LMD October 2024 by Livestock Publishers

Saying things that need to be said.

The Burp Tax

Ilearned my lesson on the first feature story I ever wrote when I was 21 and greener than a gourd. The story was about my idol Gene Rambo, one of the greatest rodeo cowboys to ever go down the road. In interviewing Gene I asked how many cows he ran and on how many acres. Gene answered in his blunt manner,

“Never ask a cattleman the size of his spread. NEVER ask a cattleman how many cows he owns.”

Evidently the federal government never got Gene’s memo.

The Boiled Frog

to foresee the future. Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF, gives us the backstory of mandatory electronic ID in a commentary he wrote called “Analogy of the Boiled Frog” in which he gave a brief history about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ill-conceived plan to require electronic eartags on all

It seems like we’ve been warning you about the government’s push for mandatory electronic eartags and mandatory cattle identification for 15 years now. In all that time the two organizations who’ve been fighting hardest for cattlemen in opposing mandatory identification are R CALF-USA and the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. Recently the two groups made a big push to get rid of mandatory ID once and for all.

Every so often it is beneficial to look backwards in order

their premises and to report the movements of their cattle from one location to another during their lifespans.”

If you climb in the saddle, be ready for the ride.

cattle, from the time of birth until slaughter. Wrote Bullard, “The plan was called NAIS, the National Animal Identification System, and in addition to mandatory electronic eartags or EID eartags, it also required cattle producers to register

“The NAIS plan,” wrote Bullard, “conjured up fierce opposition from livestock producers all across the nation who valued their liberty and freedom and who refused to sit back and watch government overreach impose a costly and unnecessary burden upon their operations, not to mention depriving them of their ability to choose how to best manage their ranches and their livestock.”

“This inappropriate intrusion,” continued Bullard, “into the lives of America’s cattle farmers and ranchers ended with a final rule published by the USDA on January 9, 2013. The final rule was titled ‘Trace-

Sierra Club – Big Green at Its Worst

SOURCE: PROTECT THE HARVEST

The Sierra Club is the oldest and most notorious environmental extremist group in the United States. It was founded in 1892 with the seemingly noble intention of preserving parkland in the United States, but over the years has warped into a force of intense environmental extremism. The organization has continually operated under an elaborate façade of feel-good conservationism, but behind the scenes, has increasingly adopted an underlying antihuman agenda while raking money in hand over fist. Following a steady annual increase, the group’s 2020 tax return showed contributions of over $140 million.

Shameful History

The Sierra Club’s history is littered with flagrant abuse of the law, collusion with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shady financial dealings, stunning hypocrisy, and associating with animal liberationists, eco-terrorists, and eugenicists. Through their incessant litigation, the Sierra Club has been responsible for countless limitations and outright bans of allowed land usage. This has added a heavy and unnecessary burden on our nation’s food producers and consumers.

The Green New Deal Globalist Movement

ability for Livestock Moving Interstate.’ It provided that cattle shipped across state lines would need to be identified with some form of identification, whether a low-cost metal or plastic eartag or a high-cost EID eartag. The important point is that cattle producers could choose the type of tag that best fit their operation, and there was no requirement for premises registration or the reporting of movements. And the 2013 final rule accomplished what the USDA sought – improvement in the ability to conduct a traceback of cattle that had crossed state lines. Well, at least we thought that’s what USDA wanted to accomplish, but now we know we were wrong.”

At the Digest we had our doubts from the very beginning about what USDA’s ultimate goal with mandatory ID was and those thoughts were confirmed by Bullard. “As recently as August 29, 2024, the USDA

continued on page 2

McDonalds is Suing Tyson Foods For Allegedly Choking The Beef Supply Chain To Raise Prices

The lawsuit says the meatpacking giant reduced production levels to “artificially” drive up prices

BY FRANCISCO VELASQUEZ / QUARTZ

McDonald’s has filed a lawsuit against Tyson, JBS, and other major meat processing companies, accusing them of colluding for years to limit beef supplies.

The lawsuit alleges that the collusion allowed the companies to boost their profits while forcing McDonald’s to pay inflated prices for their meat.

McDonald’s claims the companies, including Cargill and National Beef Packing, systematically reduced production levels starting on January 1, 2015, in order to “artificially” drive up market prices. With significant control over the cattle and beef industry, the companies could manipulate prices at their will, the lawsuit says.

“Only colluding meatpackers would expect to benefit by reducing their prices and purchases of slaughtered cattle, fully aware that their conspiracy would shield them from the pressures of a competitive market,” McDonald’s stated.

The Sierra Club’s mission to “save” the environment mirrors the visions of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. At its core, this vision is nothing more than the continued on page 4

The “Big Four” beef companies represent the largest meat processing and packing facilities

by LEE PITTS

Living The Dream W

hat was I thinking? For as long as I can remember I always wanted to be a rancher yet I had no money, no land, and no cattle. I’m the only one in my extended family that I know of for at least five generations who has been even remotely connected to the cattle business. Yet despite everyone telling me it was impossible to think I’d ever become a rancher, my dream came true.

Here’s the true story of another young man who, because of the kindness of our local community of cattlemen and women, got to live out his dream too.

I’ll never forget my first visit to the Templeton Livestock Auction about 30 minutes away from where I live. It was 51 years ago and I’d just been hired by Western Livestock Journal to be a field editor and part of the job entailed working ring at sales in exchange for advertising. As far as I know I was the first WLJ field editor to ever work the Templeton Bull sale and I’m happy to report that after my first one I worked every single one of them, along with yearly heifer sales and horse sales, until they tore the place down.

For that bull sale I got to the market at least an hour early and went inside the barn to watch the feeder cattle sell before the bull sale. (The slaughter cattle would sell after.) As I sat there, I noticed a young man trying to bid but Duane, the auctioneer, wouldn’t take it. The first time I saw it happen I almost yipped and pointed out the bid that Duane had obviously missed. Boy am I glad I didn’t for I’d have made a fool of myself.

I don’t know the politically correct or “woke” way to say this but the young man trying to bid was “mentally challenged.” What I didn’t know at the time but the regular crowd at the sale obviously did was that the young man wanted to be an order buyer in the worst way and very much enjoyed playing the role on sale days. (I think he was the yard man’s son or had some other connection to the market.) The young man had done his homework and certainly looked the part of an order buyer from the top of his Stetson to the bottom of his ostrich boots.

continued on page 4

Volume 66 • No. 10

Yes. Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for: □ 1 Year at $35 □ 2 Years at $45 NAME

Payment Enclosed

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

NAME ADDRESS

— MY CHECK IS ENCLOSED FOR — One Year: $35 Two Years: $45 Single copy: $10

Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Telephone: 505-243-9515 Fax: 505-349-3060 www.aaalivestock.com

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF

CAREN COWAN Publisher

LEE PITTS Executive Editor

CHUCK STOCKS Publisher Emeritus

RANDY SUMMERS Sales

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES

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

FIELD EDITOR

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

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer

All subscriptions non-refundable.

announced what it really wants and that is ‘to track animals from birth to slaughter through a system that allows tracking data points to be connected.’”

“Now the USDA is resurrecting its long-defeated NAIS program and it’s doing so in phases,” wrote Bullard. “It’s the boiling frog analogy: If you put a frog in warm water and heat it up, by the time the frog realizes the water has become too hot, it’s too late. Well, the poor frog is now in warm water as the USDA finalized a rule that will go into effect on November 5 that requires America’s cattle producers to affix an EID eartag in their adult cattle shipped across state lines.”

