Riding Herd

by LEE PITTS

JUNE 15, 2015 • www.aaalivestock.com Volume 57 • No. 6

UnCOOLBY LEE PITTS

Here we go again.

In the last three years, the World Trade Organi-zation has ruled four times

that our country of origin labeling law violates international trade rules. You remember the WTO don’t you? That socialist advocacy group that hates capitalism and the wealth it has created, except of course, when they can get their greedy hands on some of that wealth.

How many times must we fight this COOL battle? The answer, of course, is until Canada, Mexico, the NCBA, and the Big Three multinational packers get what they want: to be rid of COOL. They don’t even want a label that says your beef is “A Product of North America” because that would limit them from bringing in beef from 30 other countries that sell us beef. Their idea of a country of origin label would be one that reads, “A Product of the Global Village”.

It Doesn’t Make SenseCOOL first appeared on

American meat packages in 2008 and since then Canada and Mexico have cried that COOL discriminates against their beef.

NE

WS

PA

PE

R P

RIO

RIT

Y H

AN

DLI

NG

They took their case to the World Trade Organization who, on March 23, 2012, issued a rul-ing from on high that said we couldn’t continue to discriminate against our fellow Norte Ameri-canos like that. So it was no big surprise when the WTO said that we must bring our country-of-or-igin labeling into line with global trade laws.

As R-CALF’s Bill Bullard said, “The WTO ruling led by

Presiding Member Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández, a Mexican national, favors both Canada and Mexico.” Ramírez-Hernández, by the way, presided as an appellate jurist in both of the U.S. COOL appeals before the WTO. He rep-resented Mexico in internation-al trade litigation and he served as lead counsel to the Mexican government in several WTO dis-putes. Said Bullard, “Due process dictates that a representative of

a party to a dispute cannot serve as a judge over the dispute. Our U.S. judicial system would never tolerate this. Yet, the WTO con-dones this conflict of interest.”

Bullard also finds that WTO’s timing might be a little off. “It is amazing that the WTO is accus-ing COOL of impeding live cattle imports when such imports from Canada and Mexico under the COOL rule hit a 7-year high in 2014 and when imported Cana-dian and Mexican cattle are com-manding historically high prices.”

With the WTO verdict in his pocket K. Michael Conaway, a House member from Texas who has spent years trying to get rid of COOL, introduced a bipar-tisan bill that would effectively repeal country of origin labeling

On May 14, 2015, the U.S. House voted for and passed H.R. 1735 – the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which, in addition to setting annual policy

for our military, addresses federal species listings that will negatively impact military training and readiness.

H.R. 1735 contains a provision prohibiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the greater sage grouse as threatened or endangered for a period of ten years. In the interim, the federal government would not be able to impose any sage grouse-based restrictions except those consistent with state management plans. In addition, the House approved an amendment that reverses the recent federal listing of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. The listing would be de-layed for five years with a future listing prohibit-ed unless the Secretary of the Interior publishes a determination that ongoing state conservation efforts are unsuccessful.

The listings or potential listings of both species come with impacts on military base operations in the west. Both species are also the focus of on-going state, local, and private conservation efforts.

Western Caucus Chairman Cynthia Lummis (WY-at large), Vice Chairmen Scott Tipton (CO-03), Mark Amodei (NV-02), Chairman Emeritus Steve Pearce (NM-02) and Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) issued the following statements in response:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, already having listed the prairie chicken, is now racing to meet a court-ordered listing decision on the sage grouse, despite the unprecedented state commit-ments to conserving these species,” said Chairman Lummis. “This year’s NDAA recognizes both the military impacts of such federal listings and the need to instead empower the states who have de-voted tens of millions of dollars and countless man hours towards conserving these species. States know their ecosystems and their wildlife best and are best positioned to meet both conservation needs and the needs of our people. These are sig-nificant wins for the west and for boots-on-the-ground conservation.”

“Scientific experts have provided abundant tes-timony stating that locally tailored species preser-vation plans, like those underway in Colorado and neighboring states that take into consideration the unique topographic and ecological conditions of the region, are more effective than one-size-fits-all ESA listings out of Washington,” said Vice Chairman Tipton. “These local efforts should have a chance to succeed to best ensure a robust and healthy sage grouse population. Chairman Bish-op’s language provides that opportunity.”

“I have attempted to work these issues for three-plus years on the basis of habitat in Nevada. How-

NDAA Preserves Military Readiness, Ensures State-Led Conservation of Sage Grouse and Prairie Chicken

continued on page two

Little Chuck

Chipoltle wants their pork to come from free-root-ing hogs who eat non GMO rations and sleep

in deeply bedded barns and Panera Bread came out with a No-No list of things they want no part of, including ar-tificial preservatives, colors, sweeteners and flavors. Mc-Donalds wants to serve only sustainable beef and “create excitement for fruits and vegetables” and they have teamed up with the Clinton Global Initiative on a “social and environmental mission.” With each passing day anoth-er company tells stockman how to raise their animals and how farmers should grow their crops. I wouldn’t be sur-prised in a few years if your Big Mac comes in a wrapper that says...

“Hi, I’m Little Chuck, or at least I used to be. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I was a Bovine-Amer-ican who was born in a five-star barn in Wisconsin and my birth was monitored by a team of veterinarians. My mother was medicated so neither she nor I felt any pain during the birthing process, although I gotta tell you, I thought I’d never get out of there.

As a youngster I had com-plete access to sunshine, shade and the outdoors. At night I slept in a heated barn on a Serta® mattress. I had no worries, stress or debt and never had to work a day in my life. The water I drank was certified free of fluoride and all the barbs had been removed from the fences as mandated by federal law. I had access to fresh air at all times, although living with a whole herd of cattle I was exposed to the occasional “tootie”.

At two months of age I was anesthetized so that a veterinary surgeon could cas-trate me. I didn’t feel a thing but afterwards I was more conflicted than Bruce Jen-ner. I ended up having sexual reassignment surgery, which the government paid for. You can follow my sexual journey on my Facebook page.

I was NOT branded with a hot iron but was kidnapped by a neighbor and held for

www.LeePittsbooks.com

continued on page eleven

“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

continued on page three

Education is what you get when you read the fine print. Experience is what you

get when you don’t.

Page 2 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

UnCOOL continued from page one

requirements for beef, pork, and chicken, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities.

Conaway said of his bill, “We must do all we can to avoid re-taliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken.” This causes us to pon-der, why is Country of Origin la-beling unfair to foreign pig, poul-try and beef producers but not to producers of shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and ginseng that also have coun-try of origin labeling? Maybe it’s because the pecan producers don’t have a JBS or an NCBA leading the unCOOL charge.

You’re Paying For It For years I’ve made the claim

that the NCBA would proba-bly be much happier with fewer American cattle ranchers and, by gosh, they’ve gotten their wish. The basis for my statement is that since the merger, the NCBA is getting its hands on every check-off dollar collected for every 600 pounds of beef we import. When the NCBA finally gets Congress to double the checkoff to two bucks the NCBA will get that dollar too. But if that same 600 pounds of beef was produced by an American rancher the NCBA would only get their grubby hands on fifty cents because the Cattle-man’s Beef Board sends half of those American checkoff dollars back to the states.

Any highly paid employee of the NCBA who wanted to keep getting significant pay rais-es could probably do the math. Which would you rather have, fif-ty cents or a dollar?

A person who knows the in-ner workings of the NCBA con-firmed my suspicions. “NCBA’s financial incentives are, as you essentially said, but I’d say more strongly, that if you could elimi-nate domestic beef production in favor of imported beef, NCBA’s budget would double! And the state checkoffs would disappear. And not only that, foreign inter-ests would then have a great deal more clout as to how the USDA treats the U.S. beef industry. INCLUDING ITS PRIVATE LAND USE! The letter writer concluded, “Not only did the NCBA become an agency of the USDA, it became legally mandat-ed to promote foreign beef.”

In other words, we are funding our own demise through the beef checkoff.

What’s The Rush?So when NCBA President

Philip Ellis says that Congress must act quickly in getting rid of COOL you’ll understand where he’s coming from. In a release the NCBA President said, “We have long said that COOL is not just burdensome and costly to cattle producers, it is generally ignored by consumers and it violates our international trade obligations.”

Another unCOOL advocate

who opposed COOL as far back as the 2002 Farm Bill was the Na-tional Pork Producers Council. (Think of them as the NCBA of pork.) After the recent WTO rul-ing their President, Ron Prestage, said, “Unless Congress acts now, Canada and Mexico will put tar-iffs on dozens of U.S. products. That’s a death sentence for U.S. jobs and exports. If it doesn’t act, the lost jobs and the damage to our economy will be on lawmak-ers’ heads.”

What alternate universe is the Pig President living in by imply-ing that by getting rid of COOL and bringing in more foreign meat we would be improving the American economy?

ChillAvowed enemies of COOL

are using the latest WTO ruling as an excuse to kill COOL once and for all but R-CALF’s Bill Bullard wonders what’s the rush? “Because Congress decided to cede U.S. sovereignty by subject-ing our domestic laws and regula-tions to an international tribunal, it should at least follow the WTO process all the way to the end. There is still an arbitration pro-cess where Canada and Mexico actually have to prove they have suffered financial harm before the WTO will authorize those coun-tries to impose retaliatory tariffs. Surrendering our COOL law at this early juncture would be an unprecedented concession by Congress that it reveres prelim-inary actions by the WTO more than it reveres our nation’s Con-stitution.”

If the NCBA, NPPC and Congress are successful in killing COOL Bullard says “This could cause the demise of the inde-pendent, commercial U.S. cattle producer, just as it has already devastated the independent, U.S. commercial sheep producer. We are urging Congress to take no action as a result of this ruling and are encouraging the U.S. Trade Representative to continue defending the sovereign interests of the United States in the next step of the dispute process in which the U.S. can dispute Cana-da’s and Mexico’s claims of finan-cial harm.”

Bullard urges Congress to, “Stand firm. Anything less would be an unconscionable surrender of U.S. sovereignty.”

Bullard is right. COOL is not dead yet. If you go on to WTO’s web site they say that “everything the WTO does is the result of negotiations.” So let the nego-tiations begin. Bill Bullard was joined in this call to non-action by National Farmer’s Union Presi-dent Roger Johnson. “The House Agriculture Committee has suc-cumbed to lobbying and scare tactics from foreign governments and multinational meatpackers and inserted itself prematurely into the WTO process by voting for a bill to repeal COOL.”

Johnson continued, “In the past China has sought approval

continued on page three

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 3

ever, the USFWS has consistently disregarded facts on the ground in favor of decisions based on a political agenda – an agenda that is beginning to clearly surface in BLM Nevada resource manage-ment plans,” said Vice Chairman Amodei. “In the face of a course of conduct that can only be taken as deceptive and misleading, I ap-plaud the effort to return land use and resource management deci-sions to state wildlife agencies and local county commissions. I have about concluded that good faith efforts to address these issues the last three-plus years were a naïve endeavor on my part, due to the administration’s dogmatic, unilat-

eral objective to end multiple land use in the West.”

“Historically, radical special interest groups have been able to use weak science to cut off the military’s ability to train in the name of conservation,” said Chairman Emeritus Pearce. “Mil-itary training and species conser-vation do not need to be mutually exclusive, this year’s bill strikes that balance. The listing of the les-

sor prairie chicken as threatened last year, derailed cooperative conservation efforts between pri-vate industry, state officials, land-owners, and the federal govern-ment. Removing the lesser prairie chicken from the federal endan-gered species list, allows time for the range-wide conservation plan to work. This is an important step in the right direction. This move will provide a template for future

accountable scientific based joint conservation efforts without sti-fling jobs around the nation and will prevent critical habitat from encroaching on American military readiness.”

“It is inappropriate that mili-tary bases within proximity of the Lesser Prairie Chicken must con-sider its habitat before developing new facilities or planning training exercises,” said Rep. Mullin. “Pro-

tecting job creators has always been my motivation, and ensuring our military has the ability to pre-pare itself against threats at home and overseas is vitally important. Our delegations from Oklahoma and Kansas have done an excel-lent job of raising these important matters in the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am hopeful we will get this measure across the finish line.”

to export frozen, chilled and raw chicken to the U.S. Today, those products would bear a ‘born, raised, slaughtered in China’ un-der the mandatory country of ori-gin labeling.”

Without COOL, Chinese chickens would sell on equal footing with American produced chicken. I’ve never been one to stand up for poultry but come on, you remember China don’t you, the trading partner that sold infant formula adulterated with melamine that killed six infants, and toxic pet food that killed thousands of animals. Without COOL Johnson says, “Consum-ers will be UNABLE to vote with their pocketbook and avoid Chinese chicken if and when the USDA approves the importation of fresh, chilled, or frozen chicken from China.”

Johnson also noted that the committee-passed bill went well beyond the bounds of the WTO dispute by including chicken, ground beef and ground pork, three products with labels never deemed out of compliance with WTO obligations. “This was a telling action by the House Ag-riculture Committee to repeal WTO-compliant labels due to the personal opposition of a few members of Congress of the law.”

According to Johnson, “De-spite the World Trade Organiza-

tion’s ruling on May 18, Canada and Mexico are not yet autho-rized to retaliate. The arbitration process will begin in the next month and continue on for an-other couple of months, at the very least. While those who have opposed giving consumers more information on where their meat products are from have focused on potential retaliation, retalia-tion is relevant only if the parties cannot reach an agreement on how to move forward and then only after an arbitration process,” said Johnson.

