.

World Bank analysis has pointed to the global need regarding sustainable irrigation. Across Africa, “less than 10% of arable land is irrigated, which means little insurance against erratic rains and climate shocks,” the World Bank reports. “Lack of irrigation puts at risk the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers and their families across the continent.”

DWFI’s strengths lend themselves well to such a comprehensive project. The institute’s scientific work on water issues and irrigation is internationally known and respected. The institute has strong international partnerships with academic institutions, government agencies and private-sector companies, and is conducting projects in dozens of countries worldwide. Two of the institute’s current partners, the International Food Policy Research Institute and the International Water Management Institute, will be key participants in this new initiative.

“We have the existing networks and connections, plus the expertise of the university system as a whole,” Lefore said.

DWFI faculty have expertise in a wealth of water management and irrigation issues. Lefore, for example, has longstanding experience on irrigation issues working with academia and the private sector. She is a specialist on irrigation challenges facing smallholder farmers in developing countries, having lived in developing nations for more than 20 years with a focus on these issues. Nebraska’s private sector, meanwhile, has long been a global leader in irrigation.

“Throughout its history, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources has focused on meeting producers where they are and collaborating to improve yield, profitability and resilience,” said Mike Boehm, NU vice president and Harlan Vice Chancellor for the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute is the piece of UNL that expands this important work and works with producers far beyond Nebraska. DWFI’s work is global, scalable and incredibly producer focused. DWFI is a wonderful fit for this project, and I’m eager to see this work benefit producers and bolster food security.”

The Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute, with more than 13 years of experience in global water and food security issues, has demonstrated strength in the issues involved in this new project. The funding will now allow the institute to collaboratively scale versions of that work beyond Nebraska and onto the global stage.

“This is an especially significant investment in securing water and increasing productivity in smallholder agriculture around the world and, along with our partners, delivering on our mission of a water- and food-secure world,” said DWFI Executive Director Peter McCornick.

“This is a remarkable achievement for the University of Nebraska and our entire state that demonstrates, yet again, Nebraska’s leadership role in ensuring a food- and water-secure world,” said NU system President Ted Carter. “And it’s further evidence of the impact and success that are possible when we bring the combined strengths of our campuses together. I could not be prouder of the University of Nebraska faculty, staff, students and partners whose commitment and expertise made this award possible, and of the lives that will continue to be transformed for the better because of their work.”

The $19 million is for a five-year period, with a potential to expand the program with more activities up to $40 million. The DWFI project is part of a USAID initiative funding a series of Feed the Future Innovation Labs addressing a range of challenges for global food security and nutrition.

“Feed the Future Innovation Labs are driving novel solutions to the increasingly complex challenges we face today,” said Dina Esposito, Feed the Future deputy coordinator and USAID’s assistant to the administrator for resilience, environment and food security. “Advancing this research is key to equipping small-scale farmers with the tools they need to boost yields, use resources more efficiently and be more resilient to shocks.”

Grassroots Activists Are Winning Battles Against Powerful Green Forces

BY TOM DEWEESE, AMERICAN POLICY CENTER

“The global forces are just too big and powerful. There’s no way to stop them. We are locked out of the process. Our elected officials just won’t listen to us!” This is what I hear every day from activists who truly want to stand up for freedom – but, instead, are looking down in defeat.

STOP IT!!! We have just won a major victory in Iowa as the Navigator Heartland Greenway has announced they are pulling their request from the Iowa Utilities Board to build the carbon capture pipeline. This is a direct result of dedicated grassroots activists standing up and fighting back, demanding the protection of their private property from an arrogant and powerful private corporation that didn’t think mere peasant citizens could stop them.

For the past year, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some of the most dedicated activists in Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska, fighting to stop the most idiotic of environmental schemes of all time – to bury CO2 in the ground under the excuse of protecting the planet from global warming. I say idiotic because CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a natural and necessary source of food for our plants. A true environmental scientist knows that. Only greedy corporations seeking to fill their pockets with our tax dollars, and political zealots determined to impose a radical agenda support such lies.

Meanwhile, in North Dakota, state regulators, responding to pleas from farmers, denied another corporation, Summit Carbon Solutions, a route permit for its carbon capture pipeline, as it threatened to seize private farmland for the project. Minnesota is considering simi-

lar action.

As opposition began to build against the two pipeline projects that are to crisscross the five states via 2,000 miles of pipeline and the threat of taking thousands of acres of vital private farmland, the politically connected corporations began to take an arrogant stand against their opposition. First, the corporations tried holding public meetings to “help the people to understand the true purpose of the pipeline.” However, nearly every meeting, in every targeted state, became packed with local citizens voicing strong opposition to the plan.

I personally barnstormed Iowa and South Dakota, urging locals to stand up in opposition. I was most adamant that county supervisors take a stand to protect their citizens’ property rights. Many of the elected supervisors responded and began to take action. Two counties in South Dakota (Brown and Spike) passed temporary moratoriums, blocking construction permits. In North Dakota, another county passed a resolution blocking building unless 100 percent of targeted property owners voluntarily agreed to allow their property to be taken.

Obviously, the corporations grew nervous and apparently decided that enough was enough and the opposition must be stopped. That’s when Brown County, South Dakota experienced a shocking incident. So-called surveyors for Summit Carbon Solutions suddenly appeared unannounced on the property of Brown County farmer Jared Bossly, a strong opponent of the pipeline.

Jared never met or talked directly with the surveyors, yet, they walked across his private land, including his small farm shop and other areas that had

nothing to do with the pipeline path planned to cross the property. After leaving, the surveyors reported that Bossly had threatened their lives. There was a trial and Bossly was not found guilty of such a threat, but the judge put a restraining order on him, denying his right to interact with Summit employees whenever they might again invade his property.

Then two weeks later it happened. Summit sent another team to his property, complete with armed guards and huge equipment designed to drill 90-foot holes into his soil. They drove this monster equipment over his soybean and corn crops, damaging them. There was never an explanation provided by Summit as to the purpose of the act or the reason for the digging of the deep hole.

However, the true purpose was obvious. Intimidation. Not only as a warning to Jared Bossly to stop his opposition to the pipeline but to all others opposing the project. To all farmers the message was clear, keep it up and this will happen to you.