Interestingly, “The rule only requires producers to affix high-cost EID eartags on their cattle. But it doesn’t require anyone else to do anything with the digitized number contained in the eartag’s chip. In other words, it does not require the electronic reading of the electronic eartags, so the rule won’t improve disease traceability… it simply can’t unless USDA issues yet another rule. And we know they will. We must stop this now, before we become the deadest of frogs.”

Hysterical Hyperbole

From the very beginning we wrote that the real intention of USDA’s mandatory electronic ID was to take an inventory of everyone’s cattle to make it easier for them to start taxing ranchers on each head of cattle they own to combat the “climate crises.” The bureaucrats’ response, even from a major cattle organizations was, “The USDA did not have an evil intent.”

No one wanted to tax cows we were told.

Then Denmark announced that they would start taxing livestock farmers in that country for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs. According to an AP story, “Denmark was the first country to do so as it targets a major source of methane emissions, one of the most potent gases contributing to global warming.

46 Groups Urge Congressional Action Against Electronic Eartag Mandate for Cattle, Bison

In a letter sent to Congress, R-CALF USA and 45 other farming, ranching, and food groups urged immediate action to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) rule that mandates electronic ear tags for adult cattle and bison crossing state lines.

Set to take effect November 5, 2024, despite industry-wide opposition, the new rule amends the current Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule of 2013, which R-CALF USA says has been highly effective at disease traceback and allows producers to use their choice of animal identification best suited to their operation.

In the letter, the groups wrote that the USDA’s new mandate “will unfairly burden small- and medium-scale producers, further consolidate our food supply in the hands of a few large meatpackers, and undermine our national food security.”

The letter continued stating, “Multinational meatpacking corporations and high-tech companies are pushing mandatory electronic identification (EID) for livestock, claiming that it’s an animal health measure and supports food safety – but neither is true. The real story is that it promotes international exports, thus maximizing the meatpacking companies’ profits, while the high-tech companies will make millions selling tags, readers, and related infrastructure, all at the expense of farmers and ranchers.”

The groups’ letter discussed the concerns that arose following a USDA press release that claimed this mandate is an animal health program and is key to maintaining foreign markets but also described its intentions to create a “modern animal disease traceability system that tracks animals from birth to slaughter”.

According to the letter, USDA had stated 70 percent of cattle would need to be traceable for full traceability in the instance of a foreign disease outbreak, yet the Agency estimated that this new rule would only apply to about 11 percent of cattle.

The letter concluded by urging Congress to pass H.J.Res.167, S.J.Res.98, and S.4282 to block the mandate, three pieces of legislation that have growing support, particularly in the House as nearly 30 congressmen have signed on in support of H.J.Res.167 led by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY).

“The USDA’s plan for animal traceability has faced widespread opposition from cow-calf producers and livestock owners across the entire country from its first attempted National Animal Identification System to this new rule,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “Despite the fact that producers overwhelmingly commented in opposition to the proposed rule, USDA chose to ignore the needs and concerns of American ranchers and push ahead with its preplanned agenda.”

“This mandate is only the start towards mandating EID tags on all livestock and total control,” Bullard continued. “It will force thousands of farmers and ranchers out of business, and Congress must stop it now.” ▫

The aim is to reduce Danish greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent from 1990, said Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus.”

Bruus told reporters that, “We will take a big step closer in becoming climate neutral in 2045 as Denmark will be the first country in the world to introduce a real CO2 tax on agriculture and he hoped other countries would follow suit.”

Keep in mind that they want to tax carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide is what all plants require in order to live. It is their lifeblood. CO2 is partly responsible for the “greenhouse” effect of trapping heat within the Earth’s atmosphere and supposedly this is one of the primary causes of global warming. One wonders, using the same logic, will the climate change fanatics someday try to outlaw humans, after all, carbon dioxide is what humans exhale after every breath they take.

According to Danish officials their livestock farmers will be taxed $43 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. The tax will increase to $108 by 2035. A typical Danish cow produces 6.6 tons of CO2 per year. Denmark, which is a large dairy and pork exporter, also will tax pigs, although cows produce far higher emissions than pigs. According to Statistic Denmark, there were as of June 30, 2022, 1,484,377 cows in the Scandinavian country, a slight drop compared to the previous year.

We expect there will be an even bigger drop once the politicians in Denmark start taxing cows.

Denmark’s burp tax was implemented despite months of protests by farmers across Europe who claimed climate change mitigation measures and regulations are driving them into bankruptcy. While the largest environmental organization in Denmark, The Danish Society for Nature Conservation, described the burp tax as ‘historic’. They said, “We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry.”

According to the AP story, “New Zealand had passed a similar law due to take effect in 2025. However, the legislation was removed from the statute book after hefty criticism from farmers and a change of government at the 2023 election from a center-left ruling bloc to a center-right one. New Zealand said it would exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme in favor of exploring other ways to reduce methane.”

Methane is the other greenhouse gas that Green New Dealers, like Kamala Harris, say is endangering our lives. Besides cows, methane is emitted from sources like landfills, oil and natural gas production and termites, but because the greenies don’t like cows, or the people who raise them, the Green New Dealers claim that livestock accounts for about 32 percent of human-caused methane emissions, according to a U.N. Environment Program. Other studies indicate the figure is closer to, 3.2 percent. But what’s a missing decimal point to the United Nations when they’re trying to save the world?

The hysterical hyperbole is not limited to the Europeans. There seems to be a contest amongst the bureaucrats to see who can make the wildest comments concerning climate

change and cows. Our own Environmental Protection Agency claims that cows are one of the leading producers of methane on the planet, each cow producing anywhere from 154 to 164 pounds of methane gas per year.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contends that while carbon dioxide gets more attention for its role in climate change, methane traps about 87 times more heat. And the United Nations claims that livestock account for one third of human-caused methane emissions.

The case, even though it has more faults than California, is all being constructed to lay the basis for a carbon tax to be levied against anyone for having the audacity to raise cattle.

This burp tax will be based on a per ton basis of greenhouse gas emissions emitted. The tax is designed to encourage ranchers to either reduce their output of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, attempt to pass on the tax on to the consumer thereby contributing to inflationary cost of beef, or quit the business altogether.

Tag! You’re It

What the Green New Dealers have created is a system of carbon tax offsets whereby these credits are purchased through non-profits that supposedly use the funds to remove a specific quantity of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Through the use of carbon offsets or credits, a multinational business can claim they are net-zero company by purchasing enough carbon credits to make it look like they aren’t contributing one iota to pollution. What it really means is that they can go on polluting just so long as they’ve paid enough in green blackmail. These mechanisms are popular because it is often less expensive for a company to buy carbon credits than it is to stop their own pollution processes.

Even fossil fuel producers like British Petroleum are cheerleaders for such a system and they have set a goal to be net zero by 2050 by purchasing sufficient carbon credits. They’ll be able to call themselves a net zero polluter even though they may not have reduced the greenhouse gases they produced at all. Needless to say,

carbon credits remain highly controversial.

State and federal governments love this cap-and-trade market in carbon credits because they can produce significant new revenue for themselves. So they proclaim that putting a price on carbon drives emissions reductions while helping grow the economy, creating and protecting jobs. That’s why carbon taxes have been implemented in nearly 40 countries. To make this all possible they need two things; first they must come up with a rate of taxation per ton of hydrocarbon fuel used. As of June 2024, that amount per credit ranged from $100.02 per ton of carbon to $132.12 per ton.

Second, they need to identify enough carbon creating bogey men for there to be sufficient carbon credits to trade and if you’re in the cattle business... tag you’re it.