Proving that Mexico and Ca-nadian beef producers have been financially discriminated against won’t be easy. Dr. Robert Tay-lor at Auburn University says that there is significant evidence indicating that any harm to our trading partners has in fact been negligible at most.”

Agriculture Committee rank-ing member Collin C. Peterson said, “I’m disappointed that the WTO ruled against the Unit-ed States but I think repealing COOL is premature. I don’t think this is the best way to avoid retaliation and, quite frankly, I don’t think the Senate will be able to pass a repeal. I would suggest that we instead take some time to thoughtfully consider our next steps.”

Cause and EffectAs a beef producer have you

ever stopped to consider that COOL just may have played a role in fattening your wallet? Ac-cording to R-CALF’s Bullard, since COOL began, “U.S. cow/calf producers, backgrounders and feeders have received the highest nominal prices in the his-tory of their industry and their share of the consumers’ beef dol-lar has jumped to 55%, which is a 20-year high. This means COOL helped producers recover their lost market share that packers and retailers captured from them prior to COOL. Also, consum-er demand measured by Kan-sas State University increased nearly 12 points since COOL’s implementation, indicating that consumers are more than willing to pay for COOL even while ex-tremely tight cattle supplies are driving beef prices higher. The cost of COOL is estimated to be less than half of one penny per pound.”

Bullard says, “Weakening of COOL would severely reduce marketplace competition that has already been severely eroded by unprecedented marketplace consolidation. Without COOL the meatpackers, rather than con-sumers, would be empowered to unilaterally decide from which country to source the livestock

and meat.”

Canada’s COOL Amidst all this talk about how

terrible COOL is in the United States did you know that Cana-da has its own version of COOL? That’s right, Canada wants to out-law COOL in the United States but it’s okay in Canada. What in the world is going on here?

The Canadian Food Inspec-tion Agency says that “Canadi-an consumers use food labels to make more informed choices about the food they purchased.”

According to the Canadian agency’s web site, “In Canada, there are mandatory requirement for certain food products to indi-cate the country of origin on their labels,” Canada demands coun-try of origin on wine and brandy, dairy products, honey, fish and seafood products, fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, eggs-shelled and processed, meat products, maple products and processed fruit and vegetable products. Generally, for the above foods, the words “Prod-uct of so and so” must appear on the label. “For example, pre-packaged cheese from the United States imported into Canada is required to be labelled “Product of United States.”

So, let’s recap. NCBA wants to get rid of COOL so they can fill

their coffers with more checkoff dollars collected from imported beef. Certain Congresspersons want to get rid of COOL because unCOOL multinational compa-nies contributed to their PAC’s. Canada, even though they have country of origin labeling in their country, doesn’t want to afford American citizens the same right. The WTO wants to get rid of COOL so that some day we’ll all be one big happy global socialist family. And multinational packers like JBS, Tyson and Cargill want to get rid of COOL so they can flood the U.S. with cheaper meat produced elsewhere where they have less strict laws than Ameri-can ranchers must operate under. Beef from Australia, Brazil and Argentina and 29 other countries will sit side by side with American beef in grocery stores and no one will know where any of it came from.

Let’s see, are we forgetting anyone? Oh, yes, we almost for-got the American rancher, who is proud of the beef he or she raises and overwhelmingly sup-ports COOL. And then there’s the American consumer who has become almost an afterthought in this debate. According to a 2014 Consumer Report survey, 90 per-cent of Americans support and want COOL.

But what do they know?

UnCOOL continued from page two

Everybody says if you like to laugh,

BUY Don Bowman’s new book

HORSEFEATHERSA comical collection of FUNNY and true

stories about cowboys and ranchers

Only $20.00 including shipping

Contact Don email:

Silversmith2@yahoo.comPhone:

775-745-1734

NDAA Preserves continued from page one

Page 4 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Wolves have gotten the spotlight lately, as their numbers increase across the West and their dep-

redation toll on livestock mounts up. Coyotes now seem to take second place in our concern, but they still cause serious losses for some stockmen. Over the years, ranchers continually lose sheep, lambs, and a few cattle to coyotes, especially when calves are new-born or very young. One of the benefits we found while winter calving for 35 years on our ranch in Idaho was that by having the calving cows close at hand and continually observed—putting the cows into the barn to calve—we didn’t lose any newborns to coyotes.

By contrast, when calving in larger areas, losses were almost a given; a pair of coyotes could eas-ily kill a newborn calf because the cow couldn’t protect it from both of the coyotes. While she was chasing one, the other would grab the calf. In a group of cows, coy-otes are sometime to blame for death and injury to calves when worried mothers charge around trying to protect their babies and stampede over young calves that are not yet mobile enough to get up and run. Our son lost numer-ous calves over the years, when coyotes went through the calving grounds at night and the cows stampeded.

Coyotes are also opportun-ists. One of our neighbors lost six calves one spring, in a small group of first-calf heifers. The coyotes got smart to the fact that a heif-er might be defenseless when she was lying down in hard labor. They would start eating on the calf’s head (and sometimes the heifer’s hindquarters) as she lay there trying to calve.

Of all the predators that plague stockmen, coyotes are probably the most damaging overall. The National Ag Statistics Survey is done every five years, with the most recently published statistics

on predators in 2010. In that re-port, the total number of sheep killed in the U.S. in 2010 by pred-ators was 247,000 (39 percent of the total death loss from all caus-es), costing farmers and ranchers more than $20.5 million. In 2010 the total loss of cattle from preda-tors was 220,000 head at a loss of $98.5 million to stockmen, with 53 percent of the total predator loss due to coyotes.

Even though wolves, cougars and bears sporadically kill more animals in a certain herd or re-gion, coyotes are always with us, and responsible for the majority of livestock losses across the coun-try (cattle, sheep, goats). Most of the efforts at predator control are aimed at coyotes. Much of the funding for these control mea-sures is shared, coming from fed-eral, state and county programs. In some states, the state funding has become more limited and the counties continue to provide most of the money for coyote control.

The 2001 Government Ac-counting Office report on Wildlife Services listed a benefit to cost ra-tio of anywhere from 2 to 1 up to 27 to 1 according to the Oregon division of USFWS. These ratios depend on whether you are look-ing at just the value of the actual losses they estimate are being pre-vented, or looking at each dollar of livestock production saved that ripples through the local economy several times. It’s hard to put a value on some facets, but pred-ator control results in savings to agriculture, and to game popula-tions (where USFWS is helping the state manage predators).

It’s more than coincidence that some of the best antelope herds in Oregon—which generate funds for the wildlife agencies, are in ar-eas where there has been a long-term predator management pro-gram in place.

It’s hard to get exact numbers on livestock killed by coyotes, but statewide in Oregon the coyote is the major predator regarding numbers of livestock killed and dollar value of losses. Probably

60 to 65 percent of predation in Oregon is attributed to coyotes. There isn’t a program in every county, and you don’t hear about every depredation event even in the counties where there are con-trol programs.

If we look at the National Ag Statistics Service (NASS) survey, the latest one for sheep losses in Oregon was done for 2010. This is the most comprehensive num-ber we have, for predator losses. Some states have NASS do them every year, but on a national basis these are done every five years for sheep and the following year for cattle. In Oregon, in 2005 there were 2800 adult sheep killed ($325,000 value) by all preda-tors and 5800 lambs killed (worth $331,000). The 2006 NASS sur-vey for cattle showed that in Or-egon 400 adult cattle were killed, worth $386,000, and 4100 calves killed, worth $1,464,000. Most of the adult cattle were killed by larger predators, but the majority of calves lost are killed by coyotes. The 2010 report for Oregon list-ed losses of 2200 sheep and 5500 lambs to coyotes.

In California, the NASS fig-ures for coyote losses in the year 2000 included 900 adult cattle and 8100 calves. The 2005 survey listed 100 cattle and 3000 calves lost to coyotes. The 2010 report for sheep listed 6800 adults and 7000 lambs lost to coyotes. Cal-ifornia has varied problems with predators because it is a large state with a thriving livestock in-dustry. It has traditionally been about 5th or 6th in the nation for beef production and for a long time was number one for dairy.

One rancher whose operation involves private and public land grazing (BLM and Forest Ser-vice) in Kern and Tulare coun-ties in the southern San Joaquin Valley says he has more preda-tion from coyotes than anything else. They are mainly a problem during calving, and losses vary depending on the coyote’s food sources. On a drought year, the coyotes are more of a prob-lem and livestock losses may be double or triple what they are normally. In the calving fields, es-pecially where first calving heif-ers are located, coyotes can be difficult to deal with. They start off eating placentas and the next thing you know they become in-terested in the calves. When they start hunting in groups they do a lot of damage.

This ranch generally loses 10 to 20 calves per year to coyotes, and sometimes more. In 2007 they lost about 30 calves. On first calf heifers it amounted to about a 6 percent loss, just to predation. On a normal year it’s more like 2 percent. The ranch-er doesn’t want to completely eliminate coyotes because they are part of the natural balance, eating rodents and rabbits, but when they get out of hand they cause significant problems—to farmers as well as ranchers. Some of the worst damage in farming areas is coyotes chewing on drip

irrigation lines. One coyote can go through an area and chew them up overnight.

For coyote control, most ranchers rely on their own ef-forts—to shoot or snare them—but sometimes utilize Wildlife Services. It’s an important pro-gram but this agency is under serious economic pressures to eliminate or curtail their predator control. The increasing urban-re-lated problems are getting more attention.

Aerial hunting of coyotes, for instance, has been vastly cur-tailed due to budget cuts. In California, Wildlife Services pays a portion of the bill and each county kicks in the balance, but the counties are facing difficult financial situations, too. Some counties may be lucky to have even one Wildlife Services per-son. Urban calls take up most of their time when people in town are complaining about skunks, raccoons, etc. and ranchers have trouble getting them out in the country when needing them for predator control.

Wildlife Services has agree-ments in 40 of the 58 counties in California. In those 40 counties they split costs to put specialists into the counties. In California coyotes are a non-game animal. If found damaging crops or harass-ing livestock they can be killed by the landowner or producer. Wild-life Services can do aerial hunting if there is a serious problem in a certain area.

Legal means for coyote con-trol in California is limited. The use of leghold (jaw) traps, M-44s and livestock protection collars was outlawed in 1998 by Propo-sition 4. Protection collars were typically put on lambs, utilizing a couple rubber bladders filled with 10-80. If a coyote grabbed a lamb and bit into one of those bladders, the toxic chemical would kill the coyote.

Jay Bodner (Natural Re-sources committee, Montana Stockgrowers Association) says his state has seen an increase in coyote numbers and livestock losses, but the documentation is sketchy. “We have some num-bers for sheep, but not for cattle. The numbers compiled by game departments and USFWS are al-ways conservative. They generally downplay the role of predators in livestock losses and often say that the unofficial losses are more likely due to weather, disease and other factors,” says Bodner.

AERIAL HUNTING – Wildlife Services sometimes does aerial hunting as one of their tools to reduce predation throughout eastern Oregon. They do a little coyote hunting in the fall, but December through early June is when they do most of the aerial hunting of coyotes. The airplanes are a big help because some of the personnel are responsible for cov-ering up to 11,000 square miles. With planes they can go into the areas of historic coyote predation and try to remove some of those coyotes prior to calves arriving in

the spring. The planes can also be used to address a crisis situation if a rancher is being hit hard by coyotes.

If predation control was lim-ited to just using foothold traps, snares, and the M-44s (cyanide guns)—which all require Wild-life Services employees to drive to every location, this would be too labor intensive and time con-suming. Trap and equipment checks are required by law and agency policy. The airplane cuts down on the amount of driving time a trapper must do. He does the best he can with these other tools, but the airplane can help him stay ahead of the curve on coyote predation and not have so many livestock producers taking heavy losses throughout his area of responsibility.

A ground crew is often crucial to the success of an aerial hunt. If a rancher is experiencing live-stock loss, he calls the trapper, who determines if it’s coyote, cougar or bear. If it’s a coyote problem, he determines if it can be adequately handled with ground control methods or if the airplane is needed. Being able to order the airplane and work with the pilot and gunner is important, as well as having someone on the ground in the problem area when the plane is working. The ground crew can help locate coyotes that might not be making themselves known or can’t be seen from the airplane.

The ground crew can help lure coyotes out where the airplane crew can see them, either by call-ing, or using trained dogs. The decoy dogs will go out and entice the coyotes to come closer, or out into an open area. Another tech-nique is to use the dogs to lure coyotes into range to shoot from a blind on the ground. The plane is often very effective by itself, but in certain situations having someone on the ground working with the pilot can make it even more effective.

Trained dogs can also help a trapper locate coyote dens so pups can be eliminated. These dogs are trained to go out and attract the attention of a coyote and run back. The trapper gen-erally calls the dog back when he sees or hears the coyotes.

Jack Field (Washington Cat-tle Association) says that in his state if a producer has document-ed impact from coyotes, he can work with Wildlife Services for aerial control. “Wildlife Services comes out and does an assess-ment to see if coyotes have been killing the sheep or calves. They must do some groundwork be-fore they can send out a plane. They visit with the landowner and adjacent landowners to learn the topography and figure out property lines, and the best ar-eas to take the plane. Generally the places they have the highest degree of success is where there’s wide-open landscape (like the Columbia Basin) without trees or other areas where coyotes can hide,” says Field.

