LMD Nov 2014

What a Mess!

LivestockDigest

Livestock“The greatest homage we

can pay to truth is to use it.”– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

NEWSPAPER

PRIO

RIT

Y H

AN

DLI

NG

by LEE PITTS

MARKET

DigestRiding Herd

Anytime a group of cattle-men get together at a con-vention bar or hanging onthe pipes at an auction

market on sale day the conversa-tion invariably turns to the idiot-ic bureaucrats in Washington,DC and how messed up ourcountry is. While very true, not aword is said about the pureunadulterated greed and inepti-tude displayed by one of ourown industry organizations. Theleadership of the NCBA wouldnot seem a bit out of place in thehalls of a corrupt Congress or ata White House cabinet meeting. And now, thanks to all the

bumbling bureaucrats get readyto have the beef tax you pay,otherwise known as the check-off, tripled. And much of thatwill probably end up in thegreedy hands of the NCBA. Inreturning this country to its for-mer greatness perhaps the firststeps we take should be to putour own glass house in order.

A Bridge To NowhereEver since the NCBA

hijacked the beef checkoffgroups on the outside haveasked the Secretary of theUSDA, to fix the USDA con-trolled program. Instead of fixingit, the NCBA has been trying todouble down by asking foranother dollar per head. Since

ation and the National Farmer’sUnion had been especially vocalin calling for changes to thecheckoff and initially they calledfor Vilsack to come up with allnew beef checkoff under the1996 Commodity PromotionAct. The USCA wants periodicreferendums, a separation of theFederation of State Beef Coun-cils and any policy organiza-tions, and no increase in thebeef tax until the one we have isfixed.

Vilsack must have listened tothe USCA and the NFUbecause he told the workinggroup if they didn’t come upwith some solutions he wouldtake matters into his own hands.The group was composed of theFarm Bureau Federation, Amer-ican National Cattlewomen,Cattlemen’s Beef Board, Feder-ation of State Beef Councils,Livestock Marketing Associa-tion, Meat Importers Council ofAmerica, NCBA, National Live-stock Producers Association,National Milk Producers Feder-ation, NFU and USCA.R-CALF was originally a

member of the working groupbut they didn’t last as long as ahousefly at a flyswatter conven-tion. R-CALF never has beengood at graft and greed.After three years of meetings

the group was as paralyzed asCongress and just like them,

the 1985 Act doesn’t allow forthat, they have been trying todouble it state by state thenthey’d figure out a way to gettheir hands on the extra doughlater. The current Secretary ofAg, Tom Vilsack, got so fed upwith the beef politics that in2011 he formed the BeefCheckoff Enhancement Work-ing Group to come up with solu-tions to stop all the industryinfighting.The U.S. Cattlemen’s Associ-

Dogs have owners. Cats

have staff.

continued on page three

www.LeePittsbooks.com

AnotherFriend Gone

The much-dreadedmorn- ing arrived andI was in a funk. Eventhough I’mprone to

being that way, this day wasespecially depressing for itwas the day of the last saleever to be held at the Tem-pleton Livestock Market.The owners, friends of mine,had sold the property andthe land will soon be plantedin houses. I don’t blamethem, I’d have probably tak-en the cash, too.We had been expecting

this day for a long time butthe sale of the property washeld up by a lawsuit. Itseems the neighbors went tocourt to stop the sale of theland because they’d grownto love “their” sale yard.These were the same peoplewho years ago moved intothe new neighborhood andthen complained about thenoise and the dust of theauction barn which had beenthere for 70 years. Now theywere especially upsetbecause it was being torndown to make way for hous-es. It seems they preferredcows to people after all.In the past, whenever you

said, “I’m going to Temple-ton," everyone knew youwere referring to the auctionmarket, not the town of thesame name. Although thetown always has been a veryagreeable place where peo-ple are real people, if youknow what I mean. Andwhile it’s true that I’ve onlybeen to two of the sevencontinents, I’d have to saythat Templeton is truly oneof the greatest places onearth.Templeton was the unof-

ficial cow capital of mycounty, home to three cowsper person, and the only saleyard left within 200 miles. Atone end of town was the saleyard and at the other wasthe feed and grain mill. Tem-pleton has one way of enter-ing and one way of leavingand I’ve never altered thatroutine in 41 years of goingthere.I think I’ve worked every

bull sale they ever had andbought cattle, been a con-signor and fed cattle outback in a small grow yardthey had. Next to the sale

continued on page two

MANUEL QUIÑONES AND

DANIEL BUSH, EE NEWS

In a widely circulated memoin late October, environ-mental groups boasted thatthey’re “poised to execute

the last phase of our biggestand most sophisticated elec-toral effort ever.”They were on track to spend

$85 million, they said, includ-ing $40 million on six Senateraces.Not only are environmental

groups spending recordamounts of cash on the races,they are also trumpeting a com-mon vision with what advocatescall an unprecedented level ofcoordination. And they vow itwill last through future elec-tions.But their critics say the envi-

ronmental community’s clouthas made the movement morepragmatic at the expense ofcore values, including defeatingthe Keystone XL oil pipeline.

“This can be called the elec-tion when the environmentalmovement lost its virginity,”said Mike McKenna, an energylobbyist and Republican strate-gist. “I think their efforts havebecome more professional.They’ve actually gotten legiti-mate guys involved.”Last year billionaire donor

Tom Steyer helped elect Mas-sachusetts Rep. Ed Markey (D)to the Senate by opposing fel-low Democrat Rep. StephenLynch, who supported con-struction of KXL. Steyer thenfloated the idea of opposingvulnerable Louisiana incum-bent Sen. Mary Landrieu (D),a strong fossil fuel supporter,

though in the end he decidedto focus on other high-profileraces.Now Steyer, head of the

NextGen Climate politicalaction committee, is part of aninformal coalition of greengroups helping boost candi-dates who support KXL.The coalition includes the

political arms of the SierraClub, Natural ResourcesDefense Council and Leagueof Conservation Voters, whichis supporting the likes of Sens.Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) andMark Begich (D-Alaska), bothof whom want the pipelinebuilt.Last year environmental

groups, including LCV, alsotouted their efforts to help putDemocrat Terry McAuliffe intothe Virginia governor’s man-sion. The groups did it, theysaid, by highlighting Republi-can Ken Cucinelli’s skepticism

NOVEMBER 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com Volume 56 • No. 11

continued on page five

by Lee Pitts

Are money and power changing theenvironmental movement?

They were on trackto spend $85 million,they said, including$40 million on sixSenate races.

they were acting like a bunch ofbratty, bickering kindergartners.In response the National Farm-ers Union became so disgustedthey withdrew from the workinggroup. Said NFU PresidentRoger Johnson, “After threeyears of pushing for real reformsin the beef check-off program,NFU has decided that theprocess has become a bridge tonowhere and a waste of timeand resources. The workinggroup was designed to bringtogether vested parties fromacross the beef industry and toattempt to reach a consensus onsubstantial reforms that wouldmake the check-off a stronger,more effective tool for the beefindustry. Sadly, it has becomeclear that in reality, there is nowillingness from key playerswithin the group to allow realreforms to take place.” WhenJohnson says “key players” he istalking about the NCBA andwhy would they want to changeanything when they are getting82 percent of their budget fromthe checkoff and are the check-off’s biggest contractor?

Two Buck ChucksVilsack had seen and heard

enough. In a rare bit of honestyfrom Washington, DC, headmitted that the beef checkoffwas structured in such a com-plex manner that it made hishead hurt. “This system is reallycomplicated, I have had staffwrite me memos, literally drawme pictures. I don’t know how itcould be more complicated. Inthe end my goal is that we havehealthy beef industry and thatproducers of all sizes can sur-vive.”So Vilsack came up with a

“supplemental” program underthe 1996 Commodity Promo-tion Act. Keep in mind, the cur-rent checkoff would continue soranchers would be forced to payinto both funds. Vilsack evensuggested that he might want to“sunset” the current checkoff,meaning to get rid of it or bringit under his new program.Under Vilsack’s plan the newcheckoff would start in 2016,before his boss, President Oba-ma, leaves office.Gilles Stockton, an intelligent

industry observer said, “I havebeen trying to wrap my mindaround Secretary Vilsack’s pro-posal for dueling beef taxes – anew tax running in parallel withthe old beef tax and producerspaying twice. I have a problemwith the old NCBA run beeftax. It is not that I oppose thegoals of that tax but rather that Iobject to funding the NCBAthrough that tax. If the membersof the NCBA want to opposeCOOL and are in favor of non-competitive monopolized live-stock markets, then that is theirbusiness. They may be misguid-ed and doing the livestockindustry a major disservice, butit is their constitutional right tobe wrong. I just object to thembeing wrong on my dime.”Continued Stockton, “I know

that there are many, many pro-

ducers who are just sick andtired of this controversy andwould like for the beef tax to bereformed and everybody just geton with the job at hand. Thetrouble is that it is not possibleto reform the beef tax becausethe 1985 Beef Act that authoriz-es the beef checkoff is written insuch a manner that it gives theNCBA the right to control theoperating committee. It is thiscommittee in turn, whichdecides how to spend the mon-ey. Ninety seven percent of thetime they decide to fund proj-ects through the NCBA. It is allone big conflict of interest.“The problem with the Beef

Tax Operating Committee,”concluded Stockton, “is thatthey all want into the gravytrain. This working group hasbeen wasting these past threeyears having meetings to comeup with this grand non-solution.None of them, not FarmersUnion, Farm Bureau, US Cat-tlemen’s nor NCBA, should beallowed a dime of beef tax mon-ey. Farmers Union, to theircredit agrees with this sentimentand has backed out of the socalled deal. Note that R-Calfwas never a party to this non-sense.”

Little White LiesThirty six other groups signed

on to a letter to Vilsack urginghim to immediately implementtheir recommendations for elim-inating the conflicts of interestfrom the checkoff. Their letterread, “the decision-making Fed-eration is housed, administered,owned and controlled by theNCBA” and that your checkoffdollars are indirectly subsidizingthe NCBA’s administrativecosts which gives them moremoney with which to lobby foran end to country of originlabeling and to promote theinterests of big feeders and theBig Three packers." (Which, bythe way, don’t pay the checkoff.Thank you very much!) “TheBeef checkoff was never intend-ed as a vehicle to strengthen thepolitical voice of NCBA or anyother policy organization abovethe voices of any other organiza-tion or above the collective voiceof the producers funding theprogram,” the joint letter con-cluded. On October 16 Vilsack

received a retaliation letter fromNCBA and 45 of its state affili-ates whose “obvious purposewas to influence governmentalaction and policy,” said R-CALF. NCBA’s letter beggedVilsack not to form a new check-off but to place his faith, andyour dollars, in the one they cur-rently control. The NCBAasks,”Why don’t we just enhancethe one we have?” And whenthey say enhanced, they are talk-ing about increasing the check-off to two dollars per head. Addon the other buck that rancher’sin 10 states recently voted forand you have a three dollarcheckoff.

Livestock Market Digest November 15, 2014

What a Mess continued from page one

continued on page three

Subscribe Today

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

My check is enclosed for: o One Year: $19.95 o Two Years $29.95

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

Livestock Market Digest (ISSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September, and

December in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc.Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M.

POSTMASTER – Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

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

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

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN . . . . . . . PublisherLEE PITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive EditorCHUCK STOCKS . . . . . . . .Publisher EmeritusRANDY SUMMERS . . . . .Sales Rep

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES:Ron Archer . . . . . . . . . . . 505/[email protected]

FIELD EDITOR: DELVIN HELDERMON580/622-5754, 1094 Kolier Rd.Sulphur, OK 73086

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF:MARGEURITE VENSEL . Office Manager.CAROL PENDLETON . . Special AssistanceCHRISTINE CARTER . . . . Graphic Artist

MARKET

yard was a roping arena where Iworked horse sales and went to“play days”. Hoover’s restaurantwas also on the grounds, a stapleof simple food and a populardestination for the town folk.They used to sell 100,000 headof cattle a year at TLM and itwas the home of the World Live-stock Auctioneer Championshipin its heyday. Dean Schow ofPaxton, Nebraska, was namedthe winner that year and I’m soglad he became a good friend ofmine. Like TLM, he was realeasy to like. I’m sad to say Deandied a few months ago . . . thereseems to be a lot of that goingaround. And now the auctionmarket has breathed its lastbreath, too.At the last auction ever held

at TLM I worked ring for thebull sale and when I looked upinto the crowd it hit me that thiswas the last time I’d ever seemany of these fine folks who hadbecome my friends.It felt like a funeral. Old

timers greeted me with a lump intheir throats and Randy Baxley,who grew up at TLM and ranthe sale yard, but did not own it,almost broke down as he fine-tuned his going away speech. Heand his wife Beth lease anotheryard at Visalia and are wonderful

people.It was such a large crowd

there wasn’t room for everyoneinside the sale barn. We had allcome to say our final goodbyesand to make the day a specialone. No one wanted to leave, orfor the day to ever end.The top three bulls that day

were the three highest sellingbulls ever sold at TLM. We alldid her proud on her final day.I suppose it had to come to

this. The sale yard was standingin the path of an onslaught ofpeople. Now Templeton town isgrowing up and I suppose before

long it will either have a prisonor a casino. Signs of what passesfor progress these days.The last animal ever sold at

the Templeton sale barn broughtmore than seven dollars perpound, as if it was for a countyfair junior livestock exhibitorbattling cancer. On the morningafter the last day I couldn’t helpthinking that the consignor whoowned that last animal sure waslucky. As were we all to haveknown this wonderful granddame who took her town’s per-sonality and identity with herwhen she left.

Past NCBA President ScottGeorge says that adding anothercheckoff is “inefficient anduncoordinated”, which wereidentical words the NCBA usedto steal the checkoff during themerger. He also said that one ofthe big differences between thecurrent checkoff and the oneproposed by Vilsack is that theAg Secretary’s “is a top down,government run program where-as the 1985 program was literal-ly tailored by producers for pro-ducers.”Current NCBA President

McCann added, “The checkoffbelongs to cattlemen, not to theUSDA or any administration.”He wrote that the new checkoffgives much greater power to theUSDA and was worried aboutincreased controls by federalgovernment.Either the NCBA Presidents

don't know their history, thinkyou are a big dummy or aretelling fibs, for as we all know,the only way the NCBA savedtheir precious checkoff beforethe Supreme Court was to say itwas a government program, wasgovernment speech, and is aUSDA program run by the gov-ernment. According to R-CALF,

“Many, if not most or all, of thesignatories on the NCBA letterare recipients of checkoff funds,either directly or indirectly.” R-CALF’s Bill Bullard asked Vil-sack a good question: “How areproducers assured that theircheckoff dollars are not beingused by the NCBA and its listedaffiliates to unlawfully lobby youto forego your publiclyannounced policy initiative tocreate a new beef checkoff pro-gram under the 1996 Act whenthe beef checkoff expressly pro-hibit checkoff funds from beingused “in any manner” to influ-ence governmental action orpolicy.”“The NCBA’s CEO,” contin-

ued R-CALF, “who likelyhelped draft the referenced let-ter, receives a sizable portion ofhis salary from checkoff funds.Further, many of the NCBA’sstate affiliates that joined theletter are considered “two-hat”states because the state beefcouncils that collect checkofffunds in those states are essen-tially indistinguishable from theNCBA affiliated organizationsthe same physical office addressand executive employee.”

