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

In what is being called the“biggest acquisition in historyof a U.S. corporation by a

Chinese company,” SmithfieldFoods is being bought by Chi-na’s Shuanghui International,China’s biggest pork producer.While the U.S. Justice Depart-ment sat on its hands and lethuge packers monopolize theU.S. meat market, Smithfieldbecame the world’s largest porkproducer by going on a shop-ping spree, snapping up over 40companies including many ofthe crown jewels of the meatpacking industry. Now Smith-field owns more hogs than thenext eight largest hog produc-ers combined.We were told while all this

was conglomerating was goingon how glorious it was and howthe American producer andshareholder would benefit fromSmithfield’s power grab. Nowthe company, including venera-ble old brands like Armour andFarmland, will be owned by acompany in a communist coun-try. (Yes, members of the rulingparty in China are all commu-nists and we both still havenuclear bombs aimed at eachother.) And all those Americanhog farmers who signed on thedotted line to become contracthog farmers for Smithfield willsoon find themselves producinglittle commie pigs.Hey, we’ve already sold our

the biggest meat-processingplant in the world. Smithfieldemploys over 46,000 peopleand has facilities in the U.S.,Mexico and in 10 Europeancountries, with an annual rev-enue of $13 billion. Interesting-ly, Smithfield slaughtered twoand a half times as many hogsin 2012 as Shuanghui did. It’slike a fly swallowing a frog.Smithfield started gobbling

up companies like a greedy pigin 1981 and went on to buyGwaltney of Smithfield, PatrickCudahy, Schluderberg-Kurdle,

John Morrell & Co, Circle FourFarms, Carroll’s Foods, TysonFoods Pork Group, Cook’sHam, Krakus Ham, Stefano’s,Murphy Family Farms of NorthCarolina, Farmland Foods ofKansas City, Sara Lee’s Euro-pean Meats, ConAgra Foods,Butterball Turkeys, PremiumStandard Farms, Carando,Curly’s Foods, Eckrich, HealthyOnes, Kretschmar, Margherita,and dozens more. The Chinesewill also get brands like WeightWatchers and the Paula DeenCollection, although the Deenassets might not be as valuableas they were before she usedthe “n” word and got kicked offthe Food Network. Severalacquisitions ago the USDA saidthat Smithfield had alreadybecome “absurdly big” and itlater got substantially bigger.Now it raises 16 million pigs ayear.One company who must

really like the deal is WalMartas Farmland is their main meatprovider. And we all know howmuch WalMart likes to buy itsgoods from China!

nation’s soul to China in theform of trillions of dollars of ourbonds, why not sell them ourbest businesses too?

“Absurdly Big”Smithfield will be purchased

by Shuanghui InternationalHoldings, who offered a whop-ping 31 percent premium overSmithfield’s stock price at thetime the deal was announced.What are they getting for theirmoney? The world’s largest porkproducer and processor withfacilities in 26 states, including

Commie Pigsby Lee Pitts

A penny saved is agovernment

oversight.

continued on page seven

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Hogs Gone Wild

When you thinkabout it, wild hogsare no differentthan wild horses in

that they both eitherescaped from domesticherds, or were turned looseon purpose by their owners.And yet all the city dudeswant to save the horses butshoot the wild hogs. Itmakes no sense. We haveliberal soccer moms cryingcrocodile tears and protest-ing over the treatment ofwild horses while severalstates urge their hunters toshoot wild hogs on sight.Most states have no seasonor bag limit on wild hogs sofeel free to blast away. Butcan you imagine the howlingif we allowed wild horsehunting?There are 201 areas in

this country where well-intentioned ignoramuses aretrying to save wild horses,which researchers tell us aregenetically identical todomestic horses. At thesame time, wild hogs havebeen declared an invasivespecies and there is not sin-gle wild hog sanctuary in thecountry. Nor is there a sin-gle rescue mission for racinghogs that have grown too bigfor the starting gate. Shameon us.Nor do wild hogs have a

comparable spokesman likethe ex-wife of billionaireBoone Pickens who hasbecome the face of wildhorses. As far as I know, noone has stepped forward tobe the face of the wild hogs.I vow to be that face, and ifyou’ve ever seen me in per-son, you know I’m the rightguy for the job. I have beencompared favorably to theBerkshire breed on morethan one occasion.It is with a great deal of

greed that I am proud toannounce the formation of anonprofit group to raisecash, and cain, for wild pigs.Please send your money inunmarked bills so that I canbuy up land to create astring of wild pig sanctuariesacross the country, where Imight also run a few cows.And no, even if the ex-Mrs.Pickens would be willing toshare her horse sanctuariesit won’t work because herwild horses have alreadygrazed them down till they

continued on page two

BY FRANK GALUSHA,

MYOUTDOORBUDDY.COM

There is another wrong being done in theUpper Klamath Basin that could affect allof us including those who love the out-doors, all wildlife and the small agricultural

communities who supply people, animals, andwildlife with food.Family ranchers and farmers, supporters of

agriculture, and people who love and treasurethe pastoral landscapes of Klamath County,Oregon are being threatened with a water shut-off by court order that will threaten their liveli-hoods as well as our food supplies and the foodwildlife need to survive in this area. Theseranchers and farmers have planned a rally forJuly 1 at 9 a.m. at the Klamath County Fair-grounds. They are asking for support by invitingthe public to attend this rally. “The rally will beheld at government buildings in Klamath Fallsbut participants can also meet at the Fair-grounds and carpool downtown,” said JenniferNewman, one of the event organizers.A recent court order has placed all agricultur-

Water cutoff will impact wildlife

al use of irrigation water in the Upper KlamathBasin in jeopardy by establishing requiredstream flows that preclude the use of irrigationwater in all but the wettest years. Without irriga-tion, over 100,000 acres of ranch land in theUpper Basin would become unviable for agricul-ture.Not only would this cost Klamath County

over 4,000 jobs, it would wipe out a communityof historic family ranches and erase a rural land-scape treasured by all who visit Klamath Coun-ty’s scenic back roads. (See more backgroundbelow.)These fellow citizens are seeking a fair distri-

bution of water rights in order to sustain theregion’s agriculture-based economy, fosterunderstanding in our diverse communities, andpreserve the rural character of the area, which inturn supports big game, upland game, water-fowl, birds and all other life in the area. If theirwater is cutoff much is at stake.Every day, more ranchers in the Upper Kla-

continued on page four

JULY 15, 2013 • www. aaalivestock . com Volume 55 • No. 7

Chinese FoodFearing a backlash from

Americans who don’t like theidea of depending on the Chi-nese for their baby spare ribs,top executives at Smithfieldhave proclaimed that this dealis a win/win for everyone, citingSmithfield’s ability to increasepork exports to China. Nodoubt, there is potential forgrowth because last year all thepork we exported to China onlyequaled one half of one percentof Chinese pork production.Smithfield execs say Americanhog farmers will profit by send-ing a lot more of their hogs toChina, but of course they wouldsay that seeing as how top execsat Smithfield will get to put $85million in stock and options intheir pockets when the deal iswrapped up. The CEO ofSmithfield, Larry Pope, will getto keep his job and the value ofhis stock and options balloonedto $25.4 million after the dealwas announced.Not that Pope and his fellow

execs did much to really earntheir windfall. According toBloomberg News, Smithfield’sfinancial performance haslagged behind their competitorsfor years. Continental Grain, amajor shareholder, has com-plained that Smithfield has paidno cash dividends for sevenyears while Hormel and Tysonpaid hundreds of millions ofdollars over the same period.According to Bloomberg,Smithfield posted a negativereturn of 18 percent over thepast five years, the second-worst performance of any U.S.food company with annual salesof $10 billion or more.Hey, if you can’t compete,

buy up all sorts of companies togrow the books and then find aforeign buyer to bail you out.It’s a winning formula that hasbeen used several times the lastfew years by once-proud Ameri-can companies. I suppose weshould just be grateful that ourgovernment isn’t loaning theChinese company the purchaseprice as part of some “stimuluspackage”. At least we hope theyaren’t.

This Little Piggie Went To ChinaIt’s true, there is a growing

demand for all U.S. meat inChina, including beef. Accord-ing to Chris Hurt of Purdue,“U. S. pork exports have beenrising steadily in recent yearsand will represent about 17 per-cent of our production in2013.” Says Hurt, “There is a 3percent annual growth rate inChinese pork business whileU.S. consumers will consumethe same amount of pork in2013 as they did in 2005. TheU.S. market is nearly flat, soexports are the primary growthopportunity for the U.S.”Still, in the back of every-

one’s mind is the possibilitythat some day China may besending their pork back to us,and in light of China’s food

scares the last few years, thatpossibility should send shiversdown the spine of all con-sumers. Shuanghui was caughtselling pork tainted with clen-buterol, an additive we wroteabout a few months back that isillegal in China. And in theChinese press it seems likethere is a daily story about high-ly toxic food being served forsupper. Remember the taintedbaby formula scare? It’s gottenso bad in China that consumersdon’t trust anything they eat.The deal is being hyped up

as an export opportunity butsome folks are worried thatwhen Smithfield is Chineseowned there will be pressure toimport more product from Chi-na where it can be producedcheaper. (It’s the same worryabout JBS being owned by the

Brazilians.) Right now, theUSDA won’t let in Chinesepork but it’s reconsideringbringing in poultry and with alittle political pressure theycould do the same with pork.After all, Smithfield knows howto play the political game.If you go to Smithfield’s web

site and look at who sits on itsBoard of Directors you will findlisted the “Honorable” Carol T.Crawford, a director whoserved as an assistant AttorneyGeneral and as a commissioneron the U.S. International TradeCommission for nearly adecade. Just for fun go onlineand see all her activity in thebuying and selling of Smithfieldshares she’s been given throughthe years. Also on the Board ofDirectors is the “Honorable”Paul S. Trible, Jr., a lawyer andVirginia politician who served inthe U.S. House of Representa-tives for three terms, and in theU.S. Senate for one term. Wewonder, what did these folks dowhile serving in governmentthat merited a seat on Smith-field’s board? And isn’t it abouttime we did away with the word“honorable” when talking aboutany member of Congress?

Sweet And Sour PorkSmithfield’s CEO Larry

Pope says, “This is not a strate-gy to import Chinese pork intothe United States. This is astrategy to export pork out ofthe United States.” Pope says

Page 2 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

Commie Pigs continued from page one

continued on page three

Subscribe Today

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

My check is enclosed for: � One Year: $19.95 � 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 505/865-6011archerron@aol.com

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

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

MARKET

And all thoseAmerican hog farmers who signed on the dotted line to

become contract hog farmers for

Smithfield will soonfind themselves producing littlecommie pigs.

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 3

the prospect of using this pur-chase as a springboard forfuture imports of Chinese porkis “not even a remote possibili-ty. This is the one place Ameri-ca can absolutely compete,” hestated. Chuck Dohrenwend, apublic relations hired gunechoed those words: “Any dis-cussion of the American foodsupply is just not relevant.”Both men said that there is noChinese government ownershipof Shuanghui and that Chinesemanagement would be handsoff. Pope said, “It will be busi-ness as usual — only better —at Smithfield.”Those words may or may not

be of comfort considering thatin January 2009, Smithfield wasassessed nearly a one milliondollar penalty by the U.S. Jus-tice Department to settle

charges that the companyengaged in illegal merger activi-ty during its takeover of Premi-um Standard Farms.This Chinese purchase might

also explain why Smithfieldgave at least $683,900 to a cam-paign known as “The CoalitionAgainst The Costly Food Label-ing Proposition.” After all, whowould want mandatory countryof origin labeling or the labelingof foods containing geneticallymodified ingredients whenyou’re shipping in product fromChina? We don’t know if DaveWarner, director of communi-cations for the National PorkProducers Council was speak-ing on behalf of all the porkproducers who pay the porkcheckoff when he said, “Thisdoes have the potential toincrease U.S. pork exports toChina, which would benefit allU.S. pork producers.” But thenagain, the NPPC gets theircheckoff money no matterwhere the pork is produced. It’sreally not hard to envision theday when Chinese pork will betouted in ads paid for by thepork checkoff.For a number of years now

the government of China hasbeen sending people to Ameri-ca to study our productionmethods for pork. After all,pork is very important in theircountry as half the world’s porkis produced and consumedthere. With the purchase ofSmithfield the Chinese compa-ny will get intellectual propertythat Smithfield spent years

Commie Pigs continued from page two

developing.Oh well, at least in this case

China is having to pay for thatknowledge. Usually they juststeal it.

Sending Up A Red FlagSome folks are squealing like

a sow with her snout caughtunder a gate at the prospect ofSmithfield becoming Chineseowned. Wenonah Hauter, exec-utive director of Food & WaterWatch, called it “birth of across-border bacon behemoth.Merger mania in the meatindustry in recent decades hasled to more factory farms in theU.S., with 95 percent of hogsnow raised in operations of over2,000 animals. We may exportthe pork, but we keep millionsof gallons of manure right herein U.S. hog-raising communi-ties in North Carolina andIowa.”She may have a point. In one

four-year period in North Car-olina 4.7 million gallons of hogfecal matter were released intothe state’s rivers, and workersand residents near Smithfieldplants have reported numeroushealth problems, and have com-plained about the constant,overpowering stenches of hogfeces. The company was fined$12.6 million in 1997 by theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency for nearly SEVENTHOUSAND violations of theClean Water Act.Wenonah Hauter asks, “Are

the health and pollution costsof these farms staying here andall that pork and profits goingoverseas worth the profits tothose farmers and supplierswhen the rest of us must bearthe costs for their operationscleanup and environmentaldegradation? The pollutionstays here, the corporate profitsand produce go to China. Andfarmers and supplies will besqueezed even harder by a glob-al corporation that is lessanswerable because it is over-seas. This merger tightens thegrip of multinational agribusi-nesses and Wall Street onAmerica’s kitchens, asShuanghui is partially owned byU.S. investment bank GoldmanSachs. While U.S. consumerswill likely not take notice of thechange, it will show up on theirplates in the form of farmerexploitation, more factory farmsand a more complicated supplychain that leaves consumers athigher risk of food contamina-tion.”

Carving Up The PigIn an article titled “Cutting

to the Chase,” Raoul Baxter, aformer Smithfield executive,wrote that just a few monthsago “Continental Grain sent aletter to the Smithfield board ofdirectors, telling them howunhappy they were with Smith-field's performance over thepast five years and suggestedthat the board carve up Smith-field into three separate busi-nesses. About two weeks later,Smithfield brought in Goldman

Sachs to help them explore alltheir options. Keep in mindthat five years ago GoldmanSachs purchased the Chinesegovernment’s shares inShuanghui to take the companyprivate. It’s all very cozy, isn’tit?“About two months later,

wrote Baxter, “Shuanghuiannounced that they hadentered into a deal to buySmithfield at about $7.1 billion,which included all of Smith-field’s debt. It worked out to bethe magic number of $34/share.I say magic, because this wasthe area that would make Con-tinental’s investment whole.”Baxter wrote that if authori-

ties do not approve the deal (it’ssubject to approval by theCommittee on Foreign Invest-ment), there are two companieswaiting in the wings to buySmithfield, one of these being

EELLMM

MONDAY: Beef CattleWEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle

FRIDAY: Small AnimalsPoultry – Butcher Cows

MIGUEL A. MACHADOPresident

Office: 209/838-7011Mobile: 209/595-2014

JOE VIEIRARepresentative

Mobile: 209/531-4156

THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

DUDLEY MEYERField

Representative 209/768-8568

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

ESCALONHWY 120

HWY 99

SALEHEADQUARTERS

STOCKTONHWY 4

TOSACRAMENTO

FARM

ING

TON

MANTECA

SALE SITE

TO FRESNO

MODESTO

OAKDALE

VALLEY HOME

J17 MARIPOSA RD

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

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

CONSIGNMENTSWELCOME!