Coyote Problems: Part One Serious Losses

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 5

BY BRIAN SEASHOLES DIRECTOR, REASON FOUNDATION ENDANGERED SPECIES PROJECT

In the ongoing debate about how to reform the Endangered Species Act, an obscure rodent in southern Utah holds some

important lessons, especially that a bad law combined with federal overreach results in lousy conser-vation.

Just ask Dean and Kathy Lam-oreaux. In 1990 they purchased a 200-acre farm near Cedar City, Utah. At the time, the property contained no Utah prairie dogs, one of five species of the rodent native to North America, which lives entirely within the borders of Utah. Then in the mid-1990s problems started when prai-rie dogs began occupying their property. Prairie dog mounds and burrows have caused thou-sands of dollars of damage to the Lamoreaux’s farm equipment. But in order for Dean and Kathy to be eligible for an exemption under the Endangered Species Act to have some prairie dogs killed or moved off their land, they must first construct a fence, which would cost them addition-al thousands of dollars.

The Lamoreaux’s are two of the many landowners who have lost millions of dollars to the Utah prairie dog, including farm-ers who lose $1.5 million a year in crop and equipment damage,

according to a 1984 estimate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since then, as the prai-rie dog population increased by about 30 percent, property losses and damage have also in-creased. Dean and Kathy Lam-oreaux, like many landowners who harbor endangered species, are not anti-environment. In fact, like most rural landowners, they take great pride in conserv-ing their land. They just think they alone should not have to shoulder the financial burden of harboring imperiled species.

The basic unfairness of the Endangered Species Act is read-ily apparent to most. “If I’m a landowner and someone is running a highway through my land, I may not like it, but at least I’m being compensated for it,” according to William Ruck-elshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in a radio interview. “If I’m forced to put buffers along-side streams that run through my land in order to protect [en-dangered] salmon, sometimes those buffers take a significant amount of my land, and I think they should be compensated for that. If that’s a public good and it’s being asserted against a private property owner, then why shouldn’t the public pay for it the same way they do with a highway? But we don’t.”

Frustration over the federal

government’s refusal to com-pensate landowners for costs incurred harboring Utah prairie dogs, and to remove prairie dogs that are desecrating graveyards and making playgrounds unsafe for kids, has led the Lamoreauxs and other property owners in southern Utah to sue the feder-al government. Represented by Jonathan Wood of the Pacific Legal Foundation, these land-owners, who formed the appro-priately-named People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners (PETPO), argue that because the Utah prairie dog ex-ists only in one state and is not involved in any interstate com-merce, the federal government cannot assert authority over it by using the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Last November, PETPO won their case in federal district court in Utah, a ruling that is current-ly under appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court. Some states are so fed-up with the Endangered Species Act that nine have filed a brief in support of PETPO; Utah, Alaska, Arizona, Colo-rado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming.

In addition to the import-ant Constitutional questions at stake in the Utah prairie dog

case, is that the Endangered Species Act is a lousy way to conserve the very species it’s supposed to help. According to a 2007 scholarly survey of landowners in the Utah prairie dog’s range, 34 percent have tried to discourage prairie dogs from residing on their land in order to avoid the Act’s regula-tions. Furthermore, 70 percent of landowners stated that their fear of the Endangered Species Act’s regulations “hindered their willingness to receive aid or as-sistance” to conserve the prairie dog.

Another key aspect of the 2007 survey assessed landown-ers’ preferences for working with various groups to address prob-lems caused by prairie dogs. About half of landowners were very willing to work with the Utah Farm Bureau and the Utah State University Extension, one of the agriculture and natural re-source departments and services located in many U.S. state uni-versities that typically provide technical education and advice for landowners. Those very will-ing dropped to 19-28 percent for federal and state land and wildlife regulatory agencies, and bottomed-out at 10 percent for The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund, two groups involved in helping the federal government imple-ment prairie dog regulations.

The sad thing is that most landowners, such as those in southern Utah harboring prairie dogs, would be willing to help conserve endangered species were it not for the Endangered Species Act’s penalty-based ap-proach. “The fear generated by ESA regulation is a poor motiva-tor for species conservation on private lands,” the 2007 study concludes. “Rather, incentive based approaches that consid-er the needs of landowners are more likely to result in spe-cies conservation over the long term.”

The study is based on the PhD research of Dwayne El-more, who is currently a pro-fessor in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Oklahoma State University. “Cooperative Extension is an ideal facilitator for volatile wildlife issues such as endangered species manage-ment on private lands,” accord-ing to Elmore. “Often, lack of trust in government agencies or fear of Endangered Species Act regulations hinders conser-vation efforts on these private lands. Extension personnel have close ties to local affected com-munities and thus can be instru-mental in educating landowners regarding options that may be available to them in regards to sensitive, candidate, threatened, or endangered species.”

Prairie Dog Lessons: Bad Law + Federal Overreach = Bad Conservation

Page 6 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

BY RON ARNOLD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE FROM THE DAILY CALLER

Editor’s Note: Ron Arnold will be a key note speaker at the 2015 Mid Year Meeting in Ruidoso, at noon on Tuesday, June 16.

In a March 12 address to the Atlantic Council in Washing-ton, D.C., Secretary of State John Kerry warned that cli-

mate change outranks terrorism, epidemics and poverty as the worst threat facing the world today. Our only salvation, he asserted, lies in an energy poli-cy that replaces fossil fuels with solar, wind and other “clean en-ergy.”

However, at the same time

he gave this crisis speech, public records indicated that Secretary Kerry personally owned an esti-mated three to six million dol-lars in stocks of more than 50 oil and gas-related companies. Records from 2004 show that he’s been constantly and deeply invested in fossil fuels for at least a decade, and is still injecting millions in working capital into the very industries he condemns. What is the public to think of a cabinet-level prophet of climate doom who says one thing and does such another?

The discovery of this stunning hypocrisy emerged from fact checking research by Heartland Institute, after Kerry’s apocalyp-tic Atlantic Council speech. The finding raised two immediate questions:

How did such a financially

vested nominee for Secretary of State get past the conflict of interest tests of the Office of Government Ethics and Senate confirmation?

And why does an ostensi-bly dedicated environmentalist own an oil-drenched investment portfolio? Kerry has been an out-spoken advocate for the theory of anthropogenic global warm-ing since the early 1990s and in 2007 co-authored This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environ-mentalists and Their Vision for the Future with his billionaire wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, a movement leader in her own right.

We can answer the first ques-tion with certainty, but not the second.

Begin with Senator John Ker-ry’s nomination to be Secretary of State on December 21, 2012:

he was not only chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee that would unanimously approve his nomination as one of their own; he was also the wealthiest member of the Sen-ate, and the breadth of his in-vestments would certainly pres-ent conflicts of interest.

Kerry owned 365 securi-ties totaling $232,674,572 to $322,785,148, including conten-tious stock in Exxon Mobil and a Canadian firm with ties to the Keystone XL pipeline, Cenovus Energy Inc., as posted on Open Secrets.org, website of the Cen-ter for Responsive Politics. Of-fice holder assets and liabilities are reported only in value ranges rather than exact amounts, so precise net worth can’t be ascer-tained and is counted from the lower number.

Office of Government Eth-ics lawyers immediately vetted Kerry’s family wealth and his spouse’s Heinz ketchup fortune and determined that the new cabinet post required that the couple divest 140 different secu-rities across three different trusts and that the new Secretary re-cuse himself from decisions with any ethical implications – but there was a catch.

On January 8, 2013, John Kerry signed an agreement letter to the government to relinquish specified assets within 90 days of taking the oath of office. He agreed to have his trustees seg-regate forbidden stocks, mostly large holdings of a single stock, into a custodial account and sell them off so questions could not come up. He also agreed to di-versify and downsize his invest-ments so that even the fossil fuel stocks qualified as “non-con-flicting assets.” Kerry pledged to take no action as Secretary of State that would affect his finan-cial interests “unless I first ob-tain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pur-suant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2).”

Those bureaucratic loop-holes explain how more than 50

oil and gas stocks made it past government lawyers into Kerry’s much slimmer 2013 financial re-port, but they don’t explain why the new Obama cabinet officer kept them.

Kerry simply wrote in his agreement letter, “Following di-vestiture, my segregated portfo-lio will hold only non-conflicting assets.” That was good enough for the Office of Government Ethics and the Senate confirma-tion vote.

We’ll never know the exact details of the divestiture because the Office of Government Eth-ics apologetically informs the on-line searcher looking for Kerry’s monthly reports for 2013 that “it appears the link you’ve selected is no longer available.” Finan-cial records of Kerry’s first year as Secretary of State, January to December 2013, are all gone.

However, Secretary of State Kerry’s personally signed month-ly financial reports for 2014 are intact from January to December and show a continuous stream of purchases of oil and gas stocks not seen in previous reports, Oasis Petroleum, R S P Perm-ian, Diamond Offshore Drilling, and on and on. All the while he publicly denounced such firms without revealing his complicity in advancing their success.

Perhaps Kerry steadily pumps capital into oil and gas compa-nies because he knows his rhet-oric is deceitful, that climate change is not a crisis, and that the future of global civilization and human survival depends on fossil fuels. Perhaps he knows full well that the outcome of Obama’s energy policy will be to drive humanity into chaos that wrecks the Earth itself.

In this light, we can read his closing words to the Atlantic Council two ways, but which way did oil and gas investor Ker-ry really have in mind? He said, “Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome will be is just reckless. It is just plain im-moral.”

MAKE ChECKSPAyABLE tO:

LEE PIttS, And MAIL tO: P.O. BOx 616, MOrrO BAy,

CA 93443

For booksorDereD

sepArAteLypLeAse pAy

$3.00 eACh ForpostAGe AnD

hAnDLInG.

From the photo of his hand-tooled cover to the very laststory, Lee’s newest book, A handmade Life, is pure pitts. In thetradition of Dirt roads and God’s Country, Lee’s latest will enter-tain and inspire. Destined to be a classic.

The Best of the Bunch

http: / /aaal ivestock.com/index.php/ lee-pi t ts

ORDER FORM 4-BOOK SPECIAL! Choose any four of Lee’s books and pay only $49.95, and that

includes Priority Postage!  It all adds up to a potential saving

of over $20!

Gerawan Farming Calls Ruling Significant Victory

The California Court of Ap-peal in Fresno unanimous-ly declared the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation

(MMC) Statute unconstitutional and set aside the California Ag-ricultural Labor Relation Board’s order to force a “collective bar-gaining agreement” and to im-pose the UFW on Gerawan and its employees in mid-May.

The decision holds that the “inequality and arbitrariness of the MMC process improperly delegates legislative authority to an unelected state agency. Call-ing the MMC statute “the very antithesis of equal protection,” the Court held that it unconsti-tutionally mandates “the impo-sition of a collective bargaining

agreement by administrative edict” based on “a distinct, un-equal, individualized set of rules” for each individual employer.

In a 58-page opinion, the Court held: “As the present case illustrates, where a union has arguably abandoned the employees but later returns to invoke the MMC process, that situation may create a crisis of representation.” The Court ruled that Gerawan Farming “should have been given an opportuni-ty to prove abandonment to the Board once UFW requested the MMC process,” concluding that the Board “abused its discretion” when it compelled Gerawan into this forced contracting process “without properly considering Gerawan’s claim of union aban-donment.”

“This is a significant victory

for our employees, our fami-ly, and the entire industry. The Court’s ruling vindicates our argument that no state agency should be able to unilaterally impose a contract on workers without a vote or force it on em-ployers without their consent,” said the company’s co-owner, Dan Gerawan. “This decision is a significant win for all agricul-tural workers, who justifiably de-serve the freedom to choose rep-resentatives to speak for them at the bargaining table.”

After winning a contested election in 1990 and being cer-tified by the ALRB in 1992, the UFW “disappeared from the scene for nearly two decades.” The Court continued: “It is clear that the employees’ right to a representative of their own choosing would be seriously

jeopardized in the situation of abandonment by a union where, as here, the absentee union sud-denly reappeared on the scene to demand the MMC process.”

As the Court held, under the MMC process, “a collective bar-gaining agreement will be im-posed whether the employees want it or not; and it will be im-posed with the formerly absent union, whether the employees want its representation or not.”

The Court concluded that Gerawan was permitted to raise the UFW’s abandonment as a defense to this forced contract-ing scheme, “because only that result will preserve the ALRA’s purpose of protecting the em-ployees’ right to choose.”

Thousands of Gerawan em-ployees successfully petitioned for the right to hold an election

to determine whether to oust the UFW. That election was held 18 months ago. Though the Board has yet to count the ballots, it imposed the MMC contract af-ter the election. Both the UFW and the General Counsel of the Board sought unsuccessfully to compel enforcement of the con-tract, which would have forced workers to pay dues or fees to the UFW, or be fired.

Rejecting the Board’s ar-gument that employees could mount a decertification effort against a heretofore-absent union, the Court held that “[r]ealistically, a decertification option would often be too late to stop the MMC process.”

The Court awarded that the state of California pay Ger-awan’s costs for bringing this appeal.

California Appellate Court Strikes Down California’s Compulsory Contracting Statute As Unconstitutional, Sets Aside ALRB-Ordered Contract

Climate Alarmist John Kerry Invests Massively In Fossil Fuel Stocks

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 7

In late 2014, the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA) endorsed three standard com-ponents of interstate regula-

tions and testing for trichomoni-asis (trich):

1. Virgin bulls up to 18 months of age will be exempt from trich testing requirements.

2. A negative trich test is val-id for 60 days after collection if the bull is held separate from fe-males.

3. A single, negative DNA amplification-based test of sam-ples collected by a U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Category II Accredited Veterinarian certi-fied by the state of origin to col-lect trich samples for interstate movement.