Pig TracksIn response NCBA fires back

that they must be doing thingsright because 78 percent of pro-ducers support the checkoff. Ifso, why are they so afraid of areferendum? They also brag thata Cornell University studyshows that the current beefcheckoff returned $11.20 forevery dollar invested from 2006through 2013. Even if such athing can be quantified, who isto say that the packers didn’treceive $11.19 of that? And theydon't even pay into it! The sameprofessor found that the nation-

al Pork Checkoff Program had a$17.40 return on investment.Are we then to believe theNCBA is not doing as good ajob as the pig people? Keep inmind that while the pork check-off was doing all these wonder-ful things they lost 90 percent oftheir producers. And the beefindustry is following in thosesame piggy tracks. The Cornell conclusions are

tainted because they werebought and paid for by the BeefBoard, who also contributed thedata for the survey. What uni-versity professor is going tocome out with a negative reportif it meant he wouldn’t get anymore money from the checkoffsin the future?R-CALF’s Bill Bullard says

the current checkoff “will con-tinue to finance the growth ofNCBA’s sprawling empire thatis being built on the backs ofhard-working, independent U.S.cattle producers. It is the gov-ernment-mandated assessmentsthat have not, as the OIG con-firms, been subjected to ade-quate control or oversight thatfirst created this deplorable cir-cumstance and is now sustain-ing it.”Says Bullard, “The current

national Beef Checkoff consti-tutes an impenetrable, quasi-governmental bureaucracy con-trolled by the NCBA. The realproblem is that the governmentis continually funding theNCBA through its national BeefCheckoff Program, which theU.S. Supreme Court has deter-mined is a program that dissem-inates government speech, soNCBA can lead its anti-COOLcampaign on behalf of themultinational meatpackers thathave been trying to defeatCOOL ever since its inception.”The current NCBA President

says to, “stay tuned, there’smore to come.” We suspect hemeans more money to come forNCBA. Don't be surprised if weend up with two national beefcheckoffs and in a few years theNCBA will gobble up thenewest one too. Farfetched, yousay? Not any more than it wasto think a new group that didn'teven exist at the time the beefcheckoff was launched, wouldsteal it right before our eyes inbroad daylight. Gilles Stockton says, “There

is one thing that Secretary Vil-sack can do that would help. Hecan invalidate the mergerbetween the NCBA and theBeef Federation that happenedback in 1996 on the obviousgrounds that it is a conflict ofinterest.”Great idea but it will never

happen. And the USDA won'tcall for an audit either of one ofits own programs, especially onewith as much to hide as the beefcheckoff does.Before we launch another

checkoff perhaps we ought toperform the first complete auditof the current checkoff to seejust how much money theNCBA has redirected its way.

November 15, 2014 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

What a Mess continued from page two

�'4'37'��3#0&��*#/2+10��5''3��13(1.-��''(��921�*180�$:��5*#0�"+.-'

�'4'37'��3#0&��*#/2+10��#+0'��0,16��'+('3

��'$3#4-#��5#5'��#+3�*18�$:��3#&'0��'0'4�*#/2+10��#31.#+4��'+('3

��'$3#4-#��3��''(��921��*#31.#+4��*18

�*180�$:��3#05��'0'4

�*#/2+10��*#31.#+4��1/214+5'��'+('3��'$3#4-#��#55.'/'0;4��.#44+%�1.&�$:�!4��#5'8#:��'0'5+%4�*180�$:��:.+'��#0#

�*#/2+10��1//'3%+#.��3''&+0)��'+('3

��-��#3��'0�*180�$:��'0�"'+4

��18��')�� /$3:14�#0&�231)'0:�#7#+.#$.'��'/#.'4�(13�4#.'�#5�#..�5+/'4

��1100))33##5566..##55++110044�5511�##....�55**''88++0000''3344�##00&&�''99**++$$++55113344�11((�""##))1100**##////''33�%%##5555..''��""''�88++44**�::1166�55**''�$$''4455�11((..66%%--�++00�55**''�((66556633''��))##++0055**++44�((##....��88''�88++....�$$''�44''....++00))116633�%%##..77''44��33++77##55''� 33''##55::4455##3355++00))��''2255''//$$''33��55**��""''�88++....�##..4411�$$''�44''....++00))��44''..''%%55�$$33''&&�**''++((''3344�##00&&� ��44''..''%%55�$$33''&&�%%118844��

��''55�::116633�00''9955�%%**##//22++1100�((3311//�55**''�**''33&&55**##55;;44�001155''&&�((1133�223311&&66%%++00))�

��

��

��

Myron Benes :: 402-395-6962 :: 402-649-2719

��

�� STEERS :: FEMALES :: BULLS

��

� ��

BY MEAT&POULTRY STAFF

The Humane Society of the United States(HSUS) is offering a financial incentive forreporting animal cruelty to farm animals.

The HSUS recently launched a nationalwhistleblower hotline for reporting incidents ofcruelty and neglect at livestock auctions, inslaughtering plants and on “factory farms”. Theorganization also is offering a reward of up to$5,000 for information leading to the arrest andconviction of alleged offenders.

“The bleak conditions endured by animals onfactory farms are often made worse by overt vio-lence and neglect,” said Paul Shapiro, vice pres-ident of farm animal protection for The HSUS.“We want whistleblowers to know that help isjust a phone call away.”HSUS created the hotline in response to “ag-

gag laws” passed in several states. The laws crim-inalize undercover videotaping at agriculturalfacilities and failure to report animal cruelty in atimely manner. HSUS said hotline callers will be “assured

anonymity if they desire it.”

HSUS launches whistleblower program

Riding Herd continued from page one

BY SHAWN REGAN,

CONTRIBUTOR, THEHILL.COM

There are many good reasonsto love wilderness. TheWilderness Act, whichpassed 50 years ago this

year, describes several of them:outstanding opportunities for soli-tude, primitive and unconfinedrecreation experiences, and thepreservation of special places“where the earth and its commu-nity of life are untrammeled byman.”As a former wilderness ranger,

these values resonate with me.More than 100 million acres ofland have been designated as

“wilderness” since 1964, and inmy view they include some of themost spectacular landscapesimaginable.But as hard-fought wilderness

bills languish in Congress, someare claiming there’s another rea-son to love wilderness areas –they’re good for local economies.This economic argument is a

central part of wilderness advoca-cy today. Protecting lands fromdevelopment, many say, providesa much-needed boost to ruralcommunities. These lands attractworkers, entrepreneurs andinvestors across all sectors whileboosting income and employ-ment in surrounding areas.

But what does the researchactually say about the economiceffects of wilderness designations?I took a close look at the peer-reviewed academic research andfound few rigorous studies and lit-tle evidence to support the claimthat wilderness leads to economicstimulus. As we celebrate the50th anniversary of the Wilder-ness Act, consider what the bestavailable research says.First off, there is disagreement

on how natural amenities such aswilderness should affect econom-ic outcomes in theory. On theone hand, wilderness designationslimit resource development andcould hinder income and employ-

ment in extractive industries. Onthe other hand, wilderness couldimprove quality of life and attractnew businesses, migrants andtourists. Adding to the confusion,there is evidence that workersmight accept lower wages, longerperiods of unemployment andhigher land prices to live in areasrich in natural amenities such aswilderness.So there’s confusion about the

theory, but what do existing stud-ies find when they look at thedata? In short, not much. The firstempirical study, published in1998, found no evidence thatwilderness had an effect onemployment or populationgrowth in Western counties dur-ing the 1980s. A similar study in1999 found no effect of wilder-ness on income, population oremployment growth in ruralcounties in several Western states.Two more studies in 2002and2003 were no different:Wilderness had no effect onemployment or wage growth.More recent studies come to

similar conclusions. A study in2006 by Ray Rasker of Headwa-ters Economics champions therole that public lands play in stim-ulating income growth in theWest, but a closer look revealsthat he is unable to demonstrate astatistically significant effect asso-ciated with wilderness lands.Another study by Rasker and hiscolleagues, published in 2013,emphasizes that protected publiclands (including wilderness) had asmall positive relationship withthree measures of income. Less

obvious was the fact that sevenother economic measures theyexamined had zero effect.So what about the popular

claim that wilderness drives eco-nomic growth? Studies that reachthis conclusion are based on sim-ple correlations. None are rigor-ous enough to suggest thatwilderness causes growth. Twostudies that are often cited — oneby Paul Lorah and Rob South-wick in 2003 and another byPatrick Holmes and WalterHecox in 2004 — report a posi-tive correlation from wildernessand population, income andemployment growth. But onceadditional factors are controlledfor in more detailed studies, thesepositive relationships disappear.More research is needed to

better understand the effects ofwilderness. But a critical look atthe existing studies makes thismuch clear: There is little or noevidence that wilderness bolsterseconomic growth. When environ-mentalists invoke economic argu-ments to support wilderness, theyare exaggerating the best-avail-able research and underminingother more compelling wildernessvalues.Wilderness advocates shouldn’t

hang their hats on economicarguments. There are plenty ofgood reasons to love wildernessareas — but there’s just no evi-dence that economic argumentsare one of them.

Regan is a research fellow at the Property andEnvironment Research Center (PERC) in Boze-man, Mont., and a former backcountry rangerfor the National Park Service.


To place your ad here, call Caren Cowan at 505/243-9515,ext. 21, or email [email protected]

CHRIS CLAYTON

DTN AG POLICY EDITOR

USDA is moving ahead with itsplans to create a separate beefcheckoff. A notice likely willappear sometime in early

November informing cattle producersabout the initiative.I had a phone interview with Agri-

culture Secretary Tom Vilsack in lateOctober. It was set up to talk aboutthe checkoff controversy but the worldhad largely already moved on to theCountry-of-Origin Labeling fight. Yet,so many of the same players areinvolved in both arguments. Mostorganizations that back a COOL man-date also are demanding a major over-haul of the current beef checkoffbefore they would back increasing themandated checkoff fee.I’ve been editing an upcoming

series on the waters of the U.S. rule.So my head was in several differentplaces at once, leading me to ask Vil-sack if he saw a “significant nexus”between the COOL fight and thecheckoff.

“If there’s a nexus, I think it’s thatthe folks that have been strongly advo-cating for the COOL legislation andlabeling have been smaller-sized pro-ducers who believe that there’s a mar-ket opportunity for them by peoplebuying local,” Vilsack said. “And Ithink that same group has expressedconcerns about the way the beefcheckoff has been used and the beliefabout how those resources have beenused in the past.”Vilsack said he is moving ahead on

plans to establish a new beef checkoffunder the 1996 checkoff law. He willcontinue to move in that directionuntil the beef industry’s ad-hoc work-ing group comes to Vilsack and saysthe industry has reached agreement onan alternative way to move ahead.“Here’s the dilemma. Everybody in

the industry knows we need moremoney to market, more money to pro-mote and more money to do research.There is a consensus among everyone— all the folks in the working groups,all the producer groups — everyonehas agreed more money is necessary.”Groups have met for three years to

talk about possible changes to the cur-rent beef checkoff, built on the 1985law. The broad range of cattle, farmand ranch groups involved in the talkshave been unable to come to terms.Thus, gridlock continues on changesnecessary to seek an increase in the $1-per head fee.A second checkoff would go

through the process of soliciting inputfrom producers about how it would bestructured, including how much itwould cost and how the programwould be administered. Vilsack saidsuch a program would operate forthree years then there would be a ref-erendum regarding whether to keep it.Vilsack said he expects sometime in

the first part of November there will bea notice in the Federal Register detail-ing plans to solicit comments on thecheckoff, including a series of ques-tions people would weigh in on. “It willtake a little time because we want togive people time to comment. We haveto go through a rule-making processand we want to go through thatprocess.”Vilsack said he would anticipate

some of the same divisions within thebeef industry over a new checkoff thatthe industry faces with COOL.“It’s a very interesting time and

challenging time for the livestockindustry. You have got high prices, youhave got low supply, you have got agreat potential export opportunity inthe future. Now is the time for us to beaggressive, but you can't be as aggres-sive as all would like us to be becauseyou simply don’t have the money inthe checkoff and you can’t get the con-sensus that would allow the currentcheckoff to be increased. So you set upa separate checkoff, see how it works,and hope that over time you developand create the consensus.”The National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association, the main contractor of thecurrent beef checkoff, opposes the sec-retary’s plan for a new program.NCBA has even created a petition onthe White House website, “Don’tHijack the Beef Checkoff” that seeksto get 100,000 signatures by Nov. 12.The petition had yet to break 900 sig-natures as of late on October 27.https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

USDA Moving Ahead with Beef Checkoff Plans

Wilderness as economic stimulus? A closer look at the evidence


of climate change.Now, even though environ-

mental groups are highlightingclimate concerns in their cam-paigns, they are also running onissues like abortion and theeconomy hoping to support theirallies and beat their foes.This month, NextGen

released a two-minute ad — longby modern campaign standards— questioning Colorado Repub-lican Rep. Cory Gardner’s sup-port for legislation meant torestrict abortion rights forwomen. Gardner unseatedincumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D).Environmental groups leading

the effort say it’s all part of theirstrategy. And it appears that dif-ferent factions within the move-ment, from LCV and NextGento 350.org, known for its staunchsupport for moving the worldaway from fossil fuels, are onboard.“We’re spending more money

than ever before and coordinat-ing better than ever before,” saidGene Karpinski, LCV’s presi-dent. “So we”re being smart andstrategic and sitting aroundtables state by state and nation-ally.”Karthik Ganapathy, U.S.

communications manager for350.org, said groups are adjust-ing to “political realities” in dif-ferent states. Environmentalissues are essential, he said, butvoters have myriad concerns.About Steyer’s spending and

campaign efforts, Ganapathysaid, “I think he’s been anincredibly important counter-weight to the Koch brothers.”The question is, are liberal

donors like Steyer becoming toomuch like the Koch brothers

they so revile?Critics like Bryson said it’s

inevitable that green groupswould focus on politics over poli-cy once they became moreinvolved in elections.“Once you start focusing on

partisanship, [the] message real-ly starts to become partisan,”

Bryson said. “You’re not focusedon the issues that you initially”cared about.To others, efforts by Steyer

and other environmentalists thiscycle are a sign that the move-ment is coming into its ownpolitically.“My observation from the

Steyer team is that they want towin,” said Erich Pica, presidentof the advocacy group Friends ofthe Earth. “His team is usingwhatever effective communica-tions tools and issues to winthose elections.”

‘Proof . . . in the pudding’In an interview, Karpinski

defended the environmentalmovement’s spending decisions.Yes, the candidate choices arepragmatic, he said, but they alsoprovide a “sharp contrast” to thealternative based on how they’vescored on key issues.

LCV’s “biggest single invest-ment at the federal level is thestate of North Carolina,” Karpin-ski said. “Kay Hagan [has an] 84percent lifetime score, leans intothe climate change issue, under-stands that EPA has a role to doto cut climate change pollution.”In contrast, he said, Hagan’s

opponent, North Carolina stateHouse Speaker Thom Tillis (R),has either tried to avoid ques-tions about climate change orexpressed questions abouthuman impacts.“That’s part of the conversa-

tion. We’re making it part of theconversation,” Karpinski said ofthe climate change debate.“We’re running ads talking aboutthat very issue.”The group’s ads against Tillis

have also focused on other envi-ronmental issues, includingDuke Energy Corp.’s massivecoal ash spill in the state earlierthis year. Tillis backed a bill inthe state Legislature that envi-ronmentalists say won’t doenough to hold Duke account-able for the spill.Similarly, Udall has an LCV

lifetime score of 97 percent com-pared with Gardner’s 9 percentgrade. In Alaska, Begich has a 77

percent lifetime score. “Not per-fect for sure, but a sharp con-trast” to his GOP opponent,Dan Sullivan, Karpinski said.Stephen Kretzmann, execu-

tive director of Oil Change Inter-national, a nonprofit group thatdoesn’t engage in political cam-paigns, said, “The calculation hasbeen made that the No. 1 priori-ty is to retain Democratic con-trol of the Senate. If that hap-pens then people will feel thatthe decision that was made wasthe correct one.”He added, “The proof will be

in the pudding. On Election Daywe’ll see what happens. If thatdoesn’t happen, there’ll be somequestioning of that strategy.”Karpinski said groups were

indeed looking to “protect theSenate firewall” to stop Housemeasures seen as anti-environ-ment. But he also mentionedLCV endorsements for moderateRepublicans like Maine Sen.Susan Collins. At least some lib-erals were quick to questionbacking Collins, who not onlysupports KXL but has also votedagainst EPA’s climate-relatedrulemaking.Still, Karpinski said the group

was focused on making sureEPA could move forward with itsproposals to reduce carbon emis-sions from power plants. “Weneed to make sure those rulesare the strongest possible, theyare defended in the Congressand implemented well in thestates,” he said.But what about KXL? That’s a

priority too, Karpinski said. “It’snot,” he said, “either-or.”