Call for more information

on consigning your stock.

SSSSPPPPEEEECCCCIIIIAAAALLLL FFFFEEEEEEEEDDDDEEEERRRR CCCCAAAATTTTTTTTLLLLEEEE SSSSAAAALLLLEEEE:::: August 19, 2013 at 1:00PM

LLLLIIIIVVVVEEEESSSSTTTTOOOOCCCCKKKK SSSSAAAALLLLEEEESSSS:::: 3 days per week on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday

JBS, which is the Brazilianbased largest beef packer in theworld and at least partiallyfinanced by the Brazilian gov-ernment.Regarding Smithfield’s sale,

Purdue’s Hurt wrote, “Growth ofdemand is generally good for theindividual people and firms thatare in that industry.” But don’ttell that to the impoverishedAmerican poultry producerswho, after years of increased con-sumption of chicken, are barelymaking poverty wages. Hurt alsosaid, “While the outcomes areuncertain, the hopes are that theSmithfield Foods merger can bea new model for meat productionand processing in a worldincreasingly dominated by globalsourcing and distribution.”So this is the new business

model? What’s next, will Tysonsell to the Russians becausethey are known to like chicken

wings? Pardon me for disagree-ing but I think there are manyof us who would prefer to keepall of our greedy pigs of thecapitalist breed.

This Chinese purchase mightalso explain whySmithfield gave atleast $683,900 to a campaignknown as

“The CoalitionAgainst The Costly Food Labeling

Proposition.”

Page 4 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

Water Cutoff continued from page one

math watershed are losing theiraccess to irrigation water. With-out the ability to irrigate, ranch-ers cannot grow a hay crop tofeed their cattle through thewinter, let alone have adequateforage for summer months. Nowater and no hay means theseranches are no longer viable foragriculture, and will be forcedout of business.What does this mean to their

community and to all those wholove the outdoors?

� Disappearance of scenicrural landscapes

� Loss of prime wildlife habi-tat

� Elimination of over 4,000jobs in Klamath County

� Loss of agriculture-relatedbusinesses

� Loss of a major source ofOregon-grown meat and fiber

� Disappearance of familyranches, many with 150-yearhistoriesFor the past 150 years, the

crystal waters of Klamath Coun-ty have been used by the ranch-ers in the Upper Klamath Basinto irrigate their high desert haymeadows. In 1975, the UnitedStates Government, actingthrough the Department ofIndian Affairs, brought a claimfor these waters on behalf of theNational Forest Service, theKlamath Tribes, and the Bureauof Reclamation. This claim wasintended to supersede ranchers’state adjudicated water rightsdating back to 1864.In March 2013, after nearly

40 years of ongoing litigation,the adjudicator, Oregon WaterResources Department(OWRD) issued its Findings of

Following an announce-ment by Sens. John Bar-rasso (R-Wyo.), MarkPryor (D-Ark.) and Pat

Toomey (R-Pa.) that they haveintroduced the bi-partisanRenewable Fuels StandardRepeal Act (S. 1195), theNational Cattlemen’s BeefAssociation (NCBA), NationalChicken Council (NCC) andthe National Turkey Federa-tion (NTF) urge Congress torepeal the Renewable FuelsStandard (RFS).“The RFS has been such a

poorly managed mess, it’s timeto drain the swamp,” said NTFPresident Joel Brandenberger.“The RFS needs a fresh start inorder to put in place a smarterpolicy on the mix of fuel andfeed.”The RFS last year required

13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to be blendedinto gasoline; it mandates that13.9 billion gallons be blendedin 2013, an amount that willuse about 4.9 billion bushels ofcorn, or about 40 percent ofthe nation’s crop.“Chicken producers are

already competing with theweather,” said NCC PresidentMike Brown. “Why must wealso compete with an inflexiblefederal mandate that voluntari-ly places another strain on ourlimited resources? I commend

Sens. Barrasso, Pryor andToomey for taking anapproach that would let thefree market decide whethercorn should go to food or tofuel.”Livestock and poultry

groups called on the adminis-tration last fall to waive theRFS for the second time since2008. And for the second time,in spite of the widespreaddrought and lowered harvest,the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) refusedto use the safety valve builtinto the biofuels mandate.“Cattlemen and women are

self-reliant, but in order tomaintain that we cannot beasked to compete with federalmandates like the RenewableFuels Standard for the limitedsupply of feed grains,” saidNCBA Policy Vice ChairCraig Uden, an Elwood, Neb.,cattle feeder. “When EPA isunable to provide even a tem-porary waiver of the RFS dur-ing the worst drought in 50years, it is apparent the RFS isbroken and we appreciate theefforts of Sens. Barrasso, Pryorand Toomey to fix this flawedprogram.”NCBA, NCC and NTF call

on Congress to repeal the RFSto ensure market stability cer-tainty for rural Americaneconomies.

Livestock & Poultry GroupsUrge Congress to Repeal theRenewable Fuel Standard

Structural shrinkage in theNorth American beef indus-try is expected to continue,perhaps even worsen in the

near term, according to a newreport from the Rabobank Food& Agribusiness (FAR) Researchand Advisory group.“It is a rare occurrence that all

sectors within the cattle industryare profitable at the same,” saysreport author and RabobankFood & Agribusiness Researchand Advisory (FAR) group ana-lyst, Don Close. “However,before the U.S. cattle industrycan begin to fully rebuild afterseveral years of contraction, it isnecessary for equity recovery totake place in the cattle feedingsector.”The report, “North American

Beef: The Liquidation Contin-ues,” finds high feed prices andsevere drought challenges haveplaced significant pressure on theindustry in recent years. At thebeginning of 2013, the marketwas optimistic that the industrycould turn the corner and beginto grow again. However, the sec-ond half of the year is bringing aless optimistic view as the indus-try contracts and, as a result, is atrisk of becoming a higher-pricedluxury protein.“A number of complex chal-

lenges, including growing pricespreads between beef and alterna-tive proteins, excess capacityalong the supply chain and dwin-dling profitability along the chain,are contributing to the shrinkage,”notes Close. “Rabobank expectsdomestic beef supplies to continue tocontract and the supply chain to con-tinue restructuring, making arebound in the beef industry unlikelyin the near term.”The industry has settled into a

painful process of contraction,excess capacity and restructuring.As a result, consumers are seeingbeef prices escalating. The spreadis widening between beef and oth-er protein sources, and people arenot only downgrading betweenselected beef items, they are morefrequently opting for the otherproteins.This report outlines how feeder

supplies, contracting NorthAmerican supplies and Mandato-ry Country of Origin Labeling(MCOOL) legislation are con-tributing to the challenges facedby cattle feeders and processors.The report, “North American

Beef: The Liquidation Contin-ues,” is available exclusively toclients of Rabobank and RaboAgriFinance. Media can obtainthe full report by contacting SarahKolell at Rabo AgriFinance.

Rabo AgriFinance Report FindsCattle Feeding Recovery Key toRebuilding Beef Industry

PHIL TAYLOR, E&E REPORTER

Lawmakers of both partiespraised the Fish andWildlife Service’s decisionto postpone by six months

its decision on whether to list thelesser prairie chicken as a threat-ened species.FWS Director Dan Ashe

informed lawmakers from Col-orado, Kansas, Oklahoma, NewMexico and Texas that theagency would not finalize its list-ing decision until the end of nextMarch, as lawmakers hadrequested earlier this month(Greenwire, June 17).“Public comments received by

the Service since publication ofthe proposed rule have highlight-ed substantial scientific disagree-ment regarding the sufficiency oraccuracy of the available datarelevant to the listing proposal,”Ashe wrote in a letter to senatorsand representatives of the states.The lawmakers had argued

more time is needed to completea five-state conservation planthat encourages landowners tocommit to voluntary conserva-tion steps to preserve the bird'snative grassland and prairie habi-tat.

“This extension is the rightdecision for New Mexico andthe West,” said Rep. StevePearce (R-N.M.). “In the past,we’ve seen hasty listing decisionsneedlessly cost thousands ofjobs, destroy communities andeven have a detrimental impacton the environment and thespecies itself.”Senators earlier this month

had lauded the “groundbreakingnature of the five-state plan” andsaid participants should be giventhe maximum amount of time toenroll in the plan to demonstrateits effectiveness. The plan aimsto eliminate the need for a list-ing.While lawmakers had asked

FWS to consider postponing itsdecision until next summer,Ashe said the agency does notintend to ask a federal judge forany additional time.The agency is obligated by

legal settlements with the Centerfor Biological Diversity andWildEarth Guardians to issue alisting decision for the prairiechicken, which has been a candi-date for protection since the ear-ly 1980s.The iconic bird, known for its

elaborate mating dance, is in

danger of extinction in the fore-seeable future due to threatsincluding grazing, tree encroach-ment, conversion of rangeland tocrop and nonnative forage, andenergy development, FWS saidin November (Greenwire, Nov.30, 2012).“We are committed to work-

ing with the Western Associationof Fish and Wildlife Agenciesand the states to further lesserprairie chicken conservation,”Ashe said in his letter to the law-makers. “We strongly supportthe efforts to develop arangewide conservation plan andare working closely with states torefine that plan.”ESA allows FWS to extend its

decision time frame “if there issubstantial disagreement regard-ing the sufficiency or accuracy ofthe available data relevant to thedetermination, for the purposesof soliciting additional data.”Such a determination was

made in December 2010 in thecase of the dunes sagebrushlizard. Six months later, the Fishand Wildlife Service decided towithdraw its proposal to list the3-inch lizard as endangered,angering environmental groups.

Lawmakers praise 6-month postponementof prairie chicken decision

Advertise to

Cattlemen in the

LivestockMarketDigest

Advertise to

Cattlemen in the

LivestockMarketDigest

Fact and Final Order of Deter-mination (FOD). This FOD hasplaced all agricultural use of irri-gation water in the Upper Kla-math Basin in jeopardy by estab-lishing required stream flowsthat preclude the use of irriga-tion water in all but the wettestyears. Without irrigation, over100,000 acres of ranch land inthe Upper Basin would becomeunviable for agriculture. Notonly would this cost KlamathCounty over 4,000 jobs, it wouldwipe out a community of historicfamily ranches and erase a rurallandscape treasured by all whovisit Klamath County’s scenicback roads.Allowing productive irrigated

lands to dry up and rural com-munities to wither, is not in any-one’s best interest. The life-giv-ing waters of the Upper Basinare a fundamental resource thatneeds to be shared by all stake-holders. The ranchers and farm-ers want to find a fair and equi-table way to distribute this waterthat will give all parties some of

what they need, though no onewill receive all of what they want.Ranchers need to continue toranch and in-stream flows for theKlamath Tribes need to be ade-quate for historic uses.These are the Economic

impact projections for KlamathCounty Oregon, as prepared bycounty Assessor Leonard Hill inApril 2013 if the present waterre-adjudication is allowed tocontinue: 1. Affected Acres-115,000 2. Livestock sales-

$144,635,000.00 3. Labor- full and part-time

jobs lost- 4355 (not includingNorthern California countiesthat use Klamath County as aneconomic hub) 4. Land values –115,000 acres

value loss– @ $2250/acre=$258,000,000.00 5. Total area Impact in dol-

lars – $516,000,000.00. These economic losses would

seriously affect Klamath Coun-ty's ability to function in thefuture.

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 5

BY LISA M. KEEFE,

MEATINGPLACE.COM

AU.S. District Court judge inmid June ruled that BeefProducts Inc.’s $1.2 billiondefamation lawsuit against

ABC News and others should bemoved back to state court, wherethe company had initially filed lastSeptember.The ruling, by Judge Karen E.

Schreier of the Southern District ofSouth Dakota, is a victory for BPI.It was widely thought that ABCNews was seeking a more sympa-thetic venue in its motion to movethe case to federal court.However, in its request to have

the case moved to federal court,filed last October, ABC hadargued that only BPI — not itsrelated companies, FreezingMachines Inc. and BPI TechnologyInc. — are “parties of interest” tothe case. Therefore, BPI’s argu-ment that their co-location inUnion County, S.D., gave the statecourt jurisdiction is invalid, ABCsaid. Moving the case to federalcourt in South Dakota was properbecause the case remains in the“district and division” where it firstwas filed, but accounts for the factthat the parties to the case, includ-ing the defendants, encompass sev-eral different states.Judge Schreier rather harshly

dismissed ABC News’s argument,however, saying that it not onlywent against legal precedent, “italso goes against reason.”

“Defendants’ argument . . . pro-poses that the court first entangleitself with the facts of the case inorder to make a legal determina-tion about whether BPI Tech’sclaim has merit. Put simply, defen-dants are suggesting that the courtmake a determination about themerits of BPI Tech’s claim beforeeven deciding whether it has theauthority to make such a determi-nation. This is putting the cartbefore the horse.“Thus, the court finds that BPI

Tech is a real party in interest.Because BPI Tech is a real party ininterest, complete diversity of citi-zenship does not exist betweenplaintiffs and defendants. Accord-ingly, it is ordered that . . . theClerk of Court will remand thiscase to the Circuit Court of UnionCounty, South Dakota, fromwhich it was removed.”In response to the decision, Erik

Connolly, a partner with Winston& Strawn law firm in Chicago andone of BPI’s attorneys, told Meat-ingplace, “We originally filed thelawsuit in state court because thatwas the proper jurisdiction. Thecourt’s decision confirms that wewere correct. We look forward topresenting our case in state court.”An ABC spokesman told

Reuters that, “This is purely a deci-sion on what court will hear thecase. The court stated that ABCand the other defendants have theright to move to dismiss the case inthe state court, and ABC intends todo just that.”

BPI’s defamation lawsuitvs. ABC News orderedback to S.D. state court

“If you are in a hurry,be deliberate.”Neil and his wife

were young Alabama cattlefarmers. He was very attentiveto his stock, subscribed tomany livestock publications,kept up on new managementpractices and was always in ahurry. Jenny was a practicalbut kind-hearted livestock per-son herself. Both had jobs intown.Their first-calf heifers had

started their calving season.On the evening of the ‘inci-dent’, Neil had checked theheifer lot and found one of thethinner ones in labor. Aftersupper he and Jenny drove outto have a look and see how herparturition was progressing.Low and behold, the heiferhad twins! One of the calveswas standing but the smallerone was laid out on theground. It wasn’t moving andsomehow didn’t look right.Neil assumed, as often hap-pens with twins, one of the

calves is born healthy andstrong, while the other wasborn weaker.The standing calf was trying

to find his way around. Neileased up to it, picked it up andcarried it into a little panel penwith a head gate. The newmother followed and, after sev-eral minutes, the calf was suck-ing.“What about the other

calf?” asked Jenny.“He won’t make it,” Neil

said. “He looks poorly, isn’tmoving, maybe didn’t get hisshare in the womb. Besides,the heifer ain’t got milkenough for two.”“Well, you can’t just leave it

there,” she protested.“I know best, It’s nature’s

way, Dummy calf, Thesethings happen, Won’t make itanyhow, Better for them both,etc.” he explained.“It’s just not right!” she

mumbled, climbing back in thepickup and slamming the door.Little was said the rest of

the evening. She scolded himfor his lack of compassion. Hebelligerently clung to the“some must be sacrificed forthe common good” argument.It was chilly in bed that night.Next morning at daybreak

Neil climbed in the pickup anddrove out to the calving lot. Agood feeling arose in himwhen he saw the calf, head inmama’s breakfast nook, con-tentedly nursing. Neil scannedthe lot for the lost twin. For amoment he thought maybe thecoyotes had drug off the body.He looked back to the newmother and spoke out loud toher, “Where did he go?”She looked back over her

other shoulder at the secondtwin who was nursing heartily.“If you’d taken a moment to

check last night you’d haveknown that the one on theground was born first, got hiscolostrum, and I put him downfor a nap. Then you showedup.” (Or something of the sortif cows could talk.)