In the first quarter of 2015, Marty Zaluski, D.V.M., state vet-erinarian for the Montana De-partment of Livestock, conduct-ed a survey to determine whether states are moving toward meet-ing trich standards endorsed by USAHA. Thermo Fisher Scien-tific, a company with deep exper-tise in animal diagnostics, held a question-and-answer session with Zaluski to discuss results of the recent survey and his views on the importance of standardiz-ing trich regulations and testing across the country.

Q: What led you to conduct the trich regulations harmoni-zation survey?

A: Three reasons contributed to the genesis of the survey.

First, I received feedback from seedstock cattle producers stating the highly variable (and sometimes overly burdensome) trich regulations were creating unnecessary costs at the time of bull sales.

Second, conversations with other state animal health officials at meetings of the Western States Livestock Health Association (WSLHA) highlighted the need to work with a small focused group of neighboring states to achieve greater consistency. That approach soon spread to find-ing common ground between all states with trich regulations.

Third, animal health offices have been monitoring interstate trich regulations for some time, however, the use of a simple on-line survey tool made this a much simpler process to collect as well as analyze results.

An initial survey in the fall of 2014 focused on whether ani-mal health officials were willing to agree “in principle” to a set of standards developed through the smaller interstate working groups. Animal health officials agreed to work in their states with industry groups and initiate rule making to meet the stan-dards. The 2015 survey assessed actual progress to meet those standards.

Q: Why do you think har-monizing trich regulations and testing across states is import-ant for producers and veteri-narians?

A: A 12-month-old virgin bull may be required to be tested in one state but not in another, therefore, import requirements are unknown until a bull is actu-ally sold. Subsequent delays to complete testing create delays and unnecessary costs through-out the bull-marketing channel. When rules are standardized, they are predictable, so produc-ers and veterinarians can be bet-ter prepared before the sale and

ship bulls as soon as the ink is dry on the buyer’s check.

Q: What are important takeaways from the results of this survey?

A: We are making tremendous progress. As of the spring 2015 survey, six states are meeting the standard established by the 2014 USAHA resolution. Five states report having changes pending and expect to meet the standard by 2016. Another 11 states are looking to initiate the changes to meet the standards. Only four states (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah) report they do not intend to make changes. While this may be frustrating for producers shipping to those des-tinations, the states not meeting the standard will be the minority.

Q: Could you explain the role diagnostics, specifically PCR, plays in the national movement toward harmonizing trich regulations?

A: The survey did not address the high degree of variability in diagnostic laboratory protocols which are most often established internally at a given diagnostic laboratory or through associa-tions such as the American Asso-ciation of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (a sister organiza-tion of the USAHA).

However, it is obvious labo-ratories should validate sample media, shipping conditions and analysis. Likewise, when vali-dated, approved and USDA-li-censed PCR products, such as the VetMAX™-Gold Trich De-tection Kit from Thermo Fisher, are available but not being used, we should be asking for informa-tion supporting those decisions.

Q: What are some of the key

barriers preventing or slowing states from harmonizing trich regulations?

A: Trich regulations arose based on grassroots producer in-put over several years. Each state formulated rules based on their unique experiences and these still influence industry positions. Additionally, rule making can be time-consuming and highly cum-bersome. Therefore, there can be considerable delays before rules “catch up” to a desired standard.

Another key barrier to change is that interstate regulations pri-marily affect “outside” states, therefore, the incentive to change import rules for greater uniformity is not as salient.

Q: What will you be doing with these results?

A: We have shared these re-

sults with all state animal health officials and national industry groups such as the National Cat-tlemen’s Beef Association and the USAHA. We hope the results will be communicated to state producer groups so the same grassroots pressure that was used to enact regulations can be used to bring greater uniformity.

We will be repeating the sur-vey annually and discussing the harmonization effort at WSLHA and at the 2015 USAHA Annu-al Meeting. I have reason to be optimistic about continued prog-ress.

The Spring 2015 National As-sembly Trichomonaisis Survey shows 11 additional states intend to harmonize interstate regula-tions and testing for trich.

Source: Life Technologies

BY BARRY DENTON

After a long winter, spring is normally a welcome sight. For one thing you get to warm up outside and can

get some work done without wearing three layers of clothes.

The horses are not as fresh as they were when you got on them this winter. With the onset of warm weather they are being used, which just might keep you from getting bucked off.

As we all know, the ground gets harder every year. If you are lucky enough to get a little spring rain the wild flowers start com-ing on. The wind will commence blowing across the plains and hopefully that will bring you those long awaited showers.

It will also be time to gather soon, not only will you be gath-

ering cattle, but you will be gath-ering with folks that you have not seen for most of the winter. It is always good to keep the lines of communication open with your neighbors in case trouble should arise.

I never quite understood city folks as many of them live in the same building and never know their neighbors across the hall. If you are a city slicker reading this, right now may be the best time to knock on your neighbor’s door and find out who you are living next to.

When you live in a rural set-ting, with many miles between your neighbors you are pretty much forced to communicate with them whether you want to or not. Helping each other is what this world should be about.

I might have a little different

view on springtime as I was al-ways convinced it was named after the herd bulls. These large lumbering creatures that amble along most of the year develop springs in their legs as soon as the warm weather hits.

All of the sudden your herd bulls will begin breeding all their cows. As soon as they are done with that, they spring right over to the neighbors (which are nor-mally miles away) and do some breeding there too.

There is no reason to get upset about this as the neighbor’s bulls will be over to see the remainder of your cows soon enough. How-ever, when bulls get to traveling too much they need to get hauled to the sale.

Last spring we had a neigh-bor’s bull here after roundup so we called him to let him know. He assured us he would be over the next day to pick him up. We stuck him in a high steel corral, fed him, and waited for the next day. First thing in the morning the neigh-bor arrives with his stock trailer to pick up the bull.

One thing you don’t realize if you are city folks, is that range bulls do not like to be in corrals. Our corrals are made from steel pipe and railroad ties that are

about 6ft. high. They are good solid corrals designed to hold cat-tle.

We needed to haze this bull out of the corral, into the lane and then out the loading shoot. Since the bull was a little “snuffy” at us, I suggested to my neighbor that we go get a couple of horses to move him.

Of course, my neighbor want-ed to give it a try on foot first be-cause that is how he moved this gentle bull at home. I was not for it, but did not want my macho to be out done by the neighbor who was much older than me.

We went ahead and got the trailer in position. Then we opened the gates into the lane. The bull was standing headed into the lane, only about 15 feet from it. The bull did see the open gate right ahead of him; howev-er he was much more interested in the two cowboys afoot trying to haze him down the lane with hardwood canes.

I have always wondered why people think they can move a two thousand pound critter with a wooden cane. I am now con-vinced that the cane is for the cowboy after he tried to move the bull with it.

Within a split second the bull

was hazing us out of the corral. Both of us, who are beyond mid-dle age, leapt over those six foot corrals like kids.

I am thoroughly convinced that bulls should be used to train Olympic athletes. The trouble is that the bull jumped the six foot corral fence with us. Now the three of us are in the adjacent corral.

These two cowboys went ahead and jumped the next six foot fence. The bull must have got bored and did not follow us the second time. He was convinced that he had made his point.

Once again I suggested that perhaps we ought to go and get a horse. For some reason my neigh-bor agreed with me this time. The bull was easy to load horseback and soon my neighbor was on his way.

It is never a bad thing to help your neighbor whether he is miles away or across the hall. Spring time on the ranch gives you many opportunities to do just that. If you stop and think about the story of the bull you will realize that cowboys and cowgirls can develop springs in their legs when needed. Spring-time is any time you need to get away from a charging bull!

Springtime

Recent survey shows more states moving toward harmonizing interstate regulations and approved testing for trichomoniasis

Page 8 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

Every now and then a feller has a weekend that is hard to forget. I had one years ago on a beautiful ranch in southern California.

It was one of those trail rides you read about in Western Horseman magazine. There were about 200 head of assorted real estate agents, bankers, insurance men, judges, lawyers, doctors and a hand full of “token cow-boys” to catch runaway horses, sing ol’ campfire ditties and add “color” to the project. It’s kind of a boys camp

for big boys. Now I’m here to tell ya these fellers do it up right! It’s catered by a famous cook. None of this ol’ salt pork and beans, no sir! Chalupas and tacos made from homemade tortillas, crab legs, barbecue, steaks, lobster meat and chicken wings!

Mariachi and bluegrass music filled the air every time the ride stopped for refreshments. I planned on sleepin’ in the big tent but I heard some of the celebrants around the campfire makin’ plans to set the tent afire. I drug my bedroll out into the grass. I woke at 5 to the sound of “Under the Double Eagle” played by a marching band complete with a bass drum marching through the camp.

At noon they entered me in a horse race. They said I won.

I was just about to fall asleep on my feet when they brought out the mud wrestlers! Harley said we better stay. Now I had never heard of this mud wrestlin’ but it’s where two opponents get out in this mud arena and rassle. In this case it was two ladies who appeared to me to be ‘professionals’. There was some debate over who won but then the mud rasslin’ ring master announced

that he’s got a mud rassler who’ll rassle anybody in the crowd. To make it interesting they auctioned off the right to choose the opponent. An ex-friend of mine bought the rights and selected me to represent the “boys club.” Two big ol’ boys caught me halfway to the car and helped me change into the mud rasslin’ costume furnished by the management.

It was a little muddy bathin’ suit. They drug me back into the arena by my hind legs. It was like those ol’ mov-ies where they’re havin’ a boxing match or a dog fight. All these fellers hoverin’ around in a circle wavin’ cigars and five dollar bills. I wuz just gettin’ set to make my move and faint when this lady walks up and puts her chin on the top of my head! I looked her right in the neck and said, “Ma’am, what’s your name?” She said, “Hurricane Charlotte.” I didn’t ask any more questions. The next 15 minutes was like bein’ in a clothes dryer with an anvil and 50 pounds of horse shoes! Every time I’d look up another part of her was descending on me! I remember them dragging me to the shower afterwards.

They said I did good...I only got pinned five times!

Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

P.O. Box 447Fort Sumner, NM 88119

575.355.2855 office575.355.7611 fax575.760.3818 cell

nick@ranchseller.comwww.ranchseller.com

Filling Your Real Estate Needs in Oregon

Andrew Bryan, Principal/BrokerOffice 541-523-5871Cell 208-484-5835

andrew@bakercityrealty.comwww.bakercityrealty.com

bakercityrealty__1x2.5 4/6/15 11:45 AM Page 1

SCOTT MCNALLYwww.ranchesnm.com

575/622-5867575/420-1237

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Bar MReal Estate

Bottari RealtyPaul Bottari, Broker

775/752-3040

Nevada Farms &

raNch PrOPerTYwww.bottarirealty.com

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista RealtyQualifying Broker:

A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521www.buenavista-nm.com

R.G. DAVIS, BROKER • 530/347-9455JEFF DAVIS, REALTOR • 530/604-3655

TONYA REDIMONTI, REALTOR • 530/521-6054

530/347-945519855 S. Main St.,

Cottonwood, CA 96022homeranchproperties.net

Properties & Equities, Inc.

AG LAND LOANSAs Low As 3%

OPWKCAP 2.9%INTEREST RATES AS LOW AS 3%Payments Scheduled on 25 Years

Joe Stubblefield & Associates13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062

joes3@suddenlink.netMichael Perez Associates

Nara Visa, NM • 575/403-7970

Shasta Land Services, Inc.Bill Wright 530.941.8100 cell

530.221.8100 officebillwright@ranch-lands.com

Specializing in agricultural properties in

northern Californiawww.ranch-lands.com

Redding, CA

Socorro Plaza Realty

On the PlazaDonald BrownQualifying Broker

505-507-2915 cell505-838-0095 fax

#5 PlazaPO Box 1903

Socorro, NM 87801www.socorroplazarealty.com

dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

To place ad herecontact RANDY

SUMMERS at 505/243-9515

or RON ARCHER at 505/865-6011

Rusty Burgett takes NSIP program leadership role

“It’s exciting breaking new ground and taking NSIP to a new level,” says Rusty

Burgett. As the newly hired Pro-gram Director for the National Sheep Improvement Program, Burgett is poised to promote ge-netic improvement throughout the sheep industry. “Everyone, all up and down the production chain, can benefit as we strive to help the industry meet consumer demands.

Burgett began his duties in mid-April. He will be responsible

for data management and basic administration of the organiza-tion. But much of his time will be spent on outreach – spread-ing the word about quantitative genetic improvement. He will be traveling the country meeting with producers in all facets of the industry.

“I’m ready for this, and NSIP is ready for this,” says Burgett.

“We’re more than pleased to have a Buckeye on staff,” says Susan Shultz of Bunker Hill Farm near DeGraff, Ohio. She and her husband, Bill, were ear-ly adaptors of NSIP technology and strong supporters of the pro-

gram. “We’re excited he was at a place in his career to accept the position. He brings energy and enthusiasm to the job. I don’t know anyone with more passion for the sheep industry.”

Burgett, too, hails from Ohio. He received his undergraduate education at Ohio State, where his “love for the sheep industry really blossomed.” Aside from tuning his appreciation for the animals, he spent a year there managing the meat science lab.

Deciding he wanted to redi-rect his focus from meat science to sheep production, he moved on to the University of Wiscon-sin-Madison, where he received his Masters degree in ruminant nutrition. It was there he had his

first exposure to NSIP. The en-tire flock is enrolled in the pro-gram and Burgett says it was a good place to get his feet wet.