‘Major headache’There are signs environmen-

talists want to boost their focuson KXL after the Novemberelections and increase theirpressure on lawmakers andPresident Obama on climateissues. The movement's politicalspending will likely ramp up,too, after this year's record-set-ting $85 million effort.“$85 million is a tremendous

amount of money in amidterm,” but it’s still a “drop inthe bucket” compared withindustry groups, said Pica ofFriends of the Earth. “Everyenvironmental group that has aPAC needs to be figuring outhow to up its game.”350.org promised to be a

“major headache” in an internalmemo obtained by MSNBC.“We’re ready for a fight, and thelast thing President Obama andDemocrats need is a rebellionfrom the left.”It remains to be seen whether

environmental groups will avoida rebellion within their ranks.Divisions exist on issues likenatural gas. Steyer has said he’snot opposed to all fracking while350.org is anti-fracking.Observers say environmental-

ists are more likely to sticktogether if Republicans takeover the Senate because theywill have a common threat.Next year’s United Nations cli-mate conference is also ofintense interest. Then there’s2016.“It’s going to be more impor-

tant than ever for Democrats toturn out their base,” said Gana-pathy, touting the importance ofrunning on climate issues. “Inaddition to being right for theplanet, I think it’s a smart movefor Democrats politically.”

Power continued from page one

...environmentalists are morelikely to stick together

if Republicans take over the Senate because they will have

a common threat.

BRIAN SEASHOLES,

REASON FOUNDATION

The Endangered Species Actis often thought of as aWestern issue, and as “outthere” in so-called flyover

country. But as a “tidal wave” of878 species* is listed under theAct over the next decade or so,which will result in an approxi-mately 50 percent increase inthe number of species under thelaw’s protection, the geographyand regulatory reach of theEndangered Species Act isexpanding radically. If you thinkthe Endangered Species Act hasbeen problematic and conflict-laden up until now, it is going toget massively worse.Regions of the country that

have been little impacted by theAct, such as the Midwest, GreatPlains, and large portions of theSouth, Southwest, Intermoun-tain West and even East aregoing to feel the impact of what

is widely regarded as America’smost powerful environmentallaw. Most of these tidal wavespecies are dependent on aquat-ic, riparian and wetland habitat,which means the regulatoryimpacts due to them could wellencompass entire watersheds,not just the discrete areas ofhabitat most people associatewith terrestrial species. Also, anumber of the species that arenot freshwater-based have enor-mous ranges that span manymillions of acres. Yet describingthis process of the immenseexpansion the EndangeredSpecies Act is undergoing haslimited impact. Words can onlygo so far.Fortunately, the office of the

Comptroller of Texas commis-sioned a series of stunning andhighly informative maps thatdepict the coming tidal wave(available here). The leadingedges of the tidal wave havealready hit, such as in northernIndiana (as I discussed here in aprevious post) and likely innorth-central Florida (here in aprevious post) where species arebeing used, or likely will be

used, to control water quantityand quality. But the most signif-icant tidal wave species so far isthe lesser prairie chicken, whichwas listed at the end of Marchand inhabits 40 million acres infive states (New Mexico, Texas,Oklahoma, Kansas and Col-orado), including the PermianBasin of western Texas and east-ern New Mexico that produces15 percent of U.S. oil and 5 per-cent of U.S. natural gas. Theprairie chicken is already havinga significant impact on the oilindustry in western Kansas.Often it is hard to grasp the

geographic extent of the Endan-gered Species Act’s reach. Whileit is possible to obtain maps ofsome individual species’s ranges,it has not been possible untilnow to get a broader sense of theAct’s spatial dimensions for list-ed and potentially listed species.Now, however, with the mapscommissioned by the TexasComptroller all this has changed.There are several importantaspects of these maps.First, they are the only pub-

licly available maps that depictthe coming tidal wave for the

entire country. Second, theyillustrate the tidal wave usingtwo sets of maps — one set ofstates, the other of watersheds— and this allows for two differ-ent ways to grasp the issue. It isimperative that states andmunicipalities get a better han-dle on the tidal wave of speciesheaded their way, both at themacro, state level, as well as thefiner resolution watershed level.Third, the two sets of maps

consist of three maps each (inaddition to a separate set for thestate of Texas), which depict thecurrent and future distributionof species; the species listedunder the Endangered SpeciesAct as of July 2014, the tidalwave species, and a third mapthat combines the first two inorder to provide a visual repre-sentation of what the Endan-gered Species Act is going tolook like when all the tidal wavespecies are listed. Fourth, theset of maps based on watershedsis important because entirewatersheds, or significant por-tions of them, are likely going tobe subjected to the EndangeredSpecies Act’s fearsome regulato-ry reach due to the large numberof freshwater aquatic species. Infact, this is already occurringand likely going to expand, as Idiscussed in the two aforemen-tioned posts.One example is the Ichetuck-

nee siltsnail, an obscure snailthat lives in a single freshwaterspring in north-central Floridathat is ten square yards, or 0.02of an acre, in size. So at firstglance it would seem that if thesnail were listed under theEndangered Species Act, asappears likely, any potential reg-ulatory impacts would be limitedto the tiny spring. Yet the Cen-ter for Biological Diversity, oneof the two groups responsiblefor the 2011 lawsuit settlementthat is resulting in the tidal waveof species, has made ominousreferences to water quality andquantity issues that purportedlyare affecting the snail, such asgroundwater withdrawal and

water quality degradation fromagriculture and residential land-scaping, across the entire256,000 acre watershed thatfeeds the 0.02 acre spring inwhich the snail lives. Talk abouta multiplier effect.The bigger picture is that this

is an example of what is comingacross much of the country thatcontains these freshwater aquat-ic species; the South, Midwest,scattered portions of the South-west, Intermountain West, andeven portions of the East. Forexample, all 374 of the tidalwave species found predomi-nantly in the South are freshwa-ter based. But because a numberof these species have such largeranges, their watershed-basedhabitats extend over almost theentire Eastern and MidwesternU.S. (as depicted in a separatemap available here). Then thereare terrestrial tidal wave speciesthat also have enormous ranges,such as the greater sage grouse— which lives across 165 millionacres in eleven western statesand may be proposed for listingin September 2015 — and thelesser prairie chicken.So take a look at the maps on

the Texas Comptroller’s website:http://www.keepingtexasfirst.org/map/ . More importantly, get theword out about the EndangeredSpecies Act tidal wave by send-ing the maps to people youknow.

*The cause of the tidal wave is a 2011 lawsuitsettlement between the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and a couple environmental pressuregroups (Center for Biological Diversity andWild Earth Guardians) that requires the Serv-ice to consider for listing under the Act 878species by 2016. Final listing decisions must bemade for 253 of these species by 2016, whichmeans the remaining 625 species are in thepipeline for later consideration. (Apologies forthe apparent confusion about the numbers ofspecies involved and chronology for their list-ing, as I have cited a different total and time-line in previous posts—757 species, with 251final listing decisions by 2018—but there areseveral different published totals for the law-suit settlement, including from the plaintiffs.However, 878 species, with 253 final listingdecisions by 2016, appears to be the mostaccurate total)

See more at: http://reason.org/blog/show/mapping-the-coming-endangered-speci#sthash.


Mapping the Endangered Species Act “Tidal Wave”

In the land of Nod a move-ment sprung up to buildhouses without the use ofpower tools. The advocates

of organic construction (OC)supported the movementbecause it prohibited the recov-ery and use of the carbon coaland oil.To be OC any lumber used

must be hand-hewn, saws must

be manually operated. Mulepower is approved. Machinemade tools must be made by ablacksmith and made fromstones, dug and formed byhand.Electricity must be generated

by wind power or water wheel.Those who live in the OC StoneAge houses glory in their contri-bution toward low environmen-

tal impact. They expect the gov-ernment to give them tax breaks(think Al Gore) and to subsidizethe craftsmen who do the gruel-ing everlasting sawing, shim-ming, pounding and digging tobuild their houses under OCrules.Well, we don’t live in a land

of Nod. There is no movementto build houses like the NativeAmericans before Columbusarrived. But that thoughtoccurred to me when I read anewspaper article titled, “Don’tlet your children grow up to befarmers.” It was written by aConnecticut man who, accord-ing to his story, was inspired bywhat is being called today, “TheFood Movement.” He threwhimself joyously into the cause!The government and many

private entities have establishedfoundation grants or donors tosupport “small farming.” He was

given financial help to encour-age his venture. As he clearedhis small acreage and learnedfirst hand the effort it takes tofarm, he avoided anything withthe word ‘chemical’ in it. No fer-tilizer unless it was from anorganic source; no antibiotics,medicine, anesthetic or parasiti-cide to care for his sick animals,no insecticides, GMO’s, no her-bicides for his crops, he didn’teven use rat poison.There was a market for his

expensive products; specialtygrocery stores, “green” restau-rants, and farmers markets. Butover the years he was never ableto cover the cost of his specialtyproducts.From the beginning it was

necessary for him to supporthimself with a side job. Oddlyenough he had competitionfrom “hobby farmers.” Theywere often retired hedge fund

managers or tax lawyers whocould claim their two acres asagricultural and lower theirproperty taxes. He also compet-ed with non-profit farms whosepurpose was for social, penal ortherapeutic benefit. Customersalways complained about theprice. Ten years down the roadhe is broke and bitter.But his solution to his failure

is for the government to takemoney from farmers who makeit and use it to pay organic smallfarmers a decent wage withinsurance benefits, and protecttheir market from real farmers.He, somehow, doesn’t get it. It’ssad. Farming is real life, ask theAmish. It’s not someone’s dreamof a “Camelot Food Move-ment.” And as to his solution, itdidn’t work in Russia or Chinaor North Korea and I don’tthink it will work in Connecti-cut.

Farming Dreams

local elected officials and a panelwas there to ask questions ofForest Service officials. One ofthose questions is of interest tothis column.According to a report in the

Cibola Beacon, the Forest Serv-ice was asked what impact aWilderness designation wouldhave on area ranchers, and theForest Service “assured audiencemembers that active grazingallotments in good standingwould remain valid for use.”That is an accurate answer as theWilderness Act allows for graz-ing to continue. However, itdoesn’t answer the question ofwhat the impact will be on theranchers. No motorized vehiclesor mechanized equipment areallowed in Wilderness areas, andthat has a huge impact on stan-dard ranching operations. Thinkof hauling feed, repairing a fenceor pulling a well. Their permitmay be valid but their ability tosurvive will be in jeopardy.

Mas Monuments?President Obama recently

unholstered his trusty pen anddesignated 347,000 acres of Cal-ifornia's San Gabriel Mountainsa national monument. Whiledoing so, Obama stated he’s “notthrough” with such actions.With the “flick of his bic”, Oba-ma has designated 13 such mon-uments during his presidencytotaling 260 million acres of bothland and water.Several days later Secretary of

Interior Sally Jewell said if Con-gress didn’t pass lingering wilder-ness legislation the Presidentwould continue to use his Execu-tive authority. “There are dozensof bills in Congress, and theyneed to be passed – dozens ofbipartisan bills, bills with widesupport, broad support – but noone has the courage to passthem,” she said. “We need toencourage this Congress to geton with it and to move forward.Otherwise, we will take action.”First, if any of these bills had

“bipartisan”, “wide” and “broad”support, they would have passed.And if you assume they reallyhad this type of support, it takescourage to bottle them up, notpass them.Finally, look at the position

Congress has placed themselvesin by giving the President thisauthority. Think if he had thisauthority in other areas: PassObamaCare or I’ll socialize med-icine, or pass the minimum wageor by Executive Order I’ll nation-alize the labor force. The publicwouldn’t put up with it and we

shouldn’t be hammered this wayon land issues.

Michelle O’s trash problemThe First Lady’s anti-meat

school lunch program continuesto have bad consequences, andthis time it’s trash. The NationalSchool Boards Association justreleased a survey showing 83.7percent of school districts “haveseen an increase in wastedschool lunch food” since herHealthy, Hunger-Free Kids Actpassed in 2010. The kids are put-ting that supposedly healthystuff in the trash. What we arereally creating are healthy,hunger-free trash cans.

Uncle Sam to spike energy pricesThis summer El Presidente

Obama issued an ExecutiveOrder directing EPA to promul-gate new rules limiting carbonemissions from new and existingpower plants. According to theFarm Bureau, these two ruleswill set the stage for similar regu-lations directed at other sectorsof the economy like refining,chemicals, natural gas develop-ment, iron and steel, and live-stock operations. Now a newstudy is out confirming the highcost of these proposals. The newstudy by NERA Economic Con-sulting finds it will cost $366 bil-lion to comply with EPA’s CleanPower Plan. In addition, thestudy says that 14 states wouldhave energy prices increase by20 percent or more and result inthe shuttering of 45,000megawatts or more of coal-basedelectricity (an amount more thanentire electricity supply of NewEngland). A Farm Bureauspokesman says, “EPA’s plan willaffect all Americans negatively,and farmers and ranchers will beespecially hard hit because of theenergy intensive nature of pro-ducing food, feed, fuel andfiber”. Another new report, by the

Southwest Power Pool, warns ofdire short-term and long-termconsequences for 15 million con-sumers in nine states if the EPAimposes the carbon dioxideemission restrictions on powerplants. The report focused oncustomers in Arkansas, Kansas,Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,Nebraska, New Mexico, Okla-homa and Texas and concludesthat users in those states facemajor blackouts and serious reli-ability problems due to the rapidpace of capacity reductionsrequired by the proposed rule.A government-induced spike

in energy prices is on our hori-zon unless the new majority inCongress does something aboutit.

Wildfire erosionUsing the Sandia and Man-

zano mountains, scientists withthe U.S. Geological Survey andThe Nature Conservancy havedeveloped a computer modelthat will predict erosion “hotspots” following a fire. Aresearcher said the new tool willallow land managers to specifi-cally target those areas that havethe highest risk of flooding anddebris flows. “Figuring out whichareas are vulnerable to damagingwildfire and post-fire flooding isnecessary to protect communi-ties and our water sources.”Actually, what’s needed is a

computer model that predictsthose areas where the envirosand the courts will let the ForestService conduct the appropriatemanagement “to protect com-munities and our water sources."Let’s call those “safe spots” andthe results would be interestingto see.Till next time, be a nuisance

to the devil and don’t forget tocheck that cinch.

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agricul-ture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog:The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of TheDuBois Rodeo Scholarship.