If Cows Could Talk

Page 6 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

SOURCE: WWW.HU-

MANEWATCH.ORG

Several years ago we wroteabout the case of DenisaMalott, an Arkansaswoman who had her hors-

es seized by HSUS for allegedlynot caring for them —only tofind that the horses were, afterthe seizure, apparently droppedoff in a field and left withoutadequate food and water,despite HSUS’s promise thatthe animals would be taken to acare facility.Previously, Malott had filed a

complaint with the FBI askingfor an investigation under theAnimal Enterprise TerrorismAct. And now the other shoehas dropped: Malott has filed alawsuit. Read it here.The suit, filed in February in

the Circuit Court of StoneCounty, Arkansas, seeksunspecified damages fordefamation, malicious prosecu-tion, abuse of process, inten-tional infliction of emotionaldistress, trespass to real proper-ty, trespass to chattels, and con-spiracy. The defendants are theHumane Society of the UnitedStates, HSUS’s state legislativedirector Desiree Bender, the

Humane Society of Missouri,and three other individuals.The seizure occurred in

November 2009, after whichMalott was charged with 25felony counts of animal cruelty.Those charges were laterdropped to misdemeanors —and then those charges werecompletely dropped altogether,in November 2011. In short,Malott had to sit under thelooming threat of criminal pros-ecution for two years after theseizure that was conducted byHSUS and others.Following the seizure, HSUS

put out a press release in whichHSUS state director DesireeBender alleged the horses wereliving in “deplorable conditions”and HSUS claimed that the“horses are being taken to TheRescue Wranglers’ pasture inWhite Hall, Ark., where theywill receive the attention theydeserve.”But Malott alleges that the

attention the horses got was farfrom what they deserved.Instead of going to The Res-

cue Wranglers’ pasture threehours away, the horses werefound close to the seizure site.What’s more, they allegedlywere found to be without ade-

quate food and water — essen-tially dropped off in a pasture,from the sound of it.Malott wasn’t allowed to

feed her horses because of thepending criminal charges, butshe eventually won physical cus-tody of the animals and wasable to feed them. The June/July2010 edition of MareConnectionhas more details about theseizure and subsequent events.In short, Malott’s lawsuit

asserts that the allegations ofHSUS and others were false,which damaged her reputationand business. She’s essentiallysaying: “Prove it.” So we’ll seewhat HSUS has got to back upits actions. But if her horseswere seized under false pretens-es or HSUS made defamatorystatements, then the organiza-tion could be pretty deep inmanure.Two other HSUS “raids”

have spurred lawsuits: One inSouth Dakota and one inHawaii. The South Dakota caseis still active and is slowly pro-gressing. HSUS is also facing afederal lawsuit filed under anti-racketeering statutes. As always,we’ll keep an eye on this caseand keep you posted as to anydevelopments.

HSUS Sued for Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, Conspiracy,and Abuse of Process

WWW.SEATTLEPI.COM

Idaho wildlife managers haveyet to receive federal fundingto compensate ranchers for2012 livestock losses from

wolves, as other Western statesare also competing for a share ofjust $850,000 meant to offsetsheep and cattle losses from thepredators.The Times-News

(http://tinyurl.com/neebwjv)reports Dustin Miller, who headsIdaho’s Office of Species Con-servation, said the money willeventually be divided betweenpaying ranchers for losses andfunding efforts to avoid wolf-live-stock conflicts.In 2011, the program paid

Idaho ranchers about $100,000for livestock losses.“Unfortunately, we usually

have the highest level of depre-dations in the country, and if it’scompetitive, we may receivemore funding than other states.But we can’t be sure,” Millersaid. “We have no idea what weare going to receive, and I can’tguarantee producers who lostlivestock . will be compensatedat market rates.”Federal officials say wolves

killed 75 cattle and 330 sheeplast year, according to the U.S.Department of Agriculture’sWildlife Services agency that’stasked with assisting livestockproducers in Idaho and the Unit-ed States in protecting theirherds from predators.Hunters’ success rates for the

canine predators also improvedsignificantly last year: Huntersand trappers killed 320 wolves inthe 2012-2013 season, up from200 in 2011, to trim wolf num-bers statewide to roughly 638.Last year, federal government

wildlife agents also killed 69wolves after determining theywere targeting livestock.Todd Grimm, the director of

Wildlife Services in Idaho, saysit’s difficult to draw too manyconclusions from the number ofcattle, sheep or wolves killed in agiven year, as the number variesdepending on numerous circum-stances.For instance, wolves killed

103 cattle and 411 sheep andlambs in 2009, a year he remem-bers as particularly hard on pro-ducers’ herds.“Sometimes things happen,”

Grimm said, on fluctuating pre-dation numbers. “We just don’tknow. It’ll be interesting to seewhat this year’s numbers pointout.”Livestock fall victim to other

predators, too, he pointed out.In 2012, 23 cows and calves werekilled by members of Idaho’sroughly 50,000-strong popula-tion of coyotes. Coyotes alsokilled 141 sheep and lambs lastyear, according to Wildlife Serv-ices records.Grimm’s officers killed 3,048

coyotes in Idaho in controlactions in 2012, according to theagency’s statistics.Ranchers say they’ve come to

acknowledge, if begrudgingly,

the presence of wolves on Ida-ho’s landscape, following Con-gress’ lifting of federal Endan-gered Species Act protections forthe state’s population in 2011.But they want to see activemeasures to control problempredators.“We’re going to get by,” said

sheep rancher John Faulkner, ofFaulkner Land and Livestock inGooding in south-central Idaho.“But we are going to kill some ofthem. That’s all there is to it.”Environmentalists who have

opposed federal delisting ongrounds they don’t trust Idaho tomanage its wolf populationresponsibly say simply killing thepredators in a bid to keep themfrom attacking livestock isn’tappropriate.Suzanne Stone, Northern

Rockies representative for theDefenders of Wildlife, saidranchers should focus on deter-rents including guard dogs,human herders, lighting, electricfencing and corrals bedeckedwith flags that flap in the wind,rather than rely on hunting orWildlife Services’ lethal controlsthat she contends disrupts wolfpacks.That leaves juvenile wolves to

wander without a social structurethat would otherwise teach themto hunt elk or deer, Stone said.“You’ve then got basically a

bunch of teenagers runningaround, and they are the oneswho tend to get in trouble morewith people because they are notvery savvy at hunting,” she said.

Idaho ranchers still waiting on wolf-kill cash

MARKETTo place your ad, contact Caren at505/243-9515, ext. 21 or caren@aaalivestock.com

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 7

look like the Sahara Desert.I am also proud to

announce that every four yearsduring our Presidential andCongressional elections we willcelebrate Hog AwarenessWeek in which I will attemptto educate the public aboutwild pigs. For example, did youknow the reason wild hogs lookwilder than their counterpointequines is because during the1930s ranchers in this countryreleased wild Russian boars forthe purpose of creating wildhogs to hunt. That’s right, thewild hogs in this country are abunch of pinko-commie pigs,so liberal left wingers reallyought to love them. Anotherreason wild pigs look like abunch of razorbacks with dis-tended abdomens is becausepeople turned their pot belliedpigs loose to fend for them-selves when that bubble burstbigger than the Beanie Babies.Wild hogs are the perfect

species to ruin all the BLMland because they reproducemuch faster than horses, hav-ing two litters per year with asmany as ten pigs in each litter.Nor do the hogs practice safesex or birth control like many

BLM horses do. Just think, atthis rate the Feds could tie upIowa and half the West in justa few short years and the landin the pig sanctuaries could bejust as mismanaged as the wildhorse lands. We’ll have feedlotsbursting with wild hogs and itwon’t be long before we havemillions of worthless pigs ongovernment welfare. Oh, I for-got, we already do.Soon I’ll be sponsoring our

first wild hog adoption,although rounding up the wildhogs may prove more dauntingthat rounding up wild horses.You just don’t call out,“soooeey” and expect the wildhogs to come a runnin’. And Idoubt a helicopter would be ofmuch use. The choppers mightrun the hogs so hard they’dpull a hamstring.There is a method to my

madness. After we start savingwild hogs the next step will beto ban slaughterhouses that killpigs. That will leave 51 poundsof the other white meat perperson per year that could the-oretically be replaced by beef.So, save a wild pig. Eat morebeef. Tell me that wouldn’tmake a great bumper sticker!

Riding Herd continued from page one

BY KAREN BUDD FALEN,

ATTORNEY, CHEYENNE, WY

Since 2009, Western Water-sheds Project (“WWP”) hasissued at least 675 Free-dom of Information Act

(“FOIA”) requests just to theBLM and Forest Service, relatedto livestock grazing on the publiclands. Although I did not read all675 requests, I did find some let-ters that demanded informationfor as many as 50 allotments inone single FOIA request. MostWWP FOIAs also wanted docu-ments from multiple years andon multiple subjects. Many ofthe requests included instruc-tions to the BLM or Forest Serv-ice offices stating that theresponse to WWP should be sentelectronically or in a certain for-mat. While the FOIA requiresthat the federal governmentmake certain documents avail-able, can a requester really dic-tate the format of the response?Additionally, for every

request, WWP argues that theyshould receive all informationfree of charge because they are:

� a non-profit membershiporganization dedicated to pro-tecting and conserving the publiclands and natural resources ofwatersheds in the AmericanWest. WWP has over 1200 mem-bers . . . WWP is active in seek-ing to protect and improve theriparian areas, water quality, fish-eries, wildlife, and other naturalresources and ecological valuesof western watersheds. To do so,WWP actively participates inagency decision-making concern-ing BLM [Forest Service] lands

throughout the West, and theBLM’s management of livestockgrazing in Idaho, Nevada, Utah,and Wyoming.*

� WWP is effective at increas-ing public awareness of environ-mental matters, such as protec-tion of the diverse and valuablesagebrush-steppe ecosystem,through public education andoutreach, participation in admin-istrative processes, litigation andother enforcement of federalenvironmental laws.(*WWP uses this same lan-

guage to justify its fee waiverrequests in Montana, California,Arizona and New Mexico aswell).In contrast, if a rancher/per-

mittee requests that very sameinformation about his allotmentrequested by WWP, the BLM orthe Forest Service will chargehim $42.00 per hour for adminis-trative search time and $.15 perpage for each photocopy made.

It seems backwards to me that arancher is charged for “adminis-trative search time” and photo-copy costs to see what is in hisown files, yet a group whose stat-ed goal is to “get cows off thepublic lands ASAP” gets thatexact same information for nocharge at all (not even chargingout-of-pocket costs).In addition to the shear vol-

ume of FOIA requests and themass of information requested ineach of the individual requestsby WWP, other issues are ofnote:First, in addition to request-

ing information about individualallotments or groups of allot-ments, some of WWP FOIAsrequest documents and informa-tion about named individuals. Ofthe FOIAs I reviewed whereWWP wanted information aboutnamed ranchers or other individ-ual ranchers, not one of theranchers was contacted by the

BLM or Forest Service beforetheir information was released toWWP.Second, a great number of

FOIAs requested the same infor-mation over and over. For exam-ple, in 2009, a FOIA wouldrequest all monitoring data“gathered or generated to date”for an allotment or large group ofallotments. The exact sameFOIA will then be filed in 2010requesting all monitoring data“gathered or generated to date”about the same allotment orgroups of allotments. The sameFOIA will then be filed in 2011.There is no mention in any ofthese FOIAs that the BLM orForest Service had already sup-plied a great deal of the request-ed information in the past – theagency simply has to relocateand copy the same informationover and over again–all at thepublic’s expense. Third, if these radical groups

do not receive the informationthey want – for free – federalcourt litigation follows, again atthe taxpayers’ expense. The vastamount of FOIA cases filed byenvironmental groups onlyincluded the filing of a federaldistrict court complaint, a settle-ment agreement for the releaseof the requested information andthe payment of attorneys fees.Fee payments were anywherefrom $5000 to $50,000.In May, 2013, the Chairman

of the Committee on Oversightand Government Reform for theU.S. House of Representatives,the Ranking Members of theCommittee on Environment andPublic Works and the Commit-

tee on the Judiciary for the U.S.Senate sent a letter to the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency(“EPA”) strongly questioningEPA’s practice of “readilygrant[ing] FOIA fee waivers forliberal environmental groups –effectively subsidizing them –while denying fee waivers andmaking the FOIA process diffi-cult for states and conservativegroups.” It is clear from theabove research that the EPA isnot the only agency who engagesin such practice. Ranchers whoshould have the information thatis kept in their files are forced topay excessive amounts for infor-mation while radical environ-mental groups pay no fees forusing this exact same informa-tion to file substantial numbersof administrative appeals andfederal court litigation againstthese ranchers. With these radi-cal groups, it is not a matter ofproviding fair public information;it is a matter of pushing a politi-cal agenda being subsidized bythe taxpayers.While there is no question

that FOIA is an importantstatute to allow the public to getinformation from the federalgovernment, this short essaypoints out the serious inequitiesin how the statute is implement-ed. Individuals are forced to paysearch time and copy costs forthe information gathered aboutthem and located in their ownfiles, while radical environmentalgroups can get the same docu-mentation for free to use in liti-gation against the federal agencyand rancher. Is that really thepurpose of FOIA?

Anti-cattle group abuses Freedom of Information Act

...some of WWP FOIAs request documents and information aboutnamed individuals. Of the FOIAs I reviewed where WWP wanted

information about named ranchersor other individual ranchers, not

one of the ranchers was contacted by the BLM or Forest Service before their

information was released to WWP.