From Wisconsin he traveled to Iowa State University, spend-ing a year and a half as a shep-herd, and stepping even deeper into NSIP.

In his most recent post at the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son, he oversaw the only dairy sheep research facility in the U.S. at the Spooner Ag Research Station. The program focuses on all aspects – nutrition, reproduc-tive physiology, genetic improve-ment.

In 2013 he accepted the vol-unteer job of treasurer on the NSIP board of directors.

“Being associated with NSIP has been a fun ride so far, and I’m looking forward to being able to give it my full attention,” adds Burgett.

NSIP Board Chairman Reid Redden says the feeling is mutu-al. “We’re thrilled to have Rusty on board. He’s an extremely well-qualified addition to our program and our mission.”

Those qualifications include bringing the industry wisdom and insight of valuable mentors to the table – mentors like Red-den of Texas A&M, Henry Zerby of Ohio State, Dan Morrical at Iowa State, and David Thomas at the University of Wisconsin.

Moving Forward

continued on page nine

Hurricane Charlotte

Baxter BLACKO N T H E E D G E O F C O M M O N S E N S E

www.baxterblack.com

Livestock Martket Digest

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 9

O’NEILL LAND, llcP.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347

land@swranches.com • www.swranches.comGood inventory in the Miami, Springer, Maxwell and Cimarron area. Great year-round climate suitable

for horses. Give yourself and your horses a break and come on up to the Cimarron Country.

O’NEILL AGRICULTURAL, llc“Offers computer-generated color custom mapping service on digital USGS base maps.

Hang a map in your office that looks like your ranch, w/water lines, pastures & roads etc. Put your ranch on one piece of paper.”

Miami Horse Training Facility. Ideal horse training facility w/large 4 bedroom 3 bathroom approx 3,593 sq ft home, 248.32± deeded acres, 208 irrigation shares, 30’ X 60’ metal sided shop/ bunk house, 8 stall barn w/tack room, 7 stall barn w/storage, 10 stall open sided barn w/10 ft. alley, 2 stall loafing shed, 14 11’ x 24’ Run-In Shelters, 135’ Round Pen, Priefert six horse panel walker. Many more features & improvements. All you need for a serious horse operation in serious horse country of Miami New Mexico. Additional 150 acres available on south side of road. Miami is at the perfect year round horse training eleva-tion of 6,200. Far enough south to have mostly mild winters. Convenient to I-25. $1,550,000.

High Productivity Sub Irrigated Grass Unit, 624.027± deeded acres plus 178± acres graz-ing. Has supported 80-100 cows since November 2012, with winter supplementation. Exceptional grass producing unit surrounds lake 11 of Max-

well Conservancy and has 70 irrigation shares out of Stubblefield Reservoir. $1,150/deeded acre.

Miller-Krause Ranch. 939.37± deeded acres. 88 Springer Ditch Company water shares. Mostly west of I;25, exit 414. Big views. $559,000.

Miami Mountain View. 80± deeded acres w/80 water shares & house. $510,000.

Miami. 80± deeded acres, awesome home, total remodel, awesome views $395,000.

Miami WOW. Big home in Santa Fe Style great for family on 3 acres. $249,000.

Miami Tangle Foot. 10.02± deeded acres w/water shares & meter. $98,000.

Maxwell. 19.5± deeded acres, water, outbuildings, great horse set up. $234,000.

Canadian River. 39.088± deeded acres, w/nice ranch home & river. $279,000.

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

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

113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.” Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres ingrass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-br, 1-ba rock home. Priced tosell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641

GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704;Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com,enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARDCell: 417/839-5096

1-800/743-0336MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORSSPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

JACKSON RANCH: 8,000 ± acres of excellent grass country located 45 miles northwest of Roswell, along the Chaves/Lincoln County line. Grazing Capacity owner controlled estimated at 200 AUYL. Nice, functional improvements watered by two wells and an extensive water pipeline system. Price: $2,500,000.00

HIGH CHAPARRAL RANCH: 21,595 total acres of well-balanced high desert rangeland supporting 300 AUYL along with a thriving mule deer population. Livestock and domestic water provided by 12 wells. Significant improvements to include a 4,000 square feet owner’s residence, guest house and bunkhouse. This is one of a kind. Offered for sale in cooperation with Schrimsher Ranch Real Estate.

Scott and co.L Ranch & Farm Real Estate

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027Ben G. Scott – Broker

Krystal M. Nelson, NM Qualifying Broker800-933-9698 day/eve.

www.scottlandcompany.comwww.texascrp.com

We currently have a cash buyer for 200 - 3,000 acres of grassland, combination grass/cultivated land or straight cultivated land in the area between Dallas & Houston (or perhaps further East) with or without improvements. Brokers welcome!THE ICING ON THE CAKE – buy this well located, really good ranch (grama grass & western wheat grass country) & develop the really scenic parts of the ranch for residential subdivisions w/10, 20, 40, 100 acre tracts. 12, 088 deeded ac. +/- w/an addtl. 33,000 deeded ac. +/- available for sale across the hwy., addtl. perks, hunting, fi shing, recreation w/a large lake on the ranch together w/the Cucharas River.HARDING CO. – starter ranch, 1,875 deeded ac. +/-, 901.9 ac. +/- CRP, well watered w/subs, mills & pipeline, 3 bdrm./2 bath brick home, garage, shop/ livestock, metal barn & pens, 7 miles fr. town, co. road.DINNER HILL RANCH – Otero Co., NM – 22 sections well improved, home, barn, pens, excellent fencing & watering. Deeded/State/BLM, all weather road.MULTIPLE USE! Capitan/Alto, NM – Minutes from Ruidoso. A multi-purpose property w/15.6434 ac. +/-, laboratory/offi ce, covered pens, home. Ideal for an auction facility for custom auctions of pure-bred cattle, reg. horses, etc., horse or cattle breeding, embryo trans-fer facility, vet clinic or many other uses in a beautiful area of NM. BEAUTIFUL AREA, DEV. POTENTIAL - Alto/Capitan, NM – 8,060 ac. +/- (deeded, Forest & State Lease) super location w/pvmt. on two sides in close proximity to the Capitan/Alto 15.6434 ac. property w/tremendous pens & improvements. TUCUMCARI VALLEY – Quay Co., NM - Choice 960 ac. irr. farm, 5 circles, 3 phase power, 2 large hay barns enclosed on three sides, 755.5 ac. of Arch Hurley dist. water rights, on pvmt. & all weather road.SPRINGER, NM - amazing improvements, see our website for photographs of 5,000 sq. ft. + home, two guest houses, huge two bay shop, state-of-the-art horse stalls & runs, roping arena w/air-operated release chute, nice employee home + more horse stalls & runs, large set of working pens w/camp house (old-west style w/state-of-the-art outhouses), 9,200 ac. +/- deeded, 193 ac. +/- state lease, yearling or cow/calf country just E. of Springer on Hwy. 56 w/frontage on the I25 access road on the West. SAN MIGUEL CO., NM – New Mexico All Deeded Ranch – approx. 53 sections (all deeded) w/Canadian river frontage w/vegas (meadows), a very good year-round ranch w/good improvements, all weather access & minerals. MOUNTAIN VIEW FARMING – Colfax Co., NM - Excellent area for alfalfa, wheat, other small grains & forage crops, improved w/several homes, barns & 5 pivot sprinklers, water for sprinklers provided from three irr. districts, 1,854 ac. +/-, elk hunting, on pvmt.WALKER CANYON RANCH – Motley Co.,TX. – Buy one pasture or all (pastures run in size fr. 7-900 ac. each up to 3,300 ac. w/lake) pick the size of ranch that you want w/a total of 10,432 ac. +/-, ranchland w/a large, permitted dam providing a huge, beautiful lake w/water backed up in a number of smaller canyons for boating, fi shing & other recreation together w/good hunting on the ranch. On pvmt.!PALO DURO CREEK/CITY LAKE ROAD - 280 ac. +/- West of Canyon w/ irr. circle & strong irr. well on top, beautiful area dwn. below w/lvstk. pens.FOR SALE OR POSSIBILITY OF TRADE for ranchland in Texas, OK, NM or Nevada – 5 sections, part sprinkler irr./part subject to irri-gation w/existing wells in Swisher/Castro Counties, w/feedyard, grain elevator & an extreme amt. of barns for grain/other storage, on pvmt. CASTRO CO., TX. – 320 ac. +/-, w/nice home, precon. pens w/concrete bunks, processing facilities, two pivot sprinklers w/two ½ circles of alfalfa, on major hwy. DRY HOLLOW RANCH – Collingsworth Co., TX. – 2 sections grubbed of mesquite. Draws. Cabin. Artesian well, excellent grass & hunting.TRIPLE DRAW RANCH – Crockett, Co. - 1,458 +/- ac. high-fence ranch, well improved w/hunting lodge, good hunting including axis. Good access w/hwy. frontage.PRICE REDUCED! ADA OK. AREA -3,120 ac. +/- of choice grassland w/houses, barns & steel pens, lays in 3 tracts, will divide!Please view our websites for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rain-

fall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX, NM, OK & CO.

Medical Springs, OR 541-853-1212

Jack Horton 208-830-9210Rae H Anderson 208-961-9553

agrilandsrealestate.com

COTTONWOOD CREEK RANCHWATER WATER WATER

Spring fed stream – manmade lake and pond – 2 artesian irrigation wells – storage in com-mon interest reservoir - ALL EXPENSED AT ABOUT $600 /YEAR – Approximately 4,100deeded acres – 450 plus irrigated – RATED 500 AU’s yearlong – 1,935 AUM’s private BLMpermit – small private lease – high end improvements with homes @ private setting – ex-cellent handling and shipping facilities – currently one man labor force excepting calvingand haying seasons – management in place if needed – landowner hunting tags…elk,deer, antelope – fishing – eastern Oregon –$5,285,000

Ken Ahler Real Estate Co., Inc300 Paseo Peralta, Suite 211

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Ken Ahler-GRI, E-Pro, RSPS

Offi ce: 505-989-7573 • Cell: 505-490-0220Toll Free: 888-989-7573

www. SantaFeLand.comemail: Kahler@newmexico.com

Apache Mesa Ranch – 5,144 acre rim rock ranch located on Apache Mesa off Hwy 84 near Las Vegas, NM. Mostly deeded, cedar & ponderosa tree cover, rim rocks & mesas, canyons & meadows. Comfortable HQ w/bunk house, caretakers quarters on 5 acres plus barn & corrals & plenty of scenery. Priced at $2,698,900. Come see this place.

Little Cayuse Ranch – This a horse or cow operation north of Corona. +- 2,025 acres. There are 2 homes, hay barn, sheds, tack room, 3 excellent wells, 4 pastures & 80 acre irrigation pivot with water rights. Good fences & views. Priced reduced.

Sombrero Ranch near Tremintina, NM - 1,442 deeded acres, 3 pastures, 1 solar well and 1 windmill well. Traditionally has carried 30+ mother cows year round. Located 44 miles east of Las Vegas on Hwy 104. Price is $575,000 Owner will fi nance.

La Cueva Canyon Ranch – 1,435 secluded acres w/240 acres of BLM lease land. Located SW of Las Vegas off Hwy 84 on Apache Mesa. This parcel has tall pines, canyon springs, stock tanks, new fence on NE corner. Off the grid and pristine. Price is $607,000 & Owners will fi nance.

SOLD

Trigg Ranches – 720 deeded acres lies near the La Cueva Canyon Ranch on Apache Mesa off Hwy 84. Off the grid in the tall pines & power is close by! 720 acres priced at $288,900 & smaller 200 acre parcel available for $124,000! Other parcels available & Owners will fi nance.

Ledoux, NM – Perimeter fenced 60 acre dry land terraced farm has overhead electric, sub-irrigated pasture and all weather coun-ty road access! Located ½ mile north of Ledoux. Price reduced $228,000 & Owner will fi nance.

Anton Chico – Historic 65 acre irrigated farm w/ditch rights. Adobe home, bunkhouse, storage shed, shop + irrigation & some farm equipment go w/sale. Priced below appraisal at $698,900 & Owner can fi nance!

Dilia Loop Road – Fenced 20+ acre parcel is planted in alfalfa & grass, has 4 irrigated sections plus ditch rights and Pecos River frontage. Excellent farming opportunity for organic vegetable gardens. Price is $231,500.

Upper Anton Chico – This parcel has outstanding alfalfa produc-tion for a small parcel, 7.5 acres are irrigated with under ground pipes, perimeter fenced, easy farm to work and water. Pick up 375 bales per cutting! Asking $82,500 .I have Buyers,

I need listings...

“They’re all respected as educa-tors and researchers,” says Shul-tz, “and they taught Rusty well. He fully understands breeding values are key to genetic selec-tion and genetic improvement.”

Burgett is uniquely qualified to spread the NSIP message, adds Shultz, with an ability to make complex scientific infor-mation readily understandable.

“Our biggest need is industry education,” says Redden, “and Rusty has the vision, communi-cation skills, and real-world expe-rience to take us there.”

The right timeSince its inception, NSIP has

been a volunteer organization with limited financial resources, primarily membership registra-tion fees. The picture began to change when the American Lamb Industry Roadmap highlighted the need for more emphasis on NSIP to improve the industry. The American Lamb Board pro-vided funding to investigate how to best make that happen, and the program retooled its vision and mission. The process pro-duced the recommendation for a staff position, and the stage was set for a new day.