So far the United States has not enacted a carbon tax but it’s only a matter of time. After all the bureaucrats have taxed almost everything else. For example, there are currently 97 taxes in the U.S. tax code. (I would

say 98 if you count the beef checkoff as a tax, which clearly it is). To fully drive home our point we’ll list just some of those taxes here such as... air transportation taxes, biodiesel fuel tax, building permit taxes, business registration fees, capital gains taxes, cigarette taxes, court fines, disposal fees, dog license taxes, driver’s license fees, employer Medicare taxes, federal corporate taxes, federal income taxes, federal unemployment taxes, fishing license taxes, food and beverage license fees, franchise business taxes, garbage taxes, gasoline taxes, gift taxes, gun ownership permits, hazardous material disposal fees, hotel taxes, hunting license taxes, import taxes, inheritance taxes, insect control hazardous materials licenses, insurance premium taxes, interstate user diesel fuel taxes, inventory taxes, IRA early withdrawal taxes, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties, library taxes, license plate fees, liquor taxes, local corporate taxes, local income taxes, local school taxes, local unemploy-

continued

globally. In 2018, they combined to account for about 80% of all fresh and frozen beef sold in the U.S., while the next largest competitor held less than three percent market share.

The lawsuit is part of a broader trend of allegations against the meatpacking giants regarding violations of U.S. antitrust laws and coordinated efforts to manipulate cattle pricing. In June 2020, it was reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division issued civil subpoenas to Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef to gather information about their pricing practices, particularly looking at records dating back to January 2015.

Earlier this year, retail giants like Target and Kroger highlighted similar concerns about rising profits and beef prices. In May, cattle ranchers also attempted to challenge the meatpacking giants but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they were directly harmed by the alleged anti-competitive behavior.

McDonald’s, one of largest companies in the world with 13,000 U.S. restaurants and 39,000 locations globally, is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the alleged price-fixing scheme. The chain has requested a trial by jury.

JBS, and other major meat processing companies, accusing them of colluding for years to limit beef supplies.

The lawsuit alleges that the collusion allowed the companies to boost their profits while forcing McDonald’s to pay inflated prices for their meat.

The “Big Four” beef companies represent the largest meat processing and packing facilities globally. In 2018, they combined to account for about 80% of all fresh and frozen beef sold in the U.S., while the next largest competitor held less than three percent market share.

dismantling of the foundations of modern mankind’s progress and prosperity.

Unsurprisingly, the Sierra Club proudly champions the Green New Deal. They even have an entire section on their website promoting the initiative. An article by the Competitive Enterprise Institute stated:

“…we can conclude that the Green New Deal is an unserious proposal that is at best negligent in its anticipation of transition costs and at worst is a politically motivated policy whose creativity is outweighed by its enormous potential for economic destruction.”

The Sierra Club advocates

tice Act, attorney fees are paid by the federal government. The bottom line is that US taxpayers are paying for these nefarious lawsuits and the NGOs are cashing in.

Between 1995 and 2010, taxpayers reimbursed the Sierra Club over $960,000, according to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office.

Sierra Club Works to Limit Food Production

Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug is widely recognized as a founder of the green movement, but even he recognized how the actions of environmental extremist groups hinder the ability to feed the world’s population. Such actions have dire conse-

for the United States transitioning to using solely “green” energy, with campaigns such as “Beyond Coal,” “Beyond Natural Gas,” and “Beyond Oil,” referring to them as “dirty” energy. The problem is that green energy simply cannot meet the needs of our society.

Opposes True “Clean Energy”

The Sierra Club isn’t just out to end the use of fossil fuels. They also oppose nuclear power and large-scale hydropower which are some of the cleanest ways to produce electricity. Currently, the so-called green energy sources that the Sierra Club promotes contribute less than 13 percent of the total energy in the United States. The following graphic is from the University of Michigan and breaks down our current energy sources.

“They’re cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need is renewable energy such as wind and solar,” stated James Hansen, a former NASA climate change scientist to the Associated Press.

Abuse of the Law

We have previously written about how the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is abused by extremist groups. They often utilize “sue and settle” tactics to advance their agendas and pad their coffers with taxpayer funds. The EAJA allows groups to sue entities like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFW) for taking too long to issue a regulation, classify an animal, or for missing a legal requirement. One of the tactics used by these groups is to flood agencies with requests so that there is no ability to meet time requirements.

In those cases, the EPA or other government agencies can either go to court to defend themselves or come to a settlement. In many cases, consent agreements are issued to settle cases on the very same day that lawsuits are filed. Then, according to the Equal Access to Jus-

ent benefits to consumers or the environment brought about by the over-precautionary stance of the authorities involved in the decision-making process.”

Shady Offshore Financial Dealings

Historically, a great number of donations to the Sierra Club have come from other like-minded organizations, specifically the Sea Change Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and the Tides Foundation. Tens of millions of dollars of those funds have first been shuffled through offshore shell accounts.

A Bermudan company named Klein Ltd donated $23 million to the Sea Change Foundation over a period of several years; those funds were then distributed to groups like the Sierra Club which received a total of $5.45 million in 2012 alone. One of the areas of focus listed on Sea Change’s website is “Utility Transformation in the Interior West,” and the “rapid de-carbonization” of the energy system.

According to Ron Arnold, author of Undue Influence:

quences.

Borlaug once stated in a speech:

“I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well-advanced in the research pipeline — to feed a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology. Extremists in the environmental movement from the rich nations seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its tracks.”

The Sierra Club has historically worked to limit advances in food production technology, such as GMO/GEOs, that help feed the world’s growing population. Their website states:

“We call for a ban on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved, pending improved regulatory procedures and safety testing. Releases should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determines the long-term environmental and health impacts of each GEO and there is public debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GEO intended for release into the environment.”

Environmental extremists have fought to stop the development and use of golden rice, which was created to help eliminate a severe vitamin A deficiency in poverty-stricken regions of the world. Vitamin A deficiency is can cause blindness and is the main cause of preventable blindness in children.

In December 2021, an opinion piece published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA expressed that, “20 years after Golden Rice was first obtained by Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer, the tragedy we face is that this brilliant scientific success is opaqued by regulatory delays that have only led to a perpetuation of immense grief and huge losses in terms of preventable deaths, with no reported appar-

“Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Green Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future, a significant number of extremist groups have chosen to establish accounts and foundations in countries such as Bermuda, Panama, and Liechtenstein in order to hide the origin of contributions. This creates a way for more mainstream organizations to donate to radical causes without a money trail.”

“Bermuda boasts an entire building devoted to plagues of lawyers handling secret trusts that funnel personal wealth into foundations which fund non-profit operations in the United States.”

Considering the Sierra Club’s track record of litigation and the use of “sue and settle” tactics, it’s easy to see how illicit financial dealings are utilized to help shape policy around the green/ globalist agenda.

Ecoterrorists & Eugenicists

Somehow, the Sierra Club has maintained a largely favorable perception in the public eye, but a deeper look into the group’s evolution over the years proves that it’s something much different than how it portrays itself. While many may disregard the idea that the green/globalist movement supports worldwide depopulation, the Sierra Club’s history shows us otherwise.

In the 1950s and 60s the Club began to veer severely from its basic founding principles, under the leadership of radical extremist, David Brower. Brower served as the first executive director of the Sierra Club and during his 17-year tenure membership numbers grew from 7,000 to 70,000. It’s highly troubling to note that Brower actively advocated for a type of eugenics, stating:

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Another statement from Brower illustrates just how environmental extremist groups are intertwined, demonstrating even further why “mainstream” groups like the Sierra Club can-

Patronize Our Adver tisers

not be trusted.

“The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable,” said Brower.

It should be reiterated that, by utilizing off-shore accounts, the Sierra Club can surreptitiously fund the network of more radical extremist groups such as Earth First!, while still appearing respectable in the public eye.

Animal Extremist Pirates

The Sierra Club descended deeper into extremism with the 2003 election of Paul Watson, a proponent of domestic terrorism, to the board of directors. In 1977, Watson founded the ultra-extremist group: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. This was after he was kicked out of Greenpeace for openly advocating violence for the sake of animals and the environment. His group was known for terrorizing the fishing industry and were declared “pirates” by the Chief Judge of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Watson was quoted as saying, “There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history,” and “We should never feel like we’re going too far in breaking the law because whatever laws you break to liberate animals or to protect the environment are very insignificant.”

In the Dec 1982 volume of Access to Energy he said, “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

Further demonstrating the anti-human mentality, Watson was also quoted as saying that his personal number one commandment was, “Don’t bring any more humans into being. There are enough of us.”

Racism, Energy Access, and Sheer Irony

During the racial tensions of recent years, the Sierra Club has come under fire for the alleged racist views of its founder John Muir. Muir was associated with Henry Fairfield Osborn, the founder of the American Eugenics Society, which considered non-white people to be inferior. Other members and leaders in the club’s history were known racists and eugenicists, namely Joseph LeConte and David Starr Jordan.

To its credit, the Sierra Club has publicly denounced the actions and philosophies of these past members. They are claiming to work to address and resolve what is perceived by some to be a drastic racial imbalance in environmental activism. However, they have perhaps overcompensated by adopting “social justice” causes alongside “environmental justice.”

An article written by Hop Hopkins, the Sierra Club’s Director of Organizational Transformation, is shared on the Club’s website with the title reading, “Racism Is Killing the Planet: The ideology of white supremacy leads the way toward disposable people and a disposable natural world”.

One of the issues described in the article is that many poverty-stricken minority communities are “sacrifice zones” which are disproportionally affected by pollution, such as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana. “When a kid in East Oakland gets asthma from car pollution because her neighborhood is surrounded by freeways, that is white supremacy,” the article claims. Further, “You can’t have climate change without sacrifice zones, and you can’t have sacrifice zones without disposable people, and you can’t have disposable people without racism.”

BURP TAX

continued from page 3

ment taxes, luxury taxes, marriage license taxes, Obamacare surtax on investment income, parking meters, passport fees, property taxes, recreational vehicle taxes, registration fees for new businesses, toll booth taxes, sales taxes, self-employment taxes, sewer and water taxes, school taxes, Social Security taxes, special assessments for road repairs, state corporate taxes, state income taxes, park entrance fees, state unemployment taxes, tanning taxes, 911 service taxes, telephone excise taxes, telephone state and local taxes, the alternative minimum tax, tire recycling fees, tire taxes, traffic fines, vehicle registration taxes, waste management taxes, watercraft registration and licensing fees, well permit fees, workers compensation taxes, zoning permit fees and if you have anything left when you die, estate taxes.

We could go on listing several dozen more but you get the picture. But before the bureaucrats and politicians can start charging a burp tax (or cow tax) they first need to know exactly how many cows you own. Viola! Enter mandatory livestock identification with electronic ID.

What, you weren’t so naive to think they weren’t going to tax your cows, were you? And they’ll audit you by sending over drones to scan the electronic ear tags on your cows which will become mandatory in the future for all your animals.

State and federal governments enjoy nothing more than to tax things they don’t want you doing, like drinking, smoking, driving, owning a gun, using diesel fuel, etc. High on the list of the Progressive’s Green New Deal is they don’t want you eating red meat. So, depending on how the 2024 Presidential election turns out, cow taxes could be in your very near future.

Sierra Club’s Own Policies Would Devastate Minority Communities

The Sierra Club’s newly minted grandstanding surrounding minority communities and the environmental and health impacts turns out to be hypocrisy at its finest. Their fanatical opposition to traditional energy sources would drastically and disproportionately harm the residents of those very same “sacrifice zones” by denying them access to abundant, affordable energy.

Aside from the stress, physical discomfort, and sheer danger that the lack of energy causes communities, it has been estimated by energy research firm, Wood Mackenzie, that the cost of the U.S. power sector “going green” would be approximately $35,000 per household.

In addition to making energy unaffordable to low income families, the Sierra Club is simultaneously working toward the dissolution of modern agricultural systems. This is the eradication of an entire working culture of American food producers. It appears that farmers and ranchers are people that the Sierra Club wants in a “sacrifice zone.”

The watchdog group Activist Facts perhaps put it best:

“Once dedicated to conserving wilderness for future human enjoyment, the Sierra Club has become an anti-growth, anti-technology, anti-energy group that puts its utopian environmentalist vision before the well-being of humans.”

Despite the fact that Duane never took his bid after every lot was sold the young man acted as though he’d bought the lot and he’d shuffle through his stack of market cards and if Harris bought the animal he’d take out the card in his hands that said “Harris” at the top and he’d pretend to write down the head count, the price and the weight.

I marveled at how Duane could conduct a sale every week while ignoring the young man’s bids and whenever other field men from competing papers were going to work at Templeton for the first time I had to warn them not to take his bid, which is kinda hard because that’s why we’re hired in the first place.

The young man lived for sale day and in his pretend world he had orders for every kind and weight of cattle. He knew all the tricks too, when he was out he’d wink an eye to bid, abruptly flash a buyer’s card or barely nod his head. He’d try to cut the bid by holding up ten fingers when the auctioneer was asking for a quarter.

When it was time for supper after a sale you’d find the young man sitting at the counter in the restaurant side by side with the order buyers who treated him as one of their own. Someone would walk in and ask him, “Well, how’d you do today?”

He’d proudly take out his deck of buyer cards from his front pocket, get a big smile on his face, fan out his cards and nod his head in the affirmative. They tore Templeton down a few years ago and I miss it terribly. I often think of how kind-hearted our cattle community was to the young man in allowing him to live out his dream. In that respect you can say the same thing about how generous they’ve been to me in allowing me to do the same thing. ▫

U.S. Beneficial Ownership Information Registry Required

Existing Companies Have One Year to File; New Companies Must File Within 90 Days of Creation or Registration

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is accepting beneficial ownership information reports.

The bipartisan Corporate Transparency Act, enacted in 2021 to curb illicit finance, requires many companies doing business in the United States to report information about the individuals who ultimately own or control them.

Filing is simple, secure, and free of charge. Companies that are required to comply (“reporting companies”) must file their initial reports by the following deadlines:

■ Existing companies: Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States before January 1, 2024 must file by January 1, 2025.

■ Newly created or registered companies: Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States in 2024 have 90 calendar days to file after receiving actual or public notice that their company’s creation or registration is effective.

Beneficial ownership information reporting is not an annual requirement. A report only needs to be submitted once, unless the filer needs to update or correct information. Generally, reporting companies must provide four pieces of information about each beneficial owner:

■ name;

■ date of birth;

■ address; and

■ the identifying number and issuer from either a non-expired U.S. driver’s license, a non-expired U.S. passport, or a non-expired identification document issued by a State (including a U.S. territory or possession), local government, or Indian tribe. If none of those documents exist, a non-expired foreign passport can be used. An image of the document must also be submitted.

The company must also submit certain information about itself, such as its name(s) and address. In addition, reporting companies created on or after January 1, 2024, are required to submit information about the individuals who formed the company (“company applicants”). ▫

Cash Cattle Prices Rise as Beef Packer Profits Decline

BY CHRIS MOORE / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Negotiated cash cattle prices rose slightly during the week ending Oct. 5, while feeder profit margins increased, but beef packers saw a significant drop in earnings, according to the latest Sterling Beef Profit Tracker report from Drovers.