Page 8 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

BY CLAUDINE LOMONACO,

SANTA FE REPORTER

Tommie Martin points outacross a dense thicket oflow shrubs that stretchesfor miles. Blackened pon-

derosa pine trunks stab up at thesky.“We’re looking at the skeleton

of a forest,” she says. It’s all that remains 23 years

after eastern Arizona’s devastat-ing Dude Fire killed six firefight-ers and burned 24,000 acres ofovergrown ponderosa pine for-est. Scientists say the forest willlikely never return. The blazewas the first of the so-called“mega-fires” that now threatenforests across the West. Thissummer, in New Mexico, morethan 100,000 acres have alreadyburned.Martin, 62, is a supervisor in

Arizona’s Gila County andfourth-generation Arizonan. Shewears her brown hair piled atopher head in curls, like a pioneerbarmaid, harkening back to thedays when her great-grandpar-ents first came to Arizona as log-gers. She remembers stories hergreat-grandmother used to tellabout when Arizona’s ponderosaforests were more like savan-nas—open grasslands punctuat-ed by massive, old-growth trees.“Back then, girl, you could

ride a horse in one direction formiles without stopping,” Martinsays. But that was a hundred years

ago, just around the time the USForest Service began stampingout the natural, low-burninggrass fires that had kept theSouthwest’s forests thin andhealthy for thousands of years.The policy was meant to protectlogging and grazing interests,but it turned the forests intoovergrown tinderboxes. For the last several years,

Martin’s been a member of aprecedent-setting collaborationthat aims to prevent catastrophicfires. Known as the Four ForestRestoration Initiative, or 4FRI, itbrought together environmental-ists, industry and the US ForestService, among others.Their aim is to thin and

restore 2.4 million acres alongthe Mogollon Rim in northernArizona, an enormous swath ofland on four national forestsstretching from Flagstaff to theNew Mexico border, and rein-troduce the natural fire regime.The idea was to have a businessdo the work—because the gov-ernment can’t afford to—andmake a profit by selling woodproducts.It’s the largest restoration

project attempted in the US,and it’s a model for what mighthappen with smaller, similarprojects around the country, likethe plan to protect 150,000 acresin the southwest Jemez Moun-tains just outside Santa Fe, saysBryan Bird, the wild places pro-gram director for Santa Fe’s

WildEarth Guardians. “Southwest Jemez is the little

stepsister to 4FRI,” says Bird,who’s been watching the Arizonaproject for years. What happensin Arizona, he says, is likely toplay out in New Mexico. Which makes what’s going on

within Arizona all the more con-cerning, because the project hasgone haplessly awry.In May 2012, the Forest Serv-

ice regional office in Albu-

querque awarded the 4FRI con-tract to an under-the-radarcompany from Montana calledPioneer Forest Products. Butmore than a year later, Pioneerhasn’t thinned a single over-grown tree, because it’s failed toattract any investors, and theproject has stalled. This infuriates Martin, but it

doesn’t surprise her. She was oneof several collaboration memberswho blasted Pioneer from thestart for a business plan that did-n’t make sense. The companysays it wants to manufactureproducts like window frames,doors and furniture that are cur-rently made in Asia at far lesscost, and turn tree branches intoan experimental fuel called cellu-losic biodiesel.“They claim they are going to

run their logging trucks on it,”Martin said. “I say nonsense. Nothey’re not. That’s not even outof the lab yet.” In addition, one of Pioneer’s

main partners is a former ForestService supervisor who workedat the same regional office inAlbuquerque that selected thecompany. This link has fueledfurther questions. Critics saymissed deadlines, insufficientfunding and a harebrainedscheme suggest that eventhough Pioneer may have lackedthe ability to fulfill the contract,political connections trumpedreason.The Forest Service has con-

tinued to back Pioneer, praisingnonexistent “progress” in cheerypress releases.But Martin’s concerns seem

warranted. SFR has found Pio-neer had very little chance ofever gaining investors or suc-ceeding as a business. It turnsout the company lied about itswork history in its proposal tothe federal government, hiding arecord of failure and bankruptcy.The Forest Service failed to

catch this, along with other glar-ing problems, or perform basicdue diligence when reviewingPioneer’s proposal. It also appears the Forest

Service failed to properly consid-

er the proposal of Pioneer’s mostserious competitor—a legitimatecompany with a widely vettedbusiness plan, broad communitysupport and solid financial back-ing. Making matters worse, the

Forest Service has known aboutthese problems for nearly a year,but seems to have done nothingabout them. And as the ambitious 4FRI

plan falters, forests around the

country are left to burn. The Four Forest and Jemez

Mountains projects are both partof the US Department of theInterior’s Collaborative ForestLandscape Restoration Program.Created in 2009, the programaims to carry out large-scale, sci-ence-based forest restoration bybringing together scientists,environmentalists, industry, localgovernment and the Forest Serv-ice. It’s an attempt to build trustthrough transparency and con-sensus, and avoid the litigious“timber wars” of the 1990s thatpitted environmentalists againstthe Forest Service and shutdown logging around the West.That’s why Pioneer’s selection

came as such a surprise: Collab-oration members knew so littleabout the company. To date,Pioneer has failed to discuss thedetails of its business plan, andthe Forest Service has refused torelease it, citing “trade secrets.” Before winning the bid, Pio-

neer’s president, 84-year-oldHerman Hauck, spent years try-ing unsuccessfully to secure aForest Service contract in NewMexico.Pioneer’s Four Forest propos-

al says the company will build a$200 million plant in Winslow,Ariz., and claims Hauck starteda similar business in NorthDakota. Hauck sold that busi-ness—known as TMI Systems—but, the 4FRI proposal reads,“his skill in designing and man-aging a start-up wood processingbusiness is shown by the factthat it is still successfully operat-ing more than 30 years later.” The Forest Service has

repeatedly touted this “long, suc-cessful history in the woodindustry” as one of the main rea-sons Pioneer got the contract. TMI is indeed a successful

business. Its president, DennisJohnson, however, was surprisedto learn Hauck was trying totake credit for it.“We bought his assets in

bankruptcy proceedings,” John-son says, adding that Hauckcould take “very little credit” forthe company’s success.

According to documents fromthe National Archives andRecords Administration in Den-ver, Hauck’s business, thencalled Hauck Mill Work Co.,actually filed for bankruptcy in1969. By Hauck’s own admis-sion, that was the last wood busi-ness he ever ran, and he laterwent into real estate. In a telephone interview,

Hauck initially denied the bank-ruptcy. When confronted with

the legal documents in a follow-up call, he said it “didn’t matter.” Coincidentally, the man who

is supposed to run Pioneer’sWinslow plant, Mike Cooley,also ran his last wood businessinto bankruptcy. Cooley Indus-tries, Inc. filed for Chapter 7bankruptcy on Dec. 27, 2012,after racking up over $9 millionin debt, according to the USbankruptcy court documents inPhoenix. The bankruptcyoccurred six months after Pio-neer won the contract, but inter-views with loggers last summerreveal that Cooley has a long his-tory of unpaid debts. During an interview with SFR

last August, Corbin Newman,who headed the Forest Service’sregional office in Albuquerqueuntil January, said he hadn’tknown about Hauck’s bankrupt-cy, and said that agency wouldinvestigate. “I don’t know that he asserted

anything wrong or fraudulent inhis proposal,” Newman said.“That’s what we’ll have to take alook at.”It is illegal to lie in a proposal

to the federal government, but ina written follow-up, Newmansaid Hauck’s bankruptcy “over30 years ago” was irrelevant, andthat the contract would remainwith Pioneer.Last June, the Forest Service

released a brief technical analysisof Pioneer’s plan, meant toanswer detractors’ questionsabout what the company intendsto do. But a close inspection ofthe plan reveals a series ofimprobable or false claims. It states Pioneer will produce

biodiesel out of tree branches tofuel its trucks and sell at a gasstation on I-40. That’s a riskyproposition in itself, given thefuel has never been producedcommercially. The largestattempt, by Range Fuels in Sop-erton, Ga., went bankrupt in2011 after getting more than$150 million in government sub-sidies. And Concord Blue, the Ger-

man company Pioneer claimswill make its biodiesel, has never

even tried to produce the stuff.Thomas Sonntag-Roesing, theformer engineer for ConcordBlue’s test plant in Herten, Ger-many, said the plant tried to turnbiomass like wood into energy,not fuel. He left after the com-pany stopped paying him in2005, and the plant closed soonafter. It’s remained shutteredever since. Today, Concord Blue barely

exists beyond its glossy website.The site gives no email address,and no one answers at its Ger-man or Los Angeles offices.Repeated voicemail messagesrequesting an interview werenever returned. “The company is a fake,” Son-

ntag-Roesing says. “It’s like aframe, but there’s nothingbehind it.” He says he was sur-prised to the learn the US gov-ernment had given a large con-tract to a company claiming itwas going to use Concord Bluetechnologies. “With every new project, we

have to prove that we can do itby providing references,” saysSonntag-Roesing, who now man-ages billion-dollar projects forthe international energy firmHitachi Ltd. “I cannot reallyunderstand why the US govern-ment or any other government inthe world would give a contractto a company without any refer-ences.” Pioneer’s technical proposal

has left many industry expertsscratching their heads. When David Jones, a wood

science and products professorat Mississippi State University,first saw the Forest Service’stechnical analysis of Pioneer, heprinted it out.“I took it down the hallway to

my colleagues and we all had agood laugh over it,” he says.“Either they don’t understandwhat they are doing, or they’vejust worded it badly.”Jones says much of Pioneer’s

proposal doesn’t make scientificsense. In one section, the com-pany says it’s going to “densify”pine and turn it into high-pricedhard woods, like walnut andmahogany.“There’s fallacy in that state-

ment,” Jones said. “You can’ttake a pine, which is a soft wood,and turn it into a hard wood.That’s not possible.”In another section, Pioneer

says it plans to produce woodpanels “35 to 40 percent lighterthan competitors’ panels” thatwill “substantially reduce ship-ping expenses.” “In talking with other people

in wood science,” Jones says, “wedon’t know of any technologythat would lighten the wood.”Jones questioned whether a

wood scientist at the ForestService had even reviewed theproposal.“If they did,” he asked, “why

didn’t anybody raise any ques-

Up In SmokeIs the US Forest Service killing the last best chance to save the Southwest’s forests?

continued on page nine

In May 2012, the Forest Service regional office in Albuquerqueawarded the 4FRI contract to an under-the-radar company fromMontana called Pioneer Forest Products. But more than a year later, Pioneer hasn’t thinned a single overgrown tree, because it’s

failed to attract any investors, and the project has stalled.

tions about this?”It turns out, Jones was right.

The Forest Service regionaloffice in Albuquerque made thedecision without consulting awood scientist. Once Newman’soffice selected Pioneer, the for-mer head sent the proposal toWashington, DC, for review.“I knew that we probably did-

n’t have all the technical expert-ise to assess the proposals,”Newman says. “That’s why Iasked for a secondary review atthe national level to say, ‘Let’sget technical experts to look atthis to make sure these thingsare feasible.’”At the time, he admitted he

wasn’t sure if that had takenplace. In a written follow-up, hesaid that two technical expertsreviewed the proposal at thenational level. In response to awritten request to speak to them,or anyone else from the govern-ment that could defend Pio-neer’s technical proposal, New-man wrote: “Federal law and regulations

prohibit us from disclosing theidentity of the evaluators andsubject matter experts…Thatinformation does not contributesignificantly to the public under-standing of the operations oractivities of the government.”Further, he wrote that releasinginformation about the evaluatorswould be “an unwarranted inva-sion of personal privacy.”Hauck, Pioneer’s president,

also said he couldn’t speak abouthis technology.“That is not open for discus-

sion,” he said. “It is my own pro-gram that I have learned fromforeign countries, and I cannotdivulge that information.” Late last June, more than a

month after receiving the con-tract, Hauck publicly admittedfor the first time that his compa-ny had no investors, and nomoney to begin the project. Theannouncement sent jittersamong many of those watching4FRI. It wasn’t normal, “and it was

concerning,” says Rich Bowen,the president and CEO of theEconomic Collaborative ofNorthern Arizona. By then, Pio-neer’s financing should havebeen much further along, hesays. Bowen began to worry thecompany might not succeed, sohe asked the Forest Service toinvestigate its ability to completethe project. Instead, in December 2012—

around the time Pioneer wassupposed to have begun thinningtrees—the Forest Serviceextended Pioneer’s deadline toraise the money. They extendedit again last month, and dramati-cally reduced Pioneer’s expectedwork schedule from 15,000 acresin 2013 to 1,000 acres over thenext 18 months. Urs Buehlmann, a wood sci-

entist and products expert fromVirginia Tech University, says hewasn’t surprised to learn Pioneerdoesn’t have investors. He readthe company’s technical propos-

al, and echoes many of Jones’concerns. “It’s all so vague,” Buehlmann

says. “I wouldn’t invest 1,000bucks in that. Because, hey guys,tell me why this should work?”For some critics, the most

galling aspect of the Forest Ser-vice’s decision to give Pioneerthe contract was that another,more qualified company waswaiting in the wings. At first glance, Pascal

Berlioux’s pink Polo shirts,leather loafers and thick Frenchaccent seem oddly out of placeamidst the ponderosa pines ofnorthern Arizona. But Berliouxhas spent nearly a decade—and

emptied his sizable personalbank account—analyzing thesewoods and how to save them. “What we’re looking at here is

a typical thicket,” Berlioux says,snapping off a branch to getthrough a remote stand ofspindly, densely packed pon-derosas just outside Flagstaff.“This is not a healthy ecosystem,and obviously, it is a firebomb,”he says, pointing to a crinklyblanket of dried pine needlesunderfoot.Back in his native France,

Berlioux ran Europe’s first Ori-ented Strand Board, or OSB,factory. OSB is like plywoodmade out of wood chips, and it’sa huge, $2 billion-a-year indus-try. After founding and selling asuccessful optoelectronics firmin the US, Berlioux moved hisfamily to Flagstaff. It was just asthe devastating 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire broke out. The fireburned 480,000 acres and morethan 400 homes, and it got himthinking: Could an OSB planthelp the forests that lured himhere? In 2005, he began working on

a plan to restore northern Ari-zona’s forest—and get businessto pay for it. Together with apartner, Berlioux formed a com-pany called Arizona ForestRestoration Products, orAZFRP. Their plan was to turnthe crowded, small trees in Ari-zona’s forests into OSB, and letthe large trees grow. OSB haslargely replaced plywood in con-struction, but the closest plantsare more than 1,200 miles away,in Canada or the Southeast.Transporting that wood to Ari-zona is expensive.“When all is said and done,

that will account for 20 to 30percent of what you pay whenyou get a sheet of OSB at HomeDepot,” Berlioux says. “So, oneof the critical economic advan-tages of an OSB plant in theSouthwest is you don’t have topay the shipping costs.” Berlioux was an outsider, but

he knew the region’s contentioushistory. Plan in hand, he wentabout building a broad base ofcommunity support, from con-servative county supervisors tothe region’s most litigious envi-ronmental group.