L e t t e r t o t h e E d i t o r


By Frank DuBois

My column is about SmokeyBear & mice, wilderness wars,monumental threats, EPA spikingenergy prices, and Michelle O’strash problem

Jumping Feds

As previously reported, in anout of court settlement theFeds have listed the NewMexico meadow jumping

mouse as endangered. Jumpingright on this, the Forest Servicehas installed, or is proposing toinstall fencing to keep livestockoff of certain riparian areas,thereby limiting or denying live-stock access to water.Jumping right back, the New

Mexico Cattle Growers, NewMexico Farm & LivestockBureau and a whole list of graz-ing associations and individualranchers have filed suit claimingthe feds actions are a violation ofthe National Environmental Pol-icy Act (NEPA) and the Admin-istrative Procedures Act (APA).NEPA is important because it

requires agencies to identify andassess reasonable alternatives toproposed actions and allows forpublic comment. In their com-plaint for the group, the attor-neys argue the feds are in errorfor not entering into the NEPAprocess and instead claiming acategorical exclusion. The complaint also says the

Forest Service is not using thebest available science in reachingits decision. For instance, in a2004 Forest Service Environ-mental Impact Statement (EIS)concerning livestock grazing onthe San Diego Allotment, theagency incorporated specificmanagement objectives andfound that grazing within theallotment “would not cause atrend to Federal listing ordecrease in the overall popula-tion” of the New Mexico mead-ow jumping mouse. The area theForest Service proposes to fenceoff is only used from the begin-ning of October to mid-October,during which time the New Mex-ico meadow jumping mouse ishibernating, and for a brief peri-od in the spring for breeding andoccurs within those areas the2004 EIS says, “have low poten-

tial for impacts” due to the shortamount of use. The EIS stated:“Riparian meadows in the Fen-ton, Virgin Canyon, LowerGuadalupe, and Jemez Riverareas are closed to grazing andwould be available to the mousewith no associated grazing distur-bance. Other riparian pastures inthe allotment would have lowpotential for impacts to jumpingmice because of the shortamount of use these areas wouldreceive.”One could logically conclude

that when the Forest Service hasan open process in compliancewith NEPA, they found that live-stock grazing was not a threat tothe mouse and when the ForestService denies public input intothe process they find that live-stock grazing has suddenlybecome a threat.

Mas Wilderness?A conference was held in

Albuquerque last month to cele-brate the 50th anniversary of theWilderness Act. Among thoseattending was Secretary of Interi-or Sally Jewell who said, “Wilder-ness becomes more important,not less important, at a time ofclimate change”. To further scarethe public into supportingWilderness, Jewell said we mustlearn from mother nature if we’regoing to reduce the impact of“this freight train that is movingdown the tracks very quickly –and that is climate change.” I saywhat’s to worry? Neither tracksor trains are allowed in Wilder-ness areas.About 80 miles west of Albu-

querque another wildernessmeeting was convened by TheCoalition to Keep CibolaNational Forest Open for Multi-use. It seems the Cibola Nation-al Forest is beginning a six-stepprocess to inventory lands withwilderness characteristics; aprocess that could eventuallylead to a recommendation thelands be made part of theWilderness Preservation System.At this “Wilderness PreventionForum” were such luminaries asU.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, StateSpeaker of the House Ken Mar-tinez, and various other state and

Do we need an increase in the Beef Checkoff?You say, “But it promotes our product.”••REALLY! The NCBA (National Cattle-

man’s Beef Association) who controls your BeefCheckoff dollar is associated with the EPA (Envi-ronmental Protection Agency) and TNC (TheNature Conservancy) among other groups thataren’t particularly the livestock producer’s friend. Ifthe NCBA increases the tax on the beef you sell,how much of this added dollar is going to be givento the EPA and TNC to work against the beef pro-

ducer? The NCBA has repeatedly ignored the Ag Secre-tary’s warning about the need for checkoff integrity.The Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Groupproposed to amend the beef checkoff program byincreasing the checkoff by $1 or more a head inreturn for changing a nomination process within theBeef Checkoff Program’s operating procedures.This offer was supposed to placate the Ag Secretary.

Beef Checkoff or Beef Corruption

continued on page thirteen


T H E L I V E S T O C K M A R K E T D I G E S T

��

��

��

��

�� 4+=�54�:.+�3'81+:��8'8+�,/4*E'6685>/3':+2?��*++*+*�')8+9�B�� /88/-':+*�.'?�'4*�6'9:;8+��9+'954'29:8+'3��B��!��&�#�!��93'22��6+83/:9��B�8':+*'6685>/3':+2?��'4/3'2�;4/:9�?+'8�254-�B�35*+9:�/3�685<+3+4:9�B�542?�� 3/2+9�:5� '/92+?�� ')8+��(/-�+45;-.�,58�9+2,�9;9:'/43+4:��93'22�+45;-.�,58�8+:/8+3+4:'4*58�.5((?��

�� 6685>/3':+2?��:5:'2�*++*+*�')8+9B��/88/-':+*�.'?�685*;):/54��*8?�-8'@/4-��:5:'2�/88/�-':+*�2'4*�/9�);88+4:2?�/4�.'?�685*;):/54��'2,'2,'��(+'8*2+99�('8�2+?6+'9��(85'3�'4*�58).'8*�-8'99��B��9:++89�,58�-8'@/4-9+'954��=':+8�)59:�5,�'(5;:��B�65=+8�'(5;:��B��=.++2�2/4+9��05/4:9� D�.'4*�2/4+�B�35*+9:�/3�685<+3+4:9��)5362+:+�3'4'-+3+4:�);88+4:2?�/4�62')+�B�56�658:;4/:?�,58�'(9+4:++�5=4+8�58�/4<+9:3+4:��

��6685>/3':+2?�� *++*+*�')8+9�B��54-��8++1��!�B�9+'954'2��B��354:.9�9;33+8��6'9:;8+�,58��)5=)'2,6'/89�B��3/2+�)8++1��9/*+�9:8+'39�'4*�968/4-9�B�6.54+��65=+8�45�;9'(2+�/3685<+3+4:9�B�?+'8�85;4*�'))+99�B�2'4*5=4+8�.;4:�/4-�:'-9�,58�3;2+�*++8�'4*�+21��

� �� 6685>/3':+2?� � ��*++*+*�')8+9�� $�C9�68/<':+��B��8+-54�+<'*'�(58*+8��)�+83/::��%�B!':+*��B��?+'82/4-9��A� ��354:.9�58��)5=)'2,�?+'8�254-�B�685*;)+*�'(5;:��:549�-8'99�.'?�/4�� =5�,+8:/2/@+8�B�!��&�#�!�B��8+':��'9/4�3?9:/)�B��+:C9�</9/:54�68/)+�/,�?5;�'8+�'�9+8/5;9��;?+8�

��6685>/3':+2?��*++*+*�')8+9�� $�C9�68/<':+��93'22�68/<':+�2+'9+�B�8':+*��'4/�3'2�;4/:9�?+'8�254-�B��$��#�&�#�!�=./).�/9�('9/)'22?��!��?8��/88/-':/4-��')8+9�B�2'4*5=4+8�.;4:/4-�:'-9�B*++8�� +21�� '4:+256+�� ,/9./4-� B� 7;'2/:?� /3685<+3+4:9� ��

�� 6685>/3':+2?��*++*+*')8+9�B��:/3(+8��')8+9�/88/-':+*�3+'*5=��9;(3+'*5=�B�('2'4)+�4':/<+�8'4-+�B��.*��$"�"�6+83/:��B�� .;4:/4-�:'-��*++8��+21�B�(58*+89�$"�"�B�5,,�-8/*B�542?��3/2+9�:5��'1+</+=�B�:/3(+8�'4*�2/<+9:5)1�3'1+�,58�'9+8/5;9�8+)8+':/54'2�.52*/4-��

Ranch Properties now available through Bottari & Associates Realty, Inc

Bottari Realty and AssociatesPAUL D. BOTTARI, BROKER

www.bottarirealty.com • [email protected]/752-3040 • Cell: 775/752-0952 • Fax: 775/752-3021Bottari Realty & Associates • 1222 6th St., Wells, NV 89835

�� *�+�/#,"�+)*#'!� ��&��(/��'��"�1�!*(-'��'��))*(0��-&2+�#'�)*#.�,��%%(,&�',��(&��#+�( �,"��!*#��/#,"�)(/�*� *(&�+(%�*�)�'�%+��'��$�-)�!�'�*�,(*��(��,��('��(-',1� *(��))*(0��&#%�++(-,"�( ��%%+��.��*#��

�� ',#'!� ,(� (/'� �� +�% � +-+,�#'#'!)*()�*,1�/"�*��1(-�!*(/��%%�1(-�'��"��$�,"#+�('��(-,��(,+( � *-#,� ,*��+� #'�%-�#'!��)��*��)*#�(,��"�**1��'��,�*#'��))%��!*�)�+�� %��$��**1�� '��&(*�� #'�%-�#'!��%&('�+��'�� ',�*)#.(,�/#,"��% �% ��)%-+�(,"�*�&��(/�)�+,-*�+��('�+�/#,"�,*(-,��++��'��%-�!#%%+��(,+�( ��*��'��/#%��,-*$�1+��&��,�"(-+�/#,"��((%�*��'��-,,#'!�*((&��"(&�+��*#��

�� /#,"��)�*&#,�('��%�'�+��#'�%-��+��( �,"�&#'�*�%�*#!",+��'��,#.��0)%(*�,#('�'(/�#'�)*(��++� (*�(#%��'�!�+�+"�%��

Honoring their significant contribu-tions to the beef and dairy cattleindustry, David Bechtol, D.V.M.,and Maarten Drost, D.V.M., were

inducted into the Cattle Production Veteri-narian Hall of Fame (CPVHOF). Estab-lished in 2011, CPVHOF recognizes therich traditions of production veterinarymedicine and honors the distinguishedindividuals who have made a lasting impacton the profession. The Hall of Fame issponsored by Merck Animal Health, theAmerican Association of Bovine Practition-ers, the Academy of Veterinary Consult-ants, Bovine Veterinarian magazine andOsborn Barr.“The beef and dairy industries have

been fortunate to have benefited from thewisdom, vision and determination providedby these remarkable men,” said RickSibbel, D.V.M., director of beef technicalservices for Merck Animal Health. “Drs.David Bechtol and Maarten Drost have beenleaders, teachers and innovators and have sig-nificantly advanced feedyard managementpractices and bovine reproduction.”The new inductees were honored at the

AABP Annual Conference in Albu-querque, New Mexico, in September andwere chosen by their peers, includingmembers of AABP and AVC.David Bechtol, D.V.M. – Beef

InducteeFor 35 years, Dr. David Bechtol, of

Canyon, Texas, has been operating a con-sulting business and feedyard researchfacility in the Texas Panhandle. Last year,he was named one of the 20 most influen-tial beef and dairy veterinarians in theUnited States.After graduating from the Texas A&M

University College of Veterinary Medicinein 1965, Dr. Bechtol started a swine andfeedlot practice in Dimmitt, Texas. In1979, he established Palo Duro ConsultingResearch and Feedlot.Dr. Bechtol was a charter member of

AVC, has been a member of AABP foralmost 50 years and served as president ofboth organizations. He was named theAABP Practitioner of the Year Award in1981, the AVC Consultant of the Year in1986 and received the AABP Award forExcellence in Preventive Medicine for Beefin 1998. Dr. Bechtol served as president of the

Texas Veterinary Medical Association andon the board of directors of the Texas Cat-tle Feeders Association, as chairman of theNational Cattlemen’s Beef Association’sSubcommittee on Animal Drugs, and Bio-logicals and Feed Additives, as well as anadjunct professor for the Texas A&M Uni-versity College of Veterinary Medicine.

His award was presented by MarkSpire, D.V.M., M.S., D.A.C.T., technicalservices manager for Merck AnimalHealth, who has known Dr. Bechtol formore than 40 years.“I’ve gained a deeper appreciation for

Dr. Bechtol’s excitement in adopting newtechnologies into our profession and thediscovery of the how and why things are asthey are,” Dr. Spire said. “He has managedto get wiser with age while retaining hisboyish enthusiasm for life. It was my greatpleasure to present him with this award.”Maarten Drost, D.V.M. – Dairy

InducteeDr. Maarten Drost, of Gainesville,

Florida, is well-known for his work inembryo transfer technology and mecha-nisms of pregnancy recognition and fertilitymanagement in cattle. He is a world-renowned expert in bovine reproduction,and his slides and videos of cattle palpationand parturition have been reproduced andused throughout the world. Through TheDrost Project, Dr. Drost has lectured andtaught workshops in more than 19 coun-tries in both English and Spanish.He earned his degree in veterinary med-

icine from the Iowa State University Col-lege of Veterinary Medicine in 1962 andserved as a captain in the U.S. Army Vet-erinary Corps. He was a faculty member at

the University of California-Davis and theUniversity of Florida, where he was instru-mental in establishing the College of Vet-erinary Medicine, which graduated its firstclass in 1980.Dr. Drost was awarded the University

of Florida’s College of Veterinary MedicineTeacher of the Year four times. He wasawarded the university’s DistinguishedFaculty Award in 1989 and the TeachingImprovement Award in 1995. He was rec-ognized again in 2007 with the veterinaryschool’s highest honor, its DistinguishedService Award.On the national stage, Dr. Drost served

as president of the American College ofTheriogenology. In 2003, he received thePfizer Teacher of the Year Award. He alsowas recognized by Iowa State University in2004 with the Stange Award for Meritori-ous Service in Veterinary Medicine.Dr. Drost’s award was presented by Art

Donovan, D.V.M., a long-time friend andcolleague. “Maarten Drost’s career has been amaz-

ingly productive, but he is such a humbleman that you have to really research to findthese things out,” Dr. Donovan said. “Inretirement, he has continued his passionfor teaching by further developing TheDrost Project Visual Guide to Bovine Repro-duction.”

Hall of Fame Recognizes Lifetime Achievements ofRenowned Beef and Dairy Veterinarians

PUBLISHED IN THE ELKO DAILY FREE PRESS

We are as stunned as every-one else at the sudden lossof Grant Gerber, an attor-ney who dedicated his

professional life to maintainingaccess to public lands.He called us (Elko Free Press) a

week after his terrible fall to reporton the progress his GrassMarch/Cowboy Express had madeas it approached Washington, D.C.

He talked about how he had pushedhimself clear from his horse when ittripped, but landed hard on hishead. He spoke clearly of thegroup’s hardships through heavythunderstorms, and expressed opti-mism that their message was beingwell received.Then, more than two weeks after

the accident, his son Travis reportedhe underwent surgery in Utah. Twodays later Grant succumbed to hisinjuries after miraculously seeing themarch through to its completion.

We offer our condolences to hisfamily, and are inspired by theirunwavering faith through thistragedy. They have lost a father, hus-band and grandfather, but the com-munity has lost a powerful advocatefor justice. Grant died fighting forthe rights of ranchers to use theresources they had invested in.Now we can only look back fond-

ly at the many visits Grant paid ournewspaper over the years, usually tolet us know what he was planningnext in his never-ending battle

against federal regulations. Hefought hard against unbeatableodds, but always with a wide smileon his face as he approached thenext challenge.It all started half a century ago

when Congress began to designatethe nation’s first wilderness areas,including one right here in ElkoCounty. Gerber stood up for thosein wheelchairs who would be deniedaccess by restrictions on motorizedtravel.He continued to fight when fed-

eral land managers ordered a ranch-er to remove a water pipe installed atKelly Spring, organizing citizens whoreplaced the pipe and sealed it offwith fence posts signed boldly withtheir names.His biggest battle came at the

end of the millennium when a floodwashed out a road leading to a pop-ular recreation site at Jarbidge. TheForest Service placed a boulder inthe road to keep traffic out, but

Gerber never stopped fighting to protect our freedoms

continued on page nine

Grant helped organize a party toremove it. That battle over roadrights continues today.When wildfires began consuming

large swaths of rural Nevada range-land, Gerber fought against grazingrestrictions because of the fuel theywere allowing to accumulate. At thispoint he decided to use fire to fightfire, creating a character called“Smoked Bear” whose goal was tosave all of the animals beingdestroyed by wildfires. Governmentagencies disagreed with his conclu-sions, but Gerber had used theirown statistics to support his claims.Next came the threat of a sage

grouse listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act, and Grant was not oneto sit idly by as the federal govern-ment began sealing off land fromproductive use. He organized proj-

ects to prove that more predatorcontrol was needed to fight thedecline in bird populations.With all of this activity we were

surprised a few years ago whenGrant visited us to announce hewould be running for county com-missioner. He had decided to workwithin the system as well as from theoutside.Whatever problem surfaced on

public land, Gerber would come upwith a potential solution and thenstruggle to make it work. For thatreason, many considered him an agi-tator. Yes, he loved a good fight, buthis motive was to serve the peoplewhose livelihoods were graduallybeing encroached upon throughfederal restrictions.He genuinely cared about the

people who would not be able to


Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

��%�� "��#��

��%��

�� !�� $$$� ��!��

�� !��!��"��!��

�� !��!��

��

��

IINNTTEERREESSTT RRAATTEESS AASS LLOOWW AASS 33%%PPaayymmeennttss SScchheedduulleedd oonn 2255 YYeeaarrss

JJooee SSttuubbbblleeffiieelldd && AAssssoocciiaatteess1133883300 WWeesstteerrnn SStt..,, AAmmaarriilllloo,, TTXX880066//662222--33448822 •• cceellll 880066//667744--22006622

[email protected] PPeerreezz AAssssoocciiaatteess

NNaarraa VViissaa,, NNMM •• 557755//440033--77997700

Missouri Land Sales361 Acres - Absolutely the Ultimate Hunting/Retreat being of-

fered this close to Springfield/Branson, Missouri. Many options for thisproperty - hunting, recreational, church camp, jeeping, horseback ridingfacility, or just your own personal retreat. A-1 built 60x100 all steel insu-lated with 2-16’ elec. overhead doors. Inside is a fabulous 900sq ft. 2 BR,1 BA living quarters. Open fields, heavy woods, timber, rolling hills, bluffs,springs, creeks, a cave and breath taking views. Only 60+ miles south ofSpringfield, minutes to Bull Shoals Lake.113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.” Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres in

grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-br, 1-ba rock home. Priced tosell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704;

Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com,enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARDCell: 417/839-50961-800/743-0336

MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORSSPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

SCOTT MCNALLYwww.ranchesnm.com

575/622-5867575/420-1237

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Bar MReal Estate

Advertiseto

Cattlemanin the

LivestockMarketDigest

�&�#�� $�"��#'��"�� !��!�� $�"��

�� &�%%%�� $�"��"#�#��"��

� ��##��'��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��!��!��

��

�� !!##��!!1122%%00--��%%55��%%66))##..��!!--##(( ��%07�1#%-)#�!-$�1.,%�'!,%�� %++�5!2%0%$�5)2(��5)-$�,)++1��-%5%0�&)"%0�12.0!'%�!-$�$0)-*%0�23"1��.3/+%�.&�1,!++�1/0)-'1��%0),%2%0�&%-#)-'�!-$�!#0.11�&%-#%��)#%��"$0,��"2(�(.,%�5)2(�&)0%/+!#%�!-$�1#0%%-%$�)-�/.0#(��4%07�/0)4!2%�"32�-%!0/!4%,%-2��#0%!'%�)1�!//0.6),!2%�!-$�)2�)1�#.�+)12%$��!++��(!0+%1��!7� � ��

��!!##��0077��!!00,,++!!--$$�%%!!1122�..&&��..''%%0011��%%55��%%66))##.. 5)2(�� !#��/!71�!4'�.&�� 7%!03-2)+��!1�!�1,!++��!#��'0!11�1/.2�!2�5)-$,)++�5)2(�5%++�!-$�%+%#20)#)27�2.�13",%0')"+%/3,/��,.+�!#��&!0,�+!-$�0%!$7�&.0�!#2).-��6#%++%-2�1.)+��!++��!#*��%00)#*� � ��

��..,,%%�//))##223300%%11�..--�55%%""11))22%%��!!++++�3311�55))22((�77..3300�--%%%%$$11��3377%%0011�!!''%%--2211�!!++11..��

To place your Real EstateGuide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515 or RON ARCHERat 505/865-6011

�� !�,�"'3'"#��!2.� �� /'0��#5�0�� #5!#**#,1� .�012/#�.�3#"� /-�"� $/-,1�%#�� &2%#*�)#�� +�,0'-,� &-+#��

�� 2,1� �-2,16��#5�0��11*#��&2,1',%��#/� �!/#�� ,� "'3'"#�� ,&�3#�0-+#�-4,#/�$',�,!#�

�� -/1&�+�� #5�0��#/��!/#��2,1',%��,"!�11*#��/-,10��46�

�� 2,1��-2,16��4,#/$',�,!#"��1��#/��!/#�

�� 2,1� �-2,16��-++#/!#�� #4� �-+#�� /,0�� /#"� '/-,� !-,01/2!1'-,��11*#��0&-4��%#/�#**#/�

��

��46��#�%-3'**#��

��7�� 7� ��5��

(-#./'#01/#�,#1�7�(-#./'#01/#�#�/1&*',)�!-+

�

��2359:��9+):/549��359:�2?�*++*+*��=+22� /3685<+*�=.53+9��('849��9+<+8'29+:9�5,�6+49�=9)'2+9�� *�'6685>�� 9+):/549��8/<+8�,854:'-+�=<+-'9��'�<+8?-55*�?+'8�85;4*�8'4).�=-55*�/3685<+3+4:9��'22=+':.+8�'))+99�� !2+'9+�)'22�,58�*+:'/29�54�9;6+8�4/)+)53(/4':/54�.;4:/4-8+)8+':/54'2)'::2+��9+):/54�5258'*5�*++*+*�8'4).�=8/<+8�,854:'-+��+>)+22+4:2/<+9:5)1��-'3+�=':+8/4-�,')/2/:/+9�,58�'�?+'8�85;4*-8'3'�-8'99�56+8':/54��54�6<3:��)'4�(+�*/</*+*�� '9:�#256+�5,:.+� #')8'3+4:5� �5;4:'/49�� :85;:� ,/9./4-�� 3;2+*++8��'8('8?� 9.++6�� :;81+?��(+';:/,;2��4+=� );9�:53�(;/2:� .53+�=+>)+6:/54'2� 2'4*9)'6/4-�� -;+9:.5;9+5,,/)+� 4+=2?� 8+35*+2+*�� 4/)+� +3625?++.5;9/4-��('849�� 9:++2�6+49��=5<+4��('8(+*�=/8+,+4)+9�� ')��*++*+*��9:':+��2+'9+9�54�6<3:�� ')��='�4/)+��9:58?�.53+��856�/4-�'8+4'�� 9+):/54�=(;41�.5;9+�58�93'22�.53+�,58)5;62+�58�'�(').+258�6'*��4/)+4+=��9:':+�5,�:.+�'8:.589+� :8'/4/4-� ,')/2/:/+9� :5-+:.+8� =/:.� 856/4-);:�:/4-�'8+4'��.589+�9:'229��8;49�� ')��8'4).�=./).�/9�=+22�=':+8+*��='�4/)+�(8/)1�.53+��$.+9+�6856+8:/+9�'22�'*05/4'4*�)'4�(+�6;8).'9+*�9+6'8':+2?�58�:5-+:.+8��*��/4;:+9� ,853�";/*595��3;2:/�6;8659+� 6856+8:?� =�� ')�� 2'(58':58?5,,/)+��)5<+8+*�6+49��.53+��*+'2�,58�;9+,58�.589+�58�)'::2+�(8++*/4-��+3(8?5�:8'49,+8�,')/2/�:?��<+:�)2/4/)�58�3'4?�5:.+8�;9+9�/4�'�(+';:/,;2�'8+'5,��+�� *��+�')'�;'*'2;6+�� 5�� ')��+>)+22+4:� /3685<+3+4:9�� ,+4)+9��=':+8+*�� )5=)'2,?+'82/4-�)5;4:8?�/4�+>)+22+4:�)54*/:/54��54�6<3:��*��'9:��*-+� ,�#'4:'�"59'��*��=?��,854:'-+�54�(5:.�9/*+9�5,��.=?��,854:'-+54�(5:.�9/*+9�5,��=?��.=?��,854:'-+�54��=?�� ')�� *++*+*�� ')�� 9:':+2+'9+��=+22� /3685<+*�� +>)+22+4:�=':+8� 9?9:+3�685�</*+*�(?�'� 2'8-+�968/4-�':� :.+�.+'*7;'8:+89��=+229+7;/66+*�=9;(9��=/4*3/229�685</*/4-�=':+8� ,58'4�+>:+49/<+�6/6+2/4+��)5=)'2,�?+'82/4-�)5;4:8?�� *� �� ')�� =+22/3685<+*� =.53+9�� ('849� �� 6+49�� =+22� =':+8+*�6<3:��'22�=+':.+8�85'*9�,853�:.+�/4:+89:':+��6'9:;8+9�8;4�/4�9/@+,8��')��+').�;6� :5� � �')��=2'1+��6/)1� :.+9/@+�5,�8'4).�:.':�?5;�='4:�='�:5:'2�5,�� ')��5:2+?��5��$&��8'4).2'4*�='�2'8-+��6+83/::+**'3� 685</*/4-� '� .;-+�� (+';:/,;2� 2'1+� ==':+8(')1+*�;6�/4�'�4;3(+8�5,�93'22+8�)'4?549��,58�(5':�/4-�� ,/9./4-� �� 5:.+8� 8+)8+':/54� :5-+:.+8� =-55*.;4:/4-�54�:.+�8'4).�� 4�6<3:�� *��*��')��6<3:��54�,5;8�9/*+9��54�8;8'2=':+8��(8/)1�.53+�=2'8-+�9+:�5,�9:++2�6+49�=+>)+22+4:�/3685<+3+4:9��25)':/54�� ')��5,�).5/)+�-8'992'4*=.5;9+9��('849�� 9:++2�6+49�� 2'?9� /4� � :8'):9��=/22*/</*+��" �% � (! )�#'$�) �%!& %� ,58� *+:'/29 54� :.+9+6856+8:/+9�� ).5/)+� �� 8'4).+9� �2'8-+� �� 93'22��).5/)+� 8'4).+9� /4� :.+� ./-.� 8'/4,'22� '8+'9� 5,� ��/88�*8?2'4*�"!��)533+8)/'2�6856+8:/+9��%+�4++*?5;8� 2/9:/4-9�54� '4?� :?6+9�5,� '-�6856+8:/+9� /4� $&�� 58��

Scottand co.L Ranch & FarmReal Estate

��%#"'��'%��'��!!�''�� "��#''�- %#��%

�%,&'� �� &#"��(� ��,�"�� %#��%��,��)��

***�&�#'' �"��#!$�",��#!***�'�+�&�%$��#!

� � � � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

Gerber continued from page eight

��

� ��

��

enjoy Nevada’s outback because ofwilderness restrictions. He genuinelycared about the small number of res-idents in Jarbidge whose livelihoodswere impacted by loss of access tocampgrounds along South CanyonRoad. And he genuinely cared aboutranchers who were losing the use offorage that ended up feeding dan-gerous, pollution-causing wildfires.Gerber took that concern to the

next level when two longtimeNevada ranch families faced ruinbecause of grazing restrictionsprompted by drought. This battle

quickly became less about the landand more about how the decision-making was handled by the govern-ment.Comparing the situation to

Gandhi’s Salt March in oppositionto Britain’s monopoly over the min-eral, Gerber launched his first GrassMarch to Carson City in June.Horseback riders delivered petitions“for redress of grievances” to Gov.Brian Sandoval, Pony-Express style.Not long after, Grant came to

our office again and described howhe was organizing a ride from coast

to coast, gathering petitions fromother embattled entities along theway. He set a timeline that soundedimpossible, but at no point did wedoubt that Grant Gerber wouldachieve his goal. Not even a fatalinjury would stop him from reachingthe nation’s Capitol with petitions inhand.Even people who disagree with

his goals and methods have torespect that kind of determination.It’s citizens like Grant Gerber whomade America strong, and his losswill be felt by generations to come.

BY TAMMY GRAY,

HTTP://WWW.AZJOURNAL.COM

Wolves are the mainkillers of cattle inCatron County, N.M.,and are setting a record

for the number of confirmedkills in 2014.Catron County, which bor-

ders eastern Arizona and isincluded in the Gila NationalForest, is the site of the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area. Itwas one of the first areas whereMexican gray wolves werereleased in an effort to reestab-lish their population in westernstates.According to Catron County

Wildlife Investigator Jess Carey,the results have been devastatingto local ranchers. In a reporttitled Mexican Wolf RecoveryCollateral Damage Identifica-tion in Catron County alone, henoted that of five ranches hestudied, two went out of busi-ness and a third did not restockcattle after 2009. Over thecourse of the study, the fiveranches lost a total of 651 headof cattle valued at more than$382,000.“The negative effects to live-

stock producers caused by Mexi-can Wolves are a wide spectrumnot addressed and/or ignored bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice. Prior negative data and doc-umentation of wolf recoveryfrom other states were not uti-lized to mitigate the same nega-tive effects of Mexican wolfrecovery in New Mexico and

Arizona,” he noted.Carey also pointed out that

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice does not take into accountother types of damage to cattleoperations, such as stress deathscaused by wolves running cattle,or loss of production by cowsdue to stress created by the pres-ence of wolves. He noted thatthe department “demands thatranchers change their entire hus-bandry scheme to accommodatethe presence of wolves; if therancher refuses, no compensa-tion is paid on wildlife servicesfindings on confirmed or proba-ble livestock depredations.”In addition, payment of

claims is running years behindschedule and a pro-wolf non-governmental organization is incharge of processing the claims,according to Carey.He notes that he believes that

the harm caused to ranchers isnot only the result of the federalwildlife service and pro-wolforganizations, but also to a lackof coverage in the media.“The truth about the negative

impacts to rural folks by Mexi-can wolves is never provided tothe citizens of Arizona and NewMexico because of the failure ofthe press. The collateral damageto achieve Mexican wolf recov-ery has destroyed many familyranchers,” he wrote.According to Carey’s report,

wolves quickly become acclima-tized to humans and after a timedo not flee even when warningshots are fired in the air. InCatron County, domestic ani-

mals besides cattle have beenkilled and injured, includinghorses, dogs, chickens and cats.The report notes that in oneinstance, a wolf bit the head offof a kitten in front of a group ofchildren, and many attacks ondomestic dogs occurred in theowner’s front or back yard.Wildlife investigation reports

from Catron County reveal thatbetween Jan. 1, 2006, and Aug.30, 2014, a total of 143 cattlewere confirmed to have beenkilled by wolves. That total doesnot include deaths deemed as“probable” due to wolf depreda-tion, or any other animals killedby wolves. During that sameperiod, a total of 29 cattle wereconfirmed killed by coyotes,bears and mountain lion com-bined.The wildlife investigation

report notes that, “U.S. Fish andWildlife Service John Oakleaf’sstudy of confirmed wolf killedlivestock found: for every wolfkilled livestock ‘confirmed’ thereare 7 more that are not con-firmed. Example: one ranch in2009 had 10 confirmed wolfkilled yearlings and have another80 head missing. This is consis-tent with Oakleaf’s study.”As of Aug. 30, wildlife investi-

gations conducted in 2014included 28 confirmed cases ofcattle killed by wolves and onehorse injured by a wolf. Duringthe same period, there was oneconfirmed kill by a coyote andone by a bear, while five cattledied of unknown causes. In addi-tion, there was one confirmed

cattle injury by a wolf and sixdeaths ruled as likely caused by awolf.In the cases investigated in