Negotiated cash cattle prices rose by an average of $0.71 per cwt., while profit margins for feeders increased by $24.82 per head to an average of $89.68 per head. In contrast, beef packers saw profits fall by $42 per head, resulting in a loss of $111 per head, widening the packer/ feeder margin spread to $201 per head in favor of the feeder.

Cash cattle averaged $187.16 per cwt., while composite wholesale beef prices dipped by $1.09 per cwt. to close at $300.09 per cwt. Feed costs for cattle marketed last week averaged $458.42 per head, slightly lower than the same week in 2023. Feeder steers, weighing 750-800 lbs., had an average purchase price of $252 per cwt., down $4 per cwt. from the previous month. The total cost to finish a steer last week was estimated at $2,664 per head, up from $2,636 a year ago. Fed cattle slaughter was estimated at 493,077 head, up 8,023 from the same period in 2023, with packing plant capacity utilization at 84.2 percent.

In the hog sector, farrow-to-finish producers saw positive margins of $12.16 per head, while pork packer profits averaged $22 per head. Hog slaughter reached 2.519 million head, up 16,283 from the same week last year. ▫

Western Forest Products Inc. Announces Lumber Production Curtailments

Western Forest Products Inc. (TSX: WEF) (“Western” or the “Company”) announced that it plans to reduce lumber production in its British Columbia (B.C.) sawmills by approximately 30 million board feet during the period from October to December, 2024.

For the full year of 2024, the Company estimates total lumber production will be reduced by approximately 90 million board feet, which includes approximately 30 million board feet in the third quarter of 2024. The total estimated lumber production reduction for 2024 equates to approximately 10 percent of the Company’s annual lumber capacity.

The temporary curtailments are due to a combination of market challenges including weaker lumber demand and higher U.S. softwood lumber duty rates, and factors relating to the B.C. operating environment creating a lack of available economic log supply at certain sawmills.

“We continue to face more challenging lumber markets and operating conditions and are taking proactive steps to match production to market demand,” said Western’s President and CEO Steven Hofer. “With the potential for the combined U.S. Softwood lumber duties rate to more than double in the second half of 2025, all levels of government need to be focused on creating a policy environment that supports the forestry industry and encourages domestic investment.”

The Company will continue to monitor market conditions and intends to adjust its operations consistent with market demand.

‘Tremendous Relief’ for Meat Industry As Ports Re-open

BY FRANK FUHRIG / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Striking dock workers were to be back on the job immediately after a tentative agreement on wages was reached late Thursday between their union and the alliance of employers for all 36 East and Gulf coast ports.

“This is a tremendous relief to everyone in the U.S. meat and livestock industries, as about $100 million worth of beef and pork products are exported every week through East and Gulf Coast ports,” U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) President and CEO Dan Halstrom said late Thursday. “Exports are a critical revenue stream at all levels of the U.S. red meat supply chain, and our industry needs all U.S. ports operating to meet the needs of our international customers and to maintain the United States’ reputation as a reliable red meat supplier.”

The deal reopens shipping for the Eastern United States until at least January 15, while the two sides “return to the bargaining table to negotiate all other outstanding issues,” according to a joint statement by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance Ltd. (USMX). “Effective immediately, all current job actions will cease and all work covered by the Master Contract will resume,” the bargaining parties said.

Union members had walked off the job at midnight Monday from Maine to Texas as their six-year contract expired with USMX. US President Joe Biden this week rejected calls by industry groups for White House intervention to order both sides to keep the ports operating, telling USMX to make a “fair” offer. The poultry industry — concentrated in the Southeast and still reeling from Hurricane Helene — could have been be hardest hit in the meat sector by an extended halt in trade, with 31 percent of last year’s U.S. poultry export volume exiting through the Port of Savannah, Georgia. Across the sector, 13 percent of beef, 15 percent of poultry and 25 percent of pork production is exported annually, according to USMEF.

The union, seeking large wage increases and a ban on automation in the 36 ports to protect jobs, had reportedly rejected a 50 percent pay raise over five years. USMX last week accused the union of refusing to negotiate.

•

• 36+ acre homesites in St David, AZ

• 80 Acre Farm land with 16” Irrigation Well in Willcox, AZ

• Custom Home on 4+ acres in Cochise, AZ

• 40 acre off grid land in Portal, AZ

THE SAND CAMP RANCH

(PRICE REDUCED) The Sand Camp Ranch is a quality desert ranch with an excellent grass cover and above average improvements. Located in southern Chaves County east of the productive Pecos River Valley. The ranch is comprised of 2,380 +/- deeded acres, 6,074 NM State Lease Acres, 23,653 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 480 acres Uncontrolled, 32,107 +/- total acres (50.17 Sections). Grazing Capacity set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit at 405 Animal Units Yearlong. The ranch is watered by five primary wells and an extensive pipeline system. This ranch is ready to go, no deferred maintenance. Price: $3,672,000. This one of the better ranches in the area. It is nicely improved and well-watered. You won’t find anything comparable for the price. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.

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.

SOLD

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker

Bar M Real Estate, LLC

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202

Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Website: www.ranchesnm.com

$200,000 in Funding Awarded To Beef Entrepreneurs Through TSCRA Leadership Development

Foundation Working Grant Program

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association Leadership Development Foundation, a 501(c) (3) nonprofit supporting future land and livestock stewards, announced nearly $200,000 of funding was granted to entrepreneurs throughout the beef industry.

The funding comes after the inaugural TSCRA Leadership Development Working Grant Program Spring application period, offering financial support to individuals in Texas or Oklahoma who have faced challenges obtaining conventional financing. Unlike traditional loans, these grants do not require repayment, focusing solely on helping recipients establish long-term careers in the beef industry. The grant program is inclusive, open to individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and industry segments.

“The landscape of ranching has become increasingly challenging for each generation,” says TSCRA Leadership Development Foundation Chairman Carl Ray Polk Jr. “Market risks, land availability, operational costs and more have left the future legacy of ranching compromised. The TSCRA Leadership Development Working Grant Program allows TSCRA to equip individuals with the financial capital to sustain their beef business.”

Fall applications open for the TSCRA Leadership Development Working Grant Program Nov. 1 and will close Nov. 30. More information can be found by emailing workinggrant@tscra.org or by visiting tscra.org/leadership-development-foundation ▫

Passing the Torch

On October 11th, the board of directors for Protect The Harvest announced that they would be dissolving the organization.

Protect The Harvest was founded by Forrest Lucas in 2011. For over a decade, it has been one of the few organizations holding the line and pushing back against the activities and agenda of politically powerful animal rights and environmental extremist groups.

A successful entrepreneur and livestock producer, Forrest Lucas was known for identifying dedicated and talented people. He was also a great leader, communicating his vision and instilling his work ethic in his teams.

During his time as Executive Director, Protect The Harvest functioned as an educational organization, providing critical information to the public and as a strong and active advocacy group. Together with Forrest, the team at Protect The Harvest tackled critical initiatives.

The accomplishments were many and ranged from achieving pardons for Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond to participating in lawsuits and legal actions protecting the rights of farmers, ranchers, and animal owners to producing events, documentaries, and films that both supported ranchers in the American West and told the stories of threats to agriculture and animal ownership.

When Forrest Lucas stepped down as Executive Director in 2020 and Protect The Harvest changed its focus to primarily education and information, Western Justice was formed to continue with successful advocacy work.

Producers and animal owners need to understand that the current Western Justice team is the same group of people Forrest Lucas assembled and led who achieved so much at Protect The Harvest.

“Passing the torch” often means giving responsibility and leadership to the next person in line or the next generation. It is the act of instilling values and a sense of urgency and creating an environment where a legacy can live on.

That legacy is the work of Forrest Lucas, who, through Protect The Harvest, aimed to ensure agricultural and property rights in America would be defended and protected and not become a distant memory.

Now, as Western Justice, the team Forrest initially assembled continues to work today to protect and preserve our way of life.

We want to assure supporters this is not the end of an era; it is the simple process of passing a torch we willingly picked up in 2020 and will continue to carry. ▫

Rancher Group Declares Opposition to Bovine mRNA Tech

BY FRANK FUHRIG / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Agroup of cattle producers has declared its opposition to the use of mRNA technologies in bovines, alleging that research and data on safety is not yet “sufficient.”

The board of directors of the U.S. Cattlemen’s As sociation (USCA), a membership group based in Billings, MT, re cently voted to adopt an interim policy to “address new and emerg ing issues.” A statement from the group cited a “lack of sufficient research to understand the long-term risks associated with such technologies.”

The group called for “accurate and transparent labeling” of vac cine products including RNA inoculations, as well as of “any meat or livestock product that is sold in the marketplace that has been treated with an mRNA or similar vaccine should also include appro priate labeling to ensure consumers understand exactly what they are purchasing.” USCA said consumer confidence “remains of utmost importance.”

In May, the Associated Press reported that the USDA was expected to begin testing a new vaccine this summer on calves against the H5N1 virus circulating among poultry farms and dairy herds, utilizing mRNA technology. In April 2023, in response to what it called “internet falsehoods,” the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) pointed out in a statement that there were “no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States. Cattle farmers and ranchers do vaccinate cattle to treat and prevent many diseases, but presently none of these vaccines include mRNA technology.”

In its updated policy book, USCA said it “opposes the use of Ri bonucleic Acid (RNA) Gene Therapy Platform Technology inocu lations, e.g., messengerRNA (mRNA), modifiedRNA (modRNA), self-replicating RNA (sRNA) and self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) with or without misnomer vaccine, in meat or milk producing ani mals, until scientifically sound raw data is available for open review by researchers with no conflicts of interest and publicly available research studies are published and peer-reviewed on the short- and long-term health, safety and fertility effects in mRNA, modRNA, sRNA and saRNA inoculated animals and humans consuming the resulting meat or milk products.”

The group said the issue reinforced its support for country of origin labeling. USCA “strongly supports efforts to limit animal disease transmissibility, but … cannot yet support this technology without comprehensive peer-review of short and long term stud ies.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Amend Federal Meat Inspection Act

BY CHRIS MOORE / MEATINGPLACE.COM

U.S. Senators Peter Welch, D-VT, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Cory Booker, D-NJ, introduced the Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local (LOCAL) Foods Act. The legislation aims to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 to support small-scale meat producers in rural areas by updating the “personal-use exemption.”

The bill would allow consumers to purchase live animals from local producers and designate agents for slaughter and processing, easing bottlenecks caused by the limited number of USDA-inspected slaughterhouses. The move is intended to help small farmers avoid delays and continue providing locally sourced food to their communities, according to a release from Welch’s office.

Welch said the legislation would cut through regulations that favor large-scale operations, ensuring small producers remain competitive. The bill is supported by several farming organizations, including the Farm Action Fund and the National Family Farm Coalition, as a way to boost local food access and protect farmers’ rights to sell directly to consumers. ▫

Understanding Different Types of Auctions

JIM OLSON/ WESTERNTRADINGPOST.COM

Auctions have been an exciting way for buyers and sellers to exchange items since Roman times, providing a platform for timely product sales and market-driven price discovery. For much of the past 2,000 years, live auctions were the primary method. However, since the 1990s, the rise of internet technology has introduced new auction types, such as timed online auctions, which have expanded how people can participate. While many auction formats now coexist and even overlap, they each have unique characteristics. Let’s explore the five main auction types—Live, Online, Simulcast, Silent, and Sealed Bid—and go over how they operates.

1. Live Auctions – Live auctions are the classic auction format, usually taking place at a specific location and conducted by an auctioneer. The auctioneer calls out bids and encourages higher offers in a dynamic and fast-paced environment. A good auctioneer is also a skilled salesperson. Bidders place bids on items and the auctioneer announces them, creating a rapid exchange, often lasting less than a minute per item. The auctioneer plays a critical role in guiding the pace and finalizing bids with a definitive “SOLD!” While this format is typically an in-person event, it can also include remote bidders via a few different options. This format is particularly suited to high-value items, such as

artwork, rare collectibles, real estate or luxury items.

2. Online Auctions – Online or timed auctions, which emerged with the advent of the internet, differ from live auctions. Online auctions have no auctioneer; instead, a software platform facilitates bidding over a designated period. Participants can place bids at any time, from anywhere during this window, interacting only with the software system. In timed auctions, the highest bid at the close wins, but they often include “auto-extend” features that add time if someone places a bid just before the lot closes. This prevents last-second bidding, known as “sniping,” and gives other bidders a chance to respond. Additionally, these auctions prioritize bids based on timing.

Online auctions work well for a wide range of items, from everyday products to collectibles. Major platforms, such as eBay, have made this type of auction commonplace, creating a significant marketplace for both individual sellers and businesses.

3. Simulcast Auctions –Simulcast auctions blend the experience of live and online auctions by allowing bidders to participate either in-person or online simultaneously, or bidders can even leave absentee bids ahead of time. During a simulcast auction, the auctioneer conducts the event live while broadcasting it online.

Bidders from around the world can participate virtually, competing with those present at the venue, and the pre-bids left before the auction. This format provides the energy and excitement of a live auction with the accessibility of an online auction. Simulcast auctions are used for a wide variety of applications in todays market and is often considered the best route to achieve maximum exposure where both local and international interest exists.

4. Silent Auctions – Silent auctions are commonly used at charity events, fundraisers, and private gatherings. In a silent auction, items are displayed for attendees to view, and each item has a bidding sheet where participants can place their bids. Bidders write down their offers, which remain visible to those who examine the sheet. Unlike live auctions, there is no auctioneer calling for bids, and participants do not publicly raise their bids in response to others. This format creates a more relaxed bidding environment. At the end of a designated time period, the highest bid recorded on each item’s sheet wins.

5. Sealed Bid Auctions – Sealed bid auctions are distinct in that each bidder submits a confidential bid without knowing what others have offered. Bids are typically submitted in writing, “sealed” in an envelope, or emailed to the auction company or organizing body. Once all bids are collected by a designated time period, they are opened simultaneously, and the highest bidder wins

the item or contract. This auction type emphasizes confidentiality and strategic decision-making, as bidders cannot adjust their bids in response to others. Sealed bid auctions are often used for government contracts, and other high-stakes deals.

Conclusion

Each auction type has its own unique characteristics and benefits, catering to various preferences, items, settings and skill sets. Live auctions bring excitement, interaction and salesmanship into play, online timed auctions offer convenience and accessibility, while simulcast auctions combine both formats for a hybrid experience. Silent auctions provide a discreet, laidback environment, while sealed bid auctions prioritize confidentiality and strategic bidding. Understanding the nuances of these auction types can help buyers and sellers choose the best auction style and company for their needs. Whichever format you participate in, remember that auctions can, and should be, an enjoyable and rewarding experience. So have fun!

Call for BLM RAC Nominations

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, RAC membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784 and include the following three membership categories:

Category One —Holders of Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for which the RAC is organized; represent interests associated with transportation or rights-of-way; represent developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation activities; represent the commercial timber industry; or represent energy and mineral development.

■ Category Two —Representatives of nationally or regionally recognized environmental organizations; dispersed recreational activities; archaeological and historical interests; or nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro interest groups.

■ Category Three —Hold State, county, or local elected office; are employed by a State agency responsible for the management of natural resources, land, or water; represent Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area for which the RAC is organized; are employed as academicians in natural resource management or the natural sciences; or represent the affected public-at-large.

Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographic area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making.

The following must accompany all nominations:

■ A completed RAC application, which can either be obtained through your local BLM office or online at: www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-05/BLM-Form-1120-19_RACApplication.pdf

■ Letters of reference from represented interests or organizations; and

■ Any other information that addresses the nominee’s qualifications.

Simultaneous with this notice, BLM State Offices will issue online announcements providing additional information for submitting nominations.

Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the office listed below:

Alaska

Arizona RAC

Dolores Garcia, BLM Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004; Phone: (602) 417-9241; Email: dagarcia@blm.gov.

California

Central California RAC

Philip Oviatt, Central California District Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762; Phone: (661) 432-4252; Email: poviatt@blm.gov.

Colorado Northwest RAC

JD Emerson, BLM Northwest District Office, 455 Emerson Street, Craig, CO 81625; Phone: (970) 8265101; Email: jemerson@blm.gov.

Rocky Mountain RAC

Levi Spellman, BLM Rocky Mountain District Office, 3028 East Main Street, Cañon City, CO 81212; Phone: (719) 269-8553; Email: lspellman@blm.gov.

Southwest RAC

D. Maggie Magee, BLM Southwest Colorado District Office, 2465 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401; Phone: (970) 240-5323; Email: dmagee@blm.gov.

New Mexico

Northern New Mexico RAC

Jamie Garcia, BLM Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue NE, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, NM 87109; Phone: (505) 761-8700; Email: jagarcia@blm.gov

Southern New Mexico RAC

Winifred Brown, BLM Pecos District Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201; Phone: (575) 627-0272; Email: wabrown@blm.gov. ▫

The View

FROM THE BACK SIDE

BY BARRY DENTON

(The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this publication — and its’ all woman staff.)

Iwas talking with a buddy of mine today at the ranch about all the things concerning everyday life that have changed in the last 60 years or so. There have been many good changes, but there have also been several bad ones.

For instance, something that concerns us all is the tractor or auto parts store. Remember, when you would call up and ask for a radiator for a 1972 Chevy C20 and they would have one or could get it the next day? Old, retired mechanics used to be the guys answering the phone at the auto parts store. If you had any questions about installation those old guys would tell you the tricks of installation before you left the store with your new radiator.

Service was the most important thing, and the auto parts store made sure that you came back for the next part that you needed. Nowadays auto parts stores hire dopey people that have never turned a wrench. They sit and look at a drawing on a computer screen and have no idea of what they are selling or how it works.

Besides, you even see women in parts stores these days. How are you supposed to tell dirty jokes and discuss a little treason with them around? Not too many years ago you were happy to see the woman up on the wall

Not Mayberry But Close

on a poster in a bikini. What happened to that grand bit of pop culture?

I can remember when I was a boy, and my uncle was the sheriff. About the third week of every month ranchers got their cow check from the cattle sale and the monthly milk checks were issued to the dairymen.

Those guys would always come to town to do their banking, grocery shopping, and to catch up on the gossip at the local bar. Since there were 27 churches and only one bar in town, everyone congregated at the same place at night. I can remember going there with my uncle the sheriff and sitting on a barstool having a ginger ale with the men.

Yup, they allowed young boys in bars with an adult at that time. I sure felt like a big shot. What was interesting to me is that the sheriff would be having a beer with the mayor, the Catholic priest, the Presbyterian minister, farmers, ranchers, mechanics, school teachers, welders, plumbers, feed salesmen, the barber, etc.

I can remember Ol’ Billy with the Dowagers Hump driving his Farmall “M” to town because he could no longer sit in his pickup. I can remember old man Mills the cattleman driving his Lincoln Continental to town with his head stuck out the window because he was legally blind and had lost his license.

Surely about 11:30 that evening you might encounter Ol’

Billy driving his tractor or old man Mills driving his Lincoln on the wrong side of the road and three sheets to the wind. My uncle the sheriff, would never think of arresting them as this had been their routine for 40 years.

He would make sure that those old widowers got home alright. No one ever got hurt and all the locals would watch out for them as well. There was no need for “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” or DUI laws. All it took was a rural community that supported each other. Both of those old men lived a long time and were themselves contributors to their local community. On Sunday mornings all those hard-working men that had been at the bar a few nights before, would be at church.

Their hair would be parted, and their shoes shined. Everyone took God very seriously and had a healthy fear of him.

Afterward there was likely to be one more prayer and a pie social. As the sun began to set, the fiddlers and guitar players would start in and a dance would commence. There were always a few fights over a girl, gambling, or the length of Mickey Mantle’s last home run. Life was not idyllic, but it was not taken as seriously.

People were dedicated to taking care of their own, good or bad. Sticking together as a community is more vital than you realize. Being divided serves no one.

Appeals Court Rules On Environmental Groups’ Challenge to CAFO Regulations

BY CHRIS MOORE / MEATINGPLACE.COM

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit elected to toss a lawsuit filed by several activist groups aiming to force changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations.

The court sided with the EPA’s current approach to regulating livestock production, which includes studying water quality through its Animal Agriculture Water Quality Subcommittee, with pork industry involvement.

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), which presented oral arguments before the court last month, praised the decision. The court emphasized that the EPA’s decision to gather information before enacting new regulations was “reasonable” and aligned with the Clean Water Act, refuting claims by the group Food & Water Watch.

NPPC noted that the pork industry has long cooperated with regulators to ensure environmental sustainability on farms, arguing that major legal changes should come from Congress, not the courts. The rejected lawsuit, NPPC said, could have severely disrupted livestock production across the country by misinterpreting regulations and threatening due process. ▫

Wolf Attacks Are Exploding Across Europe

BY DAVID JONES / DAILY MAIL

Dawn had just broken and the two young children were still wearing their orange onesie pajamas when their mother beckoned them into the field beside their house. Ordinarily, five-year-old Boaz van Roekel and his sister Febe, four, would have been greeted with a friendly lick from their older sibling’s pet pony, Blackie.

That morning, however, these innocents were horrifically awoken to the savagery now lurking in rural Holland. Like thousands more animals –sheep, cattle, horses, and even pet dogs and rabbits – Blackie

found on the edges of towns and cities, not just rural areas –the response is a barometer of public opinion.

While some criticize Gerrita and her husband Jos, 35, a cladding company boss, for exposing such young children to distress, far more are angry that domestic animals, and indeed humans, are not being protected.

IT WAS precisely to provoke such a reaction that the couple chose to show the photo. ‘I want people to see how the world has turned upside down,’ Gerrita told me last week. ‘The wolf is allowed to roam free, and we are the victims.

‘The only good thing is that Boaz and Febe weren’t attacked, because at 8am [the time the wolf is thought to have struck] they are usually playing in that field. Now they are afraid to go to school in case a wolf comes and gets them.’

Her husband nodded gravely. A country barely twice the

survived only in Spain and Italy. During communist times, the rest were confined to Eastern Bloc countries. Although the Iron Curtain was erected to stop people defecting to the West, its barbed-wire fences and booby traps also made it impenetrable for wolves. When it was torn down in 1989, they began wandering from Poland and the former Czechoslovakia into Germany.

Since then, the country has had periodic wolf alarms, with the most notable coming in 2022, when European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s pony Dolly was killed. She promptly issued an order for the culprit to be shot – although hunters are yet to track it down. The Commission recommended downgrading the wolf’s protected status to allow hunting in exceptional circumstances, and conservationists accused von der Leyen of waging a personal vendetta.

The move is expected to be rati -

had fallen prey to a wolf: one of a rapidly increasing number to have colonized this small, overcrowded country, spreading fear and mayhem.

The blame for this is laid firmly at the door of Brussels, for it is the EU’s stringent habitat directives that make wolves virtually untouchable from culling, swelling their continental population to over 20,000.

Hunting for less evasive quarry than the deer and wild boar in the nearby forest, the wolf had crept into the paddock, ripped into the pony’s sleek, black coat with incisors as forceful as a flailing jackhammer, then feasted on her flank.

The Van Roekel family had been alerted to its presence by the local chat group in Wekerom, one of many villages in the Veluwe, a ridge of forest and heathland in north-western Holland.

When Blackie’s owner, 14-year-old Lotte, went to check on her, she found her remains on the bloodstained grass. Meanwhile, a neighbor videoed the sated wolf still wandering around nonchalantly in a nearby yard.

Though Lotte was distraught, her mother, Gerrita, decided her youngest two children should also see the harrowing scene. She later posted a photograph of Boaz comforting his little sister as they gazed at the pony on Facebook.

The poignant image, shot from behind, has gone viral. And with Dutch people and politicians bitterly divided over the welcome of the newly arrived predators – increasingly

size of Wales with 18 million people and few wilderness areas is no place for wolves, he said. ‘Something has to be done.’ It was a cry I heard time and again while visiting rural communities haunted by eerie howls and the grim sight of mutilated sheep lying in the fields.

Surely it ought to be heeded by British rewilding ideologues on a messianic mission to reintroduce wolves to our islands, saying they will naturally cull the numbers of wild deer – such as those pictured besieging a Scottish Highland village last week – and enhance biodiversity.

Conservationist Derek Gow is one such believer and told The Mail that the Highlands would benefit from the release of up to 94 wolf packs, eight times more than have settled in the Netherlands. ‘The most dangerous animal is not the wolf. It’s the one on the sofa licking your toes,’ he said, suggesting dogs are more of a threat. ‘Reintroducing wolves would add to the spectacle and history of the nation.’

Dutch people suffering the realities of living cheek-by-jowl with carnivores that can devour 10 pounds of meat a day don’t appear to share his enthusiasm. I was repeatedly told Britain would be ‘crazy’ to think of bringing back wolves. As with the UK, they once roamed the Netherlands but were eradicated in the mid-19th Century. Amid lurid stories of wolves snatching children, and with sheep herds being decimated, hunters were paid to kill them.

In Western Europe, wolves

report of some grim new drama, and there are fears a child could be killed. During the summer, a five-year-old girl had a terrifying encounter with a wolf in the Utrecht High Ridge conservation area during a kindergarten outing.

As often happens in a country where the pro- and anti-wolf lobbies are equally righteous, the details are hotly debated. What is beyond dispute, however – confirmed by DNA from her T-shirt and her eye-witness account – is that the wolf injured her as she buried apples in long grass for a treasure hunt. Pictures of her abdomen show puncture wounds, cuts and bruises.

Some professed experts say they are bite marks; others insist they are the wrong configuration for a wolf’s teeth and were more likely caused when she fell. There is also disagreement over whether the clash was deliberate or accidental.

If we believe the care giver’s, who was standing beside the girl, she was ‘stalked and attacked’ in a flash before, perhaps alarmed by her screams, the wolf disappeared into the undergrowth. It is a version supported by Erwin van Maanen, co-editor of The Wolf: Culture, Nature, Heritage, who investigated the case and believes this wolf bit into the girl to see whether she was suitable prey.

However, other experts suggest it harmed her accidentally because she disturbed him. Given that Holland’s authorities are hamstrung by the Brussels ideology that often appears to prioritize the preservation of Europe’s wolf population over human safety, these rights and wrongs are crucially important.

For unless a wolf can be

fied by the Bern Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, in December. And about time too, many Dutch folk say. When the first lone grey wolf slipped over the German border in 2015, the return of these beasts seemed rather romantic. Not any more.

Holland’s wolf monitoring authority revealed 55 cubs had been born this year, and there could now be as many as 140 in 11 packs. In a country where almost every inch is manicured and cultivated, this makes for a different kind of migration crisis.

The Veluwe, Holland’s only sizeable national park, is much smaller than the New Forest –and we can but imagine the carnage that would ensue were a pack of wolves to be unleashed in Hampshire.

Seeking food, they increasingly stalk domestic animals. Barely a day goes by without a

he chased in a scare videoed by its owner.

Though wolves typically shy away from humans, this one has lost its inhibitions and had what are euphemistically described as 31 documented ‘interactions’ with people and dogs in the past 18 months – one of which saw him trample a little girl to the ground.

Thankfully she was not seriously hurt, but Mirjam Sterk, the minister responsible for wolf protection in Utrecht, contends that Bram’s unnatural behavior should allow him to be ‘negatively conditioned’ and monitored.

If the permit is granted, he would be trapped, anaesthetized and fitted with a GPS tracking device. Should that fail, paintball pellets would be fired at him as a warning to keep away from people.

Since Bram’s stalking ground had to be closed to hikers, bikers and nature lovers this summer, some think Sterk’s solution is generous. I spoke to locals who would like him to be shot.

Last month, however, when Dutch animal rights activists went to court to demand the permit be withheld, at least temporarily, a judge sided with them. With further appeals likely, Sterk fears the case could drag on for years, during which GW3237m might injure, or even kill, a child.

‘You never know,’ she said. ‘If you had asked me in April if I thought a girl in my province could be overrun by a wolf, I would have laughed, because as far as we know this has never happened before in Europe, and perhaps even the world. I was recently in Finland [which is eight times the size of Holland and has 300 wolves] and they said they’d never had an incident like this, so I think something is going on.

‘Finland has about 5.5 million people. I have 1.3 million in just this small province, so encounters between wolves and people are far more common.’

The question is, what does that do to wolves’ behavior?

‘It’s like bears in America. When they have more contact with people, they become more aggressive. It’s my responsibility to protect the wolves, but also the people, but I’m blocked by those who claim to have the animals’ interests at heart. If these incidents keep on going something terrible could happen.’

Quite so, but the peril is by no means confined to Utrecht.

proven beyond any doubt to pose a danger to people or livestock, EU rules prohibit even the slightest interference with them.

When local politicians challenge the diktat laid down by these remote bureaucrats, they are invariably dragged through the courts by animal rights warriors.

While the province of Utrecht is powerless to act against the animal that apparently wounded the girl as it may not have behaved ‘abnormally’, it has taken issue with another lone wolf in the area.

In a wrangle that could become a test case, the province is seeking legal permission to nullify the threat from this ‘problem wolf’, officially identified as GW3237m (a code signifying its DNA and that it is a male grey) but popularly known as Bram, the name of the first dog

Paul Aalbers, 42, who farms 800 sheep near Zwolle, tells me he has invested £70,000 into Spanish mastiff guard dogs and electrified fencing, which wolves are already learning to leap over. He also employs extra staff, all of which has tripled his overheads, threatening him with bankruptcy.

They are hard truths rewilding crusaders will not want to hear, yet they need to do so. For while wolves may be wonderful creatures in their rightful place, when they live among us they become nightmarish neighbors – as the Dutch are learning to their cost.

Last week Holland’s wolf monitoring authority revealed 55 cubs had been born this year, and there could now be as many as 140 in 11 packs.

The wolf that killed Blackie the pony which led to Boaz and Febe having to flee to the field beside their house