“We viewed Pascal as anopponent,” says Todd Schulke,cofounder of the Center for Bio-logical Diversity, which had alsobeen looking for a way to restorethe forest. “The Oriented StrandBoard market is tied to housing,and it has a history of boom andbust. So we were very concernedabout that.” But Berlioux gained the cen-

ter’s trust, says Schulke, who’sbased out of Silver City, NM.This was no small feat: In 1996,the center famously stopped alllogging on federal land in Ari-zona and New Mexico over law-suits to protect the Mexicanspotted owl, and it still wields

considerable clout when itcomes to the Southwest’s forests. Berlioux convinced them his

idea was viable, even in the low-est housing and constructionmarket, by sharing the details ofhis business plan and marketanalysis. And he fine-tuned hisplan to incorporate their con-cerns. Berlioux did this dozens,if not hundreds, of times withenvironmentalists, local govern-ments, community groups andinvestors. “I thoroughly analyzed their

business model,” says Jim Miller,real estate director for John FLong Properties LLLP, one ofArizona’s oldest and largestdevelopment companies. “Evenif you diluted some of theirassumptions 50 percent, it wasstill a profitable operation.” Miller and John F Long Prop-

erties’ president together com-mitted $30 million to Berlioux’scompany if it got the 4FRI con-tract. In all, Berlioux had pledgesof up $400 million dollars whenhe submitted his proposal. But the contract went to Pio-

neer instead, and AZFRP dis-banded. After announcing its decision,

the Forest Service gave Berliouxan analysis of his losing bid. Butthe analysis gets several thingswrong. For example, it says no one at

the company has experiencemanaging a project of this typeand scale. That’s hard to squarewith AZFRP’s managementteam, which includes—amongothers—Berlioux, Miller andDon MacInnes, a Canadianwho’s built seven OSB plants inNorth America and retrofittedanother 10 plants. “Did they not read what we

sent them?” Berlioux asks. “Didthey ignore what we sent them?” Even Newman had a hard

time explaining what his reviewcommittee was thinking. “I have no idea why they drew

that conclusion. None,” he saidduring an interview last summer.“You would think that with thatkind of bio, someone wouldclearly have shown that they’vegot experience doing it.” In a written follow-up, he said

the agency only considered for-est restoration experience, and

didn’t look at the manufacturingexperience. The analysis also suggested

there wasn’t a strong enoughmarket for OSB. For Miller, thatmeant the Forest Service hadn’tactually analyzed the company’sbusiness plan. “Obviously, they didn’t go

into as much as they shouldhave, as an investor would have,as I did,” Miller said. “I’m verydisappointed in that.”David Tenney’s white GMC

pickup winds through thecharred hills near his house inLinden, Ariz. “You can see the entire hill-

side; all the trees are gone,” hesays, pointing out the window atwhat used to be a thick pon-derosa forest. “It will be cen-turies before the pine trees areback, if then.”It’s been 11 years since the

Rodeo-Chediski Fire ravagedthis land. Tenney’s home narrow-ly escaped.Tenney’s family made its liv-

ing from this forest for morethan a century. His great-great-great-grandfather, a Mormonpioneer, brought the first sawmillto Arizona during the 1800s.Even after the Center for Biolog-ical Diversity’s lawsuits shutdown the family business, Ten-ney, a widely respected Republi-can supervisor from NavahoCounty, which borders NewMexico, still knew the forest wasnorthern Arizona’s most vitalasset. After Rodeo-Chediski, Ten-

ney threw his considerable ener-gy and weight (at 310 pounds,the former high-school offensivetackle is a large man) into find-ing a way to restore the forest.He’s been one of 4FRI’s mostvocal supporters—even flying toDC to lobby for it—but he’sslammed the Forest Service forselecting Pioneer. His chief concerns: Pioneer

has a sketchy business plan, nev-er courted environmentalists,and offered to pay the govern-ment $6.3 million for the con-tract, 40 percent less thanBerlioux’s company. For Tenney, none of it adds

up. “It can’t be that it was the

best price. And if it’s not that it’sthe best product, then whatwould it be?” he asks. “That’swhy you’re opening the door forsome in the environmental com-munity to say, ‘Well, you’re giv-ing it to your buddy that used towork there.”’He’s referring to Marlin John-

son, a former Forest Servicesupervisor who now heads Pio-neer’s logging and restorationprogram. “While he was at the Forest

Service, he was the liaison forPioneer,” notes Taylor McKin-non, an environmentalist whoworked on 4FRI with the Centerfor Biological Diversity until ear-lier this year. “Within months ofhis retirement, he was represent-ing Pioneer to the Forest Serv-ice. That is, he switched sides.It’s the perfect example of therevolving door.” Critics say Johnson’s former

position gave Pioneer an unfair

advantage in gaining the 4FRIcontract. In his last years at the Forest

Service, Johnson was involved in4FRI’s precursor, a study todetermine whether there wereenough small-diameter treesavailable to support a large busi-ness. During that time, heworked with both Pioneer andAZFRP. Email records show hehad access to Berlioux’s confi-dential, detailed business plan asfar back as 2007. Many credit Berlioux’s plan as

the blueprint for 4FRI, whichdidn’t officially form until 2009. Once Johnson joined Pioneer,

the company’s focus changed tomore closely mirror Berlioux’s,including using wood fromnorthern Arizona, not NewMexico, and building a largeprocessing plant in Winslow.Raising more questions, John-son’s former co-workers, includ-ing one of his former employees,sat on the selection committeethat chose Pioneer.Johnson says it was his quali-

fications—including 40 years atthe Forest Service—that helpedPioneer get the contract, not hispolitical connections. And hedismisses concerns about accessto a competitor’s business plandating back to 2007. “I would assume they would

have changed since then,” hesays. “I don’t remember anydetails from a long businessplan.” Newman knew people might

have concerns about a formerForest Service employee receiv-ing the 4FRI contract, so oncehis office chose Pioneer, he sayshe sent its proposal to Washing-ton, DC, for a national review.“We asked folks at the ethics

group to take a look and see it’sappropriate if a past employeewould be associated with thiscompany,” Newman says, “andwe got an assurance that it was.”4FRI’s most prominent ecolo-

gist, Wally Covington, whoheads the influential EcologicalRestoration Institute at North-ern Arizona University, alsobacks Pioneer, and Johnson. “I have known Marlin for

years,” says Covington, whosefire and restoration researchshaped the science behind 4FRI.“He’s a strong and ethical per-son, in my view, and I have nodoubt that he intends to operateat the highest ethical standards.”Pioneer’s selection has been

the most dramatic rift within the4FRI collaboration, but it isn’tthe only one. After years ofdetailed discussions, environ-mentalists say the Forest Serviceis reneging on key agreementsmeant to protect the environ-ment. They center around preserv-

ing large trees, protecting theendangered Mexican spottedowl and northern goshawk, andbuilding 500 additional miles ofroads at great risk to the water-shed. Any one of these issuescould provoke environmentaliststo take legal action—potentiallyderailing the project—and theForest Service knows this,

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 9

Up in Smokecontinued from page eight

Pioneer’s technical proposal has left many industry experts scratching their heads.

continued on page ten

Page 10 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

Lucille Mulhall - First CowgirlMy Cowboy HeroesUp in Smoke continued from page nine

Schulke says.“It’s almost as if they’re

baiting us,” he says.Similar problems are crop-

ping up in New Mexico’sSouthwest Jemez Mountainproject, which worries

WildEarth Guardians’ Bird. “There’s a very good

chance that the same trainwreck could play out righthere in our local mountainsand forests,” he says. The problems have led

many to question whether theForest Service’s regionaloffice in Albuquerque isimpeding projects in order toretain control. Collaborationrepresents a dramatic shiftfrom the days when the For-est Service called the shots.But something needs to

change, and fast, says Tom-

mie Martin. The ForestService must be heldaccountable for 4FRI’s mis-steps, and needs to turn theproject around. There’s agrowing consensus that Pio-neer will inevitably fail, and

with it, the collaboration.She worries Arizona willhave lost the last bestchance to save its forests. Martin points to the

charred trees around her.“Look at it,” she says.

“Look what you’re going tohave. We won’t have a for-est, and we’ll have a millionexcuses why.”

Claudine LoMonaco is a freelancereporter based in Germany. Her work hasappeared on NPR, the BBC and Front-line/World, among other outlets. Thisstory was reported with the support ofthe Fund for Investigative Journalism.

by Jim Olson

To see a petite young ladyroping and tying a steer orperforming stunts a-horse-back is special. To do it in

the early 1900s, an era of roughand tough, “real” cowboys, anddo it as well as, or better thanthe men is incredible.Lucille Mulhall was born

October 21, 1885, in St. Louis,Missouri, to Colonel Zack andAgnes Mulhall. The family relo-cated to Oklahoma during thegreat land rush of 1889 andhomesteaded one-hundred-sixtyacres. The Mulhalls eventuallylaid claim to about eighty-thou-sand acres of rangeland locatednorth of Guthrie —some ofwhich was leased land. However,much of it was open range theysimply controlled and claimed byvirtue of use and being on it (acommon practice of the day).By age seven, Lucille was rid-

ing the range, being taught cow-boy ways by the men who rodethe plains, in what was then“Indian Territory.” Zack Mulhallonce claimed that when hisdaughter was only thirteen, hetold her she could keep as manyof his steers as she could rope inone day. He bragged, “Shedidn’t quit until catching morethan three-hundred head!”Col. Zach Mulhall (a title

bestowed upon him despite nev-er serving in the military) starteda “Wild West show” in the early1900s. Many early movie cow-boys, including Tom Mix, andWill Rogers got their start inMulhall’s Congress of RoughRiders and Ropers. Lucille alsostarred in the show. She wasamong the first women to com-pete in roping and riding eventswith men and earned manychampionship titles. Today she iscelebrated as the first cowgirl.Will Rogers wrote, “Lucille’s

achievement in competition withcowboys was the direct start ofwhat has since come to beknown as the Cowgirl. There wasno such a word up to then asCowgirl.”The term was coined to

describe Lucille when she daz-zled Easterners in her firstappearance at Madison SquareGarden in 1905. “Against these

bronzed and war-scarred veter-ans of the plains, a delicately fea-tured blonde girl appeared,” aNew York reporter wrote. “Slightof figure, refined and neat inappearance, attired in a becom-ing riding habit for hard riding,wearing a picturesque Mexicansombrero and holding in onehand a lariat of the finestcowhide, Lucille Mulhall comesforward to show what an eight-een-year-old girl can do in ropingsteers. In three minutes and thir-ty-six seconds, she lassoed andtied three steers. The veterancowboys did their best to beat it,but their best was several sec-onds slower than the girl’srecord-breaking time . . . Thecowboys and plainsmen whowere gathered in large numbersto witness the contest broke intotremendous applause when thechampionship gold medal wasawarded to the slight, pale-facedgirl.”However, Lucille was a cow-

girl long before becoming anentertainer. “By the age of four-teen,” the New York Times report-ed, “She could break a broncoand shoot a coyote at five-hun-dred yards.”Newspapers tagged her with

titles like “Daring Beauty of thePlains,” Queen of the Range”and “Deadshot Girl,” but theone that stuck was “Cowgirl.” Ithas been argued that the term“cowgirl” had been in use sincebefore she was even born, butfew would argue that Lucille wasthe first to give it national mean-ing.Even the great Geronimo was

an admirer of Lucille’s talent and

once gave her a beaded vest anddecorated Indian bow — itemsshe reportedly treasured herentire life.Teddy Roosevelt was also

among Lucille’s fans. While cam-paigning in Oklahoma as a vicepresidential candidate in 1900,he saw her perform. It was theFourth of July, and she roped infront of a large crowd at a “Cow-boy Tournament” in OklahomaCity.The Daily Oklahoman report-

ed, “Roosevelt was mostenchanted with the daring featsof Lucille Mulhall. She rodebeautifully throughout the con-test and lassoed the wildest steerin the field.”Teddy Roosevelt was so

impressed by Lucille’s skills thathe invited the Mulhalls to joinhim and a select group of theRough Riders for a private din-ner. That night Lucille gave thehero of San Juan Hill a silk scarfshe had worn during the contest.Zack Mulhall then invited

Roosevelt to stay at his ranch —Teddy accepted. After watchingLucille’s skills with a horse, ropeand gun on the ranch, Rooseveltencouraged her father to get hermore exposure. “Zack, beforethat girl dies or gets married orcuts up some other caper,” Roo-sevelt reportedly said, “youought to put her on stage and letthe world see what she can do.”The rest, as they say, is history.Legend has it that during the

visit, Roosevelt went riding withLucille and they spotted a greywolf. This whetted Roosevelt’sappetite for a hunt. The wolfeluded them that day but Roo-sevelt told Lucille if she couldcatch the wolf, he would inviteher to his inaugural parade.Some claim she later roped

the wolf, then killed it, others sayshe shot it at five-hundred yards.But by all accounts, she sent thepelt Roosevelt who displayed itin the White House after he andMcKinley won the election.Lucille and family attended theinauguration and Rooseveltreportedly gave her a saddle andan 1873 Winchester.Besides starring in Mulhall’s

Wild West show, Lucille alsoperformed in the Miller Brothers101 Ranch Wild West show(another well-known wild westshow from the day), in Vaude-ville, and Lucille’s career eventook her to Europe, where sheperformed for heads of state androyalty. In 1913 she and herbrother, Charley, formed a com-pany and produced “The LucilleMulhall Roundup.” Lucille became known world-

wide as the greatest (and first)cowgirl — the result of her fineroping skills and an uncannyknack with horses. Her talentswere, in part, fine-tuned byanother natural cowboy — WillRogers, who was a life-longfriend of Lucille’s (both came

continued on page eleven

Reserve Your Advertising Space NOW!

For the 2013 Edition of

Livestock Market Digest’s

FALL MARKETING EDITION

The best read

annual publication

in the livestock industry!

Please contact me to discuss

your advertising plans!

RON ARCHER, 505/865-6011

archerron@aol.com

Livestock Market Digest

P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, NM 87194

FEATURING THE . . .

Newman said Hauck’s bankruptcy“over 30 years ago” was irrelevant,

and that the contract would remain with Pioneer.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

INSTRUCTIONSIf you’re moving or changing your mailingaddress, please clip and send this form to:

Livestock Market DigestP.O. Box 7458

Albuquerque, NM 87194or FAX to: 505/998-6236

Name

Old Address

City, State, Zip

New Address

City, State, Zip

Don’t Miss a

Single Issue!

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 11

from Oklahoma ranching backgrounds).Couple that with her slight figure andladylike demeanor and you had a cow-girl anomaly. More important however,she was authentic, genuine and gener-ous — crowds loved her.It has been said that she had a natu-

ral connection with horses. She claimedher horse, Governor, knew many tricks.In an interview Lucille said, “My systemof training consists of three things:patience, perseverance, and gentleness.Gentleness I consider one of the great-est factors in successful training. Gover-nor, the horse I ride in our exhibitionshas nearly forty tricks. He can shoot agun; pull off a man’s coat and put it onagain; can roll a barrel; can walk upstairs and down again — a difficult feat;is perfect in the march and the Spanishtrot; extends the forelegs so that an easymount may be made; kneels, lies downand sits up; indeed, he does nearly

everything but talk.”She was briefly married in 1907 to

Martin Van Bergen, a cowboy singerwho was an opening act in the show.Together they had a son. She was alsomarried in 1919 to Tom Burnett, whosefather had established the Four SixesRanch in Texas. Each marriage lastedonly a few years and it was reported thatZach Mulhall remained the most impor-tant man in her life.

Lucille basical-ly retired fromworld-wide travelin 1917 as liveWild West per-formances werebeing overshad-owed by the upand coming Hol-lywood westerns.However, shecontinued to per-form throughoutthe 1920s and‘30s, mostly in

Oklahoma and Texas. She made her lastknown public appearance in Septemberof 1940.Lucille Mulhall died near the home

ranch in an automobile accident onDecember 21, 1940. She was only fifty-five years old. She was posthumouslyinducted into the Rodeo Hall of Famein 1975 and National Cowgirl Hall ofFame in 1977. Long live Cowgirls!

First Cowgirl continued from page ten

SHAR PORIER,| HERALD/REVIEW

Last year, the Center for Bio-logical Diversity (CBD)went after the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation for thenegative impact that Sierra Vista’swastewater treatment plant mayhave on the San Pedro River andthe endangered Huachuca waterumbel.That legal action went

nowhere, according to Center forBiological Diversity (CBD) mem-ber Dr. Robin Silver in an inter-view. So, a new strategy wasdevised, and now Sierra Vista isthe target.The CBD is putting the city

on notice that a lawsuit based onan allegation that the city’s waste-water treatment plant, alsoknown as the EnvironmentalOperations Park or EOP, is dis-charging “pollutants including,but not limited to, nitrogen, phar-maceuticals, antibiotics, and hor-mones (collectively hereafter aspollutants) into waters of theUnited States without a permit asrequired by the federal CleanWater Act,” according to the doc-umentation provided.The center’s attorney for the

case, Charles M. Tebbutt, statesin the notice: “The discharge ofreclaimed wastewater into surfacewater requires a National Pollu-tant Discharge Elimination Sys-tem permit or the Arizona stateequivalent called the Arizona Pol-lutant Discharge Elimination Sys-tem from the Arizona Depart-ment of Environmental Quality.The City of Sierra Vista does nothave the permit necessary for thedischarge of its reclaimed waste-water into the surface water ofthe San Pedro River.”Tebbutt states, “The pollutants

that Sierra Vista has discharged,is discharging and will continue todischarge include, but are notlimited to, nitrogen associatedwith human waste, caffeine, pre-scription seizure medicationssuch as carbamazepine, primi-done, and dilantin, antibiotics

such as sulfamethoxasole, andother pollutants. All pollutantsbeing discharged not set forthspecifically in this letter are viola-tions that are or should be knownto Sierra Vista and may be includ-ed in any future legal actions bythe Center. Such pollutants mayonly be known to Sierra Vista.”Staff of the BLM and U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) con-ducted water quality and ground-water elevation monitoring inJune 2010 and noted anincreased flow in Curry Draw andelevated groundwater levelsattributable to artificial rechargeoccurring upstream at the EOP.Pharmaceuticals coming from theCity of Sierra Vista’s reclaimedwastewater are now found inMurray Springs that flows intothe San Pedro River. The samplestaken indicated the presence ofprescription drugs in MurraySprings. Earlier in April, 2010,USGS found seizure medicationin the WWTP and in MurraySprings, indicating to the Centerthat these medications camefrom the city’s percolation ofreclaimed wastewater into theground. The presence of the pharma-

ceuticals originating from thewastewater treatment plant con-firms the connectivity betweenthe wastewater treatment plantand the San Pedro River,” statesTebbutt. In addition to the pharmaceu-

ticals, nitrogen from the EOPposes possibly more of a threat byinducing growth of non-desertnative species that may live alongand in the river. It can be a majorthreat to the endangeredHuachuca water umbel, a tinywater plant that requires a veryspecific water environment, sug-gests Tebbutt. The center alleges the city

ignored surveys that indicated thesite chosen for the rechargebasins was not an optimal settingfor accomplishing recharge to theaquifer and providing clean waterto the San Pedro River.