If it truly was Summit’s plan to intimidate and silence the opposition, it has backfired in spectacular fashion, The action against Bossly enraged the farmers and they rallied in the South Dakota State Capital, held a rally of several hundred on the capitol steps, and filed more than 2,000 petitions demanding that their property be protected from Summit’s actions. Several state legislators took up the cause and helped in pressuring fellow state representatives to join the cause as it gained national media attention.

Now, as local citizens have learned that they are not captives in the plans of these private corporations, opposition has continued to grow. Apparently, Navigator CO2 Ventures has learned that moving forward is futile and so has canceled its pipeline project.

In addition, Summit has announced a two-year delay on its pipeline plans. Reuters News

Service, in announcing these actions said, “The cancellation of one of the biggest projects of its kind is a setback to the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in the U.S. which are the pillar of President Joe Biden’s climate strategy…” That statement is a huge revelation that the radical green agenda can be stopped.

These actions have become a great opposition rallying cry across the five targeted states. However, locals must heed this warning; now is not the time to sit back with a victory smile on your face. Understand that there is still a huge amount of money and power behind this scheme and they don’t quit that easily.

Summit says they are delaying their plans for a couple of years, but also says, “it’s well positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint.” In other words, they are not done yet! Vigilance and continual demands for government action is now the order of the day. Don’t let Summit sneak through a new deal. They must see an unwavering resistance from local residents.

At the same time, resistance to federal government overreach is growing across the nation. The fight against the carbon capture pipeline is one of the most visible examples of successes recently earned by local activists. But there are more. Arkansas just passed legislation to stop communist China from owning land in that state. More states are considering such action.

After ten years of effort, local activists finally succeeded in getting Tennessee to join Alabama in passing legislation against Agenda 21 and Net Zero policy. More states are now looking into it. Many organizations across the country are now teaching local activists and state legislatures to invoke Nullification to block unconstitutional federal legislation.

Meanwhile, CFACT (Committee for a Constructive To-

morrow) is running a successful campaign to stop construction of off-shore wind towers that endanger sea life, including whales. CFACT has already succeeded in stopping about one-third of Biden’s plans for off-shore wind farms. And my efforts to build Freedom Pods for local action is taking hold! Take one victory at a time, but do not stop. Local residents must send a message that they will not back down and accept this assault on their property rights. Make it known that these forces had better not cross that line. Continue to demand that local, county, and state governments provide strong legislation to protect the rights of the people they represent.

As Rocky Balboa famously said, “That’s how winning is done!” ▫

Shifting Consumer Demand for Dairy Foods Fuels Butterfat Boom

The long-term demand trends for dairy products indicate butter, cheese and other fullfat dairy foods will continue to grow in sales and volume for the foreseeable future. U.S. consumers have shifted away from margarine and reduced fat dairy foods over the last decade as nutritional science surrounding saturated fats has evolved. As a result, butterfat levels in the national milk supply have risen sharply in response to changing demand patterns and dairy market dynamics.

According to a new report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange, the butterfat boom will continue as the entire dairy supply chain is capturing additional value from milk with higher fat and protein levels. The economic incentives for a supermajority of the nation’s dairy farmers are firmly in place to produce milk with more butterfat.

“

dairy has a much more nuanced role–and potentially protective effect–on health. Consumers responded to the evolving science quickly, triggering what has proven to be a long-term shift to previously tabooed dairy foods like butter.

There was a time when U.S. milk and butterfat production were synonymous. When measured by pounds, milk and butterfat production mirrored one another from 1995-2010, each growing a collective 24%. But milk and butterfat production have since decoupled. From 2011-2022, milk pounds shipped from U.S. farms grew 15%. However, butterfat pounds shipped from those same farms grew 27%.

Despite the significant growth in domestic butterfat production over the last decade, there is still tremendous upside potential, largely because the U.S. remains a milk fat-deficit nation”

“Despite the significant growth in domestic butterfat production over the last decade, there is still tremendous upside potential, largely because the U.S. remains a milk fat-deficit nation,” said Corey Geiger, lead dairy economist with CoBank. “Butter imports into the U.S. have skyrocketed over the last decade to meet the surging domestic demand for full-fat dairy products. Also, due to strong domestic demand, the U.S. barely exports any of its butterfat. As a result, low-fat, skim-solids product exports far outpace full-butterfat products.”

Full-fat dairy and other animal products fell out of favor beginning in the 1970s over reported health concerns. However, nutrition research in the past 15 years suggests full-fat

Dairy producers have steadily increased butterfat content levels in milk through innovations in feeding programs and the use of genomic testing programs.

Genomic tests can reveal 70% of the genetic ability of a young calf years before it becomes a milk cow. The science has expedited genetic gains in the U.S. dairy cow herd and dramatically shifted butterfat composition in recent years.

Geiger said the overall market picture for butterfat is quite clear, with tremendous growth potential both domestically and ultimately via the export market.

“The reality is that consumers are eating rather than drinking their dairy these days,” said Geiger. “And they are increasingly favoring full-fat dairy foods over reduced fat options. That means continued innovation in things like premium butter, butter spreads and further development in the butter board phenomenon will bring value to producers, processors and consumers alike.” ▫

McDonald’s Hikes Prices After New Law

Fast-food giants McDonald’s and Chipotle have announced menu price increases in California to offset the impact of recently signed minimum wage hikes into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski revealed during an earnings call that the wage law will affect California franchisees, and the company is considering menu price hikes to cope with the new labor costs. He emphasized that franchisees are exploring various strategies to address the financial impact in the short term, although the exact magnitude of the hit remains uncertain.

Similarly, Chipotle’s chief financial officer, Jack Hartung, stated during an earnings call that the chain is planning to raise prices in California by a “mid-to-high single-digit” percentage.

The California minimum wage law raises the minimum wage for fast food workers at restaurants with at least 60 locations nationwide to $20 per hour, effective from April 1, 2024. Notably, there is an exception for restaurants that bake their own bread.

Menu price increases are not new in the restaurant industry, as businesses have been grappling with rising costs in recent years. Inflation has been on the rise, with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting a 3.7 percent increase in prices across all items over the past 12 months. The Department of Agriculture has also noted a 2.4 percent uptick in the general food index from September 2022 to September 2023.