“It’s a culmination of many things, including a lot of hard work by volunteers, that has brought us to this point,” says Redden. “Now it’s time to move forward with a new approach.”

Chase Hibbard, Past Chair-man of NSIP, has been on board since the beginning, and is pleased to see the focus on out-reach.

“The U.S. sheep industry can’t really get bigger, so we have to get better,” says Hibbard. “And that happens through data-based genetic improvement.” He’s seen it in his own flock, where lamb-ing rates have increased from 165 to just under 200 percent due to ewe selection for lambs born. He sold the highest selling ram in the history of the Targhee breed last year, a feat he claims “would not have been possible without these tools.”

“Throughout the industry, breeders are making better selec-

tion decisions due to Estimated Breeding Values and data in-dexes,” he adds. “In the Targhee breed, we’ve made more prog-ress in the past five years due to the Western Range Index (a formula of weighted values of various traits) than we did in the previous 20 years.”

And it’s not just for seedstock producers. Commercial produc-ers have much to gain by buying breeding stock with NSIP data. Hibbard cites the success of Wy-oming’s Mountain States Lamb Cooperative, where producers are paid on a grid value system according to desired carcass traits. “They’re buying rams with objective information because it affects how they actually get paid at the end of the day,” says Hibbard. “They’re ultimately paid on carcass merit.”

Making breeding decisions based on economically relevant traits is not only good for the individual producer, according to Hibbard, it is good for the in-dustry as it works to correct mar-keting issues like overfat lambs.

He is counting on Burgett to convey real world examples like the Mt. States Co-op to other producers across the nation.

Shultz says the industry is ready to hear the message, with the talk in the hallway at Janu-ary’s ASI convention all about genetic improvement.

With Burgett on board, Red-den and NSIP are up to the task. “We’re ready to seize this oppor-tunity,” says Redden. “The value of individual animal data is ob-vious to those who are hearing the message. It’s our job to make sure both seedstock and com-mercial breeders understand the technology and how to use it. That’s how we will move this industry forward.”

“I’m ready to keep the mo-mentum going and get every-body headed in the same di-rection,” says Burgett. “We all have the same goal – to deliver a product the consumer wants in a profitable way. NSIP and genetic selection can help get us there. I’m proud to be a part of this.”

Moving Forward continued from page eight

• 151 acre Home Site & cattle 20 miles from Dallas $525,000.

• 134 acres Wortham, Texas, $1,750 Per acre. Hunting and cattle. Fronts FM Hwy.

• 275 acres, Recreation, hunt-ing and fi shing. Nice apart-ment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3950 Per acre.

• 270 acre, Mitchell Coun-ty, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash fl ow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water de-veloped, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20.

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

Joe Priest Real Estate1205 N. Hwy 175, Seagoville, TX 75159

972/287-4548 • 214/676-69731-800/671-4548 • Fax 972/287-4553

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

SOLD$1,750 Per acre. Hunting and SOLD$1,750 Per acre. Hunting and cattle. Fronts FM Hwy.SOLDcattle. Fronts FM Hwy.

SOLD• 151 acre SOLD• 151 acre Home Site & SOLDHome Site & cattle 20 miles from Dallas SOLDcattle 20 miles from Dallas

Page 10 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

KADDATZAuctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales

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

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

ClassifiedsDigest

381 CR 373Trent, Texas 79561

Cal-Tex Feed Yard, InC.COMMERCIAL CATTLE FEEDERS

(325)862-6111Fax (325)862-6137

caltexfeedyard@wtconnect.comRex Bland, Pres.

725-8372Rosemary Bland Hayter, CEO

232-6498Diltzie Edmondson, Off.

Johnny Edmondson, Gen. Mgr.338-7692

Terry Brown, Yard Mgr.669-3563

Becky Brown, Off.

2 year old Angus Bulls for sale semen tested-moderately framed-maternally efficient. Jauer Dependable Genetics www.jauerangus.com Contact Kurt 712-253-8710

The great Earl Thode is often credited with creating the spurring style which is now the standard in Saddle Bronc riding. The spur-ring motion, fore and aft, from the point

of the shoulder to the flanks of the horse was his trademark style. However, if we look back a little further in history (Earl was five-time World Champion in late 1920s and early ‘30s) we find a man using this style around the turn of the last century. Harry Brennan was known as “The Fa-ther of Modern Bronc Riding” back when most bronc ridings were still a part of the old Wild West Shows.

Harry Henry Brennan was born in Sheridan, Wyoming March 8, 1881 to Robert Charles Brennan and Annie Davis Brennan. The elder Mr. Brennan had come west from Missouri in 1865 after serving in the War Between the States. He is credited with helping to build Forts Leavenworth and Laramie. He is also said to have spent time hunting and trapping with Buffalo Bill, a connection his sons would later take advantage of.

Harry grew up a cowboy on the Wyoming range. He and his brother, Grover, gained a rep-utation as being pretty good “bronco busters.”

The Salt Lake City Tribune reported in Harry’s obituary years later, “Prior to 1900 he (Harry) rode the range and took particular pride in being able to ride horses which other men could not handle. It was his favorite pastime to attempt roping feats which proved stumbling blocks for his associates.

“In 1900 Mr. Brennan joined the Colonel William F. Cody (Buffalo Bill) wild west show, and with that great western character toured the United States and foreign countries. His trips around the United States were numerous, and he made three journeys across the Atlan-tic ocean to perform before audiences in Paris, Rome, London and Berlin.”

Harry always insisted his brother Grover was the better bronc rider, however, Grover died young while touring with Buffalo Bill in New York city (a gas leak in his hotel room). It was Harry who eventually became the most recog-nized bronc rider of the early 1900s.

We should remember these early-day bronc riders had to be tough. Back then, bronc riding sometimes lasted for half a minute or more—until the horse was ridden to a stop.

In those days, men such as Harry and Gro-ver Brennan “worked” for the various Wild West shows as employees. However, it was around the turn of the last century when the idea of having “contest” and giving out prizes and titles such as “World Champion” began to emerge. These were the seedlings that later became Rodeo.

One such contest was the 1902 Cheyenne Frontier Celebration. The Associated Press, Cheyenne, Wyoming reported on September 2, “BRENNAN is CHAMPION. Wyoming Cow-boy Gets Belt for Being Good Bronco Rider. Harry Brennan of Sheridan, Wyo., was today declared winner of the bronco riding contest for the world’s championship at the Cheyenne fron-tier celebration.”

Also in 1902, Harry was crowned “Champion Rough Rider of the World” at the Denver Stock Show. The Denver Republican Newspaper wrote, “In the last ride Brennan was pitted against the wiles of an ugly bay bronco that possessed ev-ery movement in the complex repertoire of the bronco. Although the horse bucked him contin-ually in every way, Brennan held his seat as if he

were sitting in a parlor chair. Every muscle in his body seemed to be loose and his arms were not extended rigid over the horse, as in the case of the majority of the riders, who strained ev-ery nerve to attract the attention of the judges. Then again he manipulated his spurs in a way that rendered it practically impossible for his horse to pitch him off. At one time the horse fell over on him and crushed his foot. The injury failed to make him wince, and he continued to master the brute.”

From 1902 through 1909, Harry is credited with being the World Champion Bronc rider at one show or another each and every year—usu-ally Cheyenne, Denver or New York). (Back then, several shows claimed their winners were “Champion of the World.” Harry is generally accepted as the best, and probably true, World Champion of those years, had they had a scor-ing system in place like today which recognizes one champion each year.

Another feat he is known for is he was one of only a handful of men to stay aboard the leg-endary bronc, Steamboat. Some great cowboys who rode Steamboat to a finish besides Brennan were Clayton Danks, Guy Holt, Tom Minor, and Thad Sowder.

When Thad Sowder drew the bronc the first time, Harry reportedly went to him and said, “Sowder, I hear you drew Steamboat, I saw him back at Cheyenne, and he can sure buck. But I tell you this, he bucks high and he lands hard, but he goes mostly ahead. When he turns, he turns mostly to the left. Anyhow, I never saw him turn no other way.” Like most cowboys, Harry wanted to help his fellow competitors be the best they could.

According to rodeo historian, Willard Porter, “Harry was a kind man and a popular champion. It is said that once, after winning $200 in cash and a championship belt made of sterling silver, he cut the belt in two and halved the money with his friend, Tim Minor, who had finished a close second.”

Harry was also instrumental in writing the first set of rules for Saddle Bronc riding used in competitions. They were known as “Cheyenne Rules” and became the blue print for today’s Saddle Bronc rules.

Like many other early-day cowboys, Harry even made movie appearances. Directors gen-erally used Rodeo Cowboys and Wild West per-formers for cowboy scenes back then. Brennan has these credits on his film resume: Bronco Busting Scene, Championship of the World, a mov-ie where he played himself in 1902 and; Buck-ing Bronco Contest (Sheridan Contest) a movie where he played himself in 1903.

Harry retired from bronc riding in 1909 and moved to Salt Lake City, Utah where he worked for Coal and Coke Company. Among the most precious of his Wild West and Rodeo days col-lections were tokens given to him by Colonel William F. Cody (Buffalo Bill).

Harry was married to Eleanor Elizabeth (Edna) Boyer on November 1,1909. The couple had a daughter, Gladys Edna Brennan.

Harry Brennan changed the course of bronc riding forever and will always be remembered as a legend and “The Father of Modern Bronc Rid-ing.” He passed away on November 28, 1922. He was inducted into the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame in 1979 where a championship belt he won in 1902 is proudly displayed.

Harry Brennan – Father of Modern Day Bronc Riding

By JIM OLSON

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 11

ransom because I didn’t have my ID on me. I never felt a cattle prod and was not given any hormones, although I sure could have used some after that whole castration thing. Instead of being branded I was given an ear stud that are so popular with teenagers today. I’ve never been given an antibiotic nor was I wormed or sprayed for flies be-cause lungworms, bacteria and flies have a right to life too. Be-sides, lungworms have been put on the endangered species list and I didn’t want to get cross-wise with the feds. I did that once when I was accused of be-ing the aggressor in an inter-an-imal aggression case involving a horse and I had to undergo in-tense sensitivity training.

I was naturally weaned when

my mother got tired of me tug-ging at her flanks. Luckily I had access to a team of “weaning counselors” or I don’t know how I’d have survived that whole traumatic ordeal. At eight months I was sent away to boarding school because my mom thought I needed ex-posure to a wider world. She thought it would be good for my inner development if I went to a feedlot in Dalhart. I had a blast at the feedlot where we took turns playing practical jokes on the pen riders.

Then one day I was told we were going on a field trip to an organic alfalfa farm but were instead taken in an air condi-tioned truck with individual stalls to a “deconstruction fa-cility”. The trailer I was hauled

in was spotless and inspected by the U.S. Department of Ma-nure (USDM). If you want to see documentation go to www.stupidpaperwork.gov.

The last thing I remember I was floating off to sleep. So there you have it, my life story. By the way, for everyone who buys one of my burgers, one dollar will be donated to PETA.

I hope you enjoy your ham-burger because I gave it all I could. Signed Little Chuck.”

The waste bins at McDon-alds will all be full of Big Macs made from Little Chuck who the customers didn’t want to eat because they had gotten to know him on a personal level.

I’m telling you McDonalds, one day you’ll regret starting all this nonsense.

Riding Herd continued from page one

BY BILL BUCKNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NOBLE FOUNDATION

At its core, a schoolyard playground is nothing more than a miniatur-ized training ground for

life.There in the concrete and

plastic world outside of Every-Town Elementary you receive your real education. Think about all the life lessons that you mastered somewhere be-tween the monkey bars and the merry-go-round.

Dodgeball made you keenly aware that being the center of attention is not always a good thing. Bullies taught you that smarts and courage often win the day but you still may end up with a black eye. And form-ing a squad of like-minded friends often led to capturing that elusive flag.

Among all the lessons, how-ever, stands one fundamental truism: you make more friends by building people up instead of tearing them down.

Flash forward to adulthood and I can’t figure out how the agriculture industry forgot these simple playground les-sons.

As I survey the landscape of agriculture today, I see a sec-tor plagued by deconstruction both from internal and exter-nal forces. Agriculture is more fractured now than any time in my life, and it doesn’t have to be.

Internally, agricultural pro-ducers spend tremendous amounts of time and ener-gy arguing about which pro-duction style is superior. For some, it’s a marketing ploy used to garner attention and sell their product at a higher premium. For others, ques-

tioning their production style is akin to attacking a family heritage. Adopting new prac-tices, embracing change runs counterintuitive to genera-tions of experience, so they lash out.

For me, the question is sim-ple: are unyielding extremes worth the consequences to those we serve? As the world enters the most difficult era in recorded agricultural history with unprecedented challeng-es, why are we arguing about which method to use? That’s like arguing about your form while diving into an empty pool.

Compounding the inter-nal strife are external factors; special interest groups, fringe environmentalists, the federal government and even celebrity chefs all have managed to in-terrupt the direct link between agriculture producers and con-sumers.

They have polluted the pipe-line with toxic misinformation, twisting public perception to the point that agricultural pro-ducers are actually scorned by the people who they feed.

Consumers are told that hormones are the devil’s elix-ir despite the fact these hor-mones do not pass into con-sumer products. They are told farmers are somehow big busi-nesses because they had to incorporate the family farm to protect it for liability purpos-es. At the end of the day, this is nothing more than politics played by paid professionals.