Since 1999, when a USGShydrologist indicated that theproposed Sierra Vista rechargeproject may be sited in the wrongarea, more information has beendeveloped. It confirms that theEOP is in the wrong location forrecharge and for longterm SanPedro River protection, addedTebbutt. The current wastewater treat-

ment plant’s location originallywas chosen as an “ideal evapora-tive site because it is so poor forrecharge as it is situated on top ofa low permeability, recharge-retarding, underground clay lay-er.” The USFWS was told by theBOR that it would take 200 yearsfor any effluent from the EOPsite to appear in the San PedroRiver and that the water umbelwould not “likely be adversely”effected, he continued. However, in 1999, a BOR

memorandum stated that someof the percolating water thatwould otherwise flow subsurfacetoward the river may actually beintercepted by the clay layer, floweasterly over the top of the layerand daylight at Murray Springs orcreate new springs between therecharge site and the river.

The city respondsCity Manager Chuck Potucek

said in an interview that the mat-ter would be brought before thecity council in an upcomingmeeting. “We have been talking with

ADEQ for a permit for the waste-water facility, and that mayinclude the discharge to the sur-face water at Murray Springs. Wedo not know why the water weare putting into the ground sur-faces at Murray Springs,” contin-ued Potucek. “We just do notknow what the parameters of thepermit are yet and we need tohave those surface water discus-sions with ADEQ.”The city does have to file

reports with ADEQ on theaquifer water permit, and a num-ber of chemicals, minerals and

organics are included, he added. “I’m not sure if there are

requirements for pharmaceuticalsin water,” noted Potucek.Scott Dooley, Public Works

Director, stated that as far as heknew, there were no such limitson medications found in water onthe state or federal level. He alsonoted that the city’s reports onthe water quality at the EOPhave consistently been well withinfederal limits.Once Potucek and Dooley get

the information they need fromADEQ and move forward withthat permitting process, Potucekwill meet with the city counciland apprise them of that progressand what the response to theCBD’s claims will entail.

The problem of pharmaceuticalsThe enigma of pharmaceutical

occurrence in drinking water hasespecially alarmed the public andregulators despite the fact thatrelatively few pharmaceuticalshave been detected and only atconcentrations tens of thousandsof times smaller than the thera-peutic doses. Fortunately, pharmaceuticals

have the most robust database ofany environmental contaminantin terms of human health as thesecompounds undergo rigorousclinical trials during registrationand post-registration monitoring.Although adverse human healthconsequences from the existingtrace levels of pharmaceuticals inU.S. drinking water is highlyunlikely (at least based on currentknowledge), the resulting impactsto aquatic ecosystems are morenebulous. Several studies havedemonstrated that fish exposedto wastewater treatment effluentscan exhibit reproductive abnor-malities. Moreover, fish exposed to

trace levels of birth control phar-maceuticals in the range of con-centrations found in the environ-ment show dramatic decreases inreproductive success, suggesting

population level impacts are plau-sible. Although there are currently

no federal regulations limiting thelevels of pharmaceuticals inwastewater or drinking water, theU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has added some pharma-ceuticals to the most recent con-taminant candidate list. However,only four of the compounds onthis list are exclusively used ashuman pharmaceuticals: threebirth control substances and oneantibiotic. Treatment processes can and

do reduce the concentrations ofpharmaceuticals in water, howev-er, the degree of efficacy is oftena function of chemical structure,cost, and energy. All treatmentprocesses have some degree ofside effects, such as generation ofresiduals or bi-products. Thor-ough life-cycle analyses should beundertaken to ensure that thesolutions for environmental con-trol are not more risky than theproblem. Source control of con-taminants to wastewater treat-ment plants should always beconsidered when unknown orquestionable occurrence in efflu-ents is predicted or observed.While pharmaceutical take-backprograms may not lead to signifi-cant reductions in environmentalloading, such activities are helpfulin communicating to the publicthat toilets are not suitable recep-tacles for a diversity of consumerproducts. The application of ultra-sensi-

tive analytical technologies todetect anthropogenic substancesin water at one trillionth of agram or less per liter willundoubtedly reveal that nearlyevery compound known to manwill be detectable. The question isnot whether these compoundsoccur, as they certainly will, butrather whether they pose a risk ofharm to humans and wildlife thatare exposed.

From a report by the National Association ofClean Water Agencies (NACWA) and the Associ-ation of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA).

Lawsuit threatened for City of Sierra Vista, Arizona ‘pollutants’

Healthy consumers couldsee insurance rates dou-ble or even triple whenthey look for individual

coverage under the federalhealth law later this year, whilethe premiums paid by sicker

people are set to become moreaffordable, according to a WallStreet Journal analysis of cover-age to be sold on the law’s newexchanges.A review of rates proposed

by carriers in eight states shows

the likely boundaries for theleast-expensive and most costlyplans on the exchanges. Thelower boundary is particularlyimportant because the govern-ment wants to attract healthypeople to the exchanges, andthey may choose to pay a penal-ty and take the risk of goingwithout coverage if they believethey can’t get an acceptabledeal.

� For a 40-year-old singlenonsmoker – in the middle ofthe age range eligible forexchanges – a “bronze” plancovering about 60 percent ofmedical costs will be availablefor about $200 a month in mostplaces, the proposals show.

� Though less generous than“silver” and “gold” plans on theexchanges, a bronze plan wouldstill include fuller benefits than

many policies available on theindividual market today.The challenge for the law is

that healthy 40 year olds cantypically get coverage for lesstoday, especially if they are will-ing to accept fewer benefits ortake on more costs themselves.Virginia is one of the eight

states examined and offers afairly typical picture.

� In Richmond, a 40-year-oldmale nonsmoker logging on tothe eHealthInsurance compari-son-shopping website todaywould see a plan that costs $63a month from Anthem. Thatplan has a $5,000 deductibleand covers half of medical costs.

� By comparison, the least-expensive plan on the exchangefor a 40-year-old nonsmoker inRichmond, also from Anthem,will likely cost $193 a month,

according to filings submittedby carriers.The law is likely to offer a

benefit to those who have diffi-culty getting insurance now orare pushed out of the marketbecause they have had illnesses.Under the current system, therate on the $63-a-month plancould be revised higher if a con-sumer indicates prior healthproblems in a medical question-naire that must be filled outbefore buying the plan. Theapplication also could be reject-ed entirely based on specificanswers given. Under the newhealth exchanges, plans areavailable regardless of healthstatus, and a price can’t changeonce it is offered.

Source: Louise Radnofsky, “Health InsuranceCosts Set for a Jolt,” Wall Street Journal, June 30,2013.

Whatever the weaknessof the evidence ongreenhouse gases(GHG) and climate

effects, the real goal of carbonpolicy is a regional redistribu-tion of wealth, a reality thatexplains the inability of Con-gress to enact such policiessince the Clinton administra-tion. President Obama too wasunable to convince even a fullyDemocratic Congress to adoptsuch policies, and so he nowproposes that his Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA)and Department of Energyimplement regulations reducingemissions of carbon dioxide andother GHGs, says Benjamin

Zycher, a visiting scholar at theAmerican Enterprise Institute.

� The president proposes theimposition of a GHG emissionsstandard on both new and exist-ing electric generating plants;expansion and tightening ofenergy-efficiency standards forbuildings, appliances, and somevehicles; and an increase in(subsidized) renewable powergeneration from federal lands.

� Policies making someenergy sources more expensiveinexorably will create suchredistribution because statesand regions differ in the propor-tions of their energy use derivedfrom alternative technologies.

� In particular, the presi-

dent’s proposals will penalizeareas and industries dispropor-tionately dependent on coal-fired power.

� A recent MIT study con-cludes that under a policy toreduce GHG emissions “Cali-fornia, the Pacific Coast, NewEngland, and New York gener-ally experience the lowest cost .. . while the South Central[Arkansas, Louisiana, andOklahoma], Texas, and Moun-tain States face the highestcost.”That conclusion is consistent

with the data on average retailelectricity prices reported bythe Energy Information Admin-istration.

� The winners are states withhigh power costs or with signifi-cant inexpensive hydroelectricresources that would be unaf-fected by GHG policies.

� The losers are states withlow power costs driven by dis-proportionate use of cheap,coal-fired power.

� By driving power costs upin the latter group of states, theGHG policies would reduce thecompetitive disadvantages ofthe former group.The policies examined in the

MIT study surely differ fromthose that will emerge from theregulatory processes given forceby the president. But if theeffect of the latter is some sub-

stantial reduction in GHGemissions, in particular fromelectric power generation, thenit is difficult to see how the dis-tributional impacts might differsubstantially from those report-ed by MIT, and it also is diffi-cult to believe that the basicred-to-blue transfer is acciden-tal. Instead, given that the actu-al climate effects of reductionsin U.S. emissions would be triv-ial, it is straightforward tohypothesize that the directionof the wealth transfer is thecentral motivating objective ofthis policy proposal.

Source: Benjamin Zycher, “‘Carbon Pollution’and Wealth Redistribution,” The American, June26, 2013.

Page 12 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

To:_________________________________

From:_______________________________

You have received a ____ year subscription to the Livestock Market Digest.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1-year $19.95, 2-year $29.95

P.O. Box 7458Albuquerque, NM 87194

505/243-9515 • Fax 505/998-6236caren@aaalivestock.comwww.aaalivestock.com

Have that “hard to buy for” friend or relative? Why not gift them with a subscription to the

Livestock Market Digest? They will get a reminder of you every month AND stay up with the news and views of the livestock and ranching business!

~Gift Certificate ~

Health insurance costs are set for a jolt

Carbon pollution and wealth redistribution

The growth of federal regula-tions over the past sixdecades has cut U.S. eco-nomic growth by an aver-

age of 2 percentage points peryear, according to a new study inthe Journal of Economic Growth.As a result, the average Ameri-can household receives about$277,000 less annually than itwould have gotten in theabsence of six decades of accu-mulated regulations – a medianhousehold income of $330,000instead of the $53,000 we getnow, says Ronald Bailey, a sci-ence correspondent for ReasonMagazine.Economists John Dawson

and John Seater constructed anindex of federal regulations bytracking the growth in the num-ber of pages in the Code of Feder-al Regulations since 1949. Thenumber of pages, they note, hasincreased six-fold from 19,335 in1949 to 134,261 in 2005.

� The Bureau of EconomicAffairs estimates that real grossdomestic product (GDP) in1947 was $1.8 trillion in 2005

dollars.� The real GDP growth rate

between 1949 and 2011 aver-aged 3.2 percent per year. Com-pounded over the period, thatwould yield a total real GDP ofabout $13.3 trillion in 2011;that's the same figure the bureaugives for that year.

� If regulation had remainedfixed at 1949 levels, GDPgrowth would have averaged 2percent higher annually, yieldinga rate of about 5.2 percent overthe period between 1949 and2011.

� Compounded, that yields atotal GDP in 2005 dollars ofapproximately $43 trillion, or$49 trillion in 2011 dollars,which is in the same ballpark asthe $53.9 trillion figure calculat-ed by Dawson and Seater.But let’s say that the two

economists have grossly overesti-mated how fast the economycould have grown in the absenceof proliferating regulations. Soinstead let’s take the real averageGDP growth rate between 1870and 1900, before the Progres-

sives jumpstarted the regulatorystate.

� Economic growth in the lastdecades of the 19th centuryaveraged 4.5 percent per year.

� Compounding that growthrate from the real 1949 GDP of$1.8 trillion to now would haveyielded a total GDP in 2013 ofaround $31 trillion.

� Considerably lower thanthe $54 trillion estimated byDawson and Seater, but never-theless about double the size ofour current GDP.Defenders of regulation will

argue that regulations also pro-vide benefits to Americans. Butthe measure devised by Dawsonand Seater accounts for both theaggregate benefits and the costsof the regulations. The tworesearchers note their results“indicate that whatever positiveeffects regulation may have onmeasured output are outweighedby negative effects.”

Source: Ronald Bailey, “Federal RegulationsHave Made You 75 Percent Poorer: U.S. GDP IsJust $16 Trillion Instead of $54 Trillion,” ReasonMagazine, June 21, 2013.

Regulation slows economic growth

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 13

Equipment

ClassifiedsDigest

POWDER RIVER LIVESTOCK EqUIP -

MENT. Best prices with delivery available.CONLIN SUPPLY CO. INC., Oakdale, CA.209/847-8977.

Auction SchoolsCOME TRAIN WITH THE CHAMPIONS.

Join the financially rewarding world of auc-tioneering. World Wide College of Auction -eering. Free catalog. 1-800/423-5242,www.worldwidecollegeofauctioneering.com.

BE AN AUCTIONEER – Missouri AuctionSchool, world’s largest since 1905. Free CDand catalog. Call toll-free 1-800/835-1955,ext. 5. www.auctionschool.com.

LEARN AUCTIONEERING for the 2000s!Nashville Auction School “Free Catalog”800/543-7061, learntoauction.com, 112 W.Lauderdale St., Tullahoma, TN 37388.

To place your Digest Classified ad here,

contact RANDY SUMMERSat randy@aaalivestock.com

or by phone at 505/243-9515

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.

TO SUPPORT THESE CAUSES AND MORE, JOIN US!

I am/our organization is committed to protecting the open spaces, private property, private businesses & ensuring theresponsible use of public lands. Please list me/my organization as a member of the Western Legacy Alliance.

I have included my membership dues and my $____________ additional contribution.

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________Organization: _______________________________________________________________________________Address: ________________________________________ City: __________________________ State: _____Zip: __________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ______________________

936 West 350 North • Blackfoot, ID 83221 westernlegacyalliance@gmail.com • 208-681-6004www.westernlegacyalliance.org

What They are Saying About Us…• The $206,098,920 Endangered Species Act Settlement Agreements — Is all that paperwork worth it?

• Leveling the Playing Field: Support for the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011

• Support for the Governmental Litigation Savings Act of 2011 — Reform of Excessive Litigation Pay-outs

• Foreign & Domestic Train Wreck in the Making — More of the ESA

• The Secret World of the Animal Rights Agenda

You Can Help

JOIN TODAY!