2013, 14 cattle were confirmedto have been killed by wolves,while two were killed by coyotesand nine were listed as“unknown.” During that year,one dog and one puppy wereconfirmed to have been injuredby wolves.Investigations in 2012 includ-

ed 13 cattle confirmed killed bywolves, one death listed as a“probable” wolf case and oneconfirmed cattle injury causedby wolves. One mule was killedby wolves, while three cattlewere killed by bears, none bycoyotes and in seven cases, theresults were listed as unknown.The 2011 investigative report

shows that 25 cases of cattlekilled by wolves were confirmedand two cases were listed asprobable. A young horse wasalso confirmed killed by wolves.There were four cattle confirmedto have been injured by wolves,and 11 died of unknown causes.Three cattle were killed by bearsand none by coyotes.Of the cases investigated in

2010, five cattle were confirmedkilled by wolves and two injured.There were also confirmed wolfkills of one colt and one elk. Sixcattle deaths were of unknowncause, while one was killed by abear and one by a domestic dog.In 2010, coyotes also killed acolt and some sheep.During 2009, there were a

total of 14 confirmed cases ofwolves killing cattle and two“probable” cases. Wolves alsokilled a group of chickens and anelk that year. Six cattle died fromunknown causes, while one waskilled by a coyote and one by amountain lion.Cases investigated in 2008,

include 13 cattle confirmedkilled by wolves, three probablecases, and six injuries confirmedto have been caused by wolves.Wolves also killed a group ofchickens. Bears killed three headof cattle that year, coyotes killedfive and 14 deaths were due tounknown causes. In 2008 therewere also three cattle killed bylightning and three in an acci-dent.Over the course of 2007,

investigations revealed 20 con-firmed wolf killings of cattle, 20probable wolf killings of cattleand one confirmed cattle injury.Wolves also killed one horse andan elk, were listed as a probablecause in the killing of anotherhorse and elk, were confirmed tohave injured two dogs and werethe probable cause of injury in ahorse. Five cattle were killed bycoyotes, two by bears and 10 byunknown causes. Coyotes alsokilled an emu that year.In 2006, investigators con-

firmed that 11 cattle deaths werecaused by wolves, and threewere listed as probable cases.There was also one case of cattleinjury by wolves and one proba-ble injury due to wolves. Thatyear, wolves were also confirmed

to have killed one dog, one kit-ten and one cat, injured a dog,and were listed as the probablecause in the injury of three hors-es and a sheep. Also during2006, four cattle were killed bymotor vehicles, two by bears,one by a coyote and five byunknown causes. Two died dur-ing calving and one was due tonatural causes.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 2013 progress report onthe Mexican Wolf reintroductionproject notes that the 1996 envi-ronmental impact statement pre-dicted that there would bebetween one and 34 confirmedcases of cattle killed by wolves inthe Blue Range reintroductionarea, based on a population of100 wolves. According to thereport, at that rate the total killswould be less than one half ofone percent of all cattle in thearea.From 1998 to 2003, the total

number of kills in the BlueRange area stayed below theprojected amount, at an averageof 13.8 cattle per 100 wolves.Between 2005 and 2009, thatnumber increased and the reportnotes that, “the number of con-firmed cattle killed by wolvesexceeded the predicted rate.” In2008, the average was 36.5 cat-tle per 100 wolves and in 2009 itwas 50 cattle per 100 wolves.According to the report, thenumber dropped back down towithin the predicted rangebetween 2010 and 2012, with anaverage of 24 cattle killed per100 wolves.In 2005, the Arizona Game

and Fish Department reportedthat a preliminary diet analysisof Mexican Wolves revealed thattheir diet is comprised of about75 percent elk, 11 percent smallanimals and unknown sources,10 percent deer and four percentlivestock. At that time, therewere a total of 70 confirmed orsuspected cattle killed by wolvesand ranchers had been reim-bursed a total of $34,000.The Arizona Game and Fish

report notes that most observedpredation is on young elk, how-ever, wolves were also seekingout livestock.“Although small in compari-

son to all available livestockpresent, depredation is measur-able, and usually focused onone or two allotments,” thereport states.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service is working on a plan toreintroduce wolves to nearlythe entire state of Arizona,including all areas south ofInterstate 40.Carey noted that Arizona

residents should take heed.“The folks of Arizona do not

realize what is coming to theircommunity. Most impactedwill be the rural families. Theywill have their family petskilled, livestock killed, andhave to live with habituatedwolves in yards, on front porch-es, and confronting childrenand adults alike at close range,”he wrote.


��

��

��

��

��

�� &�� !)� �%��*&&#��&,�(�*&�* ��,�(.�#�)*)*&(.��/)�%�-�)*��&&"��%�$��!��!)�'+(��!**)��%�* �*(��!*!&%�&��!(*��&��)��%�� &�/)�&+%*(.��/)�#�*�)*�-!##��%*�(�*�!%��%��!%)'!(��)*!%��*&��#�))!��

The Best of the Bunch

��

�� (--0%�!,4�&-2/�-&��%%60�"--*0�!,$�.!4�-,+4�� !,$�1(!1

),#+2$%0��/)-/)14��-01!'%�5��1�!++�!$$0�2.�1-�!�.-1%,1)!+�0!3),'�-&�-3%/��

New Mexico Investigator Offers Stern Wolf Warning To Arizona


BY TAMMY GRAY, WWW.AZJOURNAL.COM

Aheated meeting regardingthe introduction of Mexi-can gray wolves south ofInterstate 40 highlighted

the efforts by the Arizona Gameand Fish Department to pushthe federal government to createa management plan for thewolves.Winslow City Councilman

Marshall Losey reported that thefederal plan has no cap on thenumber of wolves and does notinclude any sort of plan for man-aging the population, includingattacks on livestock. He notedthat, according to informationpresented at the Oct. 15 meet-ing, Arizona Game and Fish isworking to find a balancebetween the $28 million federalwolf recovery program and theconcerns of local residents.“I believe they are trying to do

the best they can for all of us,”he said. “I believe they are tryingto help ranchers as much as pos-sible to manage it.”Losey noted that the general

consensus is that the programcannot be stopped and thewolves are going to be releasedthroughout Arizona, so the bestcourse of action is to try toestablish a plan that will limit thepopulation and provide compen-sation for lost livestock.“The thought is that there’s

going to be a wolf rule one wayor the other, so we better get onthe right side of this,” he said.Game and Fish had previous-

ly reached an agreement withthe Cattleman’s Association fora cap of 100 wolves, but thedepartment has now asked toincrease that number to between300 and 325. According toLosey, Game and Fish officialsfeel that the federal government

will not accept a cap of 100.“The feds have determined

that 100 is not a viable number,”he remarked.Approximately 35 area resi-

dents attended the meeting,which was sponsored by ArizonaGame and Fish, and of thosearound 25 were directly involvedin ranching. Some ranchers wereopposed to the release of anywolves in the area, while othersagreed that the best course ofaction is to work with the federalgovernment to limit the numberof wolves.“Arizona Game and Fish’s

stance is that an unmanagedwolf program will be disastrous.They are looking toward a com-pensation program for farmersand ranchers,” Losey said. “It’s amatter of trying to manage itrather than buck it.”The current plan calls for the

release of wolves across most of

Arizona, including the areassouth of Interstate 40 in theApache-Sitgreaves National For-est.“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service is advocating releases toextend across the entire state asa means to ensure recovery,”Losey said.The Navajo County Board of

Supervisors recently sent a letterto the federal agency protestingthe lack of cooperation withstate and local governments increating a plan for managing thewolves. The letter notes thatalthough meetings were heldwith state and local agencies, noreal cooperation or input wasallowed. Navajo County con-tends that the agency is notcomplying with the requirementsof the Endangered Species Actby refusing to work with affectedgovernment agencies.“Specifically, to date, the serv-

ice actions, or lack thereof, donot represent a genuine goodfaith attempt to develop anagreement, or even to actuallywork with the state and tribalagencies, local governments andstakeholders,” the letter notes.Losey noted that the action

could have a significant impacton many area residents.“This is a great concern for

many ranchers, farmers and out-doorsmen as an increase in thewolf population could have a sig-nificant impact on their liveli-hood,” he said.He explained that although

there may be little chance ofchanging the plans for the wolfprogram, the best hope is towork for changes to the Endan-gered Species Act, which waspassed in 1976.“I encourage people to con-

tact their Congressmen,” hesaid.

Management Plan Is Sought For Area Wolf Introduction

For generations, ranchers in the SouthernGreat Plains have fed their cattle the sameway.

During the spring and summer months, cat-tle graze on a sea of open pastures across theprairie, then in the fall fields begin to go dor-mant and ranchers typically substitute hay inplace of grazing. This can be a pricey endeavor,but this has been the tried-and-true processused for decades.In early October, Noble Foundation

launches a new research initiative — For-age365 — aimed at providing a sustainable,year-round grazing system. “Hay is an expen-sive input for cattle producers,” said BillyCook, Ph.D., director of the agricultural divi-sion. “Regardless of whether a producer makestheir own hay or purchases hay, it’s an expen-sive alternative to grazing. If we can extend theeffective grazing period and reduce the needfor hay, we can have positive impacts on prof-itability, and sustainability of ranching opera-tions.As part of the Forage365 initiative, the

Noble Foundation will look to develop a sys-tem of forages (plants consumed by grazinganimals) that enables ranchers to graze cattleyear-round and use less or no hay. NobleFoundation scientists are focusing on four pil-lar crop species, including alfalfa, bermuda-grass, tall fescue, and winter wheat, that couldwork together as well as with other forages toprovide consistent grazing throughout the year.The Forage365 initiative includes a strategic

set of interconnecting projects that willimprove forage system productivity and theprofitability of livestock production, examinemanagement practices and economic systems,and demonstrate how the system can improvewater quality and sustainability. Select out-

comes will be available as early as 2018; howev-er, several of the projects are intended to pro-vide building blocks for scientists and breedersto provide improvements over the next decade.“As a whole, Forage365 focuses on the

importance of native and introduced plantspecies working in a unified system, as well asadvancing the use of cover crops,” said ZengyuWang, Ph.D., director of the forage improve-ment division. “This whole-system approachenhances the sustainability of grazing lands,taking quality practices by our agricultural pro-ducers to the next level.”The Noble Foundation has been focused on

developing better systems and improved plantsfor forage-based beef cattle systems — the pri-mary agricultural endeavor across Oklahomaand Texas — since its inception in 1945. In thelast two years, a year-round grazing system wasidentified as a strategic objective due to itspotential impact on agriculture and the organi-zation’s capacity to achieve this objective.Forage365 draws together each of the

Noble Foundation’s three divisions, includingfundamental plant science, plant breeding andmanagement, and applied agriculturalresearchers, into one cohesive set of projects.Key to the success of this initiative, Noble sci-entists and researchers will identify and workwith external scientists and researchers aroundthe region and nation to expedite the progress.“The Noble Foundation has the combina-

tion of expertise and resources, along with thenecessary relationships within the researchcommunity, to successfully develop and exe-cute this program,” said Michael Udvardi,Ph.D. “We have a wealth of dedicated individ-uals at the Noble Foundation and beyond,working together with the ultimate goal ofimproving agriculture and the environment.”

New initiative aims to provideyear-round grazing system

Diversified farmers will nowhave access to a improvedcrop insurance option withUSDA’s release today of

the new Whole-Farm RevenueProtection (WFRP) crop insur-ance policy. This will be the firsttime that many farmers will haveaccess to affordable crop insur-

ance that provides flexible andcomprehensive revenue coveragefor their whole farm.WFRP is a new policy called for

in the 2014 Farm Bill and devel-oped by the USDA’s Risk Man-agement Agency (RMA) that willallow farmers to insure all of theircrops, livestock, and nursery and

greenhouse crops for a revenueloss with a single policy rather thanusing individual crop policies. It isbeing offered initially as a pilotpolicy.For many diversified farmers,

including sustainable and organicfarmers, individual policies andprice elections are often not avail-

New Whole-Farm Revenue Protection Insurance Policy Aims for Diversified Farmsable either for the crops beinggrown or in the county they arebeing grow in. Additionally, onhighly diversified farms, whereonly a small amount of some cropsor livestock is grown or raised, pur-chasing several separate policesoften doesn’t make financial sense.“The release of this new whole

farm policy levels the playing fieldfor diversified sustainable andorganic farmers” said Paul Wolfe,Policy Analyst for NSAC. “Farm-ers that grow crops that are unin-surable under any other policy andthose who cannot insure theirorganic or niche market crop forits true value now have what wehope is a very viable insuranceoption.”WFRP will be available in 44

states, more states than either ofthe two previously available wholefarm type policies, Adjusted GrossRevenue (AGR) or AGR-Lite.WFRP will not be available inTexas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,Arkansas, Missouri and Mississip-pi and part of California.For the first time, farmers in

eight states, including Iowa, Indi-ana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebras-ka, North Dakota, Ohio andSouth Dakota, will be able insuretheir entire farm revenue with onepolicy.“We hope that in the near

future RMA will expand the avail-ability of Whole-Farm RevenueProtection to every state andcounty so all farmers have equi-table access to crops insurance,”said Wolfe.This new policy includes sever-

al important improvements overAGR and AGR-Lite. Forinstance, USDA recentlyannounced that a farmer with twoor more crops meeting the mini-mum diversification requirementcan now receive an 80 percentpremium subsidy under WFRP.Some of the other importantimprovements included in WFRPthat NSAC advocated for includea higher liability limit, higher cov-erage levels, a premium discountfor diversification, inclusion ofincidental processing expenses,and replant coverage.

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Unlike other Indian reser-vations in Montana, theFlathead Reservation wasopened to settlement by

non-Indians in the early 1900s,and an irrigation project wascreated for the Indians and non-Indians alike. Today, the Com-pact agreement that the Tribesare negotiating the State wouldput the Tribes in control of allthe water.Jerry Laskody is one of the

affected irrigators, living withinthe Reservation boundaries.“I’m a retired Boeing executiveand I have just a small cattleranch. I am living my dream; Icouldn’t do it while I was work-ing, so when I retired we boughta worn-out piece of land andmade it productive again. Wegot it irrigated and now we runabout 20 mother cows and raisesome hay,” he says.“The new Compact proposal

would cut my water roughly inhalf. I can’t irrigate my placewith only half. It’s that simple.I’ve made this argument beforethe legislature and before theCompact Commission. I canprove that I am using the rightamount of water, and putting itto beneficial use, from themeasurements I’ve made on ourranch,” he says. Ross Middlemist is a rancher

whose family has been ranchingwithin the reservation for 100years. “My ancestors didn’tcome here thinking the waterrights were not valid or that wewould fall under tribal jurisdic-tion. The land and water werebought and paid for. How canthe water now be taken from uswithout just compensation? TheCompact is nothing more than amethod to break the back ofagriculture on the Reservationand take the land from the pres-ent owners for 10 cents on thedollar. Every farmer/rancher,tribal or not, will suffer the sameconsequences,” he says.“The water use agreement

within the Compact will makebeggars of all irrigators, since we

won’t know from year to yearhow much water we will beallowed for our crops. The in-stream flows will have the prior-ity. This uncertainty will be crip-pling. By abandoning us, thestate of Montana leaves us withonly two options—to litigate forwhat is ours or to walk away.This is the defining moment inour history, both on and off thereservation. If the Compact, theWater Use Agreement and theUnitary Management Ordi-nance are passed, we are done,”says Middlemist.The ranchers/farmers don’t

have the funds to fight legal bat-tles, compared to the deeperpockets of the Tribes. “TheTribes have a large contingent oflawyers. We are fighting our-selves with our own taxpayerdollars — killing ourselves withour own sword!”Middlemist was not aware of

this threat to his livelihood untilApril 2012. “I was not con-cerned earlier because I thoughtwe had the best people on ourside fighting for us. I knew thesepeople and felt very comfortablethat we were going to come outokay. I was on the FlatheadJoint Board of Control (for theirrigation districts) for 9 years,and went to Washington, D.C.with these people. I’ve been offthe Board since 1999 but I hada lot of confidence in them,” hesays.“Then many of us began to

realize that some things didn’tsound right. I went to a meetingin Ronan, and decided I shouldget involved in the group calledConcerned Citizens of WesternMontana. The first meeting Iattended was in September2012 and I’ve been involved eversince. There are a lot of peoplelike me who were not very wor-ried about it, until we found outthat the Compact was going togive our water rights to theTribes,” says Middlemist.“The Confederated Salish

and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT)had earlier tried to gain manage-ment of the Flathead IrrigationProject via the 638 contract

(Indian self determination) butthey were refused. Their secondattempt was to get their planwrapped around this Compact,which could have nationwideimplications if they get controlof the irrigation projects. Everytribe in the country is alreadylooking at this.”The extremist environmental

groups are also looking at this asa way to get all the water awayfrom the irrigators. “They arehammering us with the bulltrout issue here. It’s the spottedowl of this situation. The morewe get into it, the scarier itlooks,” says.The past and present Gover-

nors of Montana are strongly infavor of giving away the irriga-tors’ water. “They are liberalDemocrats. Even though thepresent Governor is nowinformed about some of theflaws in the Compact, he isdetermined to push it throughanyway, with the idea that weshould pass it and then figure itout. But some of us want tohold off on it until it can bemade equitable to all,” saysMiddlemist.Laskody feels it doesn’t make

sense for the state to give upjurisdiction to the federal gov-ernment. “We’ve never under-stood why the tribe is able to dothis. There have been numerouscourt cases over the past 20years in which the tribe haschallenged certain water issueshere, and the State SupremeCourt told them that they needto quantify their federalreserved rights. The court saidthat the State can’t issue waterright certificates within theboundaries of the old reserva-tion until the tribe’s federalreserved right was quantified,and told the Tribe they had togo back and quantify their fed-eral reserved rights but theyhave never done it,” saysLaskody.“The tribes refuse to do it;

they’d rather have this gift of allthe water on the reservation.Their stated goal is to get usnon-tribal folks out of here andget their reservation back. Wedidn’t cause this situation. Set-tlement by non-Indians was aresult of Congressional actionthat took place in the early1900s; it was government policyat that time to get rid of reserva-tions and have the land settled.”The federal government wantedto have the tribal people be citi-zens and tax-payers. But nowthere’s a move to take land awayfrom the tax-paying citizens.“The tribe is now buying up

land all over the reservation andputting it in trust, and as soonas they do that, it goes off thetax rolls and raises everybodyelse’s taxes. It hurts the countiesand hurts the people, making itmore difficult to stay here,” hesays.“The margins are pretty slim

for agriculture, and this justmakes it harder. I’m convincedthat there’s a movement to getrid of us. This Buffalo Com-

mons deal is part of the plan, toultimately turn this area into abig park. The problem we face isthat all the votes are in the cityand agriculture is outnum-bered.” This is a tragedybecause hard-working farmersand ranchers have made produc-tive use of much of this land andare feeding many people. Themajority of people in this coun-try today believe that foodcomes from the grocery storeand they don’t think any fartherbeyond that. They don’t knowwhat it takes to feed our coun-try.There are three irrigation dis-

tricts involved in this waterissue, and two of them have nowvoted to pull out of the JointBoard of Control. It’s been astrategy of divide and conquer.“It’s just like they did at Kla-math,” says Laskody. “The tribesthere settled with the lower val-ley irrigators and the upperbasin ranchers didn’t buy into itso at the first opportunity thetribes had, to call water, theycalled it on the upper basin.Those ranchers had to ship cat-tle in August and the judgewouldn’t even let them havewater for their cattle over theweekend until they could gettrucks,” he says.“The problem here is that we

can’t effectively challenge thetribes in court because theyhave nearly 30 lawyers, paid forby the taxpayers. So we are pay-ing for these people to make ourlives miserable, and they havethe state on their side. WesternMontana Water Users is tryingto raise money for legal issues,but the Joint Board of Controlonly has a certain amount ofmoney. We’ll have to raise ourassessments next year to coverour legal costs. There is so muchcoming down on us — justbecause we are opposing thisWater Use Agreement in theCompact,” he explains.“There’s the threat from the

BIA about the increase in thein-stream flows. Yet our creeksare running full bore in Augustand September when theyshould be at their minimum.This is water taken away fromirrigation yet these folks aretelling us it’s not enough!” saysLaskody.“Part of our problem is

there’s a lot of apathy; many ofthe farmers and ranchers don’twant to get involved in this. Butthe older guys that want toretire aren’t thinking about thefact that the value of theirretirement is in their ranch andif the water is cut back, theranch value will go down — andthat’s money right out of theirpocket. Their ranch won’t haveirrigated pasture for cattle pro-duction. It would have to all goto grain, which takes less water.Right now the gross agriculturaloutput is about $80 million dol-lars that our farms and ranchesput into our local economy inthese valleys on the reservation.That would literally be cut in


continued on page thirteen

Montana Water Crunch Part 6 – Hardship for IrrigatorsControversy Over

the Dams, Water andLand Use; Montana’s

Future is at Stake

State Senator Verdell Jackson(Kalispell) says that thisissue will adversely affect irri-gators in 11 counties of

western Montana and create afar-reaching impact on Montana’seconomy.“On the Flathead Reservation,

since it was opened up to home-steading by the federal govern-ment, 90 percent of irrigators arenon-Indian. The Indians didn’twant to farm. The federal govern-ment encouraged homesteadingacross the West because withoutirrigation most people couldn’tmake a living on the land. Build-ing all the dams and providingwater to irrigate showed fantasticforesight on the part of our gov-ernment, in making it possible forpeople to earn a living from theland (and grow crops to feed thepeople who didn’t live on theland),” says Jackson.Some people today resent the

fact the dams were built. “If theyweren’t built, however, thosesame people wouldn’t be able tolive here because we could notsupport ourselves. Right nowthere is a lot of stress on our pop-ulation in Montana because therearen’t enough jobs here. Our kidsgo through school and then moveto a different state where they canget a job, because in Montana thelogging is shut down, there are nonew mines, and even our tourismis not very strong,” says Jackson.“Irrigators on the Reservation

provide a huge part of our econo-my here. The last thing we shoulddo is take water away from them,just to maintain in-stream flow.The irrigators can use it, and thereturn flow from irrigation goesback into the river,” he says.On his website he lists his

research on the flow of the river.“You can see that during the last86 years on the Flathead River(which goes into the Clark Fork),it’s a straight line of 20,000 cubicfeet per second. You cannot findthe human impact because it is sosmall. This just shows that wehave no business trying to takewater away from each other whenwe have 14 million acre feet goingon into Idaho.” It makes sense tocontinue to use water for benefi-cial use such as irrigation thatgrows food, creates livelihoods,and supports local businesses andcommunities. It’s a crime to takeit away.“I think this is the most impor-

tant issue that has ever happenedin Montana since it became astate. This issue concerns about2/3 of the state because the over-reach — off the reservation — isimpacting 11 counties. This hasnever happened before and is afrightening precedent! Montanais already bumping along the bot-tom, in terms of average income,so we don’t need to damage itmore,” says Jackson.


Montana Water Crunch continued from page twelve

half by these amounts of water they plan toallocate,” he says.“There will be a mass exodus of people

out of here, if they want to make a living. Ifthey decide to go into grain they will needbigger acreages. This means all the smallranches will go out of business. There willbe fewer people to support local business-es.”Yet the businesses are afraid to side with

the irrigators. Some of them do businesswith the tribes and are afraid to jeopardizethat faction. “The tribes are pretty heavy-handed. There are some tribal memberswho have tribal leases, but because they aresupporting us the tribes have withdrawntheir leases. The tribe has also threatenedanybody else, who is non-tribal, and whohas a lease and is supporting us, with a lossof their lease. It has put a lot of peoplebetween a rock and a hard place,” he says. “There are a lot of tribal irrigators who

have both fee land and tribal leases andthey are threatened also. They didn’t partic-ipate in this last election because of thethreats from the tribe. There is a lot of dirtypolitics.” This is tragic because it pits neigh-bor against neighbor.“The conflict plays right into their hands.

We just had a referendum, and the majorityof the people in my district (Mission Irriga-tion District) and in the Jocko Valley Irriga-tion District voted not to separate from theJoint Board of Control. Our opponentswon in the Flathead District (which is ourbiggest district) by a few percent but overallthe difference between supporting the JointBoard and not supporting the Joint Boardwas just 5 votes,” he says.“Only half of the irrigators voted. We

vote acres here; the bigger farms and ranch-es get more votes, so about 2/3 of theacreage voted. When we looked at the num-ber of parcels that voted it was less than 50percent participation! And this is an issuethat is significant. We were phoning every-one on the irrigator list, trying to contacteveryone in the districts — with three orfour days of phone calling to remind peopleto vote, and to remind them what the issueswere — and we still had a very poorturnout. There are a lot of people trying tosit on the fence on this, mainly becausethey are afraid of the threats,” saysLaskody.This battle is tragic. “I wouldn’t wish it

on my worst enemy. I am 71 years old and Icame out here to spend my time running afew cows and enjoying my retirement, butthis is so egregious that I had to getinvolved. Our water users group has beenaccused of being racist because it doesn’tagree with the tribe, and it’s a nasty situa-tion. I have been accused of being racist. Ijust don’t agree with the tribe on this issue.I’ve written letters in support of the tribeand commending them when they’ve donethings that I think are good for the commu-nity, but this thing is such a grab and over-reach that it is ridiculous. We should nothave to be fighting them and the state,” hesays.“I don’t understand why the state has

abandoned the irrigators. The tribal peoplein this county represent less than 20 per-cent of the population, and the tribe ownsonly 8 percent of the irrigated acreage. Whyshould they have full control over this?”There have to be some underlying motives.“In the arid and semi-arid West, anyone

who controls the water controls the land.Water is more precious than gold. People inthe East don’t understand this because theylive in a humid environment where there’snot a shortage. Water is our life, out here.We can’t have someone else control it, orthey control us. We can’t make a living onthe land if we don’t have the water.”

Family Roots

Many of the irrigators have owned land onthe reservation for several generations.“My family purchased land after theymoved here from Colorado; we were not

homesteaders,” says Middlemist. “My great-grandfather was a partner in the HashknifeRanch in Colorado near Brush. He sold his shareand came here in 1913. At that point he hadmoney in the bank with intentions of buying aranch. He rode horseback as far as the Big Holein western Montana, looking at ranches. Unfor-tunately he did not get his money reinvestedquickly enough; there was a bank panic and helost 75 cents of every dollar. That ended hischance for buying much of a ranch,” says Mid-dlemist.“Consequently he got a very small place, just

40 acres, here at Dixon. He rented and ran thelivery barn. He was also the local veterinarian ofhis time — floating horses’ teeth and castratingcolts, etc. The family lived a meager existence.The next generation — my grandfather — wentthrough the Depression. Later when my fatherwanted him to co-sign on a note to buy a neigh-bor’s place that came up for sale, my grandfatherwas too cautious. My dad was still able to buy120 acres and build a house. He was a logger for15 years and then had a chance to buy the adjoin-ing 120 acres in 1964,” says Middlemist.“About that same time he got hired at the

National Bison Range (also on the Reservation)when I was in first grade and our family was elat-ed because this was only five miles from home.My dad had raised sheep, pigs and a few cattlealong with his logging, and had about 30 cows.In 1974 we purchased additional property. Ibought 100 acres and Dad bought 900 acres. Wepaid $100 an acre for the dryland and $500 anacre for the irrigated land,” he recalls. “We added another 50 cows at $400 apiece;

our banker encouraged us to buy them becausehe thought they would cost $700 by spring. Rightafter we bought them, the cattle market crashed,and by spring they were worth $300 and by fallthey were only worth $200. The big end of thesteers weighed 480 pounds and brought 27 centsper pound. Interest rates shot up to 18 percentand things looked bleak. But we just knuckleddown and Dad’s job helped keep us going. Healso trapped coyotes to get enough money to buyour first used 4-wheel-drive pickup. We barelyhung on, but we did. It probably took us 15 yearsto recover from the cattle market crash. Wealmost lost the place, but we didn’t,” he says.“When my wife and I were married, all we had

was the 100-acre piece I’d bought and we renteda house. It wasn’t until later that we bought ourpresent house and 30 acres. We continued topurchase land, most of it adjacent to my Dad’s.When he died he left his land to me, and it is nowoperated as one ranch,” says Middlemist.His whole life (and that of his father and

grandparents before him) was spent creating thisranch, and it’s something that he would not will-ingly walk away from. “The tribe has been buyingmany of the ranches around here but we don’twant to leave. This is our life, and we are notgoing to quit,” he says.In some of the recent meetings, proponents of

the Compact have said, “If you people don’t likeit here, get out!” But for the ranch families whohave been here for several generations, it’s theirland, too — paid for in money, blood, sweat andtears.“In an earlier battle a Tribal Councilman was

quoted in the paper as saying, ‘We’re not goinganywhere, and you’re not going anywhere, sowe’d better start getting along.’ This would cer-tainly be a better strategy, because more than 80percent of the people in this reservation are non-Indian. We need to figure it out and try to getalong and make it work. This is where I live,where my family has been for 100 years and haslived and died. We plan to stay.”

Idaho author Heather SmithThomas’s latest book, HorseTales: True Stories from an Ida-ho Ranch, launched in Octo-

ber. The book, published by theColorado media venture TheFrontier Project Inc., is a collec-tion of 22 non-fiction storiesabout the horses that helpeddefine Thomas’s life in the ranchcountry outside Salmon, Idaho. “This book is about the hors-

es in my life,” Thomas writes inthe preface to Horse Tales. “Theyall had very different personali-ties and each one taught me alot – not just about horses andriding, but about life andresponsibility, patience, respectand trust, consistency and perse-verance.”Thomas is the author of 20

books and countless articles onhorsemanship, stockmanshipand animal health care. She is aregular contributor to the Live-stock Market Digest. Each storyin Horse Tales centers on theauthor’s experiences with a spe-cific animal, and is infused withlessons on life, family and stock-manship. Together, the storiescomprise a beautiful memoirabout a remarkable life withhorses, and offer a uniqueglimpse into ranch life in rural

Idaho. The 282-page book, priced at

$24.95, will be available at Ama-zon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, Powells.com and otheronline retailers. Inquiries regarding excerpts

or review copies can be directedto the book’s publisher, TheFrontier Project Inc., headed byRanch & Reata magazine editorA.J. Mangum; 719/237-0243,[email protected] more about the book atwww.ajmangum.com.

Horse Tales: TrueStories from an Idaho Ranch

The proposal fails to address the Beef Checkoff’s two most damag-ing conflicts of interest. Those two conflicts of interest in the BeefCheckoff program are that the decision making Federation of StateBeef Councils is owned and controlled by the NCBA and that check-off funds strengthen the NCBA’s own policy making efforts becausethey offset the NCBA’s administrative costs. The working group’sproposal would do nothing to change the bias favoring the NCBAbecause the NCBA would still continue to control the Federation.Even though the nominating process would include representativesfrom the beef industry group, the nominators would still draw fromthe same pool of nominees all of whom would still be controlled bythe NCBA. Independent producers and consumers fought hard to win COOL

(Country of Origin Labeling). NCBA and NPPC (National PorkProducers Council) are now using your checkoff dollar to try todefeat COOL in the courts again. If it weren’t for the millions wegive the NCBA, the NCBA and the NPPC wouldn’t be able to keepfighting COOL. The President of NCBA is now asking for donations to fight Oba-

ma’s political machine. That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Inlight of this information, why do we want to give another dollar toNCBA? Ask Congress to do away with the Beef Checkoff and volun-tarily donate to your favorite beef organization when you sell cattle.– Catherine Daniel, President, Southern Colorado Livestock Association

Letter continued from page seven

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194Telephone: 505/243-9515


BY JULIE CARTER

The Mountainair grazingdistrict in the CibolaNational Forest covers twoseparate mountain ranges.