For the most part, farmers and ranchers are committed to a cause rather than politi-cal activism. They depend on their trade or commodity asso-ciations to stir their interests into the political pot as best as possible. Agendas are plen-

tiful as interests are elevated, diminished, combined and ar-tificially connected.

The end result for our sector is a thousand voices talking; the outcome for the general public is frustration. They hear only the voices of extremists, and they are swayed by their arguments laced with emotion and fear. These extremists have not proven any point; rather, they have become a barrier to progress and pushed a sector closer to ideological gridlock.

Instead, let those of us in the vast middle ground lay down our arms. Let’s start lis-tening to each other and ignor-ing the naysayers. Let’s start believing that we may not be completely right about every long-held thought. Let’s col-laborate and share ideas about processes and production sys-tems that can benefit all and crush the historic practices of isolationism.

We won’t agree on every topic, but I promise what unites us far outweighs what divides us. If you are in agri-culture, know that you stand on the same side of the field, united under one noble ban-ner.

Let us take the best of our knowledge, skills and ability and chart a reasoned course that can help us overcome the unheralded challenges fac-ing agriculture in the next 40 years (i.e., shrinking resources and producing more food with fewer inputs).

It’s time to focus on com-mon ground. It’s time to build each other up instead of tear each other down. It’s time to remember what we learned on the playground.

Because we’re not trying to capture a flag, we’re trying to feed the world.

Agriculture industry faces internal, external challenges

BY BRIANNA EHLEY, THE FISCAL TIMES

An obscure federal agency within the Department of Agriculture that is tasked with responding to wide-

spread animal illnesses like—mad cow disease—doesn’t have a strategy in place to respond if such an outbreak occurs.

That was the alarming con-clusion from a new Government Accountability Office report that says the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or APHIS is severely under-staffed and lacks a “a detailed plan to augment or train its work-force to respond” to a dangerous epidemic.

The GAO said the agency, as well as other components of USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services do not have enough animal doctors employed—there are about 624 at APHIS and 2,000 government wide.

The report said that to respond to a national outbreak, it would likely require an estimated 6,000 veterinarians. The auditors blast-ed the agency for not vetting its animal doctors and not preparing an emergency animal health plan.

In April 2015, the Centers for Disease and Control announced a dangerous potentialcanine in-fluenza A H3N2 virus that was responsible for an outbreak of

dog flu reported in the Chicago area. Though it appeared to be contained, these are the types of outbreaks that the GAO fears would not be able to be sup-pressed in the event of a national outbreak.

The USDA and HHS employ the majority of the federal gov-ernment’s veterinarians that are responsible for inspecting food as well as monitoring wildlife for dis-eases and testing animal feed and medicine as well as probing into human outbreaks stemming from animal illnesses. The GAO has even designated the agency as a “high-risk” government area for personnel shortages that could result in risks to public health.

The issue has been around for years and auditors said that the USDA has taken some steps to address planning practices and personnel shortages. In 2009, the Office of Personnel Manage-ment “granted government-wide direct-hire authority to enable agencies to hire qualified veteri-narians without regard to certain federal hiring requirements,” the auditors said.

Still, the shortages remain and more needs to be done. The USDA agreed with the auditors recommendations.

See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.c o m / 2 0 1 5 / 0 5 / 2 7 / Ve t e r i n a r i a n - S h o r t -age-Leaves-US-Vulnerable-Animal-Illness-Out-break#sthash.ipvadjIr.dpuf

Veterinarian Shortage Leaves U.S. Vulnerable to Animal Illness Outbreak

Page 12 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

BY DWIGHT LUNDELL, M.D.

We physicians with all our training, knowledge and authority often ac-quire a rather large ego

that tends to make it difficult to admit we are wrong. So, here it is. I freely admit to being wrong. As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience, having performed over 5,000 open-heart surger-ies, today is my day to right the wrong with medical and scientif-ic fact.

I trained for many years with other prominent physicians la-beled “opinion makers.” Bom-barded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart dis-ease. Deviations from these rec-ommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.

It Is Not Working!These recommendations are

no longer scientifically or mor-ally defensible. The discovery a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ail-ments will be treated.

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabe-

tes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suf-fering and dire economic conse-quences.

Despite the fact that 25 per-cent of the population takes ex-pensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.

Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently suf-fer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes. These disor-ders are affecting younger and younger people in greater num-bers every year.

Simply stated, without in-flammation being present in the body, there is no way that cho-lesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. Without inflammation, choles-terol would move freely through-out the body as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped.

Inflammation is not compli-cated — it is quite simply your body’s natural defense to a for-eign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. The cycle of in-flammation is perfect in how it protects your body from these bacterial and viral invaders. However, if we chronically ex-pose the body to injury by tox-ins or foods the human body was never designed to process, a condition occurs called chronic inflammation. Chronic inflam-mation is just as harmful as acute

inflammation is beneficial.What thoughtful person

would willfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other sub-stances that are known to cause injury to the body? Well, smok-ers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully.

The rest of us have simply fol-lowed the recommended main-stream diet that is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflam-mation leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.

Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.

What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbo-hydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of ome-ga-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.

Take a moment to visualize rubbing a stiff brush repeatedly over soft skin until it becomes quite red and nearly bleeding. You kept this up several times a day, every day for five years. If you could tolerate this pain-ful brushing, you would have a bleeding, swollen infected area that became worse with each re-peated injury. This is a good way to visualize the inflammatory process that could be going on in your body right now.

Regardless of where the in-flammatory process occurs, externally or internally, it is the same. I have peered inside thousands upon thousands of arteries. A diseased artery looks as if someone took a brush and scrubbed repeatedly against its wall. Several times a day, ev-ery day, the foods we eat create small injuries compounding into more injuries, causing the body to respond continuously and ap-propriately with inflammation.

While we savor the tantalizing taste of a sweet roll, our bodies respond alarmingly as if a foreign invader arrived declaring war. Foods loaded with sugars and simple carbohydrates, or pro-cessed with omega-6 oils for long shelf life have been the mainstay of the American diet for six de-cades. These foods have been slowly poisoning everyone.

How does eating a simple sweet roll create a cascade of in-flammation to make you sick?

Imagine spilling syrup on your keyboard and you have a visual

of what occurs inside the cell. When we consume simple car-bohydrates such as sugar, blood sugar rises rapidly. In response, your pancreas secretes insulin whose primary purpose is to drive sugar into each cell where it is stored for energy. If the cell is full and does not need glucose, it is rejected to avoid extra sugar gumming up the works.

When your full cells reject the extra glucose, blood sugar rises producing more insulin and the glucose converts to stored fat.

What does all this have to do with inflammation? Blood sug-ar is controlled in a very narrow range. Extra sugar molecules at-tach to a variety of proteins that in turn injure the blood vessel wall. This repeated injury to the blood vessel wall sets off inflam-mation. When you spike your blood sugar level several times a day, every day, it is exactly like taking sandpaper to the inside of your delicate blood vessels.

While you may not be able to see it, rest assured it is there. I saw it in over 5,000 surgical pa-tients spanning 25 years who all shared one common denomina-tor — inflammation in their ar-teries.

Let’s get back to the sweet roll. That innocent looking goody not only contains sugars, it is baked in one of many ome-ga-6 oils such as soybean. Chips and fries are soaked in soybean oil; processed foods are manu-factured with omega-6 oils for longer shelf life. While omega-6’s are essential —they are part of every cell membrane controlling what goes in and out of the cell — they must be in the correct balance with omega-3’s.

If the balance shifts by con-suming excessive omega-6, the cell membrane produces chemi-cals called cytokines that directly cause inflammation.

Today’s mainstream American diet has produced an extreme imbalance of these two fats. The ratio of imbalance ranges from 15:1 to as high as 30:1 in favor of omega-6. That’s a tremendous amount of cytokines causing in-flammation. In today’s food en-vironment, a 3:1 ratio would be optimal and healthy.

To make matters worse, the excess weight you are carrying from eating these foods creates overloaded fat cells that pour out large quantities of pro-inflamma-tory chemicals that add to the in-jury caused by having high blood sugar. The process that began with a sweet roll turns into a vi-cious cycle over time that creates heart disease, high blood pres-sure, diabetes and finally, Alzhei-mer’s disease, as the inflammato-

ry process continues unabated.There is no escaping the fact

that the more we consume pre-pared and processed foods, the more we trip the inflammation switch little by little each day. The human body cannot process, nor was it designed to consume, foods packed with sugars and soaked in omega-6 oils.

There is but one answer to quieting inflammation, and that is returning to foods closer to their natural state. To build mus-cle, eat more protein. Choose carbohydrates that are very complex such as colorful fruits and vegetables. Cut down on or eliminate inflammation- causing omega-6 fats like corn and soy-bean oil and the processed foods that are made from them.

One tablespoon of corn oil contains 7,280 mg of omega-6; soybean contains 6,940 mg. In-stead, use olive oil or butter from grass-fed beef.

Animal fats contain less than 20 percent omega-6 and are much less likely to cause in-flammation than the supposedly healthy oils labeled polyunsatu-rated. Forget the “science” that has been drummed into your head for decades. The science that saturated fat alone causes heart disease is non-existent. The science that saturated fat raises blood cholesterol is also very weak. Since we now know that cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease, the concern about saturated fat is even more absurd today.

The cholesterol theory led to the no-fat, low-fat recommen-dations that in turn created the very foods now causing an epi-demic of inflammation. Main-stream medicine made a terrible mistake when it advised people to avoid saturated fat in favor of foods high in omega-6 fats. We now have an epidemic of arteri-al inflammation leading to heart disease and other silent killers.

What you can do is choose whole foods your grandmother served and not those your mom turned to as grocery store aisles filled with manufactured foods. By eliminating inflammatory foods and adding essential nutri-ents from fresh unprocessed food, you will reverse years of damage in your arteries and throughout your body from consuming the typical American diet.

Dr. Dwight Lundell is the past Chief of Staff and Chief of Surgery at Banner Heart Hospital, Mesa, AZ. His private practice, Cardiac Care Center was in Mesa, AZ. Recently Dr. Lundell left surgery to focus on the nutritional treatment of heart disease. He is the founder of Healthy Humans Foundation that promotes human health with a focus on helping large corpora-tions promote wellness. He is also the author of The Cure for Heart Disease and The Great Cholesterol Lie.

World Renowned Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 13

CHRIS CLAYTON,

DTN AG POLICY EDITOR

The American Farm Bureau Federation is backing legislation in Congress to repeal

country-of-origin labeling for beef, pork and poultry.

Dale Moore, chief of staff for AFBF, said the Farm Bu-reau board has been discussing COOL since the first World Trade Organization ruling on country-of-origin labeling, but the latest decision by a WTO appellate board earlier this month forced Farm Bureau leaders to consider the need to repeal the law.

Farm Bureau’s policy sup-ports country-of-origin labels for all commodities, though it does not specify if that should be “mandatory,” Moore not-ed. The policy also states that COOL should be WTO-com-pliant.

Four WTO rulings since 2011 on issues regarding the segregation and treatment of Canadian and Mexican live-stock make it clear that the

WTO does not believe COOL meets its standards because those Canadian and Mexican animals are treated less favor-ably than domestic livestock.

“With this last appeal and the WTO ruling against, or re-jecting, the U.S. appeal, that put us in the camp now not only have we made it clear that we support a COOL that is not WTO compliant, but it also makes it clear that Canada and Mexico are now eligible to start imposing sanctions on the tar-iff sides or some type of other restrictions that could impact commodities,” Moore said.

Conversations with USDA, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and on Capitol Hill indi-cate there does not seem to be a path for USDA to get around the problems with packers re-garding the handling of foreign livestock and labels the way the law is written.

In light of that risk, AFBF President Bob Stallman and the Farm Bureau board said they took their stance to protect other country-of-origin rules for other commodities, Moore

said. Getting rid of COOL on beef and pork prevents two of the country’s largest trading partners from slapping tariffs on other products.

The Texas Farm Bureau issued a news release an-nouncing it supports repealing COOL for pork and beef. The Texas affiliate’s board voted unanimously May 21 to back the bill (HR2393) put forward by House Agriculture Commit-tee Chairman Mike Conaway, a Republican from Texas.

“Chairman Conaway’s legis-lation is a good fix,” said Rus-sell Boening, president of the Texas Farm Bureau. “It simply removes the offending provi-sions on beef, pork and poultry. Problem solved.”

Yet, not every state affiliate is taking that stance. Bob Han-son, president of the Montana Farm Bureau, wrote Stallman last week expressing his con-cern about AFBF backing an outright repeal of the law. Hanson pointed out his Mon-tana members are proud of the quality of meat they produce and believe consumers want to

support products from Ameri-can farmers and ranchers. Han-son also noted in his letter that he realized other state Farm Bureau presidents were con-cerned about retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico.

“Having said that, I repre-sent Montana ranchers who primarily raise beef and have made their position very plain through policy discussions,” Hanson wrote.

Conaway’s bill, which had bipartisan support at the com-mittee level, could come to the floor after the House returns from its break next week. So far, however, a similar bill has not been brought up by the Senate Agriculture Commit-tee.

As farm groups and Con-gress move to eliminate COOL, USDA is working to increase imports of beef that would not require any label of origin. Recently, USDA sent separate proposed rules to the White House regarding the importation of beef from a re-gion in Brazil and importation of beef from a region in Argen-

tina. USDA has been working since 2013 on approval of the plan for beef imports from Brazil. The plan would allow imports of beef from 14 out of Brazil’s 27 individual states. Imports would be restricted to two states in Argentina. USDA listed both the Brazil and Ar-gentina rules as “economical-ly significant,” meaning they would affect the economy by at least $100 million.