IndividualMembership:$25AssociationMembership:$500CorporateMembership:$1,000

Working to Protect the Rich Tapestry of the West

BY ALEXANDER BOLTON,

THEHILL.COM

Senate Democrats hoped topass a five-year farm bill andbolster their appeal with ruralvoters, who they see as crucial

to retaining their majority in 2014.Democrats have stepped up

their outreach to rural constituen-cies this year as they head into adaunting midterm election yearwith a slew of seats in conservative-leaning rural states to defend.The quest to keep their Senate

majority became more complicatedwith the death of Senator FrankLautenberg (D-N.J.). New JerseyGovernor Chris Christie (R) isexpected to appoint a Republican,which means Democrats will likelyhave to battle a GOP incumbent toregain the seat.Agriculture is a major industry in

Montana, South Dakota, Arkansasand North Carolina, four statesthat are huge GOP targets nextyear. Montana and South Dakotaare open seats following theannounced retirements of Senators.Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and TimJohnson (D-S.D.). Meanwhile,Senators. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) andKay Hagan (D-N.C.) are two ofthe chamber’s most vulnerableincumbents.Other rural states where

Democrats face competitive racesare Alaska, Louisiana, New Hamp-shire and West Virginia.Pryor and Hagan have listed the

farm bill among their highest prior-ities and have urged colleagues toact on it.Passing a bipartisan farm bill will

give Democrats in those states astrong argument to make on thecampaign trail.Dan Glickman, who served as

secretary of Agriculture under for-mer President Clinton, saidDemocrats need to show votersthat government can have a posi-tive impact on their lives. Passingthe farm bill would be an importantstep, he said.“It shows that in the area of agri-

culture the Congress can operate ina bipartisan manner. It’s really oneof the most bipartisan pieces of leg-islation,” he said. “Anything that

can be done in a bipartisan wayhelps build trust, and that shouldhelp Democrats.”Glickman recently spoke at a

rural summit hosted in the DirksenSenate Office Building by theDemocratic Steering and OutreachCommittee.The three-hour meeting high-

lighted ways the farm bill wouldimprove lives in rural areas by sup-porting business developmentthrough competitive grants,expanding access to broadbandservices, promoting conservationand lowering energy bills.It also promoted a measure

included in tax legislation passed atthe end of last year creating a nation-wide public safety communicationnetwork for first responders in ruralareas and the E-Rate program, whichprovides $2.3 billion to libraries andschools in rural areas to purchasetelecommunications services.Democrats want to change the

perception that they are primarilythe party of big cities and the Eastand West Coasts.“We have made great strides in

enacting legislation to help spureconomic activity in rural America,but there are still too many pocketswhere Americans do not haveaccess to the same resources, likeeducation and infrastructureenjoyed by residents of more urbanareas,” said Sen. Mark Begich(Alaska), chairman of the Demo-cratic Steering and Outreach Com-mittee.“We need to make efforts to

expand broadband access tostrengthen disaster mitigation, tele-health access and provide greateraccess to educational resources.These are programs and ideas thatDemocrats have long supportedthat are critical to the success ofrural America, and issues that I willcontinue to advocate for in the Sen-ate,” he said.Begich is one of several incum-

bent Democrats facing a toughreelection.Democrats have seen their sup-

port erode in rural areas in theSouth and Midwest over the last 25years as the country has becomemore ideologically divided andDemocrats have become more

Democrats see farm bill, rural voters as key to 2014 electionidentified with liberal social values.In 2008, President Obama

helped sweep a group of SenateDemocrats to victory in conserva-tive-leaning states, but the politicalwinds will be blowing in their facesnext year.“We now have a class of Democ-

rats up for reelection who managedto get elected to the Senate in agood Democratic year,” said StevenS. Smith, a political science profes-sor at Washington University in St.Louis. “They were elected when theparty was strong nationwide, andthat put them over the top and instates that had been trendingagainst their party over the last quar-ter century.“They now have a pretty serious

challenge, and their own leaders rec-ognize the nature of the challenge,”he said.Smith added the challenge for

Democrats is to make the case forthe role of government in parts ofthe country where “the balance ofopinion is for reducing govern-ment.”The $955 billion farm bill estab-

lishes subsidy levels for crops andpays for the federal food stamp pro-gram. Much of the funding will goto the Supplemental NutritionAssistance Program.It would eliminate some subsi-

dies in the form of direct payments,but create other new subsidies andexpand crop insurance. In a signifi-cant concession to Republicans, itcuts $23 billion in spending over 10years, including $4 billion from foodstamps.“There’s probably no piece of leg-

islation that’s more important torural America than the Farm Bill.More than 16 million Americanshave jobs because of agriculture and

many of those jobs are found inrural communities,” said AgricultureCommittee Chairwoman DebbieStabenow (D-Mich.) “The FarmBill is a game changer for rural com-munities and it’s one of the manyreasons why passing a five-year bill isso critical.”Democrats passed a multi-year,

bipartisan farm bill through the Sen-ate last year, but it stalled because ofopposition from conservative HouseRepublicans, a point Democraticleaders repeated in the final weeksof the 112th Congress.Democratic aides said last year’s

battle over the farm bill highlightedRepublican obstruction and helpedthem expand their majority.Republicans say the 2014 election

will be a referendum on Obama, thecontroversies that have plagued hissecond term and the implementationof the new healthcare law.

Energy efficiency rising

The rising demand for more electronics,appliances, bigger vehicles and homes iscreating more pressure on the availableenergy resources. By improving energy effi-

ciency, both the increased pressure on the ener-gy supply industry and fossil fuel use will bereduced, says Catrina Rorke, director of energypolicy for the American Action Forum.Consider recent trends:� Gasoline consumption fell more than 10

percent over the last decade.� Electricity use has stabilized in recent years

and has a downward trend in 15 states.� Connecticut alone has seen per-capita elec-

tricity demand drop by 8 percent since 2005.While changes in consumer behavior in the

face of higher fuel costs and in response to therecession are undoubtedly responsible for a por-tion of this trend, public and private initiatives topromote efficiency also played a significant role.Private sector action:� The private sector can lower costs through

energy efficiency improvements.� These improvements include: demand-side

management techniques, leveraging smartmetering technology, innovative financing, infor-mational software.

� Organizations can improve their energy effi-ciency in their internal processes to reduce oper-ating costs.

� Electric utilities can encourage consumersto use energy more efficiently to reduce pressureon the electric grid.

� Increased interest from both corporate andindividual markets in minimizing costs is encour-aging new efficiency business ventures.Government action:� Government interventions have a limited

ability to improve energy efficiency that willimprove economic efficiency.

� Labeling programs that provide informationon lifetime energy costs lower the burden ongathering or processing energy use informationand leverage the presumption of consumerrationality to increase investments in energy.

� Government subsidies promote the con-sumption of more efficient energy.

� Command and control mandates restrictthe availability of items that do not meet govern-ment standards. The benefits of these standardsare much lower than the cost imposed on themarket.

Source: Catrina Rorke, “Efficiency Policy,” American Action Forum,June 2013.

Page 14 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS

at 505/243-9515 or at randy@aaalivestock.com

RealEstate

GUIDE

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

Bottari RealtyPaul Bottari, Broker • 775/752-3040

www.bottarirealty.com

NEVADA FARMS &RANCH PROPERTY

Farm near Wells, NV:90 acres in hay; 2 homes;

shop and storage three miles from town. $450,000

Missouri Land Sales� 675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your OwnPlane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2ba home down 1 mile private lane.New 40x42 shop, 40x60 livestock barn, over 450 ac. in grass. (Owner runsover 150 cow/calves, 2 springs, 20 ponds, 2 lakes, consisting of 3.5 and 2 ac. Both stocked with fish. Excellent fencing. A must farm to see. MSL#1112191

� 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-functionbarn. 2-bedroom, 1-bath rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641

� NEW LISTING - RARE FIND - 226 ACRES 1.5 miles of Beaver Creek runs along & thru this "Ozark Treas-ure." Long bottom hay field, walnut grove, upland grazing, excellent hunting, deep swimming hole, 4 BR, 2BAolder farm house. Don't snooze and loose on this one. Call today! MLS #1303944

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

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

MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORSSPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

����

����� ����� �!1)2�� �%7!2�� %7#%,,%.30!2341%��0!5%$�1/!$�&1/.3!'%��(4'%,!+%��-!.2)/.�(/-%����� ������

����� ����� ).�3(%�2(!$/6�/&��!,,!2��%#,4$%$� ,!+%2�� 31%%2�� %7#%,,%.3'1!22�� �4.3).'� �� &)2().'�� $1%!-(/-%�2)3%2����� ��!#���!.�!$$����-/1%�!#1%2��/.,8����-),%2�/43�/&��!,�,!2�

���������������������#!33,%�1!.#(���/&��,!1+25),,%��� ���%$��)5%1��/��.)#%"1)#+� (/-%�� � "!1.2�� 0)0%� &%.#%2�'//$� $%%1�� (/'2�� $4#+2�� (4.3).'����������������

������������������6)3(�!���"%$1//-��� �"!3(�!.$�!��#!1�'!1!'%�!.$�2(/0&/1� �� ������ /6.%1� &).!.#%$� 6)3(���#!2(�$/6.�

������ ����� �/13(!-�� �%7!2���� ��!#���4.3).'�!.$�#!33,%���1/.32����68�9��� ��� �!33,%�!.$��/-%��)3%������� ���0!�9������� �!,,!2�6�2(/0���� �����9����� �4.3��/4.38��7��2411/4.$%$"8�,!1'%�(/-%2���%7#%,,%.3�2#(//,2� �����0!�

�������� ������������������

����������������������� �����68�� ���%!'/5),,%��� �� �

������� ���9�������������������� ���9� �!7�������� �

*/%01)%231%�.%3�9�*/%01)%231%�%!13(,).+�#/-

SALE PENDING

SALE PENDING

SOUTHERN PLAINS LANDC O M P A N Y

��������������������� ��������������

oklahoma������������$������������$�%��!��)�$��!������!�����" ��� �!�$��%�����"(%������� ����$�

TEXAS��$�%������$��������$�%�"!��)�$��!������!�����" ����$$���&�"!�#�'"&������"(%�������������

ST. JOHN’S OFFICE: TRAEGEN KNIGHTP.O. Box 1980, St. John’s, AZ 85936 || www.headquarterswest.com

928/524-3740 • Fax 928/563-7004 • Cell 602/228-3494info@headquarterswest.com

HEADQUARTERS WEST LTD.

�������������� ����������������� ���� � ����/%�"0�$'��4����++/':"%�4�$;�49'�%"$�0�&'/4 �'��4 �%�"&�04/��4�,�$�8�$�&���4/��4-�"&��4.��' &0��4�4 ��"&4�/0��4"'&�'����4�/��4/��4��&��6&����04��4/��4.� �/��"0�5=�����������/�0�9"4 ����0 �/�0�'���4.��' &0��//"��4"'&��&���"4� ��'%+�&;.��� ��"44$��'$'/��'� "8�/�/7&0�4 /'7� �4 ��+/'+�/4;��/'%���04�4'�9�04��++/':"%�4�$;�)�%"$�.����/%$�&��"0"//"��4���8"���$''���/�8"4;��$'9��"4� �'&�&�4"8���&��"%+/'8���+�047/��74"$"<����'/�$"8�04'�#��/�<"&�.�/"����51��===

����� ���� ������� '��4���"&���&4/�$�>+�� ���'7&4;��>/"<'&�����49��&�>$+"&���&���+/"&��/8"$$��$'&������"� 9�;�(�=� "&� 4 ���74/"'0'���$$�;� �4� 4 �� �'&�$7�&���'���'$4�/��/��#� �&���74/"'0'�/��#�9"4 �'8�/�)�%"$��'��%��&��/"&���74/"'0'��/��#�/7&&"&��4 /'7� �4 ��+/'+�/4;.� � �&�$7��0'8�/�((����/�0�4'4�$�9"4 ��/�&�!��4 �/���9�4�/�/"� 40��'/�55.����/�0�'��"//"��4���+�047/�.����/%��$���/����� �0����&�74"$"<����'/� $"8�04'�#��/�<"&��'&� "%+/'8���+�047/���&�� "0� "//"��4���8"���/�8"4;�$'9� �"/4� �"4� �0.� � ���74"�7$� 8"�90� '�� �0�7�"$$�� '7&4�"&� $'��4��� "&� 4 �� ��/4� '�� 4 �� � "4�'7&4�"&0.��� �/���/��&7%�/'70� '%��0"4�0�'&�4 ��+/'+�/4;�9"4 ��:��$$�&4�����00�"&�$7�"&��'8�/*�%"$��'��+�8����/'&4�����$'&������"� 9�;�(�=.��>��"4"'&�$�����00�"0�+/'8"�����;��'7&4;�%�"&!4�"&���/'��0�'&��'4 �4 ��&'/4 ��&��0'74 ��'7&��/"�0.���/"����(�6==�===

� ������������ �� ���� �'/4 �'���4.��' &0�"&�>+�� ���'7&4;��"&�$7��0�(�12=����������/�0�9"4 �4�4������ $��0�0� �'/�(6(��&"%�$�7&"40� ;��/$'&�.� ���9$;� "%+/'8���9"4 � 0�8�/�$�%"$�0�'��&�9+"+�$"&���&7%�/'70�04'/����4�&#03�/"&#�/0�07++$"����;��'7/�9�$$0.���'4�$�/�&� �"0�'8�/�((�===���/�09"4 ����"8��+�047/��/'4�4"'&�$��/�<"&��0;04�%��&��'&��0%�$$� '$�"&��4/�+.��>$$�/�&� ���&��0� �8����&�/�9'/#���"&�$7�"&��'8�/�49'�%"$�0�'��&�9���&�"&�.���/"�����1==�===

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

�����������Jack Horton �������� ��� Rae H Anderson ������� �

!�� ����������� Approximately 22,200 deeded acres - 1,200 +/- irrigated – private BLM –owner rated @ 2,200 animal units year round. PRICE REDUCED - $15,000,000

�� ��!����������������� Approximately 4,100 deeded acres – 450 +/- irrigated (FREEWATER for most irrigated land) – private BLM – rated at 500 animal units – quality improvements -plenty of live water including man-made lake and pond for both irrigation, fishing & waterfowl. A spe-cial place - $5,285,000

���������������� Approximately 920 acres – 742 irrigated – 7 pivots – low cost water plus backup wells – potatoes, hay, grain – cash lease available for investor if desired – $3,900,000

���� �������������– Nevada/Oregon border – traditional buckaroo country – west of Mc Der-mitt, NV – 3,345 +/- deeded – 1,300 irrigated - FREE WATER - private BLM with approximately 65%burn in 2012 will make a premier grass ranch in the near future - 2 set of improvements - private –a lot of history – approximately 800 cows year round or 1,500 stockers 5 to 6 months - $7,000,000

July 15, 2013 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 15

���������������� ������������������

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

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

joes3@suddenlink.netMMiicchhaaeell PPeerreezz AAssssoocciiaatteess

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

Scottand co.L

� (������)--��+0,-�&����� &,)(���+)% +,

�+0,-�&�� &,)(������.�&$!$("��+)% +800-933-9698 day/eve

www.scottlandcompany.com • www.texascrp.com1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027

Ranch and Farm Real Estate

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

���������1������������������known coast-to-coast and in all parts in between ��4 ac. +/- on theedge of town. Nice metal frame horse stables w/pipe-rail pens. Nice brick home, 3 bdrm., 2 bath. Excellentopp.!���������������������1�1,200 ac. +/-, 600 ac. ���of corn for 2013, cheap pumping from two pumping sta-tions on the little river, pivot sprinklers, balance inchoice grassland, barn w/apartment, steel pens, onpvmt., 800 mature pecan trees, very scenic.��� ���� ��� -3,120 ac. +/- of choice grasslandw/houses, barns & steel pens, lays in 3 tracts, pricedseparately!������� ����������1�Choice ½ section, sprinklerirr., nice set of preconditioning pens (steel) w/concretebunks on pvmt. just out of Hereford.