The Gallinas range is southeastof Mountainair, NM and theManzano range is to the north.In the vastness of the district,weather patterns and annualprecipitation vary as much as theterrain of both.The June 11, 2013 letter from

Mountainair District RangerKaren Lessard ordering theunprecedented blanket removalof all livestock from both parts ofthe district continues to impactallotment owners in clear andcalculable ways. All cattle wereremoved from the district allot-ments by July 31, 2013, after amonth of rains and grass revival.A grueling battle for range

assessments, appeals wherethere were to be no appeals,pressure from county commis-sions and congressional officesresulted in the return of cattle tothe allotments six months later.

Robbing Peter to pay PaulJesus “Chewy” Baca has

owned two grazing allotments,the Monte Largo and theComanche, in the ManzanoMountain range for 50 and 60years. “My grandmother had theMonte Largo before that,” Bacasaid. “My family has been ranch-ing these mountains for a longtime.”Baca’s two allotments repre-

sent approximately 50,000 acreson the west face of the Man-zanos, most of which have beendesignated as national wilder-ness area, making them accessi-ble only by horse or afoot. Nomotorized anything allowed.“I’ve never harvested all the

grass off my allotments,” Bacaexplained. “There has alwaysbeen enough from year to year,even in the drought. The rangerscan’t see that from the fence linewhere they come ride along in ascooter and look over the fencefor their assessments.”Baca, like the majority of the

allotment owners in the Moun-tainair district after the removalorder, was forced to sell off themajority of his cattle in a downmarket. “I sold cows for a fewhundred dollars each and now itcosts $3,000 to put one back.Where I ran seven bulls before, Inow have just one. It’s been bad,

very bad. I’m robbing Peter topay Paul trying to make it.”In the fall of 2013, just two

short months after he took all hiscattle off the allotments, Bacasaid the NMSU Range Improve-ment Task Force (RITF) did arange assessment on theacreage. “They told me they’dnever seen country managed anybetter than mine was.”The RIFT, according to the

NMSU website, is an “interdis-ciplinary team of range scien-tists, ecologists, wildlife experts,agricultural economists and live-stock specialists that providesinformation for use in resolvingresource management conflicts.RITF provides sound, scientificinformation that helps ranchers,land managers and policy mak-ers make decisions about naturalresource management and pub-lic land use.”Baca said his problems with

the U.S. Forest Service havebeen ongoing. “Vandalism hasbeen a real problem. I’ve gotfences cut in at least three placesand they won’t do anything. Iput over $5,000 into repairing awindmill because without it, thecattle had no water. They won’t

even talk to me about reim-bursement. They tell me foreverything, ‘We have noresources.’ And then without anykind of assessment on the grass,they financially wreck my busi-ness.”Baca said his real issue is with

the current district ranger. “Shecomes from the east, fromMaine. What does she knowabout ranching in this country?She doesn’t even look at it. It isvery hard for me to understandhow she can pass judgment frombehind a desk.”

In agreementOn the southern end of the

Manzanos in Priest Canyon liesa 4000-acre allotment belongingto James Garley.“I thought it was the right

decision,” Garley stated referringto the livestock removal order. “Iagreed that it was a bad droughtand the cattle needed to be tak-en off.”Garley’s allotment didn’t have

a range assessment either, buthe said he knew what neededdone. He is the third generationon the same ground that hisgrandfather had begun manag-

ing in the 1950s. “You do whatyou gotta do,” he said.Financially, the removal and

replacement was not as devastat-ing for Garley. “We did all right,”he said.Garley said that he has had a

good relationship with theranger district and chose not tobecome part of the MountainairAllotment Owners group whenthey formed. “I try to not getinvolved in other people’sissues,” he commented.

Retaliation fearsNot every allotment owner

wanted to discuss what hap-pened last year. For some, theirattitude is that it is over, at leastthis time, and they have to moveon and do the best they can. Afew actually expressed concernsfor retaliation from the localranger office and wanted no men-tion of their situation or theirnames. And some even citedinstances of direct threats of useof government power againstthem.Others have been in continu-

al combat with the local districtbefore, after and since theremoval orders were issued.It’s not a new song for ranch-

ers on public land allotments,but one that carries a hauntingtune every time there’s a face-offbetween ranchers and the gov-ernment.

Investigation languishesBoth Lincoln and Torrance

County Commissions passedresolutions opposing the actionof the livestock removal. LincolnCounty commissioners took itone step further and pushed foran internal U.S. Forest Serviceinvestigation. On Dec. 17, 2013,the commissioners voted unani-mously to direct their countyattorney to file a request for acongressional investigationwhich he did a month later.Despite assurances of better

communication about grazingallotment decisions, the LincolnCounty Commission refuses toback off their investigationrequest. In a May 2014 commis-sion meeting Commissioner Pre-ston Stone expressed his con-cerns for the precedent that wasset by the Mountainair District’sdrastic actions.“All of the Forest Service (dis-

tricts) in the United States arewatching,” he said. “They have

not addressed the (alleged)malfeasance committed against19 allotment owners and untilthey are forced to do so, theywill continue to sweep it underthe rug. We have called for aninvestigation and that’s what wewant.”Commissioner Mark Doth

agreed. “They have swept it underthe rug and said ‘we’ll do betterfrom now on.’ It’s a slap on thehand but nobody ever addressedthe damages that were done tothe ranchers. If this were a courtof law before a judge, that is whatwe would be discussing.”At press time for this issue of

the Livestock Market Digest, therehas been no action on the partof the Forest Service in respond-ing to the request. Stone said hehoped to get an update from thecounty attorney at the next com-mission meeting.In a letter to the county com-

mission, Regional ForesterCalvin N. Joyner stated it wasthe magnitude of the droughtconditions that led to RangerLessard’s decision to order theremoval of livestock. He alsoacknowledged that the foreststaff had not in the past utilizedthe state’s agriculture depart-ment and the NMSU range taskforce for evaluation of rangeconditions. “This was due to alack of knowledge and experi-ence about this opportunity,” hewrote.Joyner said that since last fall,

“the Forest Supervisor, DistrictRanger and range personnel hadbeen working closely with thetask force (RITF) to review exist-ing information and develop amutual understanding of moni-toring methods and process.”However, this fall, at least

one rancher reported that hisscheduled assessment was doneby the district and included noneof those agencies, their methodsor their expertise.“Lack of knowledge and expe-

rience” as Joyner put it, is a les-son paid for on the backs of theMountainair District allotmentowners. An expensive if not dev-astating lesson. Words of accept-ed accountability won’t repairthe financial damage and cer-tainly never the emotional andgenerational ravages of oneranger’s signature on one line ofone letter based on corruptedinformation with no sciencebehind it.

Irreparable damages – Cibola Controversy one year later – Part 2

Karen Lessard, District Ranger, Mountainair RangerDistrict, U.S. Forest Service

FROM BEEFPRODUCER.COM

Like a tale out of some mid-centuryWestern film, cattle rustlers arestill on the prowl more than 60years later.

With lower feed prices and higherdemand, cattle prices are up across thecountry, leading thieves to look forprofitable ventures in taking animals inthe middle of the night and transport-

ing them across state borders to neigh-boring sale barns, NPR reports.“Our family’s been in this business

for 75 years,” Leon Langford, an Okla-homa cattle rancher, told NPR. “Takingcare of cattle, all day every day.”Langford last year had 19 head of

purebred Herefords stolen. They wereworth an estimated $100,000.Cattle thieves see higher profits as

cattle prices rise

“You know, you’re sick to your stom-ach because you lost them,” Langfordtold NPR. “But when you know they’restolen, it’s even a little worse. Some-body takes things that don’t belong tothem, it’s a sickening feeling.”The perpetrator, Christen Allen, 31,

sold 10 of the registered purebreds atthe Durant, Oklahoma, Stockyards onOct. 10, 2013, according to the Texasand Southwestern Cattle Raisers Asso-

ciation.According to TSCRA, Allen was sen-

tenced to two years in the OklahomaDepartment of Corrections for thethefts.“This case highlights the positive

outcomes that are possible when cattleare properly marked, branded or tat-tooed for identification purposes by theowners,” TSCRA Special Ranger BartPerrier said.

Cattle Thefts Underscore Branding, Tattoo Importance


Name

Old Address

City, State, Zip

New Address

City, State, Zip

Don’t

Miss aSingleIssue!

CHANGE OF ADDRESS INSTRUCTIONSIf you’re moving or changing your mailing address,

please clip and send this form to:Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

KADDATZAuctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales

New and used tractors, equipment, andparts. Salvage yard, combines, tractors, hayequipment and all types of equipment parts.

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.ClassifiedsDigest

Call: 979/245-5100 • Fax 979/244-43835473 FM 457, Bay City, Texas 77414

[email protected]

DanWendt

S

S

Santa Gertrudis Cattle

Polled and Horned

HERD ESTABLISHED 1953S

S

SANTA GERTRUDIS

angus

Bell KeyAngusDennis Boehlke 208/467-2747

Cell. 208/989-1612

A few ChoiceBulls Availableat PrivateTreaty.

NAMPA, IDAHO

Bradley 3Ranch Ltd.

M.L. Bradley 806/888-1062Fax: 806/888-1010 • Cell: 940/585-6471

Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

Our Next Bull Sale:February 14, 2015

at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX

www.bradley3ranch.com PhillipsRED ANGUS

Spring & Yearlings For Sale

CeCil FelKiNS • 209/274-4338email: [email protected]

5500 bueNa ViSta Rd.

ioNe, Ca 95640

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR

RED ANGUS GENETICS

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

209/727-3335

RED ANGUS

BRANGUS

Willcox, AZ

R.L. Robbs520/384-3654

4995 Arzberger Rd.Willcox, Arizona 85643

g•u•i•d•e

RegisteredPolled Herefords

Cañones Route P.O.Abiquiu, N.M. 87510

MANUEL SALAZARP.O. Box 867Española,

N.M. 87532

Bulls &HeifersFOR SALE

AT THE FARMPhone: 575/638-5434

HEREFORD

The Texas Animal HealthCommission (TAHC)recently held a regularlyscheduled Commission

meeting on September 16, 2014,at its headquarters in Austin.The following rules were

adopted during the meeting andare now in effect:Chapter 38, Trichomonia-

sis, Testing/Herd Certifica-tionThe commission adopted two

new Trichomoniasis (Trich) test-ing requirements and two herdcertification program require-ments.

n Testing Requirements: Ifa bull is sold and later found tobe infected with Trich, otherbull(s) from the infected bullsoriginal herd of origin may berequired to be tested if the bullwas not exposed to female cattleafter the sale, and prior to test-ing by the new owner. A secondrequirement passed states that ifa bull is found to be infectedwith Trich on property notowned or managed by the origi-nal by caretaker of the bull (astray), other bull(s) from boththe unit of origin and bull(s)found on the premises where thebull was last located must all beofficially tested for Trichomonia-sis.

n Herd Management: Thefirst amendment allows the com-mission to evaluate the effective-ness of a herd control plan andauthorizes the TAHC canchoose to continue or disap-prove the herd plan based on theprogress or lack of progressmade with the infected herd. Asecond amendment requires allherd owners enrolled in theTrich Herd Certification Pro-gram to have adequate perime-ter fences around their propertyto prevent the ingress or egressof cattle.Chapter 51, Entry

Requirements, Cattle &SwineThe commission added two

exemptions to Trichomoniasis(Trich) testing requirementsconcerning the intrastate move-ment of breeding bulls entering

Texas. The commission alsoadded an entry requirement fornon-commercial swine enteringTexas.

n Cattle: The first testingrequirement exemption is forTexasbreeding bulls movingdirectly to an out-of-state facil-ity that tests their gain andfeed conversion for cattle (bulltest stations). Such bulls donot need to be tested to returnback to the Texas premises oforigin as long as the bulls havebeen kept separate from femalecattle while participating in thefeed trial. The second textingexemption is for breeding bullsthat originate from a herd thatis enrolled in a Trich certifica-tion program in another statethat is substantially similar tothe Texas Certified Trich FreeHerd Program, and confirmedby the TAHC.

n Swine: For non-commer-cial swine entering Texas forreasons other than immediateslaughter, the commission nowrequires accredited veterinari-ans to include a statement oncertificates of veterinaryinspection (i.e. health certifi-cates) That the swine repre-sented on the certificate havenot originated from a premisesknown to be affected by NovelSwine Enteric CoronavirusDisease(s) (SECD), and havenot been exposed to SECDwithin the last 30 days.Chapter 39, Scabies and

Mange MitesThe title and content of this

chapter was modified to accu-rately identify that scabies andother contagious skin diseasesidentified in the chapter arecaused by mange mites and toallow the use of new types ofacceptable treatments formange mites.Chapter 45, Reportable Dis-

eases, Novel Swine EntericCoronavirus Disease(s)The commission added Novel

Swine Enteric Coronavirus Dis-ease (SECD) to the list ofreportable diseases.The following rules were pro-

posed:

Chapter 43, Tuberculosis,Movement Restriction ZoneBased upon the recommenda-

tions of the 2014 "Bovine Tuber-culosis Risk Assessment for ElPaso and Hudspeth Counties,"the commission proposedamendments that would rede-fine the Movement RestrictionZone (MRZ) and specify thatthe El Paso and HudspethCounty MRZ restrictions arelimited to bovine. The proposalwould also remove the previousannual and bi-annual TB testrequirements. Further, futureTB testing of susceptible speciesin the MRZ would only berequired if determined epidemi-ologically to be necessary by thecommission.Chapter 49, Equine, Piro-

plasmosis Testing RacetrackFacilitiesThe proposal would broaden

the existing definition of a "race-track facility" to include facilitiesthat are not licensed by theTexas Racing Commission. Thisrequirement is intended toensure that horses that competeat unsanctioned racetracks aretested negative prior to entryinto facility.Chapter 40, Chronic

Wasting Disease, MovementRestriction ZoneIn 2012, the commission

established two Chronic Wast-ing Disease (CWD) zones (Con-tainment and High Risk) in por-tions of El Paso, Hudspeth andCulberson counties in WestTexas to protect against thespread of CWD. Because thetwo original zone movementrequirements were identicalwhen passed, the commissionhas now proposed to combinethe two separate geographicalzones into a single new zonedefined as the "ContainmentZone". There is no change inzone requirements or bound-aries, but simply a name change.The High Risk zone concept isstill valid, and may be applicablefor other locations in the futureif necessary.Chapter 51, Entry

Requirements, Swine

Texas Adopts Rules for LivestockTo be consistent with USDA

animal disease traceability andinterstate movement require-ments, the commission pro-posed changes to swine entryidentification requirements toaccept registration tattoos andear notches as official identifica-tion methods.Chapter 57, Poultry,

Larynogotracheitis VaccineVirusFor poultry entering Texas,

the commission proposed anamendment to require accredit-

ed veterinarians to certify on therequired health certificate thatthe poultry listed on it have notoriginated from an area that hashad "active chicken embryo ori-gin Laryngotracheitis vaccinevirus" circulating within it in thelast 30 days.To view the details of the

rules recently passed visithttp://www.tahc.state.tx.us/regs/code.html. For more information, visit

www.tahc.texas.gov or call 1-800/550-8242.

BEEFMASTER

LMD Nov 2014

Documents

Transcript of LMD Nov 2014