“These new final rules come on the heels of the World Trade Organization ruling that found USDA’s country-of-or-igin labeling regulations to be impediments to free trade. Consequently, consumers may not know at the meat counter whether the products they buy come from countries that have had a history of animal health and, or food safety problems,” said Wenonah Hauter, execu-tive director of Food and Wa-ter Watch, which highlighted the proposed import proposals recently.

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

AFBF Has Backed COOL in the Past, But Group Fears Trade Retaliation

BY WES ISHMAEL,

IN CATTLE ECONOMICS,

BEEF MAGAZINE

“American agriculture is in a reactive posi-tion for the first time in human history,”

explained Aubrey Bettencourt, California Water Alliance execu-tive director, at the recent annual conference of the National Insti-tute of Animal Agriculture. “For the first time, agricultural pro-ducers have to explain their role in society and why it’s important. For the first time, they must jus-tify what they do.”

How many of us ever counted on that?

Bettencourt was talking about the nexus between water avail-ability and the future of livestock agriculture, but it describes the root of many current challenges spawned by so few consumers who know so little about produc-

tion agriculture.The reality Bettencourt de-

scribes also underscores history’s sketchy reliability as a guidepost to the future.

For instance, plenty of folks were still buying corn ground and even shares in ethanol plants long after economic opportunity set sail because they couldn’t find enough confidence to stake a claim when it mattered ... until after the fact.

Likewise, Mother Nature and grass be damned, the industry never started expanding in ear-nest until this year, because few could foresee or have much con-fidence in just how fast and high cattle prices could go.

In both cases, no one ever saw anything like the confluence of factors that led to such bound-less price extremes, and most likely won’t again. The world is too small, wealth too concentrat-ed and emotion too capricious

to count on history repeating itself exactly. Conversely, histo-ry offers plenty of lessons, along with a map highlighting dead-end destinations: places like Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Suc-ceed.

For my money, history’s real value — the lessons to be had — come from the people who made it or are in the process of making it. It’s not so much what they did or are trying to accomplish, but how and why.

Take a look around at the next cattle meeting you go to. Chances are you’ll find a cadre of pioneers in this breed or that discipline. Modern cattle history is that brief.

I thought of it at a meeting this year when someone intro-duced a scientist who was in on the ground floor of developing implants. I thought of it last year when I met someone who pio-neered the original concept of

Certified Angus Beef. The first time I ever considered it was years after I had a chance to work for, and learn from, Dale F. Runnion and his wife, June, icons in the livestock publishing business.

I thought of it most recently when my good friend and long-time mentor, Joe Roybal, left his post as BEEF editor. He held the position for 23 years — only the second editor in the history of the publication. He was with BEEF a total of 30 years.

Odds are stacked against see-ing an editor with that sort of in-stitutional longevity ever again at a major national cattle publica-tion. Livestock publishing histo-ry is that brief. The information age is shoving change that fast.

It reminds me of being shocked more than two decades ago when I heard Dave Nichols of Nichols Farms at Bridgeport, Iowa, tell a crowd of cattlemen

that we’d never again see a na-tional cow herd as large as we’d already witnessed in our life-times.

That’s the point.History guarantees no future.

It’s lessons learned from histo-ry, and more importantly, from those who made it, that increase the odds of success for those of us who come behind.

Can you justify your ranch’s water use? Soon you might have too

Oklahoma cattle producer earned respect for shooting straight

BY BURT RUTHERFORD, BEEF MAGAZINE

His was a life well lived. And, to the loss of everyone in the beef business, it was a life lived too short.

Richard Gebhart, a fourth generation cattlemen from Cla-remore, Okla., and an Oklahoma

and national beef industry leader, died May 30 after a short illness. He was 58.

With his family, Richard oper-ated Beacon Hill Ranch, a Her-eford operation established in northeastern Oklahoma in 1909. He was an active volunteer lead-er in the cattle industry for many years at all levels. Nationally he was named treasurer of the Na-tional Cattlemen’s Beef Asso-ciation in 2014, and served as a member of the Beef Promotion

Operating Committee, chairman of the Federation of State Beef Councils and vice chair of the Joint Issues Management Sub-committee. He also served as an advisor on several sustainability efforts involving the beef supply chain, and participated in writing a comprehensive Life Cycle As-sessment of the U.S. beef supply chain.

“The contributions Richard made to our industry at the na-tional level were extraordinary,”

according to Philip Ellis, NCBA president. “He was a giant of a man when it came to his generos-ity of time, expertise, leadership and knowledge. He will be deeply missed.”

In Oklahoma, he was a lifetime member of the Oklahoma Cat-tlemen’s Association and serving as its president at the time of his death. He was also vice-chair and former treasurer of the Oklaho-

Cattle business mourns the loss of Richard Gebhart

continued on page fifteen

Page 14 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

The crux of the U.S. tax problem is that the sys-tem is built upon “net income” — income after

deductions, exclusions, limita-

tions, credits, rate differentials and so forth — which does not achieve fairness, simplicity or transparency. The tax system to-day brings in approximately $3

trillion in tax revenue annually. The share of revenues from each component of the tax system varies from year to year, but on average:

• The biggest share of reve-nue, $1.4 trillion (about 45 per-cent), comes from individual in-come taxes.

• Another $1 trillion (about 35 percent), comes from payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.

• In a distant third place is the corporate income tax, which brings in $300 billion, or about 10 percent.

• The remaining 10 percent of tax revenue, another $300 billion, comes from a variety of sources: estate and gift taxes, ex-cise taxes on fuel, alcohol, tobac-co, firearms, air transportation and so on.

The complex current Internal Revenue Code along with Trea-sury Regulations, IRS Revenue Rulings, official opinions and ju-dicial decisions comes at a huge cost — billions and billions of hours and dollars in compliance costs for individuals and busi-

nesses.The solution is to replace the

existing system with two very simple, broad-based taxes — one for individuals and another for business.

• For individuals, a 15 percent tax on gross wages — in addition to the already existing payroll tax — deducted from paychecks in the same fashion as the current payroll tax system, but with no wage cap.

• No tax on interest, divi-dends, capital gains or estates.

• For businesses, a simple 2 percent tax on all gross domestic business receipts.

No individual tax returns need be filed. No complicated corporate tax return to file. No need for the IRS, other than per-haps a skeleton crew. No more lobbyists crowding the halls of Congress.

Source: Jeff Lerner, “Real, Simple (and Trans-parent) Tax Reform,” National Center for Policy Analysis, June 2, 2015.

See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25720&utm_s o u r c e = n e w s l e t t e r & u t m _ m e d i u m = e -mail&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.BUUe-

Topics this month are the un-reliable and inefficient manage-ment of federal property, the elite setting aside land for the elite, and hogs going wild over Mi-chelle’s menu

Management??

You will often see figures like the federal govern-ment owns 650 million acres or the feds claim

ownership of 29 percent of the land mass in the U.S.

The truth is, the feds have no idea how much property they own, nor do they know the exact location of all of those lands for which they claim ownership. Be-lieve me, I know this from per-sonal experience.

In 1982 President Reagan created the Asset Management Program, whose purpose was to identify surplus, unneeded or hard to manage federal property and to dispose of it. By Presiden-tial Order, the program was to be managed by a Property Review Board, a cabinet-level entity to be run out of the White House. That same year, the Property Review Board ordered an inven-tory of all lands owned by the Department of Interior, the De-partment of Agriculture and the Corps of Engineers.

That’s where Yours Truly comes in, as I staffed this pro-gram for Secretary Watt at In-terior. To complete the survey I had to meet with all the land management agencies and bu-

reaus within Interior. This meant working with the BLM, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines and Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss the invento-ry and methods of determining whether particular properties should be retained or put up for disposal. Two things became im-mediately clear: 1) Overnight I became the most unpopular per-son at Interior, and 2) There was no consistent method of identi-fying and tracking federal prop-erty. Those annual reports were estimates. Guesstimates would be a more accurate description.

Politically, the program be-came unpopular and died.

Things aren’t any better to-day. The Government Account-ability Office (GAO) has found the feds waste $2 billion a year managing 77,000 unneeded fed-eral buildings. Another report says the BLM has identified 3.4 million acres for disposal as a result of their land use planning process, but the lands are still being retained. Other reports have shown the Department of Interior has 26 different finan-cial systems and over 100 dif-ferent property tracking systems and the Department of Defense has over 300 different property management systems. You get the picture.

To remedy this, Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced S. 1225, the Federal Land As-set Inventory Reform (FLAIR) Act. This legislation would es-

tablish, once and for all, a “sin-gle, multi-purpose and uniform” computer data base to track these properties. Murkowski says with such a list of lands each agency can look at its inventory, dispose of unneeded proper-ty and identify and eliminate waste and duplication of activi-ties. The Act specifically autho-rizes the Secretary to designate “any parcels…that can be better managed by ownership through a non-Federal entity, including a state, local, or tribal government, nonprofit organization, or the private sector.” Let’s hope she gets it done.

Valles CalderaRecall that Senator Heinrich

got these 89,000 acres trans-ferred from the Santa Fe Na-tional Forest to the Park Service as part of a political deal in last year’s National Defense Autho-rization Act.

The Park Service is now hold-ing public hearings on manage-ment of the area, and we are beginning to see what the native folks and traditional users are up against – limited access in gener-al and a slow phasing out of most hunting and grazing. Yes, I know the legislation says there “shall” be grazing, but it also says, “at levels and locations determined by the Secretary to be appropri-ate.” Read Park Service policy on its website and you’ll find this: “The Service will phase out the commercial grazing of livestock whenever possible and manage recreational and administrative uses of livestock to prevent those uses from unacceptably impact-ing park resources.” Apply the general policy to the legislative language, and if you are seeking “commercial” livestock grazing, forget it. The whole thing is be-ing set up to allow grazing for

the “interpretation of the ranch-ing history of the Preserve”, and that will probably mean Park Service cows managed by Park Service employees. Similar lim-itations are placed upon hunting and trapping.

Does anyone consider the NPS to be pro-hunting? Pro-grazing? Not exactly.

Members of the group Cal-dera Action have spent years ad-vocating for National Park Ser-vice management because, their spokesmen says, the Park Ser-vice will police “wayward cattle”, they didn’t want it “treated like a piece of multiple-use land where you have…cows and litter”, but that “hiking and cross-country skiing” are less destructive.

A huge preserve has been set aside for the elite to camp, hike and convene with nature. The traditional uses made by the folks native to the area will be eliminated over time. That, I’m afraid, will be the final outcome of this Udall/Heinrich legisla-tion.

Twitter BattleI’ve written before that school

kids, unhappy with their lunches under the new guidelines, have been posting pictures of the un-appetizing lunches to Twitter, with the hashtag #ThanksMi-chelleObama. Many of these have gone viral and apparently Michelle’s minions aren’t happy about it.

Pushing back, Deborah Kane, director of the USDA Farm to School Program, posted a photo of a school lunch from a char-ter school and saying, “Beau-tiful meals like this are what’s for lunch today and every day in schools across the country.” Kane then added, “I am certain there’s no end to the great pho-tos we could share with one an-

other,” she said. “Post a photo of what your school is doing on Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Face-book or Tumblr using #farmto-school or #realschoolfood.”

I’m afraid it didn’t work. Kane is learning what ordinary folks already knew: Never take on a teenager in a Twitter con-test.

Michelle O, broccoli bugs, hogs

Students in Conroe, Texas may never eat vegetables again.

Sorry, Michelle O, but as they started to bite down on their broccoli they discovered some-thing else was there – bugs.

Falyn Evans and her friend were served the bug-infested broccoli for lunch and the two al-most ate the insects before they realized they were there. Food inspectors showed up the next day and found more bugs. That was it for Falyn’s mom. “She will be taking lunches,” Evans told Click2Houston. “She will not be eating it anymore, at all.”

You see, it’s the pigs, not kids, who are going hog wild over Mi-chelle O’s new school lunch nu-trition standards.

In Rio Rancho, New Mexico, so many fruits and vegetables are being dumped by the students that Galloping Grace Youth Ranch is making daily pickups at several elementary schools. Their weekly haul is FIVE TONS! The ranch manager says it’s like a fresh salad bar each day and the hogs “love it.”

Put another way, the hogs are eating the First Lady’s lunch.

Till next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

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

Real, Simple (and Transparent) Tax Reform

June 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 15

ma Beef Council. Gebhart was a member and past chairman of the Tulsa State Fair Junior Livestock Auction Committee and served as a board member of the Rogers County Cattlemen’s Association, as well as treasurer of the Rogers County Fair Board.

“The Oklahoma Cattlemen’s family is saddened by the loss of our friend Richard,” said Charlie Swanson, Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association president-elect. “He was an outstanding leader with an unparalleled vision and com-mitment for moving our cattle industry forward. His laughter and smile were contagious; his words were always seasoned with wisdom and sound thought. His presence was always fully en-gaged to the task at hand.”

“Richard was a transformation-al leader who truly encouraged his peers to think differently,” added Clay Burtrum, chairman of the Oklahoma Beef Council. “His leadership led to strength-ening the beef checkoff and im-proving the evaluation process of beef checkoff programs. Richard had a habit of turning challenges into opportunities. He was the epitome of resilience and the beef industry is better because of this man.”

A lifetime member of the American Hereford Association, Richard was active in Hereford breed activities, serving the Okla-homa Hereford Association as a director, