NRRC Expands Support for NV Public Land Ranchers to Social Media In a continued effort to expand the public land rancher message to a larger audience, the Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission (NRRC) now has expanded outreach to social media. A primary objective is to reach Nevada’s younger urban population. Along with continued television presence, in the last quarter of 2018, NRRC will launch an aggressive social media campaign. To appeal to a younger audience, hosts for the series will be young Nevadans with ranching backgrounds, Lewis Mendive and Katlyn Uhart. Over the next 9 months, the young hosts will address a variety of public land rancher’s issues and concerns including the wild horse issue, sage grouse, wildfire and more.
All the social media segments, as they are completed, can also be viewed on the NRRC website; www.nevadarangelands.org. NRRC will continue with their successful use of television documentaries and advertising to help northern Nevada’s urban population better understand the ranchers role in keeping our rangelands healthy and productive through responsible grazing. Expanding that message through the internet though is now essential in a changing world.
The internet and television are merging to become one continually evolving landscape with multiple platforms and networks. Together, they can be utilized to reach the widest audience. NRRC’s documentary programs, commercials and educational material can be made available through multiple distributors such as YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook. Each of these platforms also provide viewer analytics which allow them to know not only how many viewers a show or promo had but also the total time the viewer was engaged. In addition, now the content can be directed to the ideal viewer based on their location, interests, age, and gender. Spreading the content out across the internet will increase the visibility of these important stories of ranching in the west and can reach not just a wider audience but the essential younger viewers. Additionally, the Commission’s newest television documentary, “Future Stewards of the Rangeland” has aired 11 times on northern Nevada’s CBS affiliate KTVN in 2018.
Nevada ranchers with public land grazing allotments fund the NRRC based on the number of AUM’s they are authorized to graze on their respective allotments. The NRRC is governed by a commission of nine voting members. These members are nominated through each of the grazing boards: Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Nevada Woolgrowers and the Farm Bureau; then appointed by the Governor. Current commissioners include: Hank Vogler; Chairman, Rama Paris; Vice Chairman, Joe Kircher, Richard Huntsberger, Mitch Heguy, Burt Paris, and Bevan Lister. Tim Delong, respected rancher and long time commission member passed away earlier this year. Golden Productions, a Reno based video and media firm assists NRRC in spreading their message by producing the commission’s award winning documentaries, commercials and now their social media content.
Wells FFA Chapter Welcomes In Fall
by Hyrum Johnson
The Wells FFA Chapter is doing better than ever. Our members have been active on the community, state, and national levels. All freshman members had the opportunity to attend Greenhand Leadership Conference in Fallon on September 19th. Participants were able to learn about leadership and agriculture all while having a great time with their peers. The rest of the chapter has been frantically studying for the national convention in October. Four teams were sent off to compete in: Poultry Evaluation, Environmental and Natural Resources, Agricultural Issues, and Meats Evaluation where they will test their skills against their national counterparts. Don Noorda, the Wells FFA Advisor, is confident in his chapter. Of his competing students, he said, “I’m looking forward to nationals to see how all the hard work put into preparations will pay off for all four of the teams. Students have spent a tremendous amount of time getting to this level and I’m optimistic that they will place well.” In order to pay for this awesome opportunity, members of the chapter have been busy fundraising. Many citizens of Wells and the surrounding areas are enjoying tasty beef jerky that they were able to purchase from members. Contributors get delicious jerky, and members are able to pay for their trip to nationals with the jerky sales. It’s a win-win. The chapter also recently participated in the Wells Community Pep Rally, serving and preparing a delicious, free, tri-tip steak dinner to the community. The meal and rally were funded by Wells Rural Electric Company and the Wells Booster Club. This was an awesome fundraiser and will definitely help the chapter on their way to National Convention. Don’t be surprised when we bring home the gold.
IN THIS ISSUE 2 NNRC Expands Rancher Support
19 Fallon Ranch Hand Rodeo Results
2 Wells FFA Chapter Welcomes Fall
20 Buckaroo Hall of Fame Honors Three New Buckaroos
3 Riding for the NCA Brand
4 NCA Roundup: Fallon All Breeds 22 Nevada Farm Bureau: More Ahead Bull Sale / 83rd Annual Convention in Dealing with Sage Grouse 23 Nevada Farm Bureau: CABNR 6 NBC Checkoff News: Beef Up Field Day & Annual Meeting Your Tailgating Game 7 NBC Recipe: Cowboy Beef Stew 8 Mind of a Millennial: A Look at America's Favorite Beef Cuts
24 NV-SRM: What's New at the Great Basin Plant Materials Center 25 SRM-YPC: Wild Rags
10 Eye on the Outside: 50 Years of Public Lands Council (PLC)
26 NCEAS: Middle Ground Found On the Range
13 Nevada Cattlewomen: Nevada Agriculture in the Classroom
26 JAE Habitat Research Article 32 UNCE: New Director Ivory Lyles
13 Churchill County Cowbelles
34 Van Norman & Friends Production Sale Results
14 Water - The Lifeblood of Nevada: Stewardship & Conservation
36 Elko County Fair Results
16 Ugly For A Reason - Firebreaks
40 Nevada Stallion Stakes Results
18 BLM: Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
42 NDA: The Hemp Industry Continues To Grow in Nevada
The Progressive Rancher Owner/Editor/Publisher – Leana Litten Carey progressiverancher@elko.net Graphic Design/Layout – Allegra Print & Imaging www.AllegraReno.com
Cover Credit: "Cattle in Snow" Lorina Adkins Photography
You are invited to
You are invited to
COWBOY CHURCH!
COWBOY CHURCH!
Bible Study Fri @ 9 am
Sunday @ 11am services
Published 8 times each year & viewable at www.progressiverancher.com, The Progressive Rancher has a readership reaching more than 30,000. The views and opinions expressed by writers of articles appearing in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor. Letters of opinion are welcomed by The Progressive Rancher. Rates for advertising are available upon request. Advertising in The Progressive Rancher does not necessarily imply editorial endorsement. Liability for any errors or omissions in advertisements shall not exceed the cost of the space occupied by the error or omission.
4275 Solias Rd Fallon, NV
Bible Study Wed @ 6 pm
© The Progressive Rancher Magazine. All rights reserved.
Leana Litten Carey, Owner/Editor
Are you having a Rodeo or Livestock event? GIVE US A CALL.
1188 Court St., #81, Elko, NV 89801 (208) 358-2487 • progressiverancher@elko.net
We would love to come to your event or ranch and host Cowboy Church for you.
Harmony Ranch Ministry 3767 Keyes Way Fallon, NV 89406
Tom J. Gonzalez | Diana J. Gonzalez, Pastor threecrossls@cccomm.net
2 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
(775) 240-8870 Cell (775) 867-3100
Read the magazine and more articles online at
WWW.PROGRESSIVERANCHER.COM
The Progressive Rancher
Ads sent to or built by The Progressive Rancher become property of this magazine. www.progressiverancher.com
From the desk of your NCA president By Sam Mori, NCA President Hello from Cow Country,
It sure is nice to see fall come and the change in seasons. We truly are blessed to be in this business and this time of year is a chance to reflect on many of the activities and decisions we have been involved in.
Stay connected with
Your Nevada Cattlemen’s Association has been working on your behalf at the local level on the things that affect our businesses on a daily basis. We just returned from Park City, UT where three days were spent on a variety of challenges from fire to wild horses to grazing regulation hurdles and much more. We were able to have face to face discussions with top Interior and USDA leadership. These individuals are well aware of many of the problems we face and give the impression they are working on some solutions to many of the issues. It is now time for talk to become action!!
I will only write about fire briefly but I want you to know there is a tremendous amount of work being done to try and change the way we are managing now. Again, talk is cheap so let’s keep pressure on for effective change! We have a special session dedicated at the NCA Convention in Winnemucca, NV on November 15-17, 2018 for fire. This is an opportunity for input as to how fire is going to be managed in the future. It is important to note that we are working on many issues that also pertain to private land and industry activities. Some of the work includes trade, endangered species reform, fake meat, water rights, scale inspections, brand department works, and many many more. If there is anything that we can be of help to you please let us know, as that is our job and we take it seriously.
I want to extend an invitation to everyone to join us in Winnemucca for your convention November 15-17. We have planned an educational and fun time for everyone from young to not so young. There are meetings on all aspects of our industry and we have added two special sessions on fire and Trichomoniasis. This is really the time to make a difference in the future of the greatest industry on earth. Hope to see you there.
Find us on Facebook!
facebook.com/TheProgressiveRancher
Diamonds in the Rough Bull & Female Sale Two Programs, One Shared Philosophy
JR Ranch | Othello, WA
Age-Advantaged Bulls Bred Females
Donor Prospects
LASO Defender Reg # 3785791 LASO Topjack Reg # 3549939 LASO Topjack Reg # 3549851
Reg. 1A & Commercial Spring Calving Bred Heifers
Wood Rebalas Reg # 3712225 Wood Cassidy Reg # 3712229 Wood Dina Reg # 3712303
Sam
Carl Lautenschlager (509) 657-3301
From Our Ranch To Yours www.progressiverancher.com
High Maternal, Easy Fleshing, Optimum Performance
November 19th, 2018
lasoredangus@gmail.com lasoredangus.com
The Progressive Rancher
Leonard Wood (208) 290-7782 haywoodcattle@gmail.com woodvbarxranch.com NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 3
Nevada Cattlemen's Association 53rd Annual Fallon All Breeds Bull Sale By Kaley Sproul Chapin, NCA Executive Director It is that time of year again for our Fallon All Breeds Bull Sale. This year we are celebrating our 53rd anniversary of gathering in Fallon, Nevada for this traditional sale! Our sale will be held February 16, 2019 at the Fallon Livestock LLC. at 11:00 a.m. All bull entries are subjected to be sifted and graded Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:30 a.m.
or at the NCA office. These forms must be submitted no later than December 1, 2018. On the evening of February 15, 2019 all are welcome to enjoy the Fallon Bull Sale Dinner and Dance hosted by the Churchill County Cowbelles at the Fallon Convention Center. Social hour will start at 5:30 p.m. and dinner will be at 6:30 p.m. tickets are just $20.
For the past 53 years, producers from Nevada and the surrounding states have worked hard to bring the best quality range ready bulls to the sale to provide our buyers with quality and selection. Bulls range from yearlings to two-year olds of different breeds and are bought and sold at the annual sale.
The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association would like to thank the many dedicated cosigners and buyers that participate in the sale each year. We would also like to thank the dedicated sponsors and people that support the sale and the association. Without all of their help this sale would not be possible. We look forward to seeing you there!
The Nevada Cattlemen's Association invites not only the breeders and the buyers but the participation of all. We are now accepting applications for both Trade Show Exhibits and Bull Sale Catalog advertising, the rates and booth information and can be found online at http://www.nevadacattlemen.org
If you have questions regarding the sale or would like a copy of the sale catalog please contact the sale office at 1-775-738-9214 or email the sale secretary at nca@nevadabeef.org. The catalog will also be posted on the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association web page www.nevadacattlemen.org.
Nevada Cattlemen's Association 83rd Annual Convention & Tradeshow The NCA is eager to announce this year’s convention. The 83rd Annual Nevada Cattlemen’s Association Convention and Trade Show will be held November 15-17, 2018 at the Winnemucca Convention Center in Winnemucca, NV. The Convention brings together not only the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (NCA) members, but members of the Nevada Land Action Association (NLAA), Nevada CattleWomen, Nevada Woolgrowers, Central Grazing Committee, vendors that provide services to the beef cattle industry and guest speakers to celebrate the Nevada Livestock Industry. NCA staff and officers are working hard to provide a memorable and educational experience. Come to convention and learn more about how NCA is working to increase public awareness of the Nevada livestock industry.
policy that affects our industry and way of life. By participating, it is a great way to get involved and have your voice be heard in the policy-making process. We will also be holding two general sessions this year with the first being about fire and the second about Trichomoniasis. As always, top government and industry officials will be on hand to participate in the discussions. To encourage new membership NCA is offering a full convention package at a discounted rate to Young Cattlemens 35 years of age or younger. This $160 package includes a Full Registration, Reception in the Tradeshow, Inspirational Breakfast, Lunch in the Tradeshow, NCA’s Annual Awards Banquet, CattleFax Breakfast and the NV Beef Council’s Beef Promotional Lunch (valued at $285).
Registration for convention is on our website and has been sent out by mail and email. If you are interested in attending and would like more information please call the office at 1-775-738-9214 or email nca@nevadabeef.org. The forms for sponsorship and exhibit booths have also been sent out. The exhibit spaces are close to full for this year’s trade show but there are still plenty of opportunities to sponsor different events. The NCA would like to thank the sponsors and exhibitors, as they help make our event a success.
Since the convention will attract many participants to the Winnemucca area, any business that markets products for or provides services to the members of the beef cattle industry is eligible to advertise in the Sage Signals newsletter. There are many opportunities to reach out to the participants to promote your business. Please contact Sharon at the Cattlemen’s office or by email at smcknight@nevadabeef.org for more information.
During convention committee meetings take place to set policies. This is a chance for you to provide input to a committee chairman on any changes to a policy or a new
To see a tentative schedule of convention, please look online at our website. We are constantly updating it. We look forward to seeing you at convention!
4 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
The University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE), College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) with financial support from local sponsors and the USDA, Risk Management Agency
P R E S E N T S
2019
Cattlemen’s Update University and department of agriculture program updates and research results impacting the Nevada livestock industry will be discussed. Come join us and receive your Red Book and Proceedings. January 7, 2019
January 7, 2019
January 8, 2019
January 10, 2019
January 11, 2019
Reno
Sierra Valley, CA
Fallon
Elko
Winnemucca
Registration 10 a.m. Washoe County Cooperative Extension 4955 Energy Way Reno, NV 89502
Registration 5:30 p.m. Sierra Valley Grange #466 92203 Hwy 70 Vinton, CA Dinner Provided
Registration 5:30 p.m. Fallon Convention Center 100 Campus WAY Fallon, NV 89406 Dinner Provided
Registration 12:30 p.m. Great Basin College Solarium 1500 College Parkway Elko, NV 89801 Dinner Provided
Via Interactive Video to:
January 8, 2019
January 9, 2019
Registration 10 a.m. Humboldt County Cooperative Extension 1085 Fairgrounds Road Winnemucca, NV 89445 Lunch Provided
Wellington
Ely
Registration 10 a.m. Smith Valley Community Hall 2783 State Route 208 Wellington, NV 89444 Lunch Provided
Registration 5:30 p.m. Old St. Lawrence Hall 504 Mill Street Ely, NV 89301 Dinner Provided
Logandale, Caliente, Tonopah, Lovelock, and Eureka. Lunch Provided
Some topics to be discussed: n n n n n
Cattle Grazing Patterns: Research Findings In Nevada, New Mexico State University Current Market Outlook Climate Update and Insurance Products UNR Livestock Team Research Updates NDA Update For additional information, contact:
Staci Emm
Mineral County Cooperative Extension
(775) 475-4227
emms@unce.unr.edu Cost of workshop is $20 per Ranch
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources University of Nevada, Reno
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 5
CHECKOFF NEWS: Checkoff Helps Consumers Beef Up Their Tailgating Game The leaves are turning, the temperature is dropping and tailgaters are coming out in droves to support their favorite team — but more importantly, show off their grilling skills with beef as the star of the show. Tailgaters young and old converge in the wee hours of the morning outside stadiums across the country to share in the revelry of game day. Pre-game hours are spent in parking lots playing bean bag toss, connecting with friends, and setting up and eating a spread of food. For many, tailgating is more than a once-in-a-while leisure activity, it’s a lifestyle. Seasoned tailgaters go all out with decorations like team flags and banners, comfy seating and even themed meals (surf and turf anyone?). Special care is put into every detail to provide an exceptional tailgate experience. The Beef Checkoff is helping tailgaters beef up their experience with a number of helpful tailgating tips, available at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com. These 10 tips are provided on the site for those ready to take their tailgating from the amateur to the professional level. Incorporate these tips and tricks to beef up your tailgating experience. Find even more tailgating tips and recipes at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com, funded by farmers and ranchers.
1. Prep as much as possible at home. Do the majority of the meal prep in the comfort of your kitchen: skewer beef kebabs, form burger patties, chop onions, cut buns. This will help you save time and reduce the amount of items you need to pack for the day. 2. Check your cooking equipment. Make sure your grill or camp stove is clean and ready to use. Keep a backup propane tank and stick lighters on hand to ensure cooking goes off without a hitch. 3. Bring a meat thermometer. This is the best way to check for doneness on steaks and burgers as well as checking the proper temperature when reheating food later in the day for those post-game snacks (heat to 165°F). 4. Don’t cross-contaminate raw and cooked foods. Have two sets of tools like cutting boards, tongs and knives if you are working with raw meat since you won’t be able to wash them while tailgating. 5. Embrace the cast iron skillet. Great for cooking burgers, steaks and one-pan meals. Try a beef stir fry. Cut and marinate the meat and veggies at home, toss them in the skillet and enjoy!
www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/recipes/collection/10030/tailgating-treasures
6 Cook in advance when you can. Appetizers, main dishes and sides can be cooked ahead of time and re-heated on the grill. Spice things up with an easy 3-ingredient nacho beef dip that can be prepared ahead of time, warmed in a skillet on the grill and served with chips. 7 Your grill is just a fancy stovetop. You can cook chili and stew in a stock pot on the grates for a hearty meal to warm up fans on the coldest of game days. 8 Your grill is also an outdoor oven. Surprise your guests with a small roast, beef casserole or even a platter of nachos. 9 Make sure to pack and store everything safely. Raw beef should be at the bottom of the cooler (or in another cooler all together), packed separately from other items. Use ice packs instead of ice to make sure food doesn’t get waterlogged. 10 Serve food in creative and easy-to-hold ways since tailgating usually involves eating while standing and sitting in a camping chair. Skip the bowls and use chip bags as a vessel for chili or beef tacos. Skewer steak chunks, veggies and even meatballs on short bamboo sticks for fun food-on-stick meals.
Influencers Meet at Strength Summit In mid-September, over 40 top tier nutrition researchers and influencers gathered in San Antonio, Texas, to participate in the Strength Summit. The event was hosted by the Beef Checkoff. Discussions included evaluating and defining the role of diet in supporting measures of physical, mental and emotional strength that contribute to overall good health, resilience and well-being, as well as identifying opportunities to advance the science and narrow the research gaps around nutrition and strength and effectively communicate to consumers. About the Beef Checkoff The Beef Checkoff Program was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States may retain up to 50 cents on the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.
For more about the Nevada Beef Council or the Beef Checkoff, visit www.nevadabeef.org or www.mybeefcheckoff.org 6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
By Nevada Beef Council Staff
With fall upon us and winter at the doorstep, this savory dish with ward off the chill of the season and fill your house with the aroma of slowly cooked beef stew. The hearty combination of beans, beef and tomatoes will satisfy any hunger.
Cowboy Beef Stew INGREDIENTS • 2-1/2 pounds beef Stew Meat, cut into 1-inch pieces • 1 package (12 to 14 ounces) dried bean soup mix with seasoning packet (not quick cooking)
• 2 cans (14-1/2 ounces each) diced tomatoes with green peppers and onion • 2 tablespoons vegetable oil
• 1 can (14 to 14-1/2 ounces) beef broth
• 3 cups frozen diced or hash-brown potatoes (optional) • Salt and pepper
“Courtesy of Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner.”
COOKING 1. Soak beans in water overnight in refrigerator according to package directions. Reserve seasoning packet. 2. Coat beef with seasoning from reserved packet. Heat 1 tablespoon oil in large stockpot over medium heat until hot. Brown 1/3 of beef; remove from stockpot. Repeat twice with remaining oil and beef, adding additional oil as needed. 3. Pour off drippings; return beef to stockpot. Drain beans; discard water. Add beans, tomatoes and beef broth to stockpot. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat; cover tightly and simmer 1-3/4 to 2-1/4 hours, or until beef is fork tender. 4. Stir in potatoes, if desired; bring to a boil. Reduce heat; continue simmering, uncovered, 5 to 7 minutes or until potatoes are tender, stirring occasionally. Season with salt and pepper, as desired. Nutrition information per serving: 540 Calories; 14g Total Fat; 5g Saturated Fat; 6g Monounsaturated Fat; 140mg Cholesterol; 2012mg Sodium; 42g Total carbohydrate; 60g Protein; 7.7mg Iron; 5.8mg Niacin; 0.7mg Vitamin B6; 145.4mg Choline; 3.9mcg Vitamin B12; 11.8mg Zinc; 85.8mcg Selenium; 7.1g Fiber.
Find more ideas for main dishes and leftovers at www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com. www.nevadabeef.org or www.mybeefcheckoff.org www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 7
In the Mind of a Millennial By Jill Scofield, Director of Producer Relations, California & Nevada Beef Council
The Retail Meat Case: A Look at America’s Favorite Beef Cuts Everyone has a “Top 10” list, whether it be movies, restaurants or vacation spots. Thanks to the Beef Checkoff and the Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner. brand, there are some helpful lists available relative to beef sales – one of them being Top Selling Beef Cuts at Retail. And while this information isn’t specific to one generation per se, it does demonstrate the type of data available that provides insight on current consumer trends. Leveraging scanner data from IRI/Freshlook (IRI stands for Information Resources Inc., and is a helpful source of data regarding retail and consumer trends), we can understand consumer buying behavior at the meat case. While cattle anatomy dictates the overall nature of beef supply, consumers’ willingness to pay ultimately dictates fabrication and therefore, cut sales. Basically, if the demand isn’t there, then neither is the cut. And thus, the available beef becomes ground beef. Over 140 Beef cuts are sold at retail, and the Top 10 account for 31% of total cut dollar sales. So, which Beef cuts are resonating most with consumers in 2018? Essentially, this Top 10 List (Table 1) features high-end steak cuts that are great for grilling, broiling or pan-frying. As you can see, it’s led by Ribeye, Strip and T-Bone, with Tenderloin making the list due to its high price point. Continuing with steaks, the mid-range Sirloin is followed by the classic London Broil – which works well when marinated and can feed a crew – officially known as the Top Round First Steak. On this list, however, steak cuts are balanced by more economical offerings such as two different Chuck Roasts, Stew Meat and Cubed Steak, where slower cooking methods make these options tender and flavorful. Resorting this list by pounds bumps both Chuck Center Roast and Top Round First Steak up a couple notches, elevates Corned Brisket Flat to the list and drops Tenderloin Steak to number 25.