The decision by McDonald’s and Chipotle to raise menu prices to offset increased labor costs highlights the ongoing challenges faced by businesses dealing with economic fluctuations and legislative changes.

As of the time of this report, neither McDonald’s, Chipotle Mexican Grill, nor Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have responded to requests for comment on these developments. ▫

Florida Auctioneer Awarded Top Honors at World Livestock Auctioneer Championship Qualifier

October 25 was no ordinary sale day at the Tri-County Stockyards in Motley, Minnesota. While cattle came through the ring and buyers placed their bids like any other Wednesday, the block was manned by 35 different auctioneers vying for top honors.

The competitors, from all over the United States, battled it out for buckles, bragging rights and an opportunity to call bids at the annual World Livestock Auctioneer Championship next June at the Oklahoma National Stockyards. At the end of the day, Marcus Kent, Dunnellon, Florida, came out on top.

“My goal has always been to make the finals,” Kent said. “Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would win one.”

He said he competes because he enjoys meeting people, and because he knows it helps him improve his skills. But a bonus is getting to visit auction markets in different places.

“I love seeing everyone’s setup,” Kent said. “It’s never exactly the same and it fascinates me.”

Even on vacation — the auctioneer once traveled to Costa Rica with his family, and while there, found a market to visit.

The World Livestock Auctioneer Championship and its qualifying events don’t just bring bid-callers together. The events draw spectators in the bleachers and from all over the world via livestream.

Reserve Champion Joshua Garcia, Karnes City, Texas, said he’s not surprised the action-packed series is so popular.

“It’s all about action,” he said. “It’s all about getting in the groove of things and just trying to figure out what’s what, what calf is selling for what. And in that way, when they bring their calves in, they get to see, oh, that’s my calf. As an auctioneer, you want to have adrenaline, excitement, keep the sale going, keep it motivated. It keeps the people interested.”

Rounding out the top three was Runner-Up Champion Dakota Davis from Waukomis, Oklahoma. Other competitors moving on to the semifinals are as follows: Lynn Langvardt, Chapman, Kansas; Chris Pinard, Swainsboro, Georgia; Troy Robinett, Decatur, Texas; Barrett Simon, Rosalia, Kansas; Dustin Smith, Jay, Oklahoma; Marshall Tingle, Nicholasville, Kentucky; and Zack Zumstein, Marsing, Idaho.

One more qualifying event, to be held in Paris, Kentucky, Nov. 16, will decide the remainder of the championship semifinal field. ▫

Woman Dies After Elk She Tried to Feed Trampled Her in Her Yard

BY: BY HECTOR GONZALES / SCRIPPS NEWS PHOENIX

Awoman is dead after she was apparently trampled by an elk near Kingman, Arizona.

On November 7, Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGFD) officials announced a woman, who has not been named, died eight days after the incident in the Pine Lake community, about 15 miles southeast of Kingman.

The attack reportedly happened on October 26 while the woman’s husband was in Kingman. According to officials, when the husband returned to their property, he found his wife on the ground in the backyard with injuries that appeared to be consistent with being trampled on by an elk. He also reported seeing a bucket of spilled corn nearby.

Authorities say there are no witnesses to the incident.

The woman was transported to the Kingman Regional Medical Center then to Sunrise Hospital in Las Vegas.

On November 3, the Kingman Police Department contacted the AZGFD saying the woman had died at the hospital. The Clark County Medical Examiner’s Office in Nevada determined the death to be an accident.

When AZGFD workers were alerted about the incident the day after, they alerted nearby residents and reminded them not to approach or feed elk. When they arrived at the property where the incident happened, they observed multiple elk tracks in the yard.

This incident is believed to be the first deadly elk attack in Arizona, according to AZGFD. There have been five reported elk attacks in the state during the past five years that resulted in various injuries.

AZGFD provided the following message:

“The public is urged to help keep wildlife wild. Wildlife that are fed by people or that get food sources from items such as unsecured garbage or pet food lose their natural fear of humans and become dependent on unnatural food sources. Feeding puts at risk the person doing the feeding, their neighbors, and the wildlife itself. Please do not feed wildlife.”. ▫

320 ac. -/+ State Lease), well watered w/three wells, two sets of steel pens. Well located just off of the Clayton/ Springer hwy. on Barney Road.

■ U NION CO., NM – This 1,966 +/- acre ranch located just south of Clayton, New Mexico is in some of the most sought-after grazing land in the Continental U.S.A. The ranch will be excellent for a yearling operation, with high quality grass, good fences and water.

■ KB RANCH - Kenney Co., TX – KB Ranch is a low fenced 802 +/- acre property that is surrounded by large ranches. The ranch has abundant whitetail and is also populated with turkey, dove, quail, hogs and varmint species. Axis are in the area and have been occasionally seen. The ranch lies approximately 9 miles south of Bracketville on TX 131 and is accessed by all weather Standart Road.

■ COLFAX COUNTY NM GETAWAY – 1,482.90 ac.+/grassland (1,193.59 ac. +/- Deeded, 289.31 ac. State Lease), great location near all types of mountain recreation.

■ ANGUS, NM – 250 +/- acres with over a 1/2 mile of NM 48 frontage. Elevations from 6,800 to 7,200 feet. Two springs along a creek. Ideal for future development or build your own getaway home.

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

■ PECOS CO. – 637 ac., Big water, State Classified Minerals.

■ CARSON CO., TX – 640 ac. +/- 5 mi. N of Panhandle on TX 207. 333 ac. +/- under 3 center pivot systems. One well produces 800 GPM. Permanent perimeter and cross fencing.

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

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

■ PALO DURO CREEK TREASURE – 941 acres +/- in Randall Co. NW of Canyon, Tx. STUNNING VIEWS OVER LOOKING PALO DURO CREEK. Turn key cow/calf operation w development potential. Property includes: 3/3/3 ranch style home, 4 wells, large shop plus shed, enclosed livestock working facility w/hydraulic chute, livestock pens & shed, miles of 5 & 6 barbed wire fence & over 7000’ of pipe fence. YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS THIS! Canyon School District.

■ DEAF SMITH CO., TX – 651 ac. +/-, 7

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+

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

• 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest 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

find anything comparable for the price. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.

$894,600

EIGHT MILE DRAW LAND 740 ± Acres of unimproved native grassland located four miles west of Roswell in the Six Mile Hill area with frontage along U.S. Highway 70/380. This parcel is fenced on three sides and adjoins 120 acres of additional land that may be purchased. Great investment. $600 per acre.

residence,

$400,000

The Forest Service’s Carbon Dilemma

Carbon Capture on National Forests or Sustainable Forestry?

BY NICK SMITH / HEALTHY FORESTS, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

The U.S. Forest Service is floating a new rule to potentially grant “perpetual rights of use and occupancy” for carbon waste injection under national forests and grasslands. Such rights may include constructing extensive infrastructure such as pipelines, injection wells, and well pads:

Environmentalists slammed the proposed rule, calling it “industrial carbon waste dumping.” Said one activist: “This proposal is nothing short of ludicrous. Our national forests are already home to the most viable carbon capture and storage technology on Earth — they’re called trees.”

We can agree with that. But anti-forestry groups’ solution to climate change is to layer even more restrictions on timber harvesting under the guise of “protecting” mature and oldgrowth forests, even as many western forests are converting into net carbon emitters due to wildfire, insects and disease thanks to over 30+ years of forest non-management.

The cycle of forestry –including the never-ending process of planting, growing, harvesting, and replanting trees for wood products – serves as a much more efficient carbon capture and sequestration solution – certainly compared to dumping carbon underground, or locking up our forests from active management.

But science continues to point to the importance of younger trees as part of the climate solution.

A paper published recently in the journal Nature Geosciences found young and middle-aged forests – comprising trees between 50 to 140 years of age – played a dominant role in absorbing atmospheric carbon and accumulating biomass. However, forests that were 140 years old and above were approximately carbon neutral, which is the opposite of vegetation model predictions.

Said one researcher involved in the study: “Vegetation models that predict terrestrial carbon stores do not represent forest demographics and tend to overestimate the carbon sequestration capacity of old-growth forests and underestimate carbon absorbed by boreal and temperate forests.”

Science is suggesting a robust carbon capture strategy is to focus on managing and replenishing younger forests, which are more efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Younger forests are a positive result of active forest management. Managed forests provide renewable wood products that store carbon for generations, and require fewer fossil fuels for their production compared to other types of building materials.

Unlike carbon waste injection projects, forest management doesn’t necessitate the construction of pipelines, injection wells, or well pads. This means that we can make substantial strides in reducing carbon emissions without environmental and infrastructural disruptions. In addition, active forest management helps reduce the risk of carbon-emitting wildfires while enhancing forest health and resilience. ▫

Animal Rights Extremist and Dxe CoFounder Wayne Hsiung Found Guilty of Multiple Crimes by Jury in Sonoma County, California

BY JACLYN DE CANDIO FOR PROTECT THE HARVEST

Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of the animal rights extremist group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), was found guilty of a felony conspiracy charge and two criminal misdemeanors in Sonoma County, California, court on November 2, 2023. DxE is known for employing tactics that include trespassing, stealing livestock, poultry, and lab animals, and breaking and entering into private properties in the name of animal “open rescue.” DxE was founded in Berkeley, California, in 2013, with its goal of ending animal agriculture, animal ownership, and most human-animal interaction.

The Sonoma County, California, jurors reached their verdict on an “open rescue” incident at two poultry operations, Sunrise Farms and Reichardt Duck Farm, which occurred in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The misdemeanors were both for trespassing, one of which includes “the intent to disrupt a lawful business,” in addition to one felony charge of conspiracy to commit trespass. DxE’s website is currently treating Hsiung as a martyr, as he’s in jail until his November 30, 2023, sentencing, instead of the common criminal he was found to be.

Hsiung’s criminal history

This isn’t Hsiung’s first time in court, as he has previously been charged with crimes in Utah, Colorado, and North Carolina, all related to animal rights extremist activities. In 2017, Hsiung and DxE extremists stole pigs from a Smithfield hog farm and released them to sanctuaries. As a result, those responsible for the theft were indicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges.

Also in 2017, Hsiung founded the Berkeley Animal Rights Center, the first U.S. community center dedicated to animal extremist activities. He was also a featured speaker at the Ani-

mal Liberation Conference. A year later, Hsiung was charged by a Colorado court for threatening bodily injury to someone at a Whole Foods during an instore protest.

Hsiung was found guilty of two additional felonies in 2021 in the state of North Carolina when he stole a goat from a small farm, escaping punishment with a suspended sentence, 24 months of probation, and a payout to the farmer for the goat’s value.

In a live-stream of this particular crime, Hsiung stated:

“One of the reasons we’re doing this today is because we want to show the world –whether it’s factory farmed or it’s from a small-scale farm – [that] these animals don’t deserve to die, and we believe killing an animal intentionally is criminal animal cruelty.”

Law degree in hand, Hsiung always tries to frame his actions as being necessary to “save” animals, failing to acknowledge theft and trespassing are requisites to achieve his goals. Clearly, Hsiung believes the rule of law does not apply while trying to save chickens, pigs, goats, and other food animals from being used for that purpose.

“Hsiung described his actions, and those of the hundreds of other activists that took part, as akin to breaking a car window to rescue a child or pet trapped in a car on a hot day. He cited a section of California law, code 597e, as a legal justification to take birds he says were sick and dying for veterinary care,” reads a Northern California Public Media article.

Under this philosophy, the only person who needs to determine whether an animal is in need of “rescuing” is the person who is committing the act without any veterinary oversight. Hsiung is not an animal science or welfare expert. He studied political science, behavioral law, and economics. His personal beliefs about animal extremism stem from his personal life,

Buddhist religion, and influence by other extremist leaders such as Patty Mark of Animal Liberation Victoria.

“Open rescue” needs to be prosecuted as a crime

In his Substack newsletter, Hsiung wrote of this particular matter:

“I do not regret or apologize for my actions because that little bird needed help, as do so many others.”

A co-owner of Sunrise Farms said in court that there were no sick and injured animals in the buildings at the time of the break-in.

DxE is framing the case as a matter whether “people have the right to rescue animals in distress” from these farms, even when they have no knowledge or experience in animal agriculture, animal science, or animal welfare. It should be noted two other extremists were also on trial in Sonoma County, one of whose case was dismissed and the other who accepted a plea deal, both of which are all too common results in these cases.