W-RRANCH

18,560 ACRES20 MILES NORTHEAST

OF ROSWELL, N.M.

CHARLES BENNETTUnited Country / Vista Nueva, Inc.575/356-5616www.vista-nueva.com

� 680 Deeded Acres

� 17,900 State Lease Acres

� 927 BLM Acres

� 300 Animal Units Year Long

� Good fences; 4-strand barbwire

� Newly remodeled Southwestern Home

� Good water; windmill and submergible tanks

� $1,800,000

SELL IT!In the Digest

On June 11, 2013 the SierraClub held an event inMoab, Utah to promotethe establishment of a new

national monument known asGreater Canyonlands. The SierraClub’s executive director MichaelBrune stated before an audiencein Moab that he is “100 percentcertain” that a monument wouldbe created unilaterally by Presi-dent Obama through his use ofthe Antiquities Act. Congressman Rob Bishop

(UT-01), who has launched a newPublic Lands Initiative in easternUtah that focuses on land usethrough a collaborative process,announced his disappointmentwith Michael Brune’s statements.“A diverse group of stakehold-

ers has come together to worktoward finding solutions for ongo-ing public land policies that havestymied progress for decades.These conversations have beenoverwhelmingly positive and havethe potential to provide new con-

servation areas as well as opportu-nities for new economic develop-ment. This process, which is beingdriven at the local level, is ongoingand requires continued coopera-tion amongst all participants. Mr.Brune’s statement that a unilateralmonument designation is the ‘thebest and most politically viableway’ undermines the collaborateeffort and to suggest that he is‘100 percent’ certain a new nation-al monument will be designated inUtah is further harmful to the

process. Fortunately, the UtahPublic Lands Initiative is biggerthan just one Washington, D.C.politico and while Mr. Brune maycontinue to lobby for a unilateralpolicy out of Washington, the restof us will continue to work togeth-er along with Utah communitiesto build consensus around newand responsible land policies. Anyother approach ignores the diverseinterests of the many differentland-users,” said CongressmanBishop.

Sierra Club claims to be “100 percent certain” that the President will designate a new National Monument in Utah

Gene Manuello was inductedas the new Colorado Cat-tlemen’s Association(CCA) President during

the Colorado Cattlemen’s Associ-ation’s Convention, held at theBeaver Run Resort in Brecken-ridge, CO in June. Gene was born and raised in

Sterling, Colorado. He is a thirdgeneration farmer/rancher. Heraises corn and hay, summersyearlings and has a cow-calf opera-tion and feedlot. He is the presi-dent of the Sterling Irrigation

Company, is the ag representativefor the South Platte Round Table,the Vice President of the LowerSouth Platte Water ConservancyDistrict, Vice President of theLogan Well Users; and is an origi-nal member of CAWA (ColoradoAg Water Alliance). He has beenon the CCA board for nearly tenyears, and lists one of his prioritiesas water policy.“My vision for the coming year

for CCA is to remain a strongvoice for the beef industry. Weplan on being involved and devel-

oping Colorado’s water plan. Oneof my many goals is to raise theremaining money needed for thebuilding fund, and to continueimproving the relationshipbetween CCA and the ColoradoLivestock Association in order tostrengthen our industry as awhole.” said CCA President,Gene Manuello. Current members of the 2013-

2014 Colorado Cattlemen’s Asso-ciation Board include: Manuello;President Elect Frank Daley, NewCastle; 1st Vice-President Bob

Patterson, Kim; 2nd Vice-Presi-dent Tim Lehmann, Powderhorn;Treasurer Brett Datteri, Greeley;NE Quarter Reps Troy Marshall,Burlington and Todd Inglee, Arva-da; NW Quarter Reps Phil Ander-son, Walden and Mike Hogue,Steamboat Springs; SW QuarterReps Janie Van Winkle, Fruita andRoy Oliver, Alamosa; SE QuarterReps Steve Wooten, Kim and BillHancock, Rocky Ford; ImmediatePast President T. Wright Dickin-son, Maybell and Past PresidentDavid Mendenhall, Rocky Ford.

Manuello Elected Colorado Cattlemen’s Assocation President

Bradley 3 Ranch, Memphis,Texas, was recently namedthe 2013 Beef Improve-ment Federation (BIF)

Seedstock Producer of the Year.Awards were presented during the45th annual BIF Research Sym-posium & Meeting in OklahomaCity.“The success of the Angus

breed has been built by opera-tions, such as the Bradley 3Ranch, that are committed toexcellence,” says Bryce Schu-mann, American Angus Associa-tion chief executive officer.

“When the entire beef industryrecognizes that effort, we couldnot be more proud. Congratula-tions to the Bradley 3 Ranch for amuch-deserved honor.”Bradley 3 Ranch was started in

1955 with the purchase of 20 reg-istered Angus cows. Today, theherd is one of the few Angusherds in the country that hasmaintained more than 200 regis-tered Angus cows for more than50 years. Located in the southeastpart of the Texas Panhandle,much of the ranch is rough withcanyons, draws, mesquite and

cedar trees. Bradley 3 Ranch iscurrently home to 400 registeredAngus cows, and managed byMary Lou Bradley-Henderson,Minnie Lou Bradley and JamesHenderson.Early on, the Bradleys were

committed to a disciplinedapproach to performance. As oneof the first members of the Amer-ican Beef Cattle PerformanceRegistry, they maintained anemphasis on performance that isstill the foundation of the herdtoday.In 1986, the Bradleys started

B3R Country Meats. In the next16 years, they built the all-naturalmeat company to a 125-head-per-day harvest facility that harvestedmore than 30,000 head in 2002,the year it was sold. Customerswere both beef producers andbeef consumers. The beef produc-ers were part of one of the earliestvalue-based marketing systems inthe United States.To learn more about the Bradley

3 Ranch: www.bradley3ranch.com. For more news and informa-

tion from the 2013 BIF confer-ence: www.bifconference.com.

Bradley 3 Ranch selected as 2013 BIF Seedstock Producer of the Year

BY ROBERT RHODEN, NOLA.COM

THE TIMES-PICAYUNE

Afederal judge has granted arequest by two environmen-tal groups to intervene inlawsuits brought by St.

Tammany Parish property ownerswho object to their land being des-ignated as critical habitat for anendangered frog. U.S. MagistrateJudge Sally Shushan ruled Tues-day that the Center for BiologicalDiversity and the Gulf RestorationNetwork have a right to partici-pate in the lawsuits broughtagainst the U.S. Fish & WildlifeService and others over the duskygopher frog, which was placed onthe endangered species list in2001.“We’ll do everything we can to

make sure these lawsuits don'tinterfere with the survival andrecovery of these highly endan-gered frogs,” center attorney Col-lette Adkins Giese said in a state-ment. “Protection of all theirremaining essential habitat is

absolutely necessary. Everyspecies we lose forever is a lossthat can never be undone.”Although the frogs no longer

live on the land west of Pearl Riv-er, the property is essential for frogrecovery because they contain fiveephemeral ponds, each withinhopping distance of the next, thecenter said. Dusky gopher frogslay their eggs only in such tempo-rary ponds – which are free of fishthat would devour their eggs – andthe St. Tammany property was thefrogs' last known Louisiana breed-ing ground, it said.St. Tammany landowner

Edward Poitevent II said in astatement “We regret yesterday’sruling that left-wing environmentalgroups, Center for BiologicalDiversity (CBD) and GulfRestoration Network (GRN), canintervene in our lawsuit . . .“The ruling is incorrect as CBD

and GRN have no valid interest inthe suit and the U.S. Departmentof Justice lawyers assigned to thecase are highly skilled and will ably

represent the FWS to uphold thefrog rule.”At issue is the federal govern-

ment’s decision in 2012 to labelsome 1,500 acres of land in St.Tammany and several thousandacres in southern Mississippi as“critical habitat” for the frog, awarty and dark-colored specimenwith ridges along the sides of itsback. The species has only about100 adults still living in the wild inHarrison County, Miss., north ofGulfport, but hasn't been seen inSt. Tammany since 1965.Poitevent, of New Orleans,

whose family owns most of theproperty in question in St. Tam-many, has said that the timberlandis not home to any of the frogs,nor does it contain the habitat thespecies needs to survive. He saidthe federal government's action isa land-grab that could cost hisfamily millions of dollars by block-ing future development.Edward Poitevent II of New

Orleans stands on family-ownedtimberland along Louisiana 36 in

St. Tammany Parish. NOLA.com| The Times-Picayune archiveA lawsuit brought by Poitevent

called the critical habitat designa-tion on his land “illegal, improperand illogical.”Suits also were brought by

landowner Markle Interests LLC,which is owned by cousins ofPoitevant, and WeyerhaeuserCo., which has a lease on the tim-berland and owns a small part ofit.Once prevalent throughout

Louisiana, Mississippi and Ala-bama, the frogs are nearly extinct.More than 98 percent of long-leafpine forests – upon which thefrog and many other rare animalsdepend – have been destroyed,the center said.The two environmental groups

in December filed a formal noticeof intent to sue the InteriorDepartment for failing to developa recovery plan for the frogs. Theagency has since assembled ateam that is working on such aplan, the groups said.

Center for Biological Diversity & others can participatein lawsuits over endangered frog

Page 16 Livestock Market Digest July 15, 2013

BY RON ARNOLD,

WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

Rare earths aren’t a celebri-ty security scandal likeblabbermouth EdwardSnowden, but these 17

minerals, which are essential foradvanced energy technologies,new healthcare tools and cut-ting-edge strategic weapons sys-tems, are dominated by the Chi-nese.America was once the world

leader in rare earth output. Nowwe’re 95 percent dependent onChina. That’s a shadow scandalbegging for some light.Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo.,

recently wrote that the actionvideo game, “Call of Duty: BlackOps II,” has a plot focused on a“cold war” between the UnitedStates and China over access torare earth materials. The gamedesigners provided several playeroptions for winning that video

war — unlike President Oba-ma.Coffman thinks it’s “unclearwhether the Obama administra-tion, which is neglecting provenmining and development strate-gies that could develop a domes-tic rare earth supply, is playing towin in the real world.” Obama’sDefense Department seemsokay with our vulnerability.Obama must be oblivious to

Deng Xiopeng’s cryptic 1992prophecy, “There is oil in theMiddle East; there is rare earthin China.” With vast rare earthdeposits and power rather thanprofit in mind, China began sup-plying the Free World's needs atdirt cheap cost that the free mar-ket could not match.The goal was to bring the

entire rare earth supply chaininto China’s control: mining,refining, processing into metalalloys, manufacturing finishedproducts — and direct supply ofbolt-on-ready components—

then force energy, healthcare,and defense industries to movetheir advanced manufacturing toChina, as Japan’s Toyota hasdone.Obama is so submissive to

Big Green’s anti-developmentdemands that it is impossibleunder his regime to develop any-thing in the rare earth supplychain — no mines, no refineries,no metal alloying mills, no com-ponent factories. The Catch 22is that even if he was bold aboutit, the economics of China’sstranglehold would defeat us.Since China temporarily

yanked Japan’s rare earth sup-plies over a 2010 boundarysquabble, the supply questionhas become stark. Molycorp Inc.— the only domestic producer ofrare earth oxides — and itsCanadian acquisition, NeoMaterial Technologies Inc., sendMolyCorp's U.S. oxides throughNeo to Chinese processing

plants.The Congressional Research

Service recently noted that suchrare earths are subject to Chi-nese export restrictions shouldU.S. industry need them back.Would they be allowed to returnto the United States? We don’tknow.The irony, rare earth mine

owner and industry consultantJim Kennedy told me, is thatthere are enough rare earthswaiting to be mined — andalready piled up in Americanthrowaway mine tailings — tosupply the world. The tailingswere dumped because the high-est-value rare earth ores occurwith small amounts of thorium, aminimally radioactive mineraltoo weak for use in a nuclearbomb. Thorium is not hard toremove, but the liability burdenfor removing and safely storingpure thorium has relegated theore to mine tailings.Stockpiling rare earths is silly:

What would we do with them

with no processing infrastruc-ture? Much as I dislike public-private projects, I don't seeanother solution than a consor-tium. In the U.S., it wouldrequire federal sanction for pri-vate rare earth interests in theU.S. and possibly internationallyto form a cooperative that sharesthe cost of setting up the fullfamily of processing facilities toget the full value of our abun-dant U.S. deposits.The details are fuzzy, but key

members of the Armed ForcesHouse and Senate Committeeshave been bouncing the ideaaround. U.S. Senator Roy Blunt,R-Mo., isn’t ready to introduce abill yet, but told me, “By encour-aging the domestic productionand refinement of rare earthminerals, we can reduce ourdependency on other countriesand encourage economic devel-opment here in the U.S.”

RON ARNOLD, Washington Examiner Colum-nist is executive vice president of the Center forthe Defense of Free Enterprise.

Why won’t President Obama let the DefenseDepartment face the rare earth security risk?

Robin Ruff promoted to lead theAmerican Angus Association’sevent-planning efforts

The American Angus Associ-ation® named Robin Ruffas the new director of activ-ities, events and education

for it’s nearly 25,000-memberorganization. Ruff’s commitmentduring her 6-year tenure in thejunior activities department hasearned her the opportunity tomanage the Association’s entireevent schedule and furtherdevelop educational programs.“With Robin’s background

and enthusiasm for the breed,the Association is confident shewill lead our members in theright direction,” says Bryce Schu-mann, Association chief execu-tive officer. “We are eager to seethe new life and ideas she willbring to our activities andevents.”In her new position, Ruff will

work with members to coordi-nate events, such as the BeefLeader’s Institute, Cattlemen’sBoot Camps, National WesternStock Show, and more. She willalso oversee the Association’saward programs, including theAngus Heritage Foundation,Historic and Century Awards.“The American Angus Associ-

ation represents more than abreed,” Ruff says. “It symbolizesa group of people who believe insomething bigger than them-selves, and I want them to feelthat way when they walk into anAssociation event, large orsmall.”Most of all, Ruff says she is

looking forward to expanding theAssociation’s educational out-reach. One example will be the2014 National Angus Conven-

tion and Trade Show in KansasCity. The event marks a dramat-ic departure from the traditionalannual business meeting, whichhas been in Louisville, Ky., dur-ing most of the last four decades.The 2014 event will include edu-cational workshops, a trade showfeaturing allied industry part-ners, top-flight keynote speakersand several social activities.“Planning the 2014 conven-

tion is an opportunity of a life-time,” Ruff says. “I am excited tostart brainstorming ideas andmake this conference the eventAngus members and cattleenthusiasts deserve.”In addition, Ruff is responsi-

ble for coordinating about 17nationwide Roll of VictoryShows throughout the year.During her time with the

Association, Ruff has served asthe junior activities assistant anddirector of junior activities. Sheplanned and managed the pre-mier event of the beef industry,the National Junior AngusShow; served as advisor theNJAA Board of Directors;arranged annual LeadersEngaged in Angus Developmentconferences; and coordinatedseveral other youth leadershipevents.A Kansas native, Ruff grew

up in Hanston on a family-owned operation with around200 head of cattle. She holds abachelor’s degree in agribusinessfrom Kansas State University,and is expected to graduate withher master’s degree in youthdevelopment in 2014.Ruff is active in the commu-

nity through the Saint JosephJunior League, Trails West®Arts and Musical Festival andBig Brothers, Big Sisters.

Angus Names Director of Activities, Events and Education