Jill Scofield is the Director of Producer Relations for the California and Nevada Beef Councils. She grew up on a cow-calf ranch in Northwestern Nevada.
Comparing sales from the first seven months of 2018 to the same period a year ago, the list is quite consistent. While Ribeye and Strip Steaks remain the perennial favorites, consumers have picked up on more affordable pricing for the T-Bone Steak as both dollar and volume sales have doubledigit increases. Chuck Center Roast sales have moderated while Stew Meat sales are higher, primarily based on robust pricing. And, Blade Chuck Roast sales are stronger in dollars, pounds and price. Looking at cut sales by region, distinct patterns emerge. For example, at 20% of total Beef cut dollar sales, the Ribeye Steak dominates in the South Central and Southeast Regions, whereas Strip Steak is the top cut in the Northeast and ties the Ribeye at 13% of sales in the Plains states. The most regionally unique cuts are the Sirloin Bavette and Tri-Tip Roast in California, the Brisket Deckle-Off in the SouthCentral U.S., the Chuck Eye Roast near the Great Lakes, and the Petite Sirloin Steak in Nevada’s region, the West. Finally, Porterhouse Steak and Top Round First Steak are more prominent in the Northeast. On a separate but related note, this type of information is now available at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com. Much more than a recipe collection, this site has evolved to become a clearing house of all things related to beef – everything from nutrition information, background on production practices, ranchers’ stories, and now data and informational resources helpful to our partners in the retail and foodservice industries. 8 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Nicely done, beef. You turned a cowboy into a ninja.
Thanks to your beef checkoff, over 20 million people have discovered how Cowboy Ninja Lance Pekus gets his strength from ranching, family and beef. Learn more at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com.
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 9 
By Joseph Guild
50 Years of Public Lands Council Recently the Public Lands Council (PLC) celebrated its 50 year history at the annual meeting in Park City Utah. Utah is the home state of the outgoing President of the PLC Dave Eliason. The PLC tradition is to have the final annual meeting of a President’s term in his or her home state. There were quite a few ranchers and even some agency employees from Nevada in attendance at this annual meeting. It was good to see Nevada so well represented.
• Antiquities Act • Water and Wetlands • Wild Horses and Burros • Forest Service Planning Rule • Economic Issues • order and Immigration
As I drove back home from the meeting I thought a • Movement of the BLM from Washington D.C. lot about my 20 or so year association with the PLC. • Equal Access to Justice Act I also had the distinct thought about what would ranchers with federal lands grazing permits have done • General Economic Issues Facing the Livestock Industry these last 50 years without the PLC. There have been challenges over the last 50 years, not the least of which has been a wholesale reduction in almost every rancher’s actual use AUMs and more and more scrutiny of day to day operations. The Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act and The National Environmental Planning Act have all been passed into law. Permit renewals have become a long term complicated process even when there are virtually no changes to a ranching operation. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt made it his signature cause to try and regulate ranchers off the public lands. I know this personally because I was in some meetings with him where it became obvious what his agenda was. There have been a multitude of legal challenges to ranches and agency decisions by so-called environmental groups who believe they are protecting a resource they think has been damaged by ranching activities. There has also been increasing pressure on ranches by other users of the lands as our population has increased and more people want to get out into the open spaces. Through it all, the PLC has been at the forefront defending rancher’s rights and pushing back on the many criticisms faced by those who use these lands for their benefit and for the benefit of the American citizenry. A brief listing of the issues the PLC is tackling, just in 2018, gives a glimpse into the expertise of this organization’s staff and the dedication of its volunteer leaders. • Endangered Species Act Reform • Wildfire Prevention and Recovery 10 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
...the PLC has been at the forefront defending rancher’s rights... As a more detailed example, there is a big push in Congress to modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NCBA and the PLC are industry leaders in this effort. Environmental groups with a financial interest petition to list multiple species which ties the hands of the relevant agency thus causing the agency to miss important deadlines and do shoddy work. This then enables the group to sue the agencies for violating the law and agency processes. Then the environmental group settles with the agency when the agency agrees to change its ways to comply with its procedures and the suing environmental organization has its attorney’s fees paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been paid to environmental organizations who participate in this scheme. An effected rancher may not even be part of this legal proceeding. The PLC recommends the agencies set clear recovery goals and the law be changed to encourage and expedite delisting of species based upon scientific evidence that the plan of recovery of a species has been successful. Such a reform would take political considerations out of the equation. The broad interpretation of federal jurisdiction of waters of the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Clean Water Act rules is another high priority for the PLC. The traditional rule was only navigable waters were subject to jurisdiction by the EPA. However, as most The Progressive Rancher
readers know by now, the EPA has tried to expand its authority by a rule making which declares any water with a nexus to navigable water under the jurisdiction of the EPA. This practically means virtually all water and when you control the water you can also control the land. It is this aspect of the rule that concerns farmers and ranchers so much. This is why PLC and NCBA along with a strong coalition of water users and water agencies is working so hard to help the EPA implement a new rule without the broad jurisdictional reach of the withdrawn 2015 rule. PLC was established in 1968 when some visionary public lands ranchers apparently met at a restaurant in Washington D.C. and discussed the need for a specialized organization to treat public lands issues with the highest priority in our Nation’s Capital. I can only speculate what frustrations they may have had with the treatment of these issues by our national leaders but I think it obvious the country was becoming more urbanized and more separated from agriculture in general. The west was where these folks and their constituents went to see geysers, bears and canyons on their summer vacations. They saw the USA in their Chevrolets without a thought to what those cows and sheep were doing out there along the highway to Yellowstone. As I understand it, there were tensions and even conflict with the predecessor organization to NCBA, which if you think about makes sense. A rival group could take membership, dollars and prestige away from the larger organization. This rivalry is in the past of the PLC now and a bright next 50 years is ahead. PLC and NCBA share offices in Washington. The issues facing all livestock raisers are intertwined as is evidenced by the discussion above. The NCBA Chair of the Federal Lands Committee sits on the Board of Directors of the PLC. The President of PLC is a member of NCBA’s Executive Committee. The PLC has a multi-million dollar trust fund to give grants to projects and activities which protect, enhance and preserve the public lands ranching industry. The volunteer leadership and staff of the PLC are of the highest quality and are dedicated to facing the many challenges ahead. I believe our industry has a bright and prosperous 50 more years to come. I’ll see you soon. www.progressiverancher.com
UPCOMING SALES
Wednesday November 28 Nugget Resort & Casino Reno, NV
Catalog Deadline: Nov 9 WATCH & LISTEN TO THE SALE on the Web at:
For details call (530) 347-3793 or the representative nearest you:
Gary Nolan
Mark Venturacci
(775) 934-5678
(775) 427-8713
Elko, NV
Fallon, NV
Steve Lucas
Paradise Valley, NV
(775) 761-7575
Brad Peek— (916) 802-7335 or email us at wvm@wvmcattle.com Look for the catalog and video on our website www.wvmcattle.com
Market your cattle with the professionals!
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 11
7th National Grazing Lands Conference December 2-5, 2018
Ranch properties now available Antelope Peak Ranch 5,300 deeded w/ BLM permit attached. 5 center pivots irrigating approx. 583 acres plus another 28 acres with surface water rights out of large spring. Three homes plus shop and other outbuildings. 1 land owner Elk Tag. Offered at $3,900,000. PENDING Will continue to show and take back up offers! Jiggs, Nevada Smith Creek Property 220 deeded acres with approx. 126 with surface water rights out of Smith Creek. Great homesite already carved out of the hill above the meadows with well and trees planted. On county-maintained road approx. 30 miles out of Elko. Price: $680,000.
Reno, Nevada Taking the Gamble out of Grazing
Flatnose Ranch 680 acre property in Lincoln County just 7 miles E. of Pioche. 400+acres in production, Alfalfa hay. 4 pivots some handline. Next to Echo Reservior. Landowner deer tags on an annual basis(2-10). Priced at appraisal of $2,700,000.
Need more Ranch Listings: Sold in the last 6 months: Z Bar Ranch, Bar O Ranch and approx. 14,000 deeded acres in Clover Valley. Have buyers looking - let me sell your ranch or farm!
Producer led discussion forums, interactive sessions and more, all in scenic Reno, Nevada.
For additional information on these properties, go to: BOTTARIREALTY.COM
Paul D. Bottari, Broker
paul@bottarirealty.com 1222 6th St. PO Box 368 Wells, NV 89835
Work: 775.752.3040
Home: 775.752.3809 Fax: 775.752.3021
This conference will provide:
• A forum for discussion and exchange of grazing land information and technology. • An opportunity to identify grazing land research and program needs. • A chance to see new products and services.
Who should attend • Ranchers and farmers • Federal, state and local land managers & policy makers • Consumers • Representatives of seed, animal & other related companies • Public officials • Students and members of academia • Conservationists • Others interested in proper grazing land management and its benefits.
Conference is being held at Peppermill Resort and Casino www.peppermillreno.com. Register through www.grazinglands.org web page to get conference rates.
www.grazinglands.org
(979) 777-9779 or monti@grazinglands.org 12 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Nevada Agriculture in the Classroom
I wanted to take some time this fall to discuss the topic of agricultural experiences for youth. Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. has a priority of assisting with agriculture in the classroom and I have been doing a little research on this topic, and I have been working with other entities the last few years through my job at the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension to support these types of activities.
This month I had a chance to meet with Amber Symer from the Nevada Department of Agriculture. We set up this meeting because a colleague of mine, Lindsay Chichester (Douglas County Extension Educator) and I are interested in supporting AG in the classroom at a statewide level. I travel the state working with Extension agricultural risk education and with tribal Extension programs. Working with diverse professionals and organizations allows me to gain knowledge about things and activities that are happening throughout the state. Meeting with Amber Symer was important, but it's unfortunate this meeting didn’t take place sooner, as conversations regarding Nevada youth and how to provide agricultural experiences are important.
I believe we all get caught in our own little silo of work, whether it be volunteer work or our job. We create a schedule that takes up every minute of our day, leaving little time to relax and just enjoy life. In fact, any spare time I have, I try to spend with my family. I realized in the first 15 minutes in speaking with Amber that I had really missed something big the past few years with the Nevada Department of Agriculture. I have been working with the Nevada Farm Bureau, Nevada Agricultural Foundation, and 4-H, but for some reason Amber and I did not cross
By Staci Emm
paths, and I hadn’t taken the time to reach out until recently.
Amber has a whole website of AG in the classroom activities, curriculums, and resources that can be used by local groups to support AG in the classroom. She is also connected to the national office. We all soon realized in our meeting that we need to combine efforts and bring all entities, agencies, and non-profits that work on AG in the classroom together. We will be writing a funding proposal soon to try and support statewide AG in the classroom initiatives. We will need additional partners and we sincerely hope that our non-profit and agricultural organizations will join us.
I invited Amber to the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association meetings and am hoping she will be at the Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. membership meeting to discuss the tool kits for AG in the classroom. NCW affiliates are in the classrooms every year and at a state level we would like to provide more resources to them. Additionally, we would like to hit our largest population down south and see if we can work with teachers and groups to provide agricultural experiences to youth in classrooms across the state.
I hope that we can have this discussion this November and begin to combine efforts. There is great potential in all of us working together. November is also a time to prioritize what projects we would like to have for the next year. We hope you can join us for this important discussion, and our schedule for the November annual meeting is below.
• November 15, 2018 1 pm Executive Board Meeting to Prepare for Annual Meeting • November 15, 2018 5 pm Family Fun Night • November 16, 2018 7:30 am Annual Membership Meeting
Churchill County Cowbelles Update
By Pegi Witte
Fall is here, bringing with it welcome cooler temperatures and beautiful autumn colors. Fallon's Churchill County Cowbelles are already looking towards the holidays. You'll find yummy beef recipes at the bottom of this article that work well for that special dinner, or to warm up the family after a long day of working outdoors. For those of you who have taken advantage of the local Extension Service over the years, the Extension position that has been empty for the past 8 mo. is in the process of being restructured. Two candidates have been interviewed, with a public meet and greet having taken place the 2nd week of Oct. I can personally say that as I attended these individual interviews, both candidates are eager and capable to serve the agricultural needs of the farmers and ranchers of Nevada.
Cowbelle Vice President Karen Lawson reported that the peach sale that she assisted the Churchill County FFA put on was a huge success. We thank Karen for supplying the delicious peaches. All monies from the sale went directly to the FFA general fund. Keep in mind that the FFA students, here and throughout the country are just that ….. the Future of Agriculture. They deserve all the support we can give them.
A reminder to all beef producers, the annual Cattlemen's Update will be held on January 8th at the Fallon Convention Center. Watch for the schedule of topics in your mailbox. Wishing you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving and the Merriest of Christmases and holiday season! President: Pegi Witte 775-423-1571 witteshorthorns94@yahoo.com | Vice President: Karen Lawson 775-4127 | Treasurer: Vella Torvik 775-217-1395 v_torvik@yahoo.com
Our Favorite Beef Recipe: QUICK AND EASY BEEF STROGANOFF Creamy and flavorful, easy to make. It's a guarantee everyone will want seconds! Tip: Warm up leftover steak or cook/drain a pound of hamburger as a fresh steak substitute. INGREDIENTS
DIRECTIONS
1 lb wide egg noodles 6 Tbsp butter, divided 1 lb thinly sliced steak salt and pepper to taste 1 yellow onion diced 3 to 5 cloves garlic, minced 1 lb sliced mushrooms 1/2 cup dry white wine (or beef stock) 1-1/2 cups beef stock 1 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce 3 Tbsp flour 1/2 cup sour cream 1 Tbsp grainy mustard or dijon Minced parsley / Sliced green onions
Cook egg noodles per package directions, until al dente. (TIP: Add noodles to boiling water when beef stock mixture is added to the skillet). Meanwhile, melt 2 tablespoons of butter in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Add the steak in a single layer, season with salt and pepper, and cook for about 3 minutes to get a good sear. Turn the steak, and cook the other side until browned, about another 3 minutes. Remove steak from skillet with a slotted spoon, and transfer to a separate plate. Set aside for later. (Tip: Be sure not to overcrowd your skillet. If you need to, cook your steak in 2 batches.)
www.progressiverancher.com
Add 2 more Tbsp. butter. Add the onions and saute about 3 minutes. Add garlic and mushrooms, and stir. Continue sauteing for an additional 5-7 minutes, or until the mushrooms are browned and the onions are soft and translucent. Add the white wine (or beef stock, if using as a substitute for the wine) and deglaze the pan by using your wooden spoon to scrape the brown bits off the bottom of the pan. Let the mixture cook for an additional 3 minutes. In a separate bowl, whisk together the beef stock, Worcestershire sauce and flour. Pour the beef stock mixture into the pan, and stir to combine. (TIP: Now drop your egg noodles in the boiling water to cook.) Let the beef stock mixture simmer for 5 minutes, stirring occasionally. Then stir in the sour cream and mustard until combined, and then slide the cooked steak back in. Taste, and season with additional salt and pepper if needed. Toss egg noodles with the remaining 2 tablespoons of butter, then stir in a tablespoon or two of minced parsley and sliced green onions (adjust to your tastes). Ladle beef stroganoff over the top of the noodles and sprinkle with additional parsley and/or green onions if desired; maybe add an extra dollop of sour cream.
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 13
Stewardship and Conservation of Water Resources of the Newlands Within the lexicon of the law, we make use of accepted and well defined terms, each bearing its own unique characteristics, differences, duties, and expectations. A few notable examples include: Guardian; Trustee; and, Fiduciary. Generally, each of these terms signifies that a person has been invested with duties and powers relating to the care and management of someone or something. And, in each such instance, the law imposes a positive duty to account -upon the faithful discharge of his or her powers and duties. Related to these terms, but not always rising as a legal imperative, is that of steward.
I suppose we have all used the term. As I look out upon the Lahontan Valley, it is easy to see those among us who deserve an appellation denoting proper stewardship of lands. There are many. Indeed, perhaps the most noble and highest form of praise we may cast upon someone, in the exercise of their own unique duties and powers on their lands, is that “he or she is a good steward!” The law need not act upon such. Nor has an interested financial institution imposed upon him or her any particular vision of how an estate will look and operate. The power comes from within. Call it character. Call it pride. Call it good stewardship! What is a good steward?
And, if you are such, how does being so, influence your behavior regarding water resources? Being a steward means, among other things, overseeing the affairs of a home, managing a food supply and other things for others, or serving as a fiscal agent.[1] To behave in a steward like fashion suggests such things as being un-wasteful, or sparing, or economical, or frugal, or saving. [2] Here we may append the definition to include conservative as an element. We may properly infer that a good steward, when providing oversight, or management, or when engaging in other affairs, does so well. But putting flesh to the bones of a meaningful definition is at best difficult. Our farmers and ranchers each define the term in their own way –on their own terms. There are as many examples as there are good farms and ranches. The result is evident in what we see: They look good. They are productive. They are well operated and maintained. Resources, such as water, are used beneficially upon their lands. Their owners are proud of their work product. And we are too! A good steward, we may say, both appreciates and enjoys a relationship with the land, with others, and the scope of its personal influence. Years ago, Justice Robert Rose, in a case before the Nevada Supreme Court, cited the words of Chief Seattle illuminating the connection:[3]
This we know:
The Earth does not belong to Man, Man belongs to the Earth. All things are connected, Like the blood which unites one family. We do not weave the web of life, We are but a strand in the web of life. What we do to the web we do to ourselves.
Chief Seattle was possessed of great wisdom.
Forever etched in our stewardship of water resources is this fundamental tenet of Nevada water law: “The water 14 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
of all sources of water supply within the boundaries of the state whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public.” [4] Even those who hold certificated, vested, or perfected water rights do not acquire title to the water.[6] Water right holders enjoy the right to beneficial use: “Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of water.”[7] It follows, then, that when water is not put to a beneficial use, the right to its use may be lost.[8] These principles powerfully remind us of our duty to be good stewards of the resource, to conserve it, and to vigilantly guard against its misuse. How do we conserve?
In the Newlands Federal Reclamation Project, water right holders look to federal decrees as the source of their certificated water rights: The Alpine[9] and Orr Ditch[10] Decrees, governing the waters of the Carson and Truckee Rivers respectively, provide that diversions are to be made “. . . in such amount as shall be actually, reasonably necessary for the economical and beneficial use for which the right of diversion is determined and established by this decree.”[11] Federal Regulation, known as the Operating Criteria and Procedures for the Newlands Reclamation Project, Nevada (OCAP),[12] further imposes upon the operator of the Project the duty to efficiently deliver water only to those grounds eligible for delivery.[13] Eligible lands, naturally, consist only of those lands that are water righted and are intended to be irrigated in a given irrigation season. Conservation is first achieved, Project-wide, through the determination of a water supply for the benefit of all eligible lands, made in part through establishment of monthly storage targets in Lahontan Reservoir. A stated goal of OCAP is to limit the amount of water diverted from the Truckee River, through the Truckee Canal, in amount no more than necessary to meet Project demand.[14]
The real core of conservation in the Newlands Project is efficiency in water delivery. If money were no object, conservation efforts would include the lining or piping of every canal, lateral, and drain. Imagine, with me, a stateof-the art control room: Full computerized control upon every water delivery at every headgate! The scope of that undertaking, in an open channel system having more than Seven Hundred Miles (700) of canals, laterals, and drains, could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. When cast upon a small user base, such as ours, the cost of such system-wide improvement would be impossible. However, conservation is possible, even across an area as broad as that of the Newlands Project, if measures are employed strategically which account for water savings. Earlier this month, I sought comments from members of our District staff as to their views of how better our own stewardship duties and how best to achieve water conservation. Their comments may be worthy of consideration for water users and systems elsewhere:[15]
1. Water ordering. In a system as large as ours (approximately 60,000 irrigated acres in parts of three (3) counties), according to Kelly Herwick, District Water Master, “The savings of as much as 1,000 acre feet of water may be achieved simply by proper water ordering practice”. Water orders must The Progressive Rancher
By Rusty Jardine
be grouped so that multiple heads of water can be scheduled, and then delivered according to the schedule, to water users on a given Project canal or lateral.” Kelly is currently working with the Bureau of Reclamation in the creation of a new scheduling program for water users in the Newlands Project. The program is expected to be on line for the 2019 water season.
2. Control Lahontan Dam Releases. According to Mark Solinski, District Dam and Hydroelectric facilities operator, “the start of water conservation is at Lahontan Dam”. He said that “Releases must be made to carefully match down-stream demand on a daily basis.” Moreover, he adds, “special care must be taken by all of us to protect the dam against any condition that would affect our daily control and use of that facility. The dam works must always be in good condition.”
3. Increase accuracy of delivery records and measurement devices. Mike Adams, District Systems and Technologies Manager, is responsible for the installation and maintenance of water measurement devices within the Newlands Project. Mike has made application of an instrument to open channel measurement that was designed for use in a closed vault environment: Flodar® by OTT Hydromet. Mike describes “the Flodar.® [as] a non-contact sensor that is positioned above a stream of water and measures both depth and surface velocity. The device has proven both its accuracy and durability in District use -where submersible measurement units were found to be unreliable.”
The District has implemented, as standard practice, the use of automations at multiple sites within the Project. Mike believes that more are needed. “Automations assist in the maintenance of water levels ensuring the non-fluctuation in head pressure in a canal or lateral during the course of water delivery.”
4. Control Delivery System. All staff members agree that conservation may be attained by the elimination of “spills” throughout the system. An example of a spill is when water is directed into a drain to prevent canal overtopping. The result of a spill is that water intended for beneficial use is wasted. According to Dave Watkins, the District Water Measurement Technician, “as a starting point,” spills may be eliminated through better in-the-field communication between water users and ditch riders. “Water must be managed constantly -it never stops to seek our direction!” Kelly Herwick adds that “the creation of additional regulatory reservoirs across the Project would serve to absorb waters that have become mismatched for delivery and to eliminate water spilling.” 5. System Improvements. Cody Biggs is the District Construction and Maintenance Manager. Cody believes that “very large amounts of water would be conserved through the lining of canals and laterals within the Project” In the Truckee Division of the www.progressiverancher.com
Project[16], lining the Truckee Canal would result in water savings as great as 20,000 acre feet per year. Presently a study is underway by the Bureau of Reclamation and the District to determine a preferred alternative for repairing the Truckee Canal, primarily for safety, but with a resulting increase in efficiency. A “Record of Decision” (ROD) is expected in early 2019. Likely, the preferred alternative will consist of the placement of a concrete lining. While a lining of the entire Canal is not realistic, because of cost[17], Cody believes that “the placing of a lining where the embankment poses exceptional safety concerns, or where seepage is great, makes the most sense.”
Other needed system improvements include replacement of leaky gates and the cleaning of ditches and drains. Deb Sherman oversees District weed control efforts. She observed: “Dealing with weeds and phreatophytes is a never ending challenge. When we can reduce their impact; and, by the timely application of chemical agents, great delivery efficiency may be attained. But, when the growth is too much, the ditches become choked-off and everyone suffers. We have to be on top of it.”
6. Training. All staff members agree that training is important. Our expectations for an effective ditch rider are great. They must understand basic hydrology. They must effectively communicate with water users and the Water Master when effecting water delivery. They must keep good records of their deliveries. Each of these elements requires proper training –both prior to the irrigation season and during. 7. Enforcement. In the State of Colorado, a sheriff ’s deputy for the Montezuma County, Colorado, Sheriff ’s Department, daily supervises water delivery in an
arid region. We, too, have the need for enforcement. People take water without a right. Pumps have been found -placed without permits. When we know of such actions, we put an end to them. The diminution of the water supply, however slight, is no justification for using something that the law does not allow. It is in this connection, that we implore all persons, in our Project and elsewhere, to avoid the temptation of taking water with out authority!
8. Funding. Our contract for the operation of the Newlands Federal Reclamation Project, with the United States, requires that we apportion on an annual basis a tenth of our annual budget for conservation purposes. [18] Presently, the annual conservation apportionment is dedicated to the creation of new water measurement sites. However, as may be viewed from the comments elicited from staff above, conservation is far more reaching than just water measurement. Moreover, given the size and age of the Newlands Project, our District is incapable of funding all our conservation needs. Congress must act for the benefit of a Project created by an Act of Congress (1902) to address the challenges of aging infrastructure.
9. On Farm Improvements. Conservation in the Newlands Project does not begin at Lahontan Dam nor does it end at an individual farmer’s take-out. On farm improvements must be applied by all water users. A few suggestions include the leveling of fields, the proper delineation of checks, the replacement of inefficient check structures and leaking gates, and the creation of new ditches and liners.
As General Manager of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, I am very proud of our efforts to be good stewards of the Newlands Project. I am proud of our department
managers and our employees. We discharge our duties without the benefit of a large budget –while attending to the demands of water conservation.[19] We have operated and maintained the Project under contract with the United States since 1925. In just few short years we will again negotiate a contract for the operation and maintenance of the Project. Integral to that next contract will be the theme of water conservation –an interest that we must constantly consider in the course of our daily activity. Our duties under contract, and our own view of the concept of stewardship, compel us to protect the heritage of our Project –for the benefit of all our users. The water users in the Newlands Federal Reclamation Project deserve no less! [1] See Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1142 (1977). [2] See Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, p. 783 (1976).
[4] See Mineral County v. State, Dep’t of Conservation, 117 Nevada 233, 248 (2001). [5] NRS 533.025.
[6] See Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State of Nevada, 113 Nev. 1049, 1059 (1997). [7] NRS 533.035. [8] NRS 539.395.
9] See United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co., 503 F.Supp. 877 (D.Nev. 1980).
[10] See United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co. In Equity No. A-3 (D.Nev. 1944 –as now amended by the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA). [11] Orr Ditch Decree, p. 87; Alpine Decree, p. 158.
[12] See 43 C.F.R. Part 418. [13] Id. at §418.7. {14] Id. at §418.17.
[15] The comments of all District staff align with the “Possible Water Conservation Measures for the Newlands Project” found in §418.12(4) of OCAP. [16] The Truckee Division consists of the Fernley, Hazen, and Swingle Bench areas.
[17] The cost could be as much as One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00)! [18] Contract No. 7-07-20-X0348, Article 11(f ).
[19] Depending upon the water supply, in a given season, the annual budget of the District varies from $6.5M to $7M annually. In addition to the fees imposed to water users, for the operation and maintenance of the Project, the District supplements its revenue base with hydroelectric generation at three facilities and by the lease of District owned lands for other energy producing projects.
Special Feeder Sales
November 13 December 11 January 8
NCA Silver State Classic Feeder Sale - December 15 Starts at Noon
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 15
UGLY FOR A REASON: Breaking Up Cheatgrass in the Jarbidge Story and Photos by Don Smurthwaite, Communications Director at BLM and partner of the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Glen Burkhardt points to a scrawny tree near a gravel road somewhere in the desert of southwestern Idaho.
wheatgrass is flourishing. Forage kochia taking root. There’s good spacing among the plants, making it difficult for a fire to carry. The plants aren’t large, another plus. Less fuel. The root wads seem a good size, meaning the vegetation is healthy and will have staying power. And even in the baking July heat, the plants are green.
“The only tree in the Jarbidge,” he deadpans. And a quick look around the vista confirms he may be right. More brown than green, beat-up and a bit bentover, it’s the only tree as far as the eye can see.
“Better. This is good,” Sisneros says.
The Jarbidge country, roughly sixty miles southeast of Boise, is a tough place. Triple digit temperatures in the summer, single digits and lower in the winter, with annual precipitation that only amounts to four inches in some locations, make it a difficult place for much to thrive. “This is desert,” says Burkhardt, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Idaho state fuels management specialist. “It gets less precipitation than the Sonoran. If it weren’t for the cold, you’d see saguaro cactus here.” But in a place too extreme even for some cactus species, the Jarbidge country – along with much of the rest of the Great Basin – is a near-perfect incubator for cheatgrass, the infamous invader from the Eurasian steppe that dominates an estimated 70 million acres in the West. You may know the basics of cheatgrass. They read a bit like a most-wanted poster for an outlaw. It’s aggressive. It’s a prolific seeder, with a single stalk (and there can be as many as 10,000 stalks in a square meter) capable of producing 300 seeds. It has little nutritional value for wildlife or livestock when cured and dried. It has a shallow root system and “competes for every drop of water out there,” says Burkhardt. It cures earlier than perennial and native vegetation. Its flammability is often compared to tissue paper. It clumps into a thatch that makes wildfires difficult to put out. And it stays put in the soil a long time. “You know how that stuff wiggles its way into your socks? It does the same thing in the soil,” Burkhardt says. And worst of all, it pushes out native vegetation and sets in motion what land managers, ranchers, firefighters and those who live and play in the Great Basin call the fireand-invasive species cycle. A single sunflower stock rises against a backdrop of Russian thistle, cheatgrass and other invasive species.
With the eye of someone who has worked in fire management for more than two decades, Burkhardt happily judges, “Fire wouldn’t burn here. Not even if you walked through with a drip torch.” The Jarbidge area is big, open, treeless, and isolated."This is desert," says Glen Burkhardt, a BLM fuels management specialist. The cycle goes like this: the more wildfire, the more invasive species, which thrive in disturbed areas. The more invasive species, the more wildfire. And the sagebrush-steppe of the Great Basin continues its own long-running version of the film “Ground Hog’s Day.” “Cheatgrass comes in and expands its range through repeated burning and begins the downward cycle,” says Jeremy Sisneros, a fire ecologist with BLM’s Twin Falls District. “What do we do? Triage. Apply a tourniquet. Stop the bleeding.” There is no single solution to the invasive species problem in the Great Basin. There may never be a solution, period. Fire managers, ecologists and researchers generally talk about limiting the damage, picking their spots to push back, saving as much of the remaining native habitat as they can. The most promising approach is establishing fuel breaks. The concept is to break up or fragment continuous fuel beds by reducing vegetation in key places and replacing it with plants more resistant to wildfire. When a wildfire burns into the fuel break, the flame length decreases and its progress slows, allowing firefighters to get a handle on the blaze. And fuel breaks make the job of firefighters safer, too. It’s a fuel break that brings Burkhardt and Sisneros to the Jarbidge on this hot July day. They’re looking at a long, angular fuel break near the U.S. Air Force’s Saylor Creek Training Range and stretches farther to the east before doubling back toward the west. Stop One is just east of the training range. Burkhardt and Cisneros hop out of their truck and walk up a slight slope where a fuel break was established two years before. To the south, the Jarbidge Mountains, a wisp of snow on their northern face, shimmer in the morning heat. Sisneros, head down, inspects the fuel break. He seems discouraged. Russian thistle and tumble mustard, two undesirable plants, cover the site. He walks farther into the fuel break and his mood brightens. Siberian
16 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
In the Jarbidge, the ideal design for fuel breaks is 275 feet on either side of the road. Burkhardt, who has degrees in wildlife and range management from Arizona State
University, says it’s important to recognize that fuel breaks are constructed along existing roads, helping to maximize habitat continuity by not carving them out of untouched ground. “The roads are already there. You’ve got the basis for fuel breaks in place. If we want to get this country restored, it’s where we’re going to have to start,” he says. “Fuel breaks give firefighters a snowball’s chance to get hold of a fire, plus it makes their work safer,” he says. A fuel break in southern Idaho can take ten years to become fully established. Cisneros, who earned a degree in forestry, fuels and fire management from Colorado State University, says, “Just getting to this point involves a lot of work, a lot of tweaking, a lot of learning. It’s an interesting challenge.” He pauses. Then he smiles. “Good times.” Fuel breaks, especially in the early stages, are not pretty to look at. It’s an irony of restoration work, but in the beginning, untreated vegetation beyond a fuel break often looks greener and healthier for much of the year. “In general, the impression of a fuel break is, ‘Well, that’s ugly,’” says Sisneros. “But it’s ugly for a reason. You have to know the purpose.” Clearing the site of unwanted, non-native vegetation leaves what he calls “a nice blank canvas upon which we can plant seed.” He looks at the fuel break as the truck bumps down the road. He can see ahead, can see the beauty in the beast, see the time when the fuel break is established, looking better and tamping down wildfire. But that time may be years ahead. For now, it’s two strips of brownish-gray fallow ground. “As a fire ecologist, I wish it looked different, that it had more native vegetation. I wish it were more diverse, the way it was historically. But we can’t have both in this case.” The livestock community is an important partner in BLM’s effort to establish fuel breaks. Fuel breaks entail close coordination with ranchers, and at times, moving livestock around and making other adjustments. Still, the effort is worth it, ranchers generally agree. www.progressiverancher.com
Jeremy Sisneros (left) and Glen Burkhardt (right) inspect a fuel break. Although it appears desolate, they're pleased with how this fuel break looks."It's ugly for a reason," Sisneros says."You have to know the purpose."
The historic fire interval in southwestern Idaho was 30 to 200 years, says fuels manager Glen Burkhardt. "Now, some places burn every five years." Gretchen Hyde is the executive director of the Idaho Rangeland Resources Commission. “Ranchers and land managers need to use every tool available to prevent catastrophic wildfires from damaging rangelands, and that includes fuel breaks and livestock grazing, especially in areas with cheatgrass or other invasive species,” she says. “Creating fuel breaks is an important way to limit range fires in the Great Basin. We’re glad to see BLM moving in this direction,” Hyde adds. “We also strongly believe that using cattle to remove excess fuels is a smart way for ranchers and BLM to team up to reduce the threat of fire.” All sagebrush-steppe proponents seem to agree that something must be done, that the miles and miles of feathery cheatgrass is anything but the Great Basin’s natural vegetative state, and for now, fuel breaks are the best approach. Burkhardt points out that wildfire in the Great Basin is steadily – and dramatically – growing worse. In the Jarbidge, Burkhardt says the historic fire interval was anywhere from 30 to 200 years. “Now, some places burn every five years.” It’s the final stop of the day, a place where only a year earlier, the Centennial Fire burned. That fire might be the poster child in southern Idaho for fuel break effectiveness. A lightning-caused wildfire erupted in the midst of high temperatures, low relative humidity and strong wind, in an area with plenty of fuel. It was the perfect recipe for a damaging, if not devastating, fire.
Then, the Centennial Fire burned into the fuel break. “It’s our only option,” Burkhardt says. And the white-knuckle situation changed. A fire that burned more than six miles in 90 minutes laid down and And there are signs of success. The Centennial Fire, certainly. Other fires in the area that have been slowed became manageable. by the strips of fire-resistant vegetation. Progress “The head of the fire almost fell over. It became a flanking on establishing the fuel break network, gradually fire,” Stephens remembers. Firefighters quickly got the transforming from bare, brown ground to patches of upper hand on the blaze. When it was controlled the green. A slow but steady increase in public awareness Centennial Fire burned only 18,660 acres. about the wildfire and invasive species cycle, and successful partnerships. The learning that leads to better “We can prove fuel breaks are effective,” says Burkhardt. design next time. And a very good moment a few weeks Back in the truck, again bouncing down the narrow gravel before, when Sisneros spotted five sage grouse hens road. Overall, Sisneros and Burkhardt seem satisfied scampering across a gravel road, in a place where he with what they’ve seen on their trip to the desert. At the didn’t think any of the birds existed. Centennial Fire site, the fuel break looks good. Go back to the small tree, the only of its kind in a big “If we could get this result along the whole fuel break, it stretch of the Jarbidge country. It’s tougher for the wear would be a big win for us. This area would be difficult to and tear that a harsh environment inflicts, but the point is, it’s still there, still alive, pushing back against the odds. burn. Very difficult,” Sisneros says. It’s a survivor. But it’s a huge task. The country is vast. Thousands of miles of fuel breaks are needed in southern Idaho alone. “The Jarbidge is the place where all this needs to start The sagebrush-steppe burns so easily, due to “lightning and getting fixed,” Sisneros says. stupid-human tricks,” Burkhardt says amiably. Cheatgrass and other invasives – some, such as medusahead, even more pernicious than bromus tectorum – are relentless. So far, only about 173 miles covering 5,426 acres have been treated in the 1.4 million acre Jarbidge Resource Area. Working with a variety of partners as diverse as ranchers, conservationists and the U.S. Air Force provides its own set of opportunities and complexities. With so much work ahead, against formidable odds, does the prospect ever feel overwhelming? Sisneros thinks about the simple question. “Yes. Sometimes.” But there is a purpose to it all, a meaning, a cause, difficult as restoring sagebrush-steppe may be. And it appeals to people such as Sisneros and Burkhardt, who are spending much of their professional lives in the sagebrush-steppe, trying to overcome the vexing problems of the wildfireand-invasive species cycle.
Clay Stephens, the incident commander for the fire, remembers sizing it up and thinking, “We’ve totally lost “It is satisfying work. I am sick of the cheatgrass cycle and this thing. We’re going to be chasing it all day and night.” what it's doing to this area,” Sisneros says. “We’re here to work, restore the ecosystem, at least slow or stop the cycle. Models projected the fire growth at 142,000 acres. What we’re doing at least gives us a fighting chance.” www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
"We're here to work, to restore the ecosystem ... What we're doing at least gives us a fighting chance," says fire ecologist Jeremy Sisneros. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 17
Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook by Kathryn Dyer
In the last magazine release, I introduced myself and the overall intention of my article. Again, my name is Kathryn Dyer and I am the BLM Nevada Range Program Lead. My intent is to maximize the usefulness for you all, so please don’t hesitate to give me feedback and ideas at kdyer@blm.gov or 775-861-6647. The importance of monitoring and collaboration were discussed in the last two articles, and some energy surrounding cooperative monitoring nationally was brought up (such as the National Cooperative Monitoring MOU), as was another exciting national initiative (Outcome Based Grazing Authorization demonstration). I would like to continue the discussion today by showcasing newly released 3rd edition of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. This is available for interested parties from any state to use, and I encourage you visit the website https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/ sp_2018_03.aspx to see the full handbook.
but significant changes in livestock numbers will take at least three years, especially increases. What is most important is that they get started. Most of the issues will become apparent as cooperative monitoring unfolds. 3. The permittee has copies of the agency files pertinent to this allotment? Y/N Make copies of the agency management and monitoring plan for permittee’s allotments. The livestock operator should have a copy of this information to understand the history and future direction for management of the allotment. 4. The agency has permittee information related to this allotment (photos, history, actual use data by pasture, etc.) Y/N It’s important to share all information in the interest of coordination. The permittee has information, and often long term information, that can be very informative to current management and the new monitoring plan. 5. Both parties have reviewed the existing documents relevant to this allotment (e.g. Allotment Management Plan, monitoring plan, allotment evaluations, land use plan, past agreements, etc.) Y/N Review Management and Monitoring Plans — The permittee and agency range staff should review the allotment management and monitoring plans as an initial starting point. If no plans are available, it may be very beneficial to develop both of these plans in conjunction with establishing a cooperative monitoring plan. During the review process, discuss any points of concern, i.e., incorrect information, missing data, permit administration, etc. 6. The most important elements from these documents that must be considered to establish this cooperative monitoring agreement are: Past management plans and monitoring should help shape the current objectives and monitoring plan. Look at old objectives and how those were monitored. Was the monitoring effective in telling the story? Should it be changed? Have objectives been met or not met? Do new objectives need to be formed (most old documents do not have SMART objectives). Did they have a short and long term monitoring plan? 7. Are there elements on these documents that need to be updates? If so, list these elements: Many of the plans are aging, and you may find that components are outdated. Perhaps fire has gone through and therefore new objectives are relevant. There are a variety of reasons that updates could be needed. 8. The (SMART) objectives for this allotment are:
Appendix A includes a template for a Cooperative Monitoring Agreement, which is used below to briefly walk you all through the Handbook, and hopefully convince you of the value so you will look further into it. Basically, have a plan together for what, why, when, where, who and how monitoring will occur. Create it with your local BLM office staff, so everyone has common understanding and approach.
COOPERATIVE MONITORING AGREEMENT TEMPLATE 1. The permittee:
Would like to accomplish the following (to address issues and concerns) for the XX Allotment. 2. The agency: To Begin (addressing question 1 and 2 above) — The permittee and agency range specialist might discuss what each hopes to accomplish through cooperative monitoring, why they want to participate in cooperative monitoring, and the issues or concerns they would like to address. They might also identify the level of commitment each can make to cooperative monitoring and the importance of this allotment to the permittee’s and agency’s operation. They might discuss how the subsequent monitoring data are going to be used and how responsive either can be to making different kinds of changes. For example, adding several troughs to an existing pipeline can be done in about one year,
18 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Objectives identify data requirements, and determine what monitoring methods are required and how often measurements need to be taken. This will ultimately guide livestock movement. Objectives and monitoring methods must be developed that can be measured, accomplished, and agreed upon by all principal parties. Do not skimp on this task. If objectives have been set, discuss why they were selected and if they are correct. Remember resource objectives are SMART. Resource objectives state specific attributes of natural resource conditions that management will strive to accomplish, the area or location where this will occur, and the time frame. Resource objectives must be site-specific, measurable and attainable statements of the desired resource attributes. Qualities or attributes of good objectives are SMART (adapted from Adamcik et al. 2004): S - Specific - They describe what will be accomplished, focusing on limiting factors, and identifying the range of acceptable change from the present to the proposed condition.
M - Measurable - The change between present and proposed condition must be quantifiable and measurable.
A - Achievable - They can be achieved within a designated time period and in accord with resource capability. The time period may be in calendar time and/or may incorporate timing in relation to floods or droughts.
R - Related/Relevant - They are related in all instances to the land use plan goals and relevant to current or planned
The Progressive Rancher
management practices. Thus, they must be worthy of the cost of the management needed to achieve them and the monitoring needed to track them. T - Trackable or Time-specific - They must be trackable over time and must include a definite timeframe and location for achievement, monitoring and evaluation. For examples of well worded objectives, see Appendix E Characteristics of Good Objectives.
Objectives should be quantitative statements of desired future conditions based upon the capabilities and limitations of the ecological site. Desired future conditions could include such resource attributes as vegetation, soil and water quality. Desired plant community phase is a quantitative expression of the plant community that exists or may exist on a specific site and that management actions are designed to maintain or produce. The desired plant community phase must be within the site's current state unless active restoration is applied.
9. The locations for the key areas or designated riparian monitoring areas on this allotment and the key species and how we expect them to change or not over what time period are: (Use ecological site descriptions with their available state and transition models, base line data, field tour discussions, and other pertinent information.) (Or, attach tables from Appendix K – Monitoring Plan Tables): Key area (name or GPS location):
Key species, baseline, expectation and year expected:
Identify the Key Area(s) or Designated Monitoring Area(s) – Key areas should be selected and agreed to jointly. (See Appendix H — Procedures for Selecting Key Areas and Key Species.) If key areas have already been selected, they need to be reconfirmed jointly as correct and at an appropriate site for the objective that is representative of pertinent areas in the allotment. If a site is not reconfirmed as the appropriate monitoring site, consideration must be given to the historical data associated with the site, and a determination should be made whether or not to continue monitoring this site to retain trend information. A designated monitoring area (DMA) or critical area may be jointly chosen that is not a key area. (See Appendix H – Procedures for Selecting Key Areas and Key Species). The designated monitoring area will focus on an important and specific issue unique to that particular riparian area. It will usually not be representative of management of the whole allotment and will only represent a site specific issue. If a designated monitoring area is chosen, a key area representative of the remainder of the allotment must also be chosen. 10. Long-term, effectiveness, monitoring to determine if management is succeeding or not will be conducted as shown below: (Consider budget, personnel, technical expertise, time commitments, outside help needed, etc.) Who, method, frequency and location:
Long-term, or effectiveness, monitoring measures changes over time in resource attributes. It periodically measures progress toward meeting long-term objectives. It also helps determine the applicability and effectiveness of annual indicators or triggers. Long-term monitoring usually occurs at permanent sampling locations. Techniques used or types of data collected periodically for longterm monitoring may include frequency; percent composition by weight of the vegetation; (See Production and Plant Community Objectives side bar.), resource value ratings; remote sensing, including ground and aerial photography (Appendix G — Remote Sensing to Monitor Rangelands); and photo plots (Perryman et al. 2006)). Because objectives vary by location, long-term monitoring methods must also vary (BLM 1999a; Herrick et al. 2005a and b; Elzinga et al. 1998). However, because long-term monitoring is intended to detect trend, it is very important that methods be used consistently over time at specified locations. Locations should be periodically re-evaluated to ensure they continue to provide information that is useful for management. 11. The following crucial elements of the management strategy need short-term monitoring (management applied and effects of that management): Short term, or implementation, monitoring addresses the following four topics: www.progressiverancher.com
1. conformance with management plans (the actions applied – e.g. actual use dates by pasture or use area), 2. current, annual or short-term impacts of the implemented management on resources of interest, 3. weather and 4. other unplanned events (e.g. fire). This information guides day-to-day and year-to-year management by monitoring within season triggers and end-point indicators. Accumulated short-term monitoring records help interpret trend and other long-term monitoring information. These data will provide a logical and reasonable basis for continuing or adjusting current management practices. 12. Short-term, implementation, monitoring will be used to determine how the management strategy is implemented and its pertinent effects as shown below: For livestock grazing management, short-term monitoring may include gathering data and keeping records of observations on actual use (See form for this in Perryman et al. 2006), distribution patterns and utilization (Appendix J — Use Mapping, Key Species Method, and Proper Use), streambank alteration (Burton et al. 2011), growing conditions, wildlife use, insect infestations, fire and adequacy of range improvements. Short-term monitoring may also include notes recorded in a pocket calendar or herd book (red book) and other livestock management records, precipitation and temperature measurements, use pattern mapping, residual vegetation studies, and photography. Often short-term monitoring leads to management decisions within the grazing season. Plant phenology may provide evidence that a planned turn-out or removal date is too early or too late. Within-season triggers could include changes in livestock behavior, such as a shift in use areas or preferred forage species or reaching planned seasonal utilization on specific plants or plant groups. Weather events may also indicate the time to move in order to provide opportunity for regrowth. Monitoring end-of-season indicators (at the end of the growing and grazing season) could include percent of browsed shrub leaders, stubble height and/or utilization. This documents the accumulated influence or lack of influence of current year’s management and establishes the amount of regrowth to assist in planning future management. Management changes that are based on multiple years of monitoring are usually more reliable than changes based on just one or two because of variability in environmental conditions and associated use patterns. Furthermore, strict adherence to triggers can cause sudden changes throughout a management system (Smith et al. 2005). Before making an adjustment in the timing, duration, and intensity of grazing, utilization and other short-term monitoring data from several years prior must be considered. However, if the use of triggers is the management strategy, then animal movements may be based on annual use levels. Prompt implementation of management changes may keep rangeland more productive. The need for triggers and the strictness of their application should vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the current status of the resource in relation to the objectives and the degree to which an action prohibits or enables achieving those objectives. For example, movement at a utilization trigger is usually not important in the dormant season, or if the principle strategy is short duration grazing with recovery. 13. We agree to strive for joint monitoring, to at least keep each other informed about dates and locations for monitoring, and to meet at least annually to discuss results and how to use the information to maintain or adjust ongoing management or monitoring. This is where the permittee(s) and manager sign to formalize their agreement on this plan, and commitment to meeting with each other and using the information. Thanks everyone! I hope you enjoy the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. The information in that handbook is very valuable, and what you’ve seen here hardly scratches the surface. I look forward to the next article, and to seeing everyone out monitoring together! www.progressiverancher.com
Fallon Ranch Hand Rodeo RESULTS Men’s Teams: 1st: C Buckhorn T Ranch: Clint Allegre, Chad Goings, Chance Kretschmer, Dennis Lee 2nd: Silver Creek Ranch : Paul Padilla, Vinnie Padilla, Clay Norcutt, Jimmy Filippini 3rd & 4th Split: Nevada Star: Kevin Hancock,Zack Bunyard,Bryson, Masini, Ed Moreda 3rd & 4th Split: Sanches Ranch : Lane Johnson, Chase Wortman, Justin McNeill, Ty Mariott Women’s Teams: 1st: Mori Range Cows : Sandy Kiel, Andrea Sestanovich, Taylor Trichert, Paydon Feyder 2nd: Silver Creek Girls : Natalie Norcutt, Lindy Lehman, Brynn Lehman, Danyelle Draper 3rd C 5 Ranch : Bailey Corkill, Marissa Julian, Kale Knittle, Noel Lambert Steer Stopping : 1st: Paydon Feyder • 2nd: Lindy Lehman • 3rd: Mitzi Corkil • 4th: Marissa Julian 5th: Andrea Sestanovich • 6th: Brenna Goings Big Loop Roping: 1st: Chance Kretschmer & Jade Corkill • 2nd: Dennis Lee & Chance Kretschner • 3rd: Clint Allegre & Chad Goings
Kids Events Results Mutton Busting 1st: Gianna Salisbury • 2nd: Weston Fabel Boot Scramble Age 2 – 4 1st: Hayes Allegre • 2nd: Hailey Hiibel • 3rd: Kelton Corkill Boot Scramble Age 5 – 7 1st: Cooper Gubler • 2nd: Katie Mae Zahniser • 3rd: Clayton Hiibel Boot Scramble Age 8- 11 1st: Cooper Tervort • 2nd: Tyler Miller Goat Branding Age 4 -7 1st: Clayton Hiibel, Stix Lee, Colby Corkill 2nd: Jr. Kelly, Cooper Gubler,Stix Lee 3rd: Addison Allegre, Hayes Allegre, Clayton Hiibel Goat Branding Age 8 – 11 1st: Cooper Tervort,Tyler Miller,Jaylee McEwen The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 19
Buckaroo Hall Of Fame Honors Three Buckaroos Winnemucca, NV; Buckaroo Hall of Fame honored three Great Basin buckaroos. William (Bill) Keith Swisher, Don Toelle and Joseph F. McKnight. They were honored at a banquet dinner at the Winnemucca Convention Center and ceremony on Saturday, September 1, 2018.
William Keith Swisher
William "Bill" Swisher was born on July 3, 1931 at Caldwell, ID to Joseph Henry Swisher and Ruth (Peer) Swisher. At one month old Bill traveled to the Circle Bar Ranch south of Jordan Valley, OR in a horse drawn buggy, cradled in a dresser drawer. In 1935 a brother Tommy Joe was born. The family moved to the Starr Ranch in1936 and then on to Smith Creek on Juniper Mountain in 1940. When Bill was eight years old he started working full time for his father. He broke his first horse that same year. At age 14, he went to work for Bill Johnson, corralling wild horses in the Owyhee breaks. In 1947 Bill left Jordan Valley for Nevada stopping at the Whitehorse Ranch in southern Oregon on the way. Bill asked the owner Paul Stewart for buckaroo job but ended up irrigating and breaking workhorses. Then headed south to Nevada a few months later.
Bill started work in Paradise Valley, Nevada for Les Stewart at the 96 Ranch buckarooing and breaking colts. It was there he met his future wife Delores Dee Acurio. In 1949, Bill went to work for Frank McCleary at the Quarter Circle A Ranch near Paradise Valley. The cow boss then was Lynn Kimble. When Kimble broken his leg that spring, Bill became the cow boss since he knew all the desert country well. He and his crew drove 3,200 head of steers to the Charlie Sewall ranch in Jarbridge, NV, it took two weeks in snowy March weather. In October 1951, Bill and Dee Acurio were married. Shortly after that he was drafted into the Army and served in the Korean War until 1954. Their first child Cam was born that year. In 1956 Bill and Dee moved to Oregon and went to work for Jim McEwen at the Visher and Swamp Creek Ranch near Riverside,OR. Then in 1958 he went to work for Lloyd Hill at the Circle Bar Ranch close to Crane,OR. They ran cattle on the desert east of Crane and on the Wildlife Refuge. Their second child, Martha was born in 1961 while working there. Around this time, Bill was part of a group that started the Stock Horse Futurity taking place during Harney County Fair every year. In 1962 the couple moved to the Sod House Ranch owned by Walt McEewn to be closer to school for their children. In 1966, Bill and Dee bought a small place near Burns, OR. Bill worked at the Hines saw mill while running some cows of his own. Their third child, Cecelia was born in 1966. Bill started in the horse business around this
time as well. In 1968, Bill became manager/cow boss for the Silver Creek Ranch at Riley, OR. He was able to run his own cows there and a good bunch of mares with a stallion. He made a deal to furnish the saddle horses for the ranch. The couple stayed there until the ranch sold out in 1980. After the ranch sold Bill and Dee moved to Burns and Bill went to work for the Harney County Road Department as a heavy equipment operator. He still ran a bunch of his own cattle and helped manage the cattle at South Silver Creek Ranch near Riley. After he retired he spent a lot of quality time with his family and grand children. Bill Swisher passed away November 16, 2007
 20 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Don Toelle
Don Toelle was born March 20, 1929 at Linnton, Oregon. His parent were engaged in farming in that area. He went to grade school there and attended Beaverton High School. At age 15 he decided that farming was not for him, so he got on a Trailway bus with his cousin Richard McClure and headed east, landing at the Commercial Hotel in Burns, Oregon on February 28, 1945. After several days in town the two hitched a ride in the back of a pickup to the Acton Ranch and went to work for Mike Acton. This proved to be the beginning of Don's education to be a cowboy. Don and his cousin worked together to feed cattle that winter. Over the next few years Don worked in the Drewsey area for many different ranches learning the skills of a real cowboy. He did return home to the coastal range on the Oregon coast to do some logging because the pay was far more than a cowboy could make. Don kept thinking about eastern Oregon and Harney County with its big country and cowboy lifestyle, so he returned to the Acton Ranch in the early 1950's. At the same time he met his future wife, area ranchers daughter, Shirley Hill. He also had an attraction to ride bucking horses. Don asked Mike Acton if he could get time off to go ride at the rodeo in Prairie City. Mike told him the ranch had a busy schedule and needed more help. Don quit that day and went to the rodeo anyway. He didn't win any money, but he was hooked on the sport. Don entered several rodeos including Dayton, Oregon and was the all around cowboy. He traded his buckaroo saddle for bronc riding saddle and joined the Rodeo Cowboy Association in 1953. Don traveled with several Burns area friends, one of which was Bob Bailey. Between rodeos he would return to the Bailey Ranch near Diamond, OR where they would run wild horses to make money to go to the rodeos. In a ten year span Don managed to make it to most all the big rodeos, including Madison Square Garden in New York. Don and Shirley got married in 1956. That was Don's best year,besides getting married, he finished third in the world standings in saddle bronc riding. From 1957 to 1960 he also worked for Christenson Brothers Stock contractors. On July 4, 1960, Don rode in Klamath Falls and tied for first in bronc riding, his last professional rodeo.
By now Don and Shirley had three children to raise, so Don went to work for Shirley's brother, Harold Hill. In 1965, following Harold's death,the ranch was sold to Walt McEwen. Don and Shirley stayed on and managed the ranch for McEwen until 1968 when they decided to purchase a place of their own on Cow Creek, east of Burns. Don and Shirley finished raising their children there. It became a favorite place for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Shirley passed away in 2003. Don continues to live in the house they built together. At 89 years of age, he continues to work on the ranch, riding horseback while working cattle and branding calves. He is a man that his grandchildren and great grandchildren along with many others around eastern Oregon look up to. A real cowboy.
The Progressive Rancher
Joseph F. McKnight
Joe McKnight was born on May 9, 1895 near Charleston, Nevada to George and Sarah McKnight. He had one brother and five sisters. Joe and his siblings grew up ranching with there family and were all accomplished horseman and horsewomen. At age five, Joe rode horseback eighty-five miles from Beowawe, NV to Charleston. He was accompanied by his younger sister, Alice, who rode on the wagon and his mother and father.
Joe attended school at the Beaver Creek school near Charleston in his early years and high school at the All Hallows College. He continued his education at Henninger's Business College in Utah, but later quit when they required him to live on campus. During this time he learned to play the banjo and violin. In 1916, at the age of twenty-one, Joe homesteaded his own place and registered his own brand, called the
"sheephook". Joe met Cleo Morgan from Deeth, NV and they were married in 1924. Cleo was also an accomplished horsewoman. The McKnight ranches were known as some of the best ranches in the area at that time. They raised and trained their own ranch horses. Joe and Tom used pack horses to pack in to the winter country. The Charleston area is known for its cold and snowy winters. Both brothers were well known for being able to ride the rough horses. Joe had a reputation for being an excellent roper as well as a good rider. Joe's father died in 1927 after an accident involving being struck by a fast moving freight train near Deeth, NV.
Joe and his brother rode horseback fifty-five miles to town to attend the funeral. Joe filled the role of ranch manager and cow boss for McKnight ranches for the next six years. In 1933, they lost the ranches due to the Great Depression. The family moved to Idaho for a short time before returning to Elko in 1935 with their two children, Will and Elsie. Joe went to work for the Ten Mile Association as cow boss. He worked there for the next three years and the children attended school in Elko. The buckaroo crew consisted of eight to ten men all year long.
The family moved to town later on and Joe built a house made with railroad ties. Joe spent summers in Paradise Valley working with hay crews and stacked the loose hay for the Rancho Grande. In 1945, they purchased the Spring Creek Ranch near Lamoille, NV and lived there for eleven years before selling it in 1956. They moved to small house in Lamoille and Joe worked for various ranches and neighbors irrigating, haying and ranch repairs. He was well liked and known as a good family man and a gentleman. Joe made his own gear including horse hair mecate ropes and rawhide riatas. He shared his knowledge by teaching many young buckaroos. Joe passed away on October 29, 1984. A real Nevada pioneer and buckaroo. www.progressiverancher.com
AG I S O U R M I D D LE N A M E
Susan Church & Brent Glaser Glaser Land & Livestock Elko, NV
We see things from the ground up, all of the small details that go into the big picture of ranching. Because agriculture is what we know, it’s all we do.
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
Call 800.800.4865 today or visit AgLoan.com A part of the Farm Credit System. Equal Opportunity Lender.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 21
Nevada Farm BureauFarm Nevada
Bureau
By: Doug Busselman, NVFB Looking back through the archives of Nevada Farm Bureau’s member publications, a February 2000, Nevada Farm Bureau newspaper front-page headline caught my eye… “Sage Grouse In Danger of Being Listed”. After a lot of meetings, even more time beyond the meetings, energy and money spent to respond with conservation efforts to keep Sage Grouse off an Endangered Species Listing – here we are in 2018 with the same potential challenge. As it relates to the Sage Grouse in the Bi-State area, determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “distinct population,” U.S. District Magistrate Joseph Spero has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made an error in one of their decisions pertaining to these birds. The latest ruling from Judge Spero brings the Bi-State Sage Grouse to a listing as being “Threatened.” Several groups brought the challenge forward, arguing against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s non-threatened designation. These groups, who haven’t been involved in any of the conservation work that's been underway for the Bi-State area, include the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, the Western Watershed Project and Desert Survivors. Federal officials involved with the matter have until October 23 to decide if they want to appeal Judge Spero’s ruling, taking the appeal to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In spite of the science used being the most up-to-date for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination that the Bi-State Sage Grouse weren’t “Threatened,” Judge Spero indicated that it wasn’t sufficient to meet the federal wildlife agency’s standard for being a guarantee. Without a known set of circumstances ahead, the stakeholders who have been working over the years to develop and implement a Sage Grouse conservation program are again planning to roll up their sleeves and update the lists of identified conservation projects to enhance Sage Grouse habitat. Information will also be gathered and made available for what will likely become another U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status review. This process could be carried out over the coming year if the decision is made to not appeal the Judge’s decision. The Greater Sage Grouse population, covering an 11-state region that doesn’t include the BiState area, isn’t directly in the cross-hairs for a new federal agency ruling, but is in play as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) go through another round of possible amendments to their respective land use plans. These National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes are working to give the impression that the federal agencies have paid some attention to the state conservation plans that Nevada and the rest of the states have labored to produce. In 2015, in spite of the federal agencies being directly involved in building state-based Sage Grouse Conservation Plans, the decision was made that all BLM and Forest Service land use plans would be amended to install the plan that Washington, D.C. authorities required. Because some of the areas for the federal plans also covered similar topics that the state plans included in their versions (although not following in line with the concepts or content) the argument was that the feds were cooperating in unison with the states. With the outcome of the 2016 Election and a new set of federal agency Secretaries in charge, the federal land management agencies were sent back to rework their plans. This was directed at bringing the state conservation plans and federal land management plans closer together. Where this ends up is far from being resolved. The U.S. Forest Service has just released their “Greater Sage Grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions.” The comment period runs for 90 calendar days from the release date for the publication identified as being an October 2018 proposal. Somewhere in the wings, the BLM’s final decision for their Draft EIS land use amendment document is waiting to be sent out for public response. There is also a Nevada Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, which has been going through a summer of updates, acted on by the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council.
22 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
In theory, the 2018 Nevada Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan should have been an alternative option for replacing the federal agencies 2015 land use plans. The Utah Conservation Plan is being considered as one of the options for the U.S. Forest Service Draft EIS. Instead, parts of Nevada’s Conservation Plan are being used in some form for the updates that the federal agencies are working on. This is mostly oriented to follow the Secretarial Order 3353 that Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke issued in 2017 for enhancing cooperation among the western states and BLM in managing and conserving Greater Sage Grouse. Based on review of the U.S. Forest Service Draft EIS, the approach that the Nevada Plan takes for Compensatory Mitigation and having a conservation standard of requiring “Net Conservation Gain” is also something that the federal agencies are gleefully including in their updated, “working closely with states” plans. None of the other states noted in the Forest Service plan (beyond Nevada) have the “Net Conservation Gain” requirement…they all have gone with the “No Net Loss” approach. Nevada’s Conservation Credit system and plans for requiring mitigation for disturbance is offering a great benefit for federal agencies who don’t have the authority in their governance to require mitigation from public land users. Farm Bureau’s current policy supports the state of Nevada’s Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, but there is plenty of ways to view that the “Nevada Plan” isn’t actually the plan that is being used. In spite of what the current federal land use management plans call for, there is also plenty of ways to recognize that the actual biggest threat to Sage Grouse and sagebrush habitat is wildfire. Instead of meaningful attention being given to this actual threat, more regulatory components that limit and harm multiple use of the federal lands are higher priorities. Requests have been ignored for increased attention to the fuel load build-up that resulted in the expansive burns that not only harmed prime Sage Grouse habitat, but also had devastating impacts for livestock grazing permit owners. The U.S. Forest Service Draft EIS failed to pay any attention to the request for plan use amendments that dealt with the wildfire issue, simply going forward with slight wording updates to edit out the classification of “Focal Areas” which no longer is being used. In January 3, 2018 Scoping Comments and again in August 1, 2018 public input comments, Nevada Farm Bureau gave significant attention to the need for improvements for the Forest Service plans for wildfire. As of September 6, a report for this year's fire impacts for Sage Grouse habitat shows that 1,024,566 acres of Sage Grouse habitat has burned in Nevada (155,202 of which is on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service). In light of the priority that wildfire attention could have received...the Forest Service proposal offers minor language editing of sections that apply to wildfires to reflect insignificant changes which only delete the no longer used "Focal Area" classification. It is easy to be frustrated over the lack of progress made since re-reading the February 2000 article in the Nevada Farm Bureau Agriculture and Livestock Journal. We still need to remember there has been some level of accomplishment. Except for the BiState population, the birds haven’t been listed and we’ve become better equipped to respond to federal agencies and those who would like to see the Endangered Species Act weaponized to prevent or limit all natural resource use. The work for actual on-the-ground, meaningful conservation and enhancement of resource conditions need to continue to progress in spite of the opposition of those who are only looking for the next excuse or surrogate species to be used as their means to an end.
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Nevada Farm BureauFarm Nevada
Bureau
Collegiate Young Farmers & Ranchers at the CABNR Field Day by Brittney Pericoli | Director of Communications The College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources hosted their annual Field Day at the University of Nevada, Reno’s Main Station lab. Collegiate Young Farmers & Ranchers (YF&R) participated in the event as part of the club’s mission to participate in community outreach. “It was great to see members come out and help educate attendees on what Collegiate YF&R is trying to achieve as a new club on the UNR campus,” said Blane Merkley President of Collegiate YF&R. Collegiate YF&R wanted a booth that grabbed people’s attention, so they hosted several watermelon eating contest throughout the day. It was a great way to get people interested and also a way for members to discuss with attendees the great work the club has done so far. In addition to the watermelon eating contest promotional flyers, Moolisa the Nevada Department of Agriculture dairy cow and raffle tickets for the saddle were sold to help promote Collegiate YF&R. “CABNR Field day went well! Moolisa and the watermelons were a big hit,” said Melissa Jones a Collegiate YF&R member. The kids had a great time interacting with Moolisa and it was a great educational opportunity for members to teach the children about the dairy industry. Collegiate YF&R came together to reflect on the field day and saw it as an overall success. Eight watermelons were consumed and Moolisa went dry from milking! A huge thank you to CABNR for letting YF&R have a booth and a shout out to all the members that made this event a victory!
Annual NFB Meeting
Advertise with The Progressive Rancher Contact Leana Carey | Owner/Editor Half Page Program(5.5”x4.25”) (208) 358-2487 | progressiverancher@elko.net
It’s that time of year again and we hope you join us for the 99th Annual Nevada Farm Bureau Meeting. This year’s meeting will be held at the Santa Fe Station in Las Vegas, Nevada November 29th through December 1st. The primary purpose for the annual meeting is working on Farm Bureau policy recommendations, deletions and or amendments.
Timing counts when it comes to your social security benefit
The Nevada Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee will be sponsoring a silent auction to raise money for agriculture promotion and education. County Farm Bureaus are encouraged to donate items for the silent auction.
Social Security can be one of your most valuable retirement assets. The decision of when you start taking your benefit impacts how much you’ll receive.
For more information about the silent auction, or to contribute please free to contact Brieanna Valdez at brieanna@nvfb.org
Call or visit today, and learn how your decision impacts your overall retirement income strategy.
The Nevada Farm Bureau Young Farmers & Ranchers (YF&R) committee is again offering the opportunity for young patricians to compete in the Annual Discussion Meet. It will be a great competition with a one lucky winner taking home a belt buckle, cash prize and trip to the American Farm Bureau Annual Meeting to compete in the national YF&R Discussion Meet. The conference will be jammed packed this year with great information breakout sessions that you won’t want to miss.
Final decisions about Social Security filing strategies always rest with you and should always be based on your specific needs and health considerations. For more information, visit the Social Security Administration website at www.socialsecurity.gov.
Jason B Land, AAMS®
Pre-registering is important this year! Prices will go up after November 16th so make sure to register before the deadline! Pre-registering gets you the discounted conference price and a swag bag filled with awesome gifts.
www.progressiverancher.com
.
IRT-7557B-A
Register today at www.nvfb.org For any of your registration questions please feel free to contact Brittney Pericoli at brittney@nvfb.org or call 775-674-4000.
Financial Advisor
The Progressive Rancher
2213 North 5th Street Suite A Elko, NV 89801 775-738-8811
www.edwardjones.com
Member SIPC
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 23
what's new
By: Christopher Bernau Great Basin Plant Materials Center Manager
at the Great Basin Plant Materials Center
protect the landscape. The objective was to find these plant materials, evaluate them and select for desired characteristics, then release a cultivated variety for commercial production. The program was designed to facilitate conservation plant production since no comparable industry existed for those plant materials. As time progressed, the focus turned towards developing native plant cultivars for release.
1. Entry sign for the Great Basin Plant Materials Center
The plant materials program turned out to be a great success. Since the first PMC was opened in the 1930s, 740 plant varieties have been developed and released to the public. Currently there are 600 released varieties on the market, with an estimated $3.65 private sector earning for every $1 federally invested. The plant materials program has also expanded its role since the 1930s. In addition to developing plant materials, we now have a greater emphasis on providing conservation training to our NRCS field offices, and we maintain, update and publish technical notes and plant guides. The GBPMC’s accomplishments are not quite as storied as our sister centers. This is because they have almost a century of activity to work with, whereas we had our grand opening in 2006, making us the newest center. In that short time, we have done quite a bit of work.
The Great Basin Plant Materials Center (GBPMC) just wrapped up its summer studies, rounding off a year that saw the completion of a two-year, 60 variety winter cover crop study, a summer cover crop seeding rate study, the completion of two plant guides, a joint University of Nevada Reno (UNR) – GBPMC sorghum genomewide association study, and a joint UNR-GBPMC field tour. We have been busy. You might be wondering what exactly is the GBPMC. We are a Plant Materials Center (PMC), located in Fallon, Nevada, focused on the conservation of plant materials and technologies specifically for the Great Basin. We are part of a nationwide network of 25 PMCs (Figure 2), all under the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service. These PMCs are strategically located in ecologically distinct areas, which allow us to evaluate plants and vegetative technologies to support USDA conservation programs and services throughout the United States. The origin of the NRCS plant materials program is very similar to the NRCS itself in that both were born out of the Dust Bowl, when the combination of a severe water shortage and harsh farming techniques created a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s. The highly eroded landscapes and depleted rangelands were extremely problematic, making it clear that a program was needed to conserve these resources. The plant materials program was first tasked to scour the earth looking for plants to 2. Location of all our Plant Materials Centers and two partner centers in Colorado and Alaska
3: Retired Plant Materials Center Manager, Dr. Eric Eldredge, evaluates sunn hemp as a summer cover crop
Our first projects included a poplar wood biofuel study, producing squirreltail seed for restoration and establishing half a dozen off-center studies evaluating desert restoration techniques. Recently, the national plant materials program has listed soil health as a resource concern on which to focus. In response, the GBPMC participated in national cover crop studies, which included that nationwide 60 variety winter cover crop study mentioned earlier, and a regional sunn hemp cover crop adaptation study (Figure 3). The GBPMC has not released any plant materials for restoration yet, as these can take six to 10 years to get rolling, but we have participated in plant materials evaluation. We recently worked with the Logan, Utah, Agriculture Research Station (ARS) to evaluate desert adaptation for three native legumes; majestic prairie clover, Searls’ prairie clover, and basalt milkvetch. The Logan ARS recently released Searls’ prairie clover ‘Fanny’ and continues its work on the other two (Figure 4). We have also evaluated plant collections from the U.S. Forest Service; evaluated a whirled buckwheat developed by the Idaho PMC; evaluated 40 commercially available bunch grasses for adaptation in our extremely arid climate; and are partnered with UNR looking at sorghum for Nevada. 24 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Show Off Your Brand for FREE on the 2019 SRM Wild Rag The Society for Range Management’s Young Professionals Conclave is looking for ranchers who would like to display their brands on wild rags – for free. The wild rags will be sold at the 2019 SRM Annual Meeting, Feb. 10 – 14, 2019 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4: Logan ARS Searls’ prairie clover being evaluated at the GBPMC.
The GBPMC has many projects on the horizon. We plan to continue our partnership with UNR in evaluating sorghum. This has the potential to yield a highly droughtand salt-tolerant summer cover crop. We are also partnered with several western PMCs to conduct a regional winter cover crop evaluation of 15 varieties of fava beans. This partnership includes Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, and will be spearheaded by the California PMC. We hope to determine what varieties will be best in our respective areas. Finally, we are at the beginning stages of evaluating native plant materials for commercial release. This will be the first plant release led by this PMC. We have decided to start this project with Indian ricegrass and have already collected seeds from the bottom of 16 Nevada basins where annual precipitation is less than six inches. Our goal is to evaluate our collections and select for plant material that performs better than any Indian ricegrass cultivar currently on the market. Hopefully this will lead to a commercially competitive product and be the first of many plant releases developed at this PMC. These are our current projects moving forward. Our long-term goals are to continue evaluating cover crops for potential use in Nevada, and evaluating plant technology and plant materials specifically for rangeland conservation and restoration in our arid ecosystem. We also hope to conduct several off-center studies to evaluate these materials and technology. This effort would involve partnerships with federal and state agencies as well as private land owners, which allows us to evaluate plant and technology response for both agriculture and rangeland settings in different conditions than our farm. If this interests you, then perhaps we can discuss potential partnerships in the future. In the meantime, we have a lot to work with and look forward to continuing our work evaluating and creating plant materials for Nevada.
“The commemorative wild rags have been a very popular fundraiser at previous annual meetings,” said YPC treasurer Jarrett Payne. “The money will be used to pay travel expenses for two students to attend the SRM convention in Minneapolis. People love the brands and the western look of the wild rags.” “The 2018 wild rag had 52 brands which was a new record for us. We’d like to break that record again in 2019,” said Grace Woodmansee, wild rag coordinator.
The wild rags will be printed on silk, about 36” by 36” in size. The wild rags sell for a discounted rate of $30 for ranchers who supply a brand(s), and for about $35 for anyone else who would like to buy them. They can be ordered now or can be purchased at the convention. Interested producers need to submit a form authorizing SRM to use their brand and provide a sketch/image (jpg) of the brand. The permission/order form can be downloaded from the SRM YPC Annual Meeting Events tab at http://rangelands.org/committees/youngprofessionals-conclave/.
For the form / image submission deadline information, questions and other information, please contact Grace Woodmansee at gwoodmansee@ucdavis.edu or (530) 966-8367.
Allie Bear Real Estate
For more information about the Great Basin Plant Materials Center, or to discuss a potential partnership, contact Christopher Bernau at: Christopher.Bernau@nv.usda. gov or call (775) 423-7957. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
5: GBPMC Farm Technician Mat Humphrey drills in greenhouse plugs of bunch grasses as part of a bunch grass adaptation study. www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 25
Middle Ground Found On The Range New science shows grazing access to public lands in the western US can be good for both ranching and wildlife Jenny Seifert | seifert@nceas.ucsb.edu | (608) 512-6259 Cattle ranching and conservation in the American West may seem like an unusual pair, but new research reveals a clear link between the economic health of ranches and the ability to maintain habitat for an iconic wild bird that has been at the center of public land policy debate for years, the greater sage grouse. A study led by UC Santa Barbara’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and published in the Journal of Applied Ecology shows that policies to restrict grazing access on public lands may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating sage grouse habitat loss. Restricting grazing access is likely to harm ranch profitability, which in turn could spur ranchers to sell their private lands for other uses – namely, crop cultivation or housing developments – that would ultimately destroy critical grouse habitat. “When it comes to a choice between ranching, farming or housing in the West, sustainable ranching is the most compatible with wildlife,” said lead author Claire Runge, who was a postdoctoral researcher at NCEAS at the time of the research and is now a research scientist at University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway. “Implementing policy that makes it harder for ranchers to keep going could result in land conversions that are bad news for sage grouse and other sagebrush species.” Runge stressed that ranchers must still practice sustainable grazing to support habitat for grouse and maintain forage availability for their cattle. Moreover, their findings demonstrate that public and private lands are inextricably linked. Sage grouse rely on both public and private lands throughout their lifecycles. More than half of their total habitat is in public lands, which include the dry sagebrush uplands where they breed, nest and overwinter.
In fact, while sage grouse are not listed as an endangered species, they are considered the canary in the coal mine for sagebrush ecosystems, which are home to more than 350 other plant and animal species.
“If you have sage grouse, you have intact, healthy sagebrush habitat,” said co-author David Naugle, a professor at the University of Montana and science advisor for the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Working Lands for Wildlife.
In summers, the grouse rely on productive, private ranchlands for 75 percent of the lower, wetter habitat they need for raising and feeding their chicks. Losing these private lands to crops or subdivisions would threaten chick survival, which can make or break many grouse populations. As the saying goes – and as this study shows – what’s good for the bird is also good for the herd. Ranchers also rely on public and private lands for forage, and limiting grazing on public lands limits available forage. According to the study, these limitations could strain ranch profitability and eventually force ranchers to sell their lands to those more profitable pursuits that are not suitable for sage grouse.
“By keeping people ranching, we get wins for those communities – they’re healthier and more vibrant – and we get a win for conservation, because we get healthy rangelands and healthy populations of sage grouse,” said Runge.
Sage grouse are already experiencing a “slow drip” of habitat loss due to land conversions, which is just one of several threats the birds face. Restricting grazing would add to this slow drip – the authors calculate that curbing grazing on public land by 50 percent could result in a loss of over 429,000 acres of grouse habitat by 2050, which would be in addition to the 2.1 million-acre loss expected even if grazing goes unrestricted. Their results indicate the importance of anticipating how public land policies intended to conserve biodiversity will affect people, especially ranchers, and the choices they might make for their private lands as a result.
“Every action has a reaction, and when you change something on public lands, it influences private lands and vice versa,” said Naugle. According to co-author Joe Fargione, science director for The Nature Conservancy’s North American region, their findings validate the increasing recognition that ranchers and conservationists must partner to support healthy sagebrush ecosystems for cattle and sage grouse, and open the door to creative solutions that take a more balanced approach.
“There is a middle ground. Public policy should manage to protect resources on public lands, while also supporting ranchers in their stewardship of habitat on both public and private lands for the West’s iconic wildlife,” said Fargione
This study was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Science for Nature and People Partnership, a collaboration between NCEAS, The Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife Conservation Society.
26 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
RESEARCH ARTICLE Unintended Habitat Loss On Private Land From Grazing Restrictions On Public Rangelands
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Claire A. Runge1 | Andrew J. Plantinga2 | Ashley E. Larsen2 | David E. Naugle3 Kate J. Helmstedt4 | Stephen Polasky5 | J. Patrick Donnelly6 | Joseph T. Smith3 Tyler J. Lark7 | Joshua J. Lawler8 | Sebastian Martinuzzi9 | Joe Fargione10
National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota Intermountain West Joint Venture, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin The Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Correspondence: Claire A. Runge • claire.runge@uqconnect.edu.au
ABSTRACT 1. Most ranches in the western US rely upon seasonal grazing access to public lands, and conflict over biodiversity management has led to proposals to restrict grazing access on public lands. We evaluate whether grazing restrictions on public rangelands could have the unintended effect of increasing the conversion of private rangeland to cropland, causing habitat loss for sage grouse, a species of conservation concern. 2. Using a model parameterized with empirical observations of land use change and ranch versus cropland profitability, we explore how changes to public lands grazing policy could affect ranch profitability and consequently land use on private lands across the western US.
3. We predict that restricting grazing of public lands by 50% would result in the loss of an additional 171,400 ha of sage grouse habitat on private lands by 2050, on top of the 842,000 ha predicted to be lost under business as usual. Most of this conversion would affect sage grouse mesic habitat, 75% of which occurs on private land and is vital to the species during brood rearing. Under such policy changes, we estimate that an additional 105,700 ha (3.24%) of sage grouse mesic habitat held on private land in the study region would be directly lost by 2050, and the cumulative area affected by fragmentation would be much higher.
4. By considering the human and ecological links between public and private land, we show that attempts to improve habitat on public lands via grazing restrictions could result in greater system-wide fragmentation of sage grouse habitat from unintended habitat loss on private lands. 5. Synthesis and applications. Policy interventions on public lands can affect private landholders. Landholders’ responses can result in unintended consequences, both for habitat on private land and community support for conservation. Restricting grazing on US public lands is likely to increase habitat loss on private lands and reduce community support for sage grouse conservation. Policy that manages resources on public lands while also supporting sustainable, economically viable ranching operations on private lands is a promising approach to maximizing sage grouse habitat.
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
1 | INTRODUCTION
FIGURE 1 | Map showing public (light grey) and private (dark grey) land on counties overlapping sage grouse habitat and included in the study
Policies intended to provide conservation benefits can have unintended consequences for conservation if such policies result in perverse incentives for landowners (Polasky, 2006). In particular, conservation actions can produce feedback effects through markets, with positive or negative consequences (Lim, Carrasco, McHardy, & Edwards, 2017). The conservation community is becoming more mindful of unintended feedbacks that can undermine conservation goals (Larrosa, Carrasco, & Milner-Gulland, 2016); though consideration of the linkages between people, markets, and ecosystems is far from common practice in analyses of conservation policies (Milner-Gulland, 2012). In the western US, ranches typically make use of both public and private rangeland. Public land is grazed via long-term leases that are granted to private ranchers and these rights are transferred with ownership of the private land. Private lands are generally lower in elevation, higher in productivity and have more surface water compared to nearby public lands due to land disposal laws and resulting settlement patterns in the 19th century (Scott et al., 2001; Talbert, Knight, & Mitchell, 2007). However, ranches across much of the region are heavily dependent on public grazing leases, especially where the majority of the land base is publicly-owned (Torell et al., 2002). Ranching is economically marginal in many cases, and where rangeland can be converted to cropland or other uses, there is often an economic incentive to do so. Grazing on public land has come under increased scrutiny in recent decades as public attitudes have shifted to favour the scenic, recreational, and biodiversity conservation values of public lands. Partly in response to these pressures, grazing on public lands has gradually declined since the mid-20th century (Yahdjian, Sala, & Havstad, 2015). The western US is home to many endemic and rare species that rely on intact sagebrush and prairie grasslands, including the greater sage rouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Sage grouse have suffered widespread population declines and conservationists and ranchers share a goal of avoiding continued declines that would trigger listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Duvall, Metcalf, & Coates, 2017). Sage grouse require habitat on both public and private lands. These birds spend much of the winter and early breeding season on upland sagebrush, which is primarily on public lands, moving to mesic areas in late summer to raise their chicks. Most of this brood rearing habitat is on private land (75%; Donnelly, Naugle, Hagen, & Maestas, 2016). Thus, maintaining habitat across both public and private land is crucial for the persistence of the species. Though tightly regulated today, grazing on public lands in the U.S. historically caused widespread ecological damage and remains controversial (Pool, 2009). Concern over perceived impacts of livestock grazing to sage grouse recently prompted federal land management agencies to adopt guidelines specifying desired habitat conditions for sage grouse to be used when evaluating management of public grazing leases. Failure to meet these conditions would likely trigger reduction or seasonal restriction of grazing access to a leased area of public land. However, the benefits of these guidelines are unproven and the relationships between livestock grazing and sage grouse persistence remain obscure. Few studies have directly examined the role of grazing management on sage grouse demography and these have failed to produce unambiguous evidence that a reduction in grazing provides benefits (Monroe et al., 2017; Smith, Tack, Berkeley, Szczypinski, & Naugle, 2018).
2.2 | Econometric Model We predict land use change based on changes in ranch profitability using an econometric model. We parametrized this model using historical empirical data on land use changes and profits on rangeland and cropland. To estimate the effect of public land grazing restrictions on profits at the ranch level (recalling that ranchers graze livestock on both public and private lands), we estimated the proportion of forage that comes from public versus private land in each county and assumed that profits were reduced in proportion to decreased access to overall forage. A key assumption underpinning our model is that rangeland is more likely to be converted to cropland when the benefit obtained by having land in cropland outweighs all the other benefits that a rancher might obtain from having land in rangeland, whether they be financial, social or cultural benefits. Rather than assuming that all ranchers behave the same way and would convert their properties to cropland at a certain economic threshold, we use empirical data to evaluate the change in the rate of conversion as profit changes. This is further explained in Supporting Information Appendix S1, and the implication of this assumption more fully discussed in Section 4.
The econometric model follows earlier studies (e.g. Lawler et al., 2014) by expressing the probability of land-use change in each with the other benefits obtained by ranchers from the different land uses included within the error term. Specifically, we empirically modelled the relationship between land rents and the probability of land use change (hereafter conversion rate) in each county for the period 2008–2012, using annual data at the county scale. We controlled for year, sage grouse management zone, human population, proportion of cropland, area of urban land and proportion of irrigated Here, we explore the unintended consequences of restricting grazing on public lands cropland in each county (Equation 1, next page). in the western US. Specifically, we apply a predictive econometric model to evaluate whether grazing restrictions on public lands could reduce ranch profitability, thereby To predict the effects of policy change, we first assume that rent from grazing is a increasing rates of conversion of rangeland to cropland on private lands. In particular, we function of the number of livestock that can be produced in a given county, itself a examine the potential loss of sage grouse mesic habitat, a critically important resource function of the productivity of that land and the area of land available for grazing. for sage grouse that occurs disproportionately on private lands. Our study is an example We then adjust the 2012 rent for each county by the expected proportional change in of a broader need to consider the unintended consequences of conservation actions livestock production after policy implementation (Equation 3). From these adjusted through economically driven models of land-use change (Alix-Garcia, Shapiro, & Sims, rents, we predict the conversion rate after policy change from the empirically derived model coefficients (Equation 2, next page). 2012; Sohngen, Mendelsohn, & Sedjo, 1999; Wu, 2000). 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 | Study Region Our study area covered counties within 10 states (Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) that contain sage grouse habitat (Figure 1). We excluded coastal counties, highly urbanized counties and counties that do not overlap with sage grouse management zones leaving 151 counties in the study region. Boundaries for private and public lands are drawn from the PAD-US CBI Version 2 (The Conservation Biology Institute (CBI), 2012), and we assume conversion can onlH occur on lands classified as “Private land”. www.progressiverancher.com
Finally, we use this conversion rate to estimate the area of sage grouse habitat and sage brush affected by the year 2050 under reduction of grazing access to public lands (Equation 4). To analyze the effect of potential grazing restrictions, we made two assumptions that allow us to quantify the impact of grazing restrictions on net returns. First, we assume that ranch-level net returns are directly proportional to the forage available to a rancher on both public and private land, such that a loss of access to one-half of total forage would cut ranch-level net returns in half. Loss of grazing access to public lands has been shown to have a corresponding ranch profit loss (1% loss of animal- unit- months (AUM) ~0.95% profit loss; Taylor, Coupal, & Foulke, 2005; ignoring the effects of debt or off farm income). Second, we assume changes in ranch- level net returns have effects on land-use change that are equivalent to the effects of the per- acre net returns that we used to parametrize our economic/ landuse change model.
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 27
We obtained the area of urban land (urbanized plus urban clusters) in each county from 2010 US Census estimates (US Census Bureau, 2010). We averaged estimates of county population and population change across 2008–2014 values from the US Census Bureau (2010). We obtained data on the area of irrigated land in each county from the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2012). We estimated the proportion of cropland in a county from Lark et al. (2015) as 1 minus the proportion of stable noncropped land across the time period 2008–2012, to capture both actively cropped areas and fallow or rotational grazing in this control variable. We included an interaction term between proportion of cropland in a county and percent cropland that is irrigated. We calculated road density in each county from the 2000 US Census TIGER/Line Roads dataset. We included sage grouse management zones in the model, aggregated into three regions (“Great Basin”, MZ III, IV, V; “Rocky Mountain”, MZ I, II, VII; “Washington” MZ VI). We use standard industry equations (Butler et al., 2003) to calculate AUMi (animalunit- months in county i) from the “normal forage productivity” field of gSSURGO (Soil Survey Staff (gSSURGO), 2016; we use the 2016 release though could not find information on the temporal providence of the “normal forage productivity” field. Our model thus reflects expected productivity that averages inter- year variability in forage productivity). We assume a grazing efficiency of 25%, a requirement of 30lb airdried feed per day per cow–calf pair, and 30.5 days per month. We assume grazing does not occur on lands under strict protection (IUCN I- VI or GAP Status Code 1 or 2; The Conservation Biology Institute (CBI), 2012). Forage estimates were unavailable for California. The proportion of forage that occurred on public land versus private land in each county ranged from 0% to 100% and averaged 64.1%. TABLE 1 | Model coefficients AND heteroskedacisity–robust SEs
The model takes the form:
We trained the model on 397 county–year combinations across 139 counties, and predicted across 151 counties. We accounted for zeros (counties with no conversion) by log- transforming the data prior to modelling, ln (yRCit ∕yRRit +0.0001). We treated all variables as fixed effects.
where wCit is the crop rent in county i at time t and BC is the estimated coefficient (parameters with superscript R are equivalently defined for rangeland), ai represents a county fixed effect, st is year of conversion (combined, the set of independent variables is denoted X), and rit is a random disturbance. Changes in crop and range rents affect ln (yRC it/yRRit), the natural log of the area of rangeland in time t that converts to cropland by time t + 1, divided by the area of rangeland in time t that stays rangeland by time t + 1. The model is grounded in economic theory, as described in Supporting Information Appendix S1. We obtain the probability that rangeland converts to cropland pRCit (hereafter referred to as conversion rate) from the estimated model coefficients (Ô Table 1) and independent variables (X) according to Equation 2:
With this equation, we predict the additional area converted into cropland with losses of grazing access on public lands. We modelled the loss of grazing access for a range (0%–100%) of decrease in public lands AUM, a measure of the number of livestock able to be fed on a given parcel of land, excluding strictly protected areas.
We consider county- specific losses, where changes to wRit are a function of the proportional relationship between the forage available on public land and private land for grazing in a county, such that:
where P is the proportion of forage on public land available for grazing after implementation of policy. We parameterized this model with remotely sensed annual landuse change data (56 m resolution, Lark, Mueller, Johnson, & Gibbs, 2017; Lark, Salmon, & Gibbs, 2015) and annual data on pasture and cropland rental rates (NASS, 2015) adjusted to 2015 real US dollars, which reflect per- acre net returns for 2008–2012. Due to the use of aggregate data, it is customary to include additional explanatory variables to control for county characteristics, such as the amount of land available for conversion and urbanization pressures (Hardie & Parks, 1997). We include controls for year, sage grouse management zone, human population, proportion of cropland, area of urban land, and proportion of irrigated cropland in each county (data sources for these variables are detailed below). We assumed conversion to cropland can only happen on private land and on land classified as “suitable for cropping” (Land Capability Class 1- 6 gSSURGO; Soil Survey Staff, 2016), excluding water, forest, and developed land (USDA, 2015). We defined cropland as including all row crops, closely grown crops, or horticultural/tree crops, but not fallow, hay pasture or alfalfa, consistent with Lark et al. (2015). The most common crops in the region are alfalfa, dryland wheat, barley, and corn. 28 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
FIGURE 2 | Sage grouse (a) sagebrush (×106 ha) and (b) mesic habitat (×105 ha) predicted to be lost from private land by 2050 with restriction on grazing of lands (0% equates to projections under current grazing rates), cumulative across 151 counties in study region. 95% confidence intervals are represented by grey shading
2.3 | Predictions of Cropland Conversion On Sagegrouse Habitat We estimated future impacts of cropland conversion on sage grouse mesic habitat on private land (Donnelly et al., 2016) by allocating the predicted expansion of cropland according to the county- specific proportion of privately owned mesic and nonmesic habitat that was affected by cropland expansion between 2008 to 2011 (Supporting Information Figure S1 and Figure 2). Spatial patterns of how and whether cropland expansion affects habitat differ across this landscape (Supporting Information Figure S2). For instance, in places where groundwater is available for irrigation, cropland expansion often occurs proximate to, but not overlapping mesic habitat. In others, such as where irrigation uses surface water, expansion occurs predominantly on mesic habitat. We make the simplifying assumption that these patterns continue, though changes to water policy and crop technology could shift these patterns. We quantify losses of sage grouse habitat to direct cropland conversion only, as our models do not allow us to predict the spatial pattern of future cropland at sufficient resolution to map habitat fragmentation, though effects on sage grouse populations are known to be substantial (Smith et al., 2016). We estimated county predictions of the conversion rate under the assumption that forage productivity and rents remain constant at 2012 values, and areas of habitat converted (mean and confidence intervals) from 10,000 multivariate normal draws (also known as Krinsky–Robb method, a Monte–Carlo simulation) from the heteroskedacity–robust variance–covariance matrix of model coefficients using county data for 2012 (X) and the model coefficients Ô of each of the 10,000 draws. Counties missing rent data for 2012 were filled by averaging rents across 2008–2014 (37 counties) or where rent estimates for a county were unavailable for any year, by averaging rents across neighbouring counties (six counties). We calculated the
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
(100% restriction on grazing) of natural vegetation lost from this landscape by 2050 (Figure 2a). The majority of this conversion would affect sage grouse mesic habitat, 75% of which occurs on private land and is vital to the species during brood rearing (Donnelly et al., 2016). Under such policy changes, we estimate that between 93,000 (2.43%) and 124,000 ha (3.24%) of sage grouse mesic habitat held on private land in the study region would be directly lost by 2050 (10% and 100% restriction on grazing respectively, these numbers include background conversion of 90,600 ha; Table 2, Figure 2b). Under business as usual, 842,000 ha of native vegetation is predicted to be converted to cropland in this study region by 2050 (Figure 3, next page). Thus, our results suggest that a 100% restriction on grazing would result in a 42% increase in area converted to cropland on top of this background conversion. This equates to increasing conversion from 1.96% to 2.79% of remaining sagebrush on private land. Including baseline conversion, we predict counties in Washington would lose 0%–32% of their mesic habitat with 100% restriction on grazing access. In Montana, we predict that counties would lose 0%– 20.4% of their mesic habitat with 100% grazing restriction (Figure 4, next page).
TABLE 2 | Summary of model predictions of conversion of sage grouse habitat to cropland with restriction on grazing of public lands, averaged across counties. Confidence intervals are shown in parentheses
cumulative area of rangeland converted to cropland in each county by substituting the 2012 estimates of prc into where N = 38 years (2012–2050). We excluded counties in California from model predictions as forage estimates were not available for this state. We made predictions to 2050. Reported values are for habitat on private land only, we assume habitat on public land cannot be converted to cropland. Analyses were conducted in R version 3.4.0 (R Core Team, 2017). ArcGIS 10.3 (www. esri.com), Python version 2.7.12 (www.python. org), the GDAL package for Python (http://gdal.org/python), and the “raster” (Hijmans, 2016), “plyr” (Wickham, 2011) and “rgdal” (Bivand, Keitt, & Rowlingson, 2017) packages for R. Supporting information includes theoretical foundations for model (Supporting Information Appendix S1), patterns of historical cropland conversion on mesic habitat (Supporting Information Appendix S2), sensitivity analyses of model coefficients (Supporting Information Appendix S3), alternate transformations (Supporting Information Appendix S4), marginal effects (Supporting Information Appendix S5), model predictions (Supporting Information Appendix S6), and mesic predictions (Supporting Information Appendix S7). Code and predictions for each county are available at https://doi. org/10.5063/f13776x1 (Runge et al., 2018). 3 | RESULTS Rangeland rent had a small but statistically significant effect on the rate of conversion of rangeland to cropland (coef −0.0180 ± 0.0068; p = 0.0078; df 383; Table 1). The negative coefficient is consistent with expectations, as a higher rangeland rent should decrease range-to-crop transitions and increase the land remaining in range. This estimate was robust to inclusion of different sets of variables in the model (Supporting Information Figure S3 and Supporting Information Table S1). Many of the other variables included in the model had statistically significant coefficient estimates, but are harder to interpret. For example, urbanization variables could be associated with lower range- to- crop and range- to- range transitions, thus having an ambiguous effect on the dependent variable. We investigated constants for the log-transformation in the range 1–1 × 10−8, and found 1 × 10−4 gave the least skewed error structure in the residuals (Supporting Information Figure S4). County marginal effects of rangeland rent, percent cropland, and population for 0%–100% loss of AUM are included in Supporting Information Figures S5–S7. We found no evidence of spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals (Supporting Information Figures S8 and S9). Removing access to public grazing land increased the rate at which natural vegetation (sagebrush and prairie grassland) converted to cropland by 3.06% for a 10% restriction on grazing, up to 38.14% for 100% restriction on grazing (Table 2). This equates to an additional 30,800 ha (10% restriction on grazing), 171,400 ha (50%) or 385,600 ha www.progressiverancher.com
When compared with actual conversion in 2012 the model under- predicted conversion in counties with high conversion rates (Supporting Information Figures S8 and S9 and Supporting Information Table S2). The data we used on conversion rates included areas where alfalfa, which sage grouse sometimes use as brood-rearing habitat, is occasionally rotated with intensive cropping. Excluding conversion in counties where alfalfa predominates halved the estimated impacts (Supporting Information Table S3 and Supporting Information Figures S10–S13). 4 | DISCUSSION Conservation actions can have unintended effects on other species and ecosystems (due to unintended ecological interactions; Hansen & DeFries, 2007) and on communities (whether mediated by ecological change, or change in rules around access to resources; Milner-Gulland, 2012). In addition, the responses of individuals or communities to economic opportunities associated with ecosystembased resources can, as we document here, indirectly affect the species or ecosystem meant to benefit from the conservation action (Fauchald, Hausner, Schmidt, & Clark, 2017; Hausner et al., 2011; Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2010). Our findings demonstrate that reduced access to forage on western US public land can be expected to increase the conversion of sagebrush rangelands to cropland on private lands, resulting in unintended loss and fragmentation of sage grouse habitat. Whether benefits of such grazing restrictions would outweigh these losses is speculative. The scientific evidence for the effects of grazing on sage grouse is, perhaps surprisingly, currently obscure. Though chronic overgrazing has multiple detrimental effects on sage grouse habitat quality, studies suggests only a small fraction of BLM grazing allotments currently fail to meet existing standards due to livestock grazing (Manier et al., 2013; Veblen et al., 2014). There is currently a lack of evidence that grazing levels permitted on public land under existing standards are broadly harmful to sage grouse populations, or that further reduction or elimination of grazing provides benefits. A recent 10- year experimental study on the effects by Smith et al. (2018) indicated that removal of grazing had no significant effect on sage grouse nest success, when compared with low to moderate levels of rotational grazing. In part, some of the concern over the impacts of grazing on ground- nesting birds such as sage grouse has arisen from studies using statistical methodologies that have since been questioned (see Gibson, Blomberg, & Sedinger, 2016). As there is, at present, no clear indication of the direction or magnitude of grazing effects on sage grouse, we are unable to determine the net effects of grazing restrictions on sage grouse populations (that is, the difference between any hypothetical population increases arising from grazing restrictions, and the population decreases arising from cropland conversion). Restrictions on grazing access to public lands could have wide implications for ranching communities and conservation initiatives in the region. Private land owners are an integral part of managing this landscape for biodiversity; being active participants in mesic restoration, fire management and conservation easements (Walker & Janssen, 2002). Conservation policy that acts against the interests and values of ranchers is likely to reduce social and political support for sage grouse conservation initiatives (Duvall et al., 2017). Work in other landscapes shows that strict restrictions on access to common pool resources are more likely to be revoked or ignored in areas where the economic pressures driving land- use change are great (Mascia & Pailler, 2011), or where communities resist top– down control (Fauchald et al., 2017). In this landscape, previous changes to rules governing access to public lands were met with considerable opposition, propelled by perceptions that such decisions were driven by outside parties, and by opposition to Federal government influence on local land- use decisions (Durrant & Shumway, 2004).
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 29
FIGURE 3 Background rates of conversion under current public lands grazing policy (a) Area (ha) of rangeland predicted to be converted to cropland by 2050, no policy (b) annual predicted conversion rate (ha converted to cropland/ha rangeland in county), no policy change
Estimates of the area predicted to be converted and conversion rate for each county are available at https://doi.org/doi:10.5063/ f13776x1 (Runge et al., 2018). Runge CA, Plantinga AJ, Larsen AE, et al. Unintended habitat loss on private land from grazing restrictions on public rangelands. J Appl Ecol. 2018;00:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13271
The empirical estimates for the rangeland conversion model support our main hypothesis that rancher decisions are determined, in part, by profits. We note that this is a probabilistic relationship, as there is no fixed opportunity cost at which ranches convert to cropland. This is consistent with the finding of previous research that ranching is as much a cultural identity as it is an economic activity (Gentner & Tanaka, 2002), and ranchers tend to resist switching to farming. Faced with restrictions on access to public rangelands, however, ranchers have a set of choices. In the short term, many may choose to maintain herds on their private lands year round Peterson & Coppock, 2001). The increased pressure will likely lead to the loss of or reduction in quality of sage grouse mesic habitat on private land whether due to increased grazing intensity, or conversion of native vegetation to hay or alfalfa to offset lost forage. In the longer term, the loss of grazing access to public land will increase the likelihood of a ranch “going broke”, particularly in the absence of off- farm income or with farm-related debt (Taylor et al., 2005; Torell et al., 2002). More than 30% of farmers and ranchers are 65 or older (USDA, 2012). Decreasing farm income is likely to push many to retire sooner, increasing the rate at which land converts to alternate land uses (Peterson & Coppock, 2001). In addition, while we considered only transitions to cropland, urbanization is also a growing threat in this landscape (Copeland et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2005) and onethird of ranchers show willingness to sell to developers (Peterson & Coppock, 2001). These changes to ranching communities would be exacerbated in areas where there is a lot of public land, smaller and more isolated communities, and fewer opportunities to supplement economic losses with off-farm income. Though changes to grazing policy had a relatively small impact on the total amount of sage grouse habitat, the area of habitat converted to crops understates impacts to sage grouse populations for several reasons. First, absolute area of habitat loss underestimates population impacts for interior habitat specialists such as sage grouse (Bender,
FIGURE 4 Counties predicted to be most affected by changes to public lands grazing policy. Additional area lost to cropland from private land across the western US by 2050 under 100% restriction on grazing of public lands as (a) percent increase on background rate of conversion to public land (b) natural vegetation lost (ha) (c) sage grouse mesic habitat lost (ha)
30 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Contreras, & Fahrig, 1998), and our analysis does not explicitly consider effects of fragmentation on quality of remaining habitat. Smith et al. (2016) estimated that sage grouse populations are highly sensitive to presence of cropland within a distance of 3.2 km. Using this estimate, we would expect a 1 km2 crop field to impact habitat quality over a 45 km2 area and a 16 km2 crop field to impact approximately 99 km2. The cumulative area affected would therefore be many times larger than our estimated footprint when these landscape effects are considered.
We find that cropland conversion would disproportionately affect counties in Washington, Montana and Wyoming. Sage grouse populations in Washington are already low, and further expansion of cropland could jeopardise these populations, though the effect on overall sage grouse population size would be small. In Montana and Wyoming, where sage grouse populations are high, expansion could have a higher overall impact on sage grouse numbers. While lack of suitable soil will limit cropland expansion, such as in Nevada and western Wyoming, cropland is only one of several land- use transitions possible under grazing restrictions. Others land uses not considered our analysis, such as low- density residential development, may have equal or greater impacts on population persistence (Copeland et al., 2013), further adding to the cumulative stressors on this species. Although we have focussed on sage grouse, other sage brush associated species could be affected by grazing restrictions on public lands or habitat loss on private lands (Lipsey et al., 2015; Rowland, Wisdom, Suring, & Meinke, 2006). For example, some species could benefit from grazing restrictions (e.g. Brennan & Kuvlesky, 2005). Some of these species are valuable game species (e.g. pronghorn, elk) and actual or perceived negative impacts of policy change on populations of these species has potential for negative perception of, and conflict with, conservation initiatives.
In this analysis, we make the implicit assumption that public & private AUMs are perfect substitutes, implying that ranchers faced by a decline in public AUM lose profit from their public lands but that profits from private lands remain unaffected. In fact, public and private AUMs are complementary to some degree, with public AUM used for summer grazing, and private AUM often used to grow hay that is stored to feed wintering stock. Consequently, a loss of AUMs from public lands could result in a loss in profit from private lands. Thus, our estimates of the impact of reductions in public AUM on ranch economics are likely conservative (Torell, Rimbey, Tanaka, Taylor, & Wulfhorst, 2014). Gentner and Tanaka (2002) surveyed 2,000 ranchers with BLM grazing permits and found that less than 20% of surveyed ranchers stated they rent herd sizes if their AUM allocation on public land was reduced by 50%. Loss of summer grazing on public land was particularly influential on the stated likelihood of reducing herd size, intensifying use of private rangeland or conversion to cropland. We assume that AUMs are currently at capacity, though demand for forage has decreased in recent decades (Yahdjian et al., 2015). Decisions on how much access to grant to resource users of public lands are part of a wider discourse on when, where and how to deliver conservation outcomes that have political and social longevity while succeeding in their objective of maintaining biodiversity (Brooks, Waylen, & Mulder, 2013). We show that restricting grazing on public lands would increase the rate and magnitude of habitat loss to cropland, with negative impacts on a species that is highly sensitive to cropland expansion. Such changes would be likely to have negative effects on ranching communities and could jeopardize efforts to engage these communities in conservation initiatives. Consequently, policy interventions to address threats to their habitat on public land should be constructed to avoid unintended consequences that exacerbate threats to their habitat on private land and reduce community support for sage grouse conservation.
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
It matters who you work sun-up to sun-down with.
IT MATTERS WHO YOU BANK WITH.
The load is lightened when you work with someone you trust. That’s why Nevada State Bank works alongside you on everything from equipment financing and operating lines to livestock purchases and real estate.* Our agriculture specialist, John Hays, is here for you—and he’s already got his sleeves rolled up. *Subject to credit approval. Terms and conditions apply. A division of Zions Bancorporation, N.A. Member FDIC Equal Housing Lender
John Hays
Agricultural Banking Specialist
®
nsbank.com | 775.393.2376 www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 31
Ivory W. Lyles - New Director for Cooperative Extension/CABNR Part of administrative reorganization approved by Regents last year to enhance service to Nevadans Ivory W. Lyles is the new Director of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension and Associate Dean for engagement in College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources. He started in his new position November 1, 2017.
“I’m pleased to welcome Dr. Lyles to campus,” Bill Payne, dean of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources and administrator for Cooperative Extension, said. “It’s wonderful to get our organizational positions filled for the new administrative structure for the college and Cooperative Extension. I look forward with great expectation as he leads Cooperative Extension during this exciting transition period that promises growth and increasing educational impact – throughout the state – of this vital University component.”
Lyles comes to the University from Alcorn State University in Mississippi, where he was a professor in the Department of Agriculture and dean and director of LandGrant Programs. Prior to that, he was director of Cooperative Extension Service and associate vice president of agriculture at the University of Arkansas – Little Rock for over nine years. He is eager to get moving in his new position. As associate dean for engagement, Lyles is charged with leveraging the full range of expertise within the University and all Nevada System of Higher Education institutions to address the needs and challenges of citizens throughout Nevada. As director of Cooperative Extension, Lyles reports to Payne and has full signatory authority for the Extension budget.
4. Develop relationships at the University and at other NSHE institutions, and with stakeholders and constituents throughout the state to support our missions to serve citizens. 5. Increase focus on grant, donor and state funding to develop our programs, especially working with donors.
While Lyles said he takes a common-sense approach with a let’s get it done attitude, he takes his leadership seriously, as evidenced by his curriculum vitae.
“My leadership philosophy is based on understanding and integrating research, facts, situations, experiences and theories, while putting this knowledge into common-sense practices through actions,” he writes. “There must be a strong belief in self-responsibility, team outcome and impact. I model the ideals and principles in which I believe in all that I aspire to do.” He has traveled the state to learn the landscape, with 18 Cooperative Extension offices serving Nevadans, whether in the most rural county or the most populous urban center.
“Building relationships and communicating with our constituents, county leaders, legislators, stakeholders and peers is crucial,” he said. “I’m going to take some time, learn some names, meet some colleagues and partners, both on and off campus, so we can put ideas and programs together.” Lyles received his doctorate in agricultural education, community and rural development in 1990 from The Ohio State University, his masters in Extension education and education leadership in 1984 from Mississippi State University and his bachelors in agricultural economics in 1980 from Alcorn State University in Mississippi. Prior to his Extension leadership positions at Alcorn State University and the University of Arkansas, Lyles held Cooperative Extension positions at the University of Tennessee, Tennessee State University, The Ohio State University and Mississippi State University. Ivory is married to Pauletta M. Lyles and is the father of four adult children.
“The State is rich with history of Cooperative Extension,” Lyles said from his new office in Fleishmann Agriculture Building – with its bare walls and uncluttered desk. “I’ve done a lot of Extension work, and Nevada is an exciting place. I’m looking forward to this, the opportunity to help set new directions in a new national perspective, bringing the entire University into our outreach throughout the state.”
Cooperative Extension is the unit of the University of Nevada, Reno that is engaged in Nevada communities, both rural and urban, presenting research-based knowledge to address critical community needs. Since 1914, it has provided statewide education programs, workshops, research and publications to help Nevada residents and communities solve problems and deal with critical issues in agriculture; children, youth and families, community development; health and nutrition; natural resources; and horticulture. Part of Lyles’ task is to make sure all parts of the University’s land-grant mission – teaching, research and outreach – are embraced.
“The University and the colleges and the departments are all full partners in the efforts, not separate, a part of the University,” he said. “Bringing together the University of Nevada, Reno can provide exceptional input to the state – and not just agriculture, but from all colleges and all resources of the University. As part of our needs assessments in each community, if we find that a need arises say, in an economic sense, we can go to the College of Business with that need and see how we can all work together and say ‘here’s how it will benefit you (the college) to assist the community’.”
Seeking Farm/Ranch Manager for crop farming and cow/calf operation in Moapa, Nevada. $45K per year Employee health benefits On property housing Company vehicle
As he begins, Lyles has outlined five general objectives, including, in his own words: 1. Put a structure in place for effective programs all functioning in a way that benefits the citizens of the state.
2. We have a large group of people aging out of our institution; it will be important to – and we will focus on – finding the best people to fit our mission. 3. Ensure we encompass all parts of the land-grant mission: teaching, research and outreach. The University, the colleges and departments are all full partners in the efforts, and not separate parts of the University. 32 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Visit our website for additional information: www.hiddenvalleyranchcattle.com Send Resumes to: hvrcattle@gmail.com
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 33
“And a great time was had by all!” So the saying goes as the 22nd Annual Van Norman and friends Production Sale weekend concluded at the Elko County Fairgrounds on September 15, 2018. Prospective buyers had ample opportunity to view their catalog picks prior to the sale on the vannormansale.com website, which featured an individual page for each horse all of the catalog information, photo, and video. Friday afternoon featured a comprehensive preview of three year olds and older, with commentary provided by Matt Mori and Ty Van Norman who both added their insights and observations of each horse as they previewed. The preview was followed by the Youth Branding Contest which featured several of the sale horses. (see accompanying article.) Anyone who missed the Friday action could see all riding horses and dogs preview once again on Saturday morning.
Auction Crew Justin Morris, Steve Friskup, Buck Waite
New to the sale weekend was the selling of working dogs. There were three dogs consigned, with two actually ending up changing hands. The dogs were previewed on both Friday and Saturday working goats and cattle. Plans are in the works to expand this feature to at least five dogs next year. Bidding was brisk in the barn, on the phone and on the internet throughout the sale. When the dust finally settled (literally), seventy-four horses and two stock dogs had found new homes under the gavel of Muleshoe, TX auctioneer Steve Friskup, who was assisted in the barn by bid spotters Buck Waite and Justin Morris. Phone bids were handled by Sam Mori, Pete Mori, and Joe Cahill, andLiveAuction.TV provided the live streaming to the internet which has also had positive reviews. Lot 26, Jackies Nu Remedy, a 2011 brown gelding by Very Smart Remedy consigned by Tyler and Millie Wakley of Deeth, topped the sale at $23,000! He was purchased by Danielle Sayler of Tuscarora, NV. The overall sale average was $4392. This was down a bit from last year but the overall picture was stronger in all categories. The demand for a wellbroke horse is still high, and weanlings and yearlings were much stronger than in the past several years. The 23rd Annual Van Norman and friends Production Sale will be held September 20 and 21, 2019. Note that this is a week later than in the past. Make your plans now and look forward to seeing you next fall!! In the meantime, visit us on Facebook and at www.vannormansale.com as we will be posting new information and features throughout the year. 34 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
HORSES Lot #
High-seller-Lot 26-Jackies Nu Remedy consigned by Tyler and Millie Wakley. Puchased by Danielle Sayler of Tuscarora, NV.
www.progressiverancher.com
Consignor
HORSES Descrip9on
Name of Horse
26 70 60 6 66 61 36 10 25 49 64 67 35 77 55 75 34 44 37 51 19 65 22 42 58 9 8 41 69 74 47 76 71 48 73 72 79 33 78 80 59 68 15 54 63 45 13 29 40 56 1 21 43 39 18 14 32 52 62 14 24 32 27 52 2 62 20 24 11 27 16 2 80 20 11 81 16
Tyler & Millie Wakley Jim Young Jake Brown TS Ranch BJ Wachob Sharon Rhoads Travis Whiteley Sharon Rhoads Anna Van Norman Quaid McKay Van Norman Pete Arritola Jymme Dominguez Sharon Rhoads Brad Rothrock Clayton Blanthorn Ryan Carpenter Sharon Rhoads Sharon Rhoads Sharon Rhoads Sharon Rhoads Jeff Knight Sharon Rhoads Rolly Lisle Sharon Rhoads Meadow Valley Ranches Van Norman Jasmine Koberstein Sharon Rhoads Shamus Haws Shamus Haws Cory Shelman Van Norman Zeb Burroughs Linda Bunch Rolly Lisle MaT Mori Van Norman Van Norman Van Norman Linda Bunch Meadow Valley Ranches MaT Mori Travis Whiteley Rolly Lisle Van Norman Zeb Burroughs Van Norman Linda Bunch MaT Mori Van Norman Van Norman Linda Bunch MaT Mori Linda Bunch Van Norman Cory Shelman Van Norman Linda Bunch Van Norman Jasmine Koberstein Cory Rolly Shelman Lisle Van Norman Linda Bunch Van Norman Jasmine Rolly LisleKoberstein Rolly Lisle Van Norman Van Norman JulieNorman Carreiro Van Rolly Lisle Jeff Clausen Van Norman
Jackies Nu Remedy Cuchara Only Cash Bullwinkle Hancock Dukes Playboy Prom BR Flicka Boy Flashing Montana Running U Poco Star SR Chexy Angel JP Matlida Jane Rio Gin Fizzie JP Velveteen CaT Streak N Jimmy Justaplainboongirl SR Chex Willis Only Good In Levis TI Mr Dual Smarbe Boones Monterrey Bay Como San Prize DR Pepto Arrow DR Pepto Fireball SR Chex Leah Gotcha HD Run Like A Tiger SR Chex Ginnitup YY Smart At Chess DR Peptos Double Up Blues Red Roper JP Colonel Calypso Cinnamin Twist DR Sioux Smokem Coma Rockin Rodeo Red Red Ht Playgun Sophies Liahona Ha Doc Zulena MZ Bet On Col McCue Pistols Wagon Boss YY Flien Tivio Hummingbird Command JP Star Spinner JP Thunder Dunit JP Berts Boogie DW Freen For Whiskey(X) Mr Blackburn 170 Lucky Lady BoTom(X) TQ Pistols Liberty YY Gunna Flit JP Ambers Lena MZ Bet On Col Bueno JP Rimrock Starlight DW Lookin Good Crystals N Dynamite JP Pink Pistolena JP Cinnamon Jugs DW Julie Berts Sierra Nutmeg DW Miss Ellie JP Miss Boonalena Pistols ScarleT JP Disco Diva Lena Too Cute To Fret JP Miss Boonalena Once Just A Plainjane Pistols ScarleT Y Y Wicked Felina JP Disco Lena ZulenaDiva Knockout Too Cute To Fret Roans Straw Image Once Just Style A Plainjane Playmate YJPYDrijin Wicked Felina Redneck JP Zulena Knockout Bart Straw Image Roans Playmate Style Hank JP Drijin Redneck
80 81
Julie Carreiro Jeff Clausen
Bart Hank
2011 brown gelding 2008 sorrel gelding 2011 bay roan gelding 2011 palomino gelding 2007 black gelding 2006 sorrel mare 2014 bay gelding 2016 bay mare 2016 black mare 2015 red roan mare 2016 red roan mare 2008 sorrel gelding 2015 black mare 2006 gray gelding 2016 bay roan gelding 2014 gray gelding 2014 bay roan gelding 2010 sorrel gelding 2016 sorrel gelding 2015 bay roan gelding 2015 bay gelding 2007 red dun gelding 2015 bay gelding 2016 sorrel gelding 2016 bay roan mare 2016 red roan gelding 2016 red dun maare 2015 buckskin mare 2016 sorrel mare 2014 red roan gelding 2014 gray gelding 2017 gray mare 2004 bay mare 2018 sorrel colt 2018 bay colt 2018 buckskin colt 2017 bay roan mare 2018 black colt 2018 dun roan filly 2018 red roan colt 2018 red roan colt 2017 palomino stallion 2017 black mare 2017 bay mare 2018 buckskin colt 2011 bay mare 2016 red roan colt 2018 red roan colt 2018 chestnut filly 2017 brown mare 2017 red roan mare 2017 red roan mare 2018 bay filly 2017 bay mare 2018 red roan filly 2006 red roan mare 2018 sorrel filly 2018 bay 1 filly 2018 sorrel filly 2006 roan mare 2017 red sorrel mare 2018 filly filly 20187sorrel bay roan 2018 bay filly 2018 fillymare 2001 sorrel red roan 2017 2018 sorrel mare filly 20187 bay roan 2018 sorrel filly filly 2018 bay filly DOGS 7 mo red old border collie 2001 roan mare 2018 sorrel fillycollie 3 yr old border 2018 sorrel filly DOGS 7 mo old border collie 3 yr old border collie
dogs
The Progressive Rancher
Sale Price
Buyer Name
Des9na9on
$23,000.00 $16,000.00 $13,000.00 $10,700.00 $10,700.00 $10,500.00 $10,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,000.00 $8,200.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,600.00 $7,200.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $6,700.00 $6,000.00 $5,900.00 $5,800.00 $5,700.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,700.00 $4,700.00 $4,600.00 $4,500.00 $4,200.00 $3,700.00 $3,500.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,700.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $2,200.00 $2,100.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,300.00 $1,600.00 $1,200.00 $1,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,300.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $1,200.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $600.00
Danielle Sayler Lindsey Alpers Jack Dawson Julie Carreiro Bert Paris Tara Atkinson Glen Koch Greg Renz John Jackson Tandy WaTerson John Jackson Stanley Gulick Ty Van Norman Nicholas Valente John Wright Allen James Jerry Leech Doug PhickeT Jay Wright John Nino John Etchegaray Demetria Gordan Leland Schneider John Jackson Rod Chumley Nolan Yocum Mike Estes Jared Neff Jay Wright Wally Wester ReT Cammeron James Burroughs Randy Leighton Casey Cox Stacy Fox Woodie Bell Leland Schneider Ernest Decoite Steve Ayers Randy Leighton Tom Richards Tara Atkinson Demetria Gordan Jusbn Boyles Pete Mori Wally Wester Tim Downey Randy Leighton Stacy Fox Cassidy Neff Ted Cantrell Jamie Gee Nick Diego Wally Wester Corey Shelman Fred Buckmaster Zeb Burroughs Steve Ayers Jesus Melendez Fred CodyBuckmaster Shaw Zeb Rod Burroughs Chumley Steve Ayers Jesus Melendez Fred Buckmaster Cody Shaw Fred Buckmaster Rod Chumley Tabatha McGraw Steve Ayers GabeBuckmaster Aguayo Fred Fred Buckmaster Andrea Trujillo Tabatha McGraw
Tuscarora, NV San Jose, CA Sparks, NV Elko, NV BaTle Mountain, NV New Castle, CA Fairfield, ID Tres Pinos, CA Tuscarora, NV Cedar Valley, UT Tuscarora, NV Halfway, OR Tuscarora, NV 00.0.00 Elko, NV Toole, UT Cameron, MT Oakley, ID Tuscarora, NV King City, CA Eureka, NV Paradise Valley, NV Sluoughhouse, CA Tuscarora, NV Selah, WA Valley Springs, CA Spring Creek, NV Ruby Valley, NV Tuscarora, NV Winnemucca, NV Rupert, ID Denair, CA Stevinson, CA Arbuckle, CA Elk Creek, CA Paradise Valley, NV Oakdale, CA Tonasket, WA Stevinson, CA Melba, ID New Castle, CA Paradise Valley, NV Lewiston, UT Tuscarora, NV Winnemucca, NV BuTe, MT Stevinson, CA Elk Creek, CA Boise, ID Bruneau, ID Bliss, ID Oakdale, CA Winnemucca, NV Burns, OR Fallon, NV Denair, CA Tonasket, WA Ely, NV Fallon, NV OR Baker City, Denair,WA CA Selah, Tonasket, WA Ely, NV NV Fallon, Baker City, Fallon, NV OR Selah, WA Elko, NV Tonasket, WA New Mexico Fallon, NV Fallon, NV NV Spring Creek, Elko, NV
$1,100.00 $2,400.00
Gabe Aguayo Andrea Trujillo
New Mexico Spring Creek, NV
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 35
JM CAPRIOLAS OUTSTANDING HORSE Little One Time • Owner: Tammy Lee
Non-Pro Hackamore - Entries 5 Horse Owner Hollywood Michael Mori Scratch N Sniff Rolly Lisle Peach Whiskey 45 Will DeLong Chubs Rolly Lisle
Rider Michael Mori Rolly Lisle Will DeLong Rolly Lisle
Nevada Hackamore - Entries 4 Horse Owner Handy N Gotta Gun Flint Lee Little Foot Wade & Cara Small Cayenne Cat Kenneth Jones Ace Hanes Holman
Rider Score Earnings Flint Lee 215 $476.00 Michael Vipham 213 $282.00 Todd Fitch 209.5 $188.00 Hanes Holman 206.5 $119.00
Open Snaffle Bit - Entries 6 Horse Owner Rider Score Earnings Stylin N Smart Lazy TD Performance Hors Todd Fitch 218 $564.00 Look What Shes Got Jess & Vicki Reid Flint Lee 215.5 $348.00 Uno Im Wright Michael Vipham Michael Vipham 210.5 $232.00 Smoothie Taylor Wakley Taylor Wakley 210 $141.00
Two Reined - Entries 3 Horse Owner KDK Boons N Fashion Lena Torvik Jackies Nu Remedy Amelia Wakley Fairlea Cherlena Gun Katie DeLong
Rider Flint Lee Amelia Wakley Katie DeLong
Non-Pro Cowhorse - Entries 10 Horse Owner Cats Gotta Pepto Bea Lee IX Smart Lil Texas Michael Vipham urely Sophisticated Jamie Marvel Peach of a Whiz Gail Manoukian
Nevada Cattle Working - Entries 15 Horse Owner Rider Score Earnings Beau Dylan Heishman Dylan Heishman 146 $960.00 Uno Im Wright Michael Vipham Michael Vipham 145.5 $645.00 Little One Time Tammy Lee Flint Lee 144 $430.00 Stylin N Smart Lazy TD Performance Hors Todd Fitch 143 $240.00
ANDY STEVENS/CHAZ MITCHELL BEST ALL AROUND NON-PRO RIDER • Bea Lee NV COWBOY HORSEMANSHIP AWARD • John Symonds Non-Pro Snaffle Bit - Entries 7 Horse Owner Seven S Bad Boy Jymme Dominguez Gunnaberrya Joi Brackenbury Moonshine Amigo Matt & Mary Marvel Please I'm Busy TS Ranch/John Symonds
Rider Score Earnings Fence Jymme Dominguez 206.5 $608.00 Joi Brackenbury 189 $381.00 Matt Marvel 188.5 $254.00 John Symonds 188 $152.00
Rider Score Earnings Bea Lee 143.5 $740.00 Alex Vipham 138 $480.00 Jamie Marvel 137.5 $320.00 Gail Manoukian 136 $185.00
Champion #11 Trevor Carasco and Austin Ivenson
36 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Score Earnings Fence 208 $520.00 202.5 $315.00 72 202.5 $310.00 201.5 $130.00
Score Earnings Fence 204.5 $540.00 70 204.5 $274.00 196.5 $191.00
Champion #15 Les Peterson and Michael Mori
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Women's Class - Entries 12 Horse Owner Nick Jymme Dominguez Paris Bea Lee Harlot Dally Goemmer Rumor Amelia Wakley
Rider Score Earnings Jymme Dominguez 216.5 $828.00 Bea Lee 211 $546.00 Dally Goemmer 209 $364.00 Amelia Wakley 207 $207.00
Limited Non-Pro Bridle - Entries 5 Horse Owner Rider Score Earnings Harlot Dally Goemmer Dally Goemmer 207.5 $520.00 Blue O Lena Jessica Matheson Jessica Matheson 201.5 $315.00 Frank Z Bar Matt Marvel Matt Marvel 197.5 $210.00 Diamond Nic Bill Bachman Bill Bachman 193 $130.00 Nevada Champion Cowhorse - Entries 13 Horse Owner Rider Little One Time Tammy Lee Flint Lee Quhanna Kitty Twister Jolynn Maynard Jennifer Black Dry San Pepper Casey Bieroth Casey Bieroth Cayenne Cat Kenneth Jones Todd Fitch
Score Earnings Fence 287.5 $872.00 283.5 $579.00 281.5 $386.00 72 281.5 $218.00
Open Bridle - Entries 3 Horse Owner A Rumor Has It Amelia Wakley Paris Bea Lee Little One Time Flint Lee
Score Earnings 215.5 $490.00 215 $274.00 210 $191.00
www.progressiverancher.com
Rider Amelia Wakley Bea Lee Flint Lee
Junior Riders 13-16 - Entries 5 Horse Owner Grand JP Colonel Blackcatt Doc Fin
Rider Score Earnings Frankie Baumeister 197.5 $226.00 Anna VanNorman 194.5 $134.50 Keaton Sorenson 194 $88.00 Isaac Mori 147 $56.50
Young Buckaroos 8 and Under - Entries 12 Horse Owner Rider Score Groot Anna Rudolf 1st Metoe Rhoads Ranch Sarah Pfeifer 2nd best girl Easter Robie Davis Ruby Jo Kelley 3rd Whinny John & Judy DeLong Lousie DeLong 4th Issacc Macy Marvel Macy Marvel 5th Patty Mike Marvel Mikey Marvel best boy Strawberry Nicole Bitsilly Sadie Cummins Bay Mike & Lacey Tervort Cray Tervort Twist Lily Melarkey Lily Melarkey Dry Doubt Jackie Rowland Riley Rowland Badago Sharon Rhoads Wylin McLain Joe Mike & Lacey Tervort Cooper Tervort
Judge - Dee Craig Scribes - Debbie Armuth, Kim Satterthwaite, Stephanie Shigaio, Kathy Adams
The Progressive Rancher
more ECF Results on the following pages ->
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 37 
Junior Riders 9-12 - Entries 14 Horse Owner Perry Matti DeLong Quigley Ira & Jaime Slagowski Twist Gary & Candace Wines Sr Chex Angie Marianna Mori Reminics Kiss Hannah Rose Kelley Ben Zane Wines One Time In Reno Ty VanNorman Tallulah Fox Katie DeLong Sneaky Ella Roderick Poncho Sharon Rhoads Blackie Ben Marvel Bug Audrey Wright Jazz Konda Wakley Tebo Tony Buzzetti Peanuts Rudy Blossum Banana Spider Teller
Rider Score Matti DeLong 1st Elle Slagowski 2nd Taylor Gardner 3rd best girl Marianna Mori 4th Hannah Rose Kelley 5th Zane Wines best boy Maggie VanNorman Billy DeLong Ella Roderick Mamie Rodriguez Ben Marvel Audrey Wright Wade Wakley Ruby Buzzetti Logan Cummins Robert Gibson
Women's Branding - Teams: 9 Times First Place Remington & Mori $1,472.00 5:02:72 Taylor Hurley $368.00 Sandy Kiel $368.00 Payton Feyder $368.00 Andrea Sestanovich $368.00 Bull Run Danielle Sayler Renee Jackson Kyla Rianda Jessica Jackson
$883.20 8:15:15 $220.80 $220.80 $220.80 $220.80
Damele Girls Emily Carrasco Deanna Pollock Beth Damele Katie Damele
$588.80 9:42:14 $147.20 $147.20 $147.20 $147.20
Open Branding - Teams: 25 Times First Place Mori Range Bulls $3,550.00 5:08:12 Michael Mori $887.50 Quinn Mori $887.50 Asher Freeman $887.50 Hanes Holman $887.50 Second Place
Jim Ranch Dirk Jim Jean Curtis Allan Malotte Ira Walker
Third Place
Bell Butte Boys $1,331.25 5:35:79 KC Weston $332.81 Sim Weston $332.81 Cole Weston $332.81 Range Martin $332.81
Open Incentive First Place Bell Butte Boys KC Weston Sim Weston Cole Weston Range Martin
$2,662.50 5:23:47 $665.62 $665.62 $665.62 $665.62
Times $1,000.00 5:35:79 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00
Photography: David D. Kimble
Second Place
Third Place
Flint Lee & Champion Nevada Cow Horse Little One Time  38 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
Flint Lee & Two Rein Champion KDK Boons N Fashion The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Second Place
Grouse Creek Boys $600.00 5:40:38 Matt Oman $150.00 Ike Thomas $150.00 James Baldwin $150.00 Tom Tanner $150.00
Third Place
Lee Livestock Flint Lee Clay Norcutt Kenny Lee Cowboy Rodriguez
$400.00 6:25:56 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Co-Ed Branding - Teams: 22
Times
First Place
OE Bar Ranch Asher Freeman Bailey Corkill Hanes Holman Kaylee Filippini
$3,123.20 3:57:79 $780.80 $780.80 $780.80 $780.80
Second Place
Silver Creek Ranch $2,342.40 4:26:78 Clay Norcutt $585.60 Lindy Lehman $585.60 Paul Padilla $585.60 Natalie Norcutt $585.60
Third Place
Buzzetti/Wines Joe Wines Kathi Wines Andy Wines Rachel Buzzetti
4:42:97
Lazy JN Ranch $780.80 4:44:25 Will Knight $195.20 Jessica Kelly $195.20 Timmy Lynn DeLong $195.20 Alan Malotte $195.20
Team Roping #11 Trevor Carasco #15 Les Peterson
Austin Iveson Michael Mori
Muley Roping First Place Austin Iveson Austin Carassco
$1,480.00 $740.00 $740.00
Second Place Hanes Holman Michael Mori
$1,065.60 $532.80 $532.80
Third Place Les Peterson Quinn Mori
$828.80 $414.40 $414.40
Fourth Place Chance Krefschmer Jake Word
$473.60 $236.80 $236.80
Fifth Place Trevor Carassco Austin Carassco
$296.00 $148.00 $148.00
Fast Time First Round $296.00 $296.00
Photography: David D. Kimble
$1,561.60 $390.40 $390.40 $390.40 $390.40
Fourth Place Team
Open bridle champion Amelia Wakley & Rumor Has It www.progressiverancher.com
Two rein Champion KDk Boons N Fashion & Flint Lee The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 39
X X
Annette & Andi Lane Anderso JD Thacker
69
68
137
X
72
70
142
X
69.5
69
138.5
X
0
67
X
68.5
131.5
NRCHA $1 NP LTD
130 140.5
NRCHA Non Pro Lmtd
60 69.5
NRCHA $5 Non Pro Lm
A Streak of Fling
70 71
NRCHA NVNP Bridle
A Wikkid Streaker
Jacqueline Cook JD Thacker
Jacqueline Cook X Ray & Irene Blodgett
NRCHA Int NP B
Spooks Smart Chic
14 15 16 24 25 26 NRCHA Non Pro Bridle
Heart of A Fox
BR Aprils Gota Spark
NRCHA LAE 3 yr old Sn
NSS Lmtd Hackamore
NSS LIMITED FUTURITY DRY WORK SHF Docs Response
NRCHA LAE Derby
NSS Open Hackamore
19 20 21 10 11 NRCHA NP Hackamore
6
NRCHA Lmtd O Hackam
5
NRCHA Open Hackamo
3
NSS NP LTD / DERBY
1
NSS OPEN FUTURITY
NRCHA $$
NRCHA TOTAL
Ave Placing$
TOTAL
Fence Placing$
FENCE/BOX
Rein Placing$
REIN
RIDER
Herd Placing$
OWNER
NRCHA REP- FLINT LEE
HERD
SIRE
DRAW SHEET
NV STUD
HORSE
Saturday
NSS Lmt Futurity snaff
REINED & DRY WORK
X
NSS OPEN FUTURITY & NRCHA LAE FUTURITY DRY WORK Look What Shes Got
Gotta Go Get It
Gunnys Gotta Remedy
Fairlea Guns N Glory
Pistol Red Pepper
Jess & Vicki Reid X Dave Thacker
DW He Be A Playgun
Dave Davenport
This Rooster Rocks
Matt & Leah Mori
Flint Lee Dave Thacker Cory Dean Shelman Matt Mori
67 63
X
NSS & NRCHA OPEN HACKAMORE CLASSES -REIN & CALL FOR COW NRC&CHA Approved Cayenne Cat
Metallic Cat
Handy N Gotta Gun Mr Metallic Freckles
Spooks Smart Chic
Ken Jones X Flint Lee
Metallic Cat
Todd Fitch
73
Flint Lee
Gary Stark
71
Gary Stark
NSS & NRCHA Ltd/NON PRO HACKAMORE -REIN & CALL FOR COW
NRC&CHA Approved
Shine N Play Maggie
Sod Williams
Rise N Shine Jac
Jason Williams
218
$214.50
145
$339.00
X
$47.66
214
$143.00
143
$226.00
X
72.5
$47.66
67.5
$23.83
70
$39.72
71.5
$39.72
67
$39.72
208.5
140
119.17
138.5
X
$205.00
19 20 21 10 11
14 15 16 24 25 26 NRCHA $1 NP LTD
NRCHA Non Pro Lmtd
NRCHA NVNP Bridle
NRCHA $5 Non Pro Lm
NRCHA Int NP B
NRCHA Non Pro Bridle
NRCHA LAE 3 yr old Sn
NRCHA LAE Derby
NRCHA NP Hackamore
6
NRCHA Lmtd O Hackam
5
NRCHA Open Hackamo
3
NSS NP LTD / DERBY
NRCHA $$
NRCHA TOTAL
Ave Placing$
TOTAL
Fence Placing$
FENCE/BOX
1
NSS Lmtd Hackamore
X
NSS Open Hackamore
X
NSS OPEN FUTURITY
NRCHA REP- FLINT LEE
Rein Placing$
NRCHA NON PRO BRIDLE CLASS -REIN & CALL FOR COW
72.5
$47.66
$35.75
REIN
RIDER
$23.83
72.5
72
Herd Placing$
OWNER
70.5
$47.66
212
HERD
SIRE
DRAW SHEET
NV STUD
HORSE
Saturday
$23.83
72.5
NSS Lmt Futurity snaff
REINED & DRY WORK
$59.58
NRC&C NRC&CHA Approved
Tingy Tangy Bang Bang
Lee Smith
Lee Smith
68
68
136
A Rumor Has It
Amelia & Joseph Wakley
Amelia Wakley
71
71.5
142.5
X
Lynn Cafferty
Lynn Cafferty
68.0
67.5
135.5
Bill Cafferty
68.5
65
133.5
X
0
69.5
69.5
X
X
Cara Goss
72.5
67
139.5
$187.50
X
X
Bea Lee
70.5
73
143.5
$312.50
$310.00
X
NRCHA $5K NON PRO LIMITED Catadance Smokeda Kitty
Lynn Cafferty
One Time Rey
Lynette Phillips
Shining Tilly Cats Gotta Pepto
Wendy Dexter Cats Gotta Diamond
X Bea Lee
Lynette Phillips
X
$125.00
NRCHA $1000 NON PRO LIMITED Shining Tilly Cats Gotta Pepto
Cara Goss
72.5
67
139.5
X Bea Lee
Bea Lee
70.5
73
143.5
X Tony Sumner
Tony Sumner
65
69.5
134.5
Ron Zumbro
69.5
72.5
142
$125.00
Bea Lee
70.5
73
143.5
$312.50
Wendy Dexter Cats Gotta Diamond
X
X $310.00
X
X
X
X
NRCHA NON PRO LIMITED Miz Guns N Glory
Fairlea Guns N Glory
Shoot To Thrill
Ron Zumbro Cats Gotta Diamond
X Bea Lee
IX Smart Starlight
Dox White Rabbit
X Liz Younger Badasci
Liz Younger Badasci
69.5
73
142.5
This Cats Tangy
WR This Cats Smart
Liz Younger Badasci
Liz Younger Badasci
72
63
X Liz Younger Badasci
Liz Younger Badasci
Cats Gotta Pepto
X X X
X
X
X
X
135
X
X
142.5
X
X
135
X
X
65
X
143.5
X
$187.50
X
NSS Non Pro Limited / Non Pro Limited Derby IX Smart Starlight
Dox White Rabbit WR This Cats Smart
Smoke Da Kitty
Catadance
Cats Gotta Pepto
Cats Gotta Diamond
Liz Younger Badasci Lynn Cafferty X Bea Lee
Liz Younger Badasci
68.0
Lynn Cafferty
62.0
Bea Lee
72.0
$47.67
69.5
$31.78
72
$79.44
70.5
$31.78
73
$63.55
212.5
$79.44
63 65
$31.78
127
$47.67
73
$63.55
215.5
0
$190.67
203
$286.00
X
X
X
Photography: David D. Kimble
This Cats Tangy
70.0
40 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
NRCHA NON PRO TWO RE
4
11
12
7
8
9
13
14
18
19
NRCHA OPEN TWO REIN
NRCHA NON PRO TWO RE
NSS Open Bridle
2
NRCHA Lmtd Open BRIDL
NRCHA LAE 3 yr old Snaff
NRCHA OPEN TWO REIN
NRCHA LAE Derby
3
NRCHA Open BRIDLE
NSS Open Derby
NRCHA Lmtd Open BRIDL
19
NSS 2 Rein/ Green Bridle
18
NRCHA Open BRIDLE
14
NSS Lmtd Bridle
13
NSS 2 Rein/ Green Bridle
9
NSS Open Bridle
8 NSS Lmtd Bridle
7
NRCHA LAE Derby
12
NRCHA LAE 3 yr old Snaff
11
NSS Open Derby
4
NSS LTD DERBY
2
NSS Open Futurity
NSS LTD FUTURITY
NRCHA $$
Ave Placing$
TOTAL
Fence Placing$
3
NSS LTD DERBY
1
FENCE
Rein Placing$
REIN
RIDER
Herd Placing$
OWNER
NRCHA REP- FLINT LEE
HERD
SIRE
NV STUD
HORSE
DRAW SHEET
NSS Open Futurity
SUNDAY
NSS LIMITED FUTURITY COW WORK SHF Docs Response BR Aprils Gota Spark A Wikkid Streaker
Heart of A Fox Spooks Smart Chic
Jacqueline Cook X Ray & Irene Blodgett
A Streak of Fling
Jacqueline Cook
70
$35.75
60
$23.83
63
$23.82
193
JD Thacker
71
$59.58
69.5
$59.58
73
$59.58
213.5
$214.50
X
69
$23.83
68
$35.75
70
$35.75
207
$143.00
X
Annette & Andi Lane Anderson JD Thacker
NSS OPEN FUTURITY COW WORK & ECNRCHA LAE FUTURITY SNAFFLE BIT OPEN Look What Shes Got
Gotta Go Get It
Gunnys Gotta Remedy
Fairlea Guns N Glory
Pistol Red Pepper
DW He Be A Playgun
Jess & Vicki Reid
Dave Thacker
Dave Davenport
X
NRC&CHA Approved
Flint Lee
X Dave Thacker
X
Cory Dean Shelman
72
$59.58
70
$59.58
73
$71.49
215
$214.50
X
69.5
$23.83
69
$35.75
69
$47.66
207.5
$143.00
X
70
$35.75
0
$23.83
SCR
X
SCR
0 NRCHA LAE FUTURITY OPEN This Rooster Rocks BR Aprils Gota Spark
Matt & Leah Mori Spooks Smart Chic
X Ray & Irene Blodgett
Matt Mori
63
68.5
66
197.5
JD Thacker
71
69.5
73
213.5
X X
$460.00
X
0
NSS LIMITED DERBY REIN & Same order for Cow Work Shine N Play Maggie
Rise N Shine Jac
Jason Williams
Sod Williams
65
$23.83
72.5
$59.58
69
$23.83
206.5
Pistol Blue Velvet
DW He Be A Playgun
Cory Dean Shelman
Cory Dean Shelman
70
$59.58
65.5
$23.83
71
$35.75
206.5
$143.00
X
GA Star Kitty
Smooth As A Cat
Joseph Taylor Wakley
J Taylor Wakley
68.5
$35.75
71.5
$35.75
72.5
$59.58
212.5
$214.50
X
X
X
X
NSS OPEN DERBY & ECNRCHA DERBY 4 & 5 YR OLDS OPEN REIN & Same Order for Cow Work Cayenne Cat
Metallic Cat
Ken Jones
Todd Fitch
73
$116.79
71
$116.79
73
$93.43
217
$357.50
X
X
Mr Metallic Freckles
Metallic Cat
Gary Stark
Gary Stark
70.0
$70.07
70.5
$58.39
73
$93.43
213.5
$238.33
X
X
72.5
$46.71
Smokum Guns N Glory
Fairlea Guns N Glory
X Dave Thacker
Dave Thacker
Handy N Gotta Gun
Spooks Smart Chic
X Flint Lee
Flint Lee
GA Star Kitty
Smooth As A Cat
Joseph Taylor Wakley
J Taylor Wakley
Neat King Flo
Neat Little Cat
Bieroth Ranch
Casey Bieroth
SUNDAY
69
$46.71
69.5
208
X
69.5
207
X
68.5
207
X
X
SCRATCH
NRCHA REP- FLINT LEE
1 NSS LTD FUTURITY
NRCHA $$
Ave Placing$
TOTAL
Fence Placing$
FENCE
Rein Placing$
REIN
RIDER
Herd Placing$
OWNER
$58.39
SCR
HERD
SIRE
69.5 70.5
DRAW SHEET
NV STUD
HORSE
66 67.0
NRCHA LAE DERBY OPEN Cayenne Cat
Metallic Cat
Ken Jones
Todd Fitch
73
71
73
217
$402.00
X
X
Mr Metallic Freckles
Metallic Cat
Gary Stark
Gary Stark
70.0
70.5
73.0
213.5
$268.00
X
X
GA Star Kitty
Smooth As A Cat
Joseph Taylor Wakley
J Taylor Wakley
69
69.5
68.5
207
Betsy Searle
Matt Mori
71.0
71.5
0.0
142.5
Very Smart Rey
NSS & NRCHA Open Bridle Class REIN & CALL FOR COW Litte One Time
X
X
X X
NRC&CHA Approved
74
$39.72
70.5
$39.72
JD Thacker
72
$59.58
70.5
JD Thacker
69.5
$35.75
69.5
Bill Bachman
63
$23.83
Cory Dean Shelman
Cory Dean Shelmen
70
$39.72
Lena Torvik
Flint Lee
Amelia Spratling Wakley
Amelia Wakley
One Time Pepto
Tammy Lee
Flint Lee
Proceed To Party
Nic It In the Bud
Aimee Sumner
Jazzy Nic
Nic It In the Bud
Phil & Carmen Timmins
74
$39.72
218.5
$119.17
$59.58
72
$59.58
214.5
$214.50
$35.75
67.5
$23.83
206.5
$143.00
67
$23.83
70.5
$35.75
200.5
70
$39.72
70.5
$39.72
210.5
$355.00
X
NSS LIMITED BRIDLE
Diamond Nic
Nic It In the Bud
Bill Bachman
X X X
NSS TWO REIN /GREEN BRIDLE REIN & CALL FOR COW Sara Doll Playgun
DW He Be A Playgun
X
$119.17
NRCHA TWO REIN OPEN KDK Boons N Fashion
68.5
72.5
141
$205.00
67.5
71
138.5
$205.00
X
NRCHA NONPRO TWO REINED CLASSES Jackies Nu Remedy
Hi Point Champion Nevada Stallion- Spooks Smart Chic owned by Barbara Hodges of Fallon Nevada Nevada Bred High money earner AwardChampion Stallion -
X Background Photo: David D. Kimble
BEA LEE riding Cats Gotta Pepto sired by Nevada Stallion Cats Gotta Diamond owned by Tom Long Cutting Horses of Gardnerville Nevada
METALLIC CAT NOMINATED BY Ken Jones of Lamoille, NV Standing at the Brazos Stallion Station, Texas
www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 41
Hemp Industry Continues To Grow in Nevada
Baled hemp stalk can be used for forage material or fiber to make rope, fabric and clothing.
By Russell Wilhelm, Industrial Hemp Program Manager As of this summer, there are 110 registered hemp growers producing hemp on approximately 2,000 acres (outdoor) and 150,000 square feet (indoor) in Nevada, and we receive new applications every week. In the first growing season, there were 13 registered growers and just 250 acres statewide. Since the program began in 2015, many producers across the state have participated in research trials, including:
Plant Industry Division
• the comparison of hemp varieties to determine viability in Nevada climates,
• assessment of water uptake to compare hemp with other crops like alfalfa, wheat or corn and • exploration of best production practices for hemp farming involving plant spacing, planting depth and irrigation techniques.
Hemp, which is a plant variety among the same species as marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.), contains a low concentration of Tetrahydrocannabidol (THC). THC is the chemical compound known for the hallucinogenic effects of marijuana. Hemp contains less than 0.3 percent THC. This means it cannot be used as a drug and is typically processed into textiles, fiber, forage and cosmetics. Hemp producers are required to have an annual inspection from the NDA, where sampling and analysis are conducted to ensure proper THC levels. Manufacturing and handling hemp in Nevada Senate Bill (SB) 396 of the 2017 Nevada Legislative session outlined regulations that now allow the NDA to certify hemp handlers. Now in its first season, there are 31 hemp handlers registered in the state of Nevada. A handling facility is defined as a facility that receives harvested hemp for processing into commodities, products or agricultural hemp seed. This means that under the provisions of SB 396, hemp can be processed into fiber for use as textiles, refined into cosmetic products and extracted for products intended for human consumption, like cannabidiol (CBD oil, which does not produce a “high” like THC) or hemp-based protein supplements. Hemp can be processed by an NDAlicensed hemp handler and any sale of hemp-based commodities must be documented on chain of custody records.
Hemp seed production is now legal in Nevada One of the challenges the hemp industry has seen is sourcing hemp seed. Because hemp is part of the Cannabis genus, importing seed is only done so with U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) oversight. Now that seed production is legal in Nevada, there are more domestic options for Nevada hemp growers: 13 as of this summer, with interest continuing to grow. We’re staying updated on the proposed Hemp Farming Act of 2018 and look forward to what it might mean for Nevada’s farmers and the ways we support them. There has been a lot of growth, excitement and success in the industry, and in response, we are adjusting our program resources accordingly. How the NDA supports hemp research The NDA’s commitment to the hemp program is primarily to provide oversight and enforcement of state and federal regulations. We also support farmers’ interests and encourage a sustainable commodity that can benefit the Nevada economy. Under the research and development program, NDA staff provide multiple inspections per year and work closely with producers to achieve a viable crop that can be used for further research and development. Russell Wilhelm has served the NDA as an agriculturist since 2015 and manages the Industrial Hemp program and the Seed Certification program. For more information or to apply for the Industrial Hemp program, please visit agri.nv.gov/industrial_hemp. Hemp farming is legal in the state of Nevada under the supervision of the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA).
To grow hemp legally in Nevada, THC concentrations must stay below the 0.3 percent threshold. Required annual inspections, sampling and analysis will be conducted by NDA staff, and any crop found to have THC concentration above the threshold may be destroyed at the producer’s expense.
42 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
Jack Payne
Carey Hawkins
Cell: 775-217-9273 Alt: 775-225-8889
208-724-6712
OFFICE: 775-423-7760
Full-Service Cattle Sales & Marketing - serving Fallon, Nevada and the Outlying Areas.
The following contributors to Adam Laxalt’s gubernatorial campaign produced a total of $32,406.14 in donations at our October sale. A sincere “thank you” to all! CATTLE DONATIONS
PERSONAL CHECKS
Drew Dahl
Home Ranch
Key Ranches
Hank and Marian Filippi
Demar Dahl
UC Ranch
Neil McQueary
Delong Ranches
Masini Ranches
Merkley Ranches
Kenneth and Lorna Jones
John and Judy Delong
Brough Livestock
Alan Sharp
Kevin and Kristi Tomera (Jiggs)
Will and Katie Delong
Peavey and Hoots
Tony Zunino
Ed and Linda Sarman
Ellison Ranching
John and Kathleen Neff
Scott McLuchlan
Personal Check Total $3,250.00
Tomera Ranches (Battle Mtn)
Michael Gottschalk
Barnes Ranch
Stix Cattle Company
Wright Ranches
Mitch and Rhonda Hegu
Giocoechea Ranch
Woody and Lila Bell
Bryson Masini
Mori Ranches
Overland Land and Livestock
John and Jhona Bell
Lucas Livestock
Rebel Creek Ranch
Henry and Joi Brackenbury
Elko Land and Livestock
Rex Steninger
Cattle Total $27,236.82
CLASS: BEEF STEER Avg. High 300 to 400 lbs 175.00 200.00 400 to 500 lbs 165.00 177.00 500 to 600 lbs 150.00 166.50 600 to 700 lbs 138.00 144.00 700 to 800 lbs 133.00 135.00 800 to 900 lbs 132.50 135.50 900 to 1000 lbs 118.00 125.00
per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt
“Where the Ranchers Shop”
Nevada Livestock Marketing, LLC $1861.32
CLASS: BEEF HEIFER Avg. High under 300 lbs 165.00 180.00 300 to 400 lbs 156.00 165.00 400 to 500 lbs 162.00 171.00 500 to 600 lbs 143.00 151.00 600 to 700 lbs 131.00 135.00 700 to 800 lbs 128.00 135.50 800 to 900 lbs 117.00 120.00 900 to 1000 lbs 108.00 110.00
per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt per cwt
Battle BRD (bovine respiratory disease) this fall with
NEVADA LIVESTOCK VET SUPPLY, LLC Store Hours: Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 131 Industrial Way • Fallon, NV 89406 • 775-624-4996 www.progressiverancher.com
COMMISSION/ FREIGHT/ FEED/ INSURANCE
The Progressive Rancher
ZUPREVO (tildipirosin) 5% OFF during November NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 43
Sifting: February 15
Sale starts at 11:00 am
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2019 FALLON LIVESTOCK, LLC. FALLON, NEVADA Churchill Co. Cowbelles Dinner/Dance and FBS Awards Presentation
—Friday, February 15 Social Hour: 5:30 p.m. • Dinner 6:30 p.m. Dance 8:00 p.m.
Fallon Convention Center
For more information or to request a sale catalog, please call the Sale Offi ce:
N evada C attlemeN ' s a ssoCiatioN 775-738-9214
44 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018
www.nevadacattlemen.org
The Progressive Rancher
—
nca@nevadabeef.org
www.progressiverancher.com