Hsiung, however, will be staying in custody until his November 30th sentencing. According to a DxE statement, he does have plans to appeal the decision.

For a decade, Hsiung and DxE have been blazing a trail of extreme, illegal, and dangerous activities against farms and other animal-focused businesses. Repeatedly, DxE extremists have negotiated light sentences or avoided justice altogether. Hopefully, this ruling and sentencing will set a standard for other courts to use as a template for mitigating additional criminal acts against law-abiding businesses across America.

Protect The Harvest will continue to keep you informed about animal rights extremist developments such as the Sonoma County Court verdict as we promote and defend A Free and Fed America™. ▫

Border Affairs & Bison Bucks

Biden “waives”

We have a 2,000 mile border with Mexico, with many American farm and ranch families located on or near that border, on government owned and private land. We all received a big surprise because Biden just announced he’ll build twenty more miles of border wall. Not only that, his administration will invoke their authority to waive 26 different environmentally-oriented laws to see the wall will be built without delay!

This has raised several questions. One reader on my blog commented: “Since when does an official have the authority to waive laws??

Since Congress passed a law allowing it.

It all began when a law was passed to build a structure in the San Diego area, but by the mid-nineties nothing had been done.

The California Coastal Commission and other enviros kept the project delayed through appeals and court cases. The waiver language had its beginning and was inserted in an immigration law. It has been amended several times and exists today as Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is why Homeland Secretary Mayorcas writes in his federal register notice, “Finally, in section 102(c) of

IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.”

He then lists the twenty-six laws he is waiving. They include endangered species, clean water, clean air, migratory bird treaty, and of course, the national environmental policy. The average NEPA document now takes four years to complete. The Endangered Species Act is important for this area, which is home to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and several endangered species. Lawfare writes that, in addition to being an immigration hotspot, the Lower Rio Grande Valley represents a “transition between temperate and tropical conditions and contains an exceptionally high diversity of plants and animals— some of them found in few, or no other places in the United States.” This includes the northern ocelot leopard and northern aplomado falcon— both listed as endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

This tells us first that if Congress really wants something they will do whatever it takes to get it. In this case they have delegated their authority to amend or revoke a statute. Secondly it demonstrates they are aware of the damage done by these statutes, but are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. They have special waivers for their projects, but none for ours.

Bison bucks

Various federal and state officials recently met on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge to celebrate the $2.6 million

Biden Admin Under Fire for Opening Borders to Food Imports Potentially Containing Devastating Disease

The Biden administration was heavily criticized in early November after it moved forward with a plan to allow producers in Paraguay to begin importing fresh beef into America.

On November 9, the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) finalized regulations to allow Paraguayan beef imports and issued a series of conditions importers must meet to ensure livestock diseases aren’t present in shipped products. Paraguay’s livestock industry has a history of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which spreads quickly among livestock and could severely threaten the U.S. economy.

“USDA based their decision to allow beef imports from Paraguay on a deeply flawed risk as-

they have been awarded from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These funds will be used to manage bison, and to expand their range in the refuge from 6,500 acres to 10,000 acres. These funds will also go towards acquiring fencing and cattle guards to help this project, as well as to drill wells at the edges of the project.

Deputy refuge manager Megan Klosterman calls bison “ecosystem engineers,” and says allowing them to roam more freely across the refuge will help native plants grow better and increase species diversity in the grasslands ecosystem.

They evolved with the native plants, so their feeding on vegetation actually helps it grow back stronger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deputy director Siva Sundaresan said. The weight of their footsteps (males can weigh up to 2,000 pounds, females 1,000) mixes nutrients in the soil, and their hoof prints create wet microclimates for new plants to grow.

Do you believe that spending money on fencing, cattle guards and water wells will reduce inflation?

I do.

And I also believe there are buffalo chips the size of houses floating down the Rio Grande today.

And let’s start calling our livestock “ecosystem engineers” and I hope they are making wet “microclimates” all over your country.

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 ▫

Hitting the Consumer Target

BY BURT RUTHERFORD

Reprinted courtesy American Wagyu Association

For beef producers looking to begin or expand a direct-to-consumer business model, start by asking yourself some questions. That’s what Michael Uetz, cofounder of the meat-oriented marketing firm Midan Marketing told Wagyu breeders.

Speaking during the recent World Wagyu Conference in San Antonio, Texas, Uetz encouraged Wagyu breeders to understand their consumer target. “Based on what it is you are providing to the marketplace, who specifically is your target and what drives them to purchase? Why should they pick your product up? That’s what we need to consider every day.”

Sound advice, that, given that Wagyu breeders, more than beef producers from any other group, sell their beef directly to consumers, grocery stores and restaurants. To that end, Uetz detailed updated results of meat consumer segmentation research the marketing agency began in 2016.

The first consumer segment is Connected Trendsetters. “And they truly are just that. They’re connected in that they are addicted to digital.” This group is constantly online and constantly looking for information, he said.

In general, this group is younger. “They’re very experimental. They love to cook, they love to try different proteins. And they’re very interested in the alternative protein space,” he told Wagyu breeders. “So we’ve got some competition in their mindset on why they buy beef versus why not try the newest alternative product.”

This consumer group is highly engaged and can be reached online with recommendations, he said. “This is a group I would

ized Thursday. The comments similarly urged the USDA to immediately allow beef imports.

say you really need to be interested in because they are really interested in what’s new and exciting and they share that information with all their contacts once they’ve tried it.”

The second consumer group is dubbed Claim Seekers. “It tends to be more females and is a quarter of the meat consuming population,” Uetz said. “So more and more, consumers are interested in what we’re doing, and they want all the details.”

In response, beef producers are providing more and more label claims. “The challenge for the consumer is not to get overwhelmed in the claims we’re serving up for them to understand exactly what it is we’re trying to get across to them.”

This group is driven by health for themselves and their family, as well as by the health of the animals that produce the meat and the health of the environment. “They’re very aware and are looking for signs of engagement in providing details about how healthful the product is and what was done in the caretaking of the animals and the environment. They are specifically focused on looking on the package for claim callouts,” he said.

This group tends to move away from beef and pork toward more poultry. “That’s our challenge. Keep them focused on our product, keep them in our space.”

The next group is Convenience Chasers. “It tends to be more of a male personality and they are all about convenience. They are always looking for something quick and easy,” Uetz told Wagyu breeders. “They don’t have a lot of time to do a lot of cooking. They believe, in many cases, that meat takes too long to cook during a weekday.”

Thus, they are looking for shortcuts. “They are looking for value-added, they are looking for something that’s further prepared. They’re looking for meal

continued on page 10

sessment that uses old data from site visits that were conducted more than nine years ago,” said Kent Bacus, the executive director of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the largest industry group representing U.S. cattle producers.

“Paraguay has a history of FMD outbreaks, and it is unclear if their inspection system can provide an equivalent level of safety for animal health to prevent a possible FMD outbreak on U.S. soil,” he continued. “Paraguay heavily relies on private sector funding for most of its FMD mitigation measures, and USDA did not consider the risk associated with Paraguay’s economic downturn over the last several years.”

Bacus added that, while Paraguay has for years made ensuring its nation’s beef producers have access to the U.S. market

a top diplomatic priority, the USDA should prioritize safety above other interests. He also argued that dismissing concerns voiced by American cattle producers is “unacceptable.”

“While winning friends and allies in South America may be part of the long-term interests of U.S. diplomacy, it should not be done on the backs of U.S. cattle producers or by putting at risk the health and livelihood of the safest and most efficient cattle and beef production system in the world,” Bacus said.

According to a readout of a September meeting between the Paraguayan government and the White House Office of the United States Trade Representative, the two sides discussed the process to authorize the import of raw beef products and Paraguayan officials expressed their desire to resume raw beef product trade “as soon as possible.”

In addition, Paraguayan cattle industry associations and government agencies including the Embassy of Paraguay to the United States submitted comments in May in response to the proposed version of the regulations final-

“The exportation of Paraguayan beef to the United States will benefit both Paraguayan and American business and consumers with increased choices for premium beef products,” the Embassy of Paraguay wrote in its filing. “The Govern-

ment of Paraguay is committed to working closely with U.S. authorities to ensure that all food safety and quality regulations are met, and we are confident that Paraguayan beef will be a big success in the U.S. market.”

However, the same federal rulemaking process garnered substantial negative feedback continued on page 11

SOURCE: FOX NEWS

The

TSurviving in a Can of Nuts

he world seems more upside down each time I write one of these articles. Israel has now been attacked by Hamas and the United States Constitution has been attacked by a federal judge.

According to the Associated Press, “an order on October 11th by U.S. District Judge David Urias will allow enforcement of a public health order that suspends the right to carry guns at public parks and playgrounds in New Mexico’s largest metro area.”

Granted this is a very small part of Governor Grisham’s initial gun ban, but nevertheless I hate to see anyone infringe on the second amendment and get away with it. I’m quite certain this will be challenged as well.

Trying to take a common sense approach here, wouldn’t this ban just leave unarmed citizens more vulnerable at playgrounds and public parks? I also noticed that formal impeachment proceedings have been started by Representative John Block.

Block said, “This is really the fabric of our state and nation and saying that no right is absolute makes everyone susceptible to the government coming in, taking away our rights.”

In the United States House of Representatives, a committee passed a resolution to condemn Governor Grisham’s actions. Democratic representative from New Mexico’s 2nd district, Gabe Vasquez said that if the resolution makes it to the House floor even he will vote to condemn Governor Grisham.

This is very serious stuff folks. COVID lockdowns gave these liberal governors the go ahead to destroy your rights and now they are trying to take it even further. Isn’t it unique that all these governor’s and presidents take an oath to follow the laws of the land, but seem to forget about that?

Let’s get back to agriculture being under attack. Yes, those evil cattle just need to be banned. After all cattle actually eat grass and walk in riparian areas along creeks. Damn, they might even step on an endangered turtle once in a while. Besides, they are destroying the ozone layer. Want to know more? Read Smithsonian Magazine, National Geographic, or call the Sierra Club. Where do we get these nuts?

I want you to think about global warming for a minute. Here are a few facts that we do know:

Ї 71 percent of the earth is covered with water, leaving 29 percent covered with land.

Ї About 10 percent of the land is inhabited by man.

Ї 12 percent of the 10 percent is used to raise crops, whether feeding cattle or humans.

Ї Human bodies and animal bodies are comprised of about 90 percent water.

It sounds like water has the biggest effect on climate change, not humans or cattle. Should we be eliminating water from the earth to combat our problems that don’t exist?

It is quite obvious that humans and animals have no effect or control of the weather or climate. From what records tell us the climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Why would 10 percent of the inhabited earth have one ounce of effect on the other 90 percent? Please notice that there is always a balance on the earth? If one area is suffering and having their worst year ever, there is another area having a banner year.

The entire premise of liberalism as a religion is that there is no God and man knows best. That’s obvious as how they have strived to eliminate God from schools, our government, and our families.

This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. They are our most valuable assets. Keep fighting for your rights, your families, and your cattle. ▫

HITTING THE CONSUMER TARGET from page 9

kits, something that’s going to be quick and easy,” he said.

This group loves beef, but they’re all about getting meat on the table as quickly as possible. “They tend to be big online purchasers,” he said, with 44 percent of the group saying they shop online specifically because it’s convenient.

The fourth group is Committed Carnivores. “This group is all about their love and passion for meat,” Uetz said. “They can’t imagine life without meat. They also believe that their entire family is really about loving meat. They love to cook it at home and serve their family the best meal they can.”

Uetz reminded Wagyu breeders to recall what happened during COVID. “Everybody started eating at home. They realized they have a family, that they actually have a dining room table and they spend time at it. Through that process, this group in particular continues to hold on to the values they recognized when they found themselves in that situation,” he said.

The fifth group is called Classic Pallets. For them, meat is a staple. “It’s always there, but they don’t have a passion about the product,” he said. “It’s just something they’ve always purchased and they’re always going to have it as part of their meal,” he added. “I

Collectables for Your Portfolio?

Investing in collectibles can be appealing for a variety of reasons. Collectibles have emerged as a unique strategy for some individuals seeking to diversify their portfolios. But the allure of collectibles as an investment extends beyond mere financial gain. Historical significance, passion, camaraderie, and the intrinsic value associated with certain items are other reasons often given. In this article, we will focus on some of the benefits of using collectibles as an investment.

One of the primary reasons collectibles can be a compelling investment is rarity and scarcity. The limited availability of certain items within the collectibles market often sparks heightened demand, driving up value. This scarcity factor contributes to the exclusivity and desirability of collectibles among a community of enthusiasts and investors alike. If not just everyone can go out and buy one, that item naturally becomes more desirable.

Historical significance adds another layer of value to collectibles. Items connected to certain events or iconic figures often appreciate over time as their historical importance becomes more pronounced. Whether it’s a piece of memorabilia from a significant moment in history or an artifact associated with a cultural icon, these collectibles are a link to the past, making them attractive to investors seeking assets with a story.

Unlike more abstract financial investments, collectibles are tangible items that investors can physically own and enjoy. This not only provides a heightened sense of ownership but also allows investors to display and appreciate their collections/ investments. Many would rather see their “savings account” displayed on their walls, rather than getting musty in a bank vault somewhere. This dual benefit of possible financial return and personal enjoyment separates collectibles from other traditional investments.

The diversification aspect of collectibles can also be a draw for investors looking to lower risk in their portfolios. The market for collectibles is not always directly correlated with traditional financial markets. In times of economic uncertainty, assets with inherent value often retain or increase in value, providing a potential hedge against market fluctuations. Having collectibles in a diversified portfolio can offer a level of stability. Yet another reason they can be attractive to investors.

Items associated with popular trends can experience a surge in demand, driving up their market value. Investors who are attuned to these shifts can sometimes capitalize on opportunities presented by the evolving tastes and preferences of pop culture. Who would have thought back in the 1980s that an Apple computer from that time period would now be worth many thousands of dollars today as a collectible? With this line of reasoning, you can be a “hip” investor!

The global appeal of certain items adds another dimension

Applications Open for TSCRA Collegiate Conference

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association opened the application window for the inaugural 2024 Cattle Raisers Collegiate Conference January 5 through 7 in Fort Worth.

The three-day conference is geared towards college students interested in advancing career opportunities within the beef industry. Attendees will be provided with personal learning experiences, and a chance to broaden their network, connect with leading industry figures, tour cattle operations and gain professional development skills.

to their investment potential. With a global market in place, the pool of potential buyers is constantly expanding, which helps increase liquidity. Global demand can also contribute to a robust and dynamic market for collectibles, giving them a broad audience.

The professional authentication and grading aspect of certain collectibles can help contribute to the asset’s credibility. Investors can benefit from a level of assurance regarding the authenticity and condition of their purchases. This assurance can attract more participants to the market, which helps everybody involved in the long run.

Investing in collectibles is not solely a financial endeavor; it often involves a pursuit of passion. Many collectors are driven by a deep love for the items they collect, whether it’s rare coins, vintage jewelry, or art. This connection to the collection can enhance the overall satisfaction of the investment — a value hard to calculate.

In conclusion, the investment appeal of collectibles is broad. Beyond the potential for financial gain, collectibles offer a unique combination of historical significance, passion, tangibility, and diversification. However, it’s essential for investors to conduct their research, understand the market dynamics, and carefully consider the risks associated with this type of asset class. The world of collectibles is as varied as the items themselves. A well-informed approach is crucial for those seeking to unlock the full potential of this intriguing investment avenue. As always, you should deal with reputable dealers when looking to purchase, but most of all — have fun! Collecting is meant to be fun! ▫

Association leadership development committee chairman.

“Our first-ever collegiate conference shows a dedicated commitment to breaking barriers-to-entry and providing a clear pathway to success for students graduating college and seeking a career in the beef industry,” he noted.

“ Our first-ever collegiate conference shows a dedicated commitment to breaking barriersto-entry and providing a clear pathway to success for students graduating college and seeking a career in the beef industry.”

“Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association has never been more committed to providing a future for aspiring industry leaders,” said Gilly Riojas, Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers

Twenty selected students will attend the conference where they will be exposed to topics from resume building to salary negotiation to career potentials. Applicants must be enrolled in an accredited college or university, pursuing an agricultural degree or future agricultural career, and be willing to learn, grow and be an advocate on behalf of the beef industry. Applicants

NAWG on Prop 65 Permanent Injunction

The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) is thrilled to see the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit permanent injunction that prohibits California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement related to glyphosate. On November 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction enjoining Proposition 65 warning requirement for glyphosate.

“NAWG members knew we had a strong case and the decisions were based on the facts and science surrounding the safety of the product,” said NAWG President and Oregon wheat farmer, Brent Cheyne, “NAWG has been engaged in this legal battle as lead plaintiff challenging the California requirement for six years. California’s Proposition 65 requirement threatened the use of glyphosate by requiring false and misleading labels on products that may contain glyphosate. We are pleased to see this action taken today by the court.” Additional

Feds Order Halt to Sunzia Powerline Construction in Arizona’s San Pedro River Valley

BY TONY DAVIS / TUCSON.COM

Construction on a 50mile stretch of the SunZia wind energy transmission line in the San Pedro River Valley was halted on orders from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning wrote to Tohono O’Odham Tribal Chairman Verlon Jose that she had ordered an “immediate suspension” of SunZia’s activities within the San Pedro Valley located entirely on non-federal land.

Manning wrote that her order came in response to “an urgent request” from Jose on October 31, made in a letter to Interior Secretary Deborah Haaland. Interior is BLM’s parent agency.

Sites that could be affected by SunZia construction include “ancient burial sites, archeological sites, ceremonial sites, all those sacred areas that are concerning to the Tohono Nation and other affected tribes,” Jose told the Arizona Daily Star.

The power line stretch through the San Pedro Valley east and northeast of Tucson is part of a 550-mile-long, 3,500-megawatt wind energy project that the San Francisco-based Pattern Energy is building from central New Mexico to central Arizona.

“I respectfully request to meet with you at your earliest convenience within the next 5 days to consult regarding your objections and discuss a path forward,” Stone-Manning wrote to Jose.

Jose said he is gratified by BLM’s decision, but that he’s still concerned the SunZia work is continuing along an area of the route north and west of the San Pedro area. To him, that means BLM still intends to proceed with the entire route including that in the river valley, because the area still under construction directly connects to the area where it’s been stopped.

“We have a consultation, and in the meantime, Sunzia is still doing work which actually sends the message that they are going to do it anyway” in the San Pedro Valley, Jose said Thursday. The tribe hopes for an alternative route — “one less invasive to any historical, cultural or archeological areas,” he said.

Reached for comment earlier, Pattern Energy official Natalie McCue said, “This temporary pause is to allow for these discussions with tribal entities to move forward. We see this pause as a good faith effort step on the part of BLM as part of the BLM consultation process, which we will work to fully support.”

SunZia had started work on the San Pedro Valley part of its power line after BLM issued a notice to proceed on Sept. 26, McCue said. It had started on other portions of the line in Arizona in early September.

Jose told Interior a halt to construction is needed because BLM previously issued SunZia a notice to proceed with work in that area before all historic properties along the route were identified and before a treatment plan for the properties was

finished.

Under what Jose said is a Joint Secretarial Order, “the BLM has the obligation to give consideration and deference to tribal proposals, recommendations, and knowledge that affect management decisions on such lands.” Instead of shouldering these obligations and meeting National Historical Preservation Act requirements, “BLM has made clear its intentions to prioritize SunZia interests,” Jose wrote.

The San Carlos Apache, Zuni and Hopi tribes have also expressed major concerns about the SunZia project going through the San Pedro Valley.

Pattern officials said, however, that any site preparation work or initial construction activities that occurred in the San Pedro Valley to date was authorized by BLM in areas “where there were no historic properties present or in locations where there would be no adverse effects to historic properties,” as identified in cultural inventory reports and historic property treatment plans.

“We fully respect the heritage, history and rights of Indigenous people. Throughout the BLM-led government to government process, we have actively worked to address tribal concerns,” said McCue, Pattern’s assistant vice president for environmental permitting.

In addition, the company is carrying out extensive mitigation, salvage work and replanting to compensate for the uprooting of saguaros, agaves and other desert plants during construction, Pattern officials said.

In an emailed response Thursday to questions from the Star, BLM declined to say how long this work could be delayed. It also declined to say if its decision to suspend construction meant it agreed with Jose’s contention that BLM originally approved the start of construction before adequate tribal consultation was carried out.

“The BLM will conduct government-to-government consultations on this matter and chart a path forward,” the bureau

said, adding that other lands along the SunZia route aren’t affected by the suspension.

The federal government has long recognized that the entire San Pedro River Valley holds spiritual and cultural significance for tribes.

In a 2012 report, the U.S. Geological Survey wrote, “the San Pedro River watershed holds important spiritual and cultural values, particularly for American Indian tribes with cultural or historic ties to the watershed. “In describing the 2006 book “History is in the Land,” which describes tribal cultural connections to the San Pedro Valley, the USGS report said, “The authors described the connections of four tribal groups to the San Pedro Valley — the O’odham, Hopi, Zuni, and Apache. Although written Western histories most closely associate the San Pedro River watershed with eastern relatives of today’s O’odham, the Apache, the Zuni, and Hopi have strong connections to the San Pedro River region by means of their historical migrations.” ▫

Colorado Gets Final Go-Ahead to Kill Wolves That Kill Livestock

BY MILES BLUMHARDT / FORT COLLINS COLORADOAN

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finalized its 10(j) rule under the Endangered Species Act, designating gray wolves in Colorado as experimental, allowing the predator to be legally killed under certain circumstances.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife plans to release wolves it is obtaining from Oregon to launch its reintroduction program by mid-December, the agency said previously.

The 10(j) ruling allows for more flexibility in managing wolves throughout Colorado, including the option to kill the predators in situations where wolves are chronically depre-

from the NCBA, regional affiliates of the group, the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which all argued the action could lead to a FMD outbreak in the U.S. — which has been free of the disease since 1929 — causing massive economic damage.

“Farm Bureau policy opposes the Department’s decision to allow chilled or frozen beef exports from Paraguay into the United States and recommends the Department withdraw this proposed rule until more recent and relevant data can be acquired from the government of Paraguay and other relevant organizations to show there is no risk of an infectious animal disease outbreak in the U.S. domestic animal population,” the AFBF wrote.

The group added that beef exported from Paraguay may be sourced from other South American countries like Brazil, Bolivia or Argentina, where the U.S. has not done a risk assessment.

“The U.S. shouldn’t line the pockets of overseas investors or Brazilian meatpacking monoliths at the risk of our own cattle and beef industry. For all the reasons outlined above, USCA respectfully requests the rescission of this proposed rule,” the USCA added.

“There is no question that Paraguay has much to gain by receiving the coveted USDA stamp of approval. There is no doubt that having a USDA endorsement will likely make it easier for Paraguay to gain access to Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean markets,” the NCBA’s Bacus wrote in a separate letter.

“But where is the benefit for U.S. consumers, and why should the U.S. cattle herd be placed at greater risk of FMD? NCBA is greatly concerned that the conclusions drawn in the proposed rule are based on outdated information that does not adequately calculate the risk to U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd.” ▫

dating livestock or are caught in the act of killing livestock. The ruling accompanied wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho in the mid-1990s.

The final rule and record for Colorado was announced in a Tuesday news release and is to become effective Dec. 8, 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. In September, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the ruling, which was followed by a cooling period before the ruling was finalized.

Ranchers had expressed concerns about not having the 10(j) rule in place before the state plans to reintroduce 10 to 15 wolves west of the Continental Divide this winter. Despite Tuesday’s ruling, some Colorado ranchers still aren’t celebrating.

That’s because it’s possible legal action could be taken to delay or change the ruling. Litigation over the 10(j) rule followed its designation on wolves being introduced to Yellowstone and Idaho.

“I’m not too excited about

it yet because a lot of the prowolf groups could challenge it in court,” North Park rancher Don Gittleson told Steamboat Radio. “That has happened on every single 10(j) rule that has come into effect. It will depend on whether the judge will let the 10(j) ruling stay in place while the court cases go through the court system or whether he puts that on hold until they go through the court system.”

Rob Edward, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, which spearheaded the campaign to pass the 2020 ballot initiative to reintroduce wolves by the end of 2023, said his group his group has a comfort level with the 10(j) rule as long as it is used conservatively.

“There is nothing on the horizon from us that I see as far as wolf litigation,” he said. “But there is a fairly long timeline after the rule for litigation, and I can’t speak for what other organizations may or may not do. There are different comfort levels with the rule from various organizations.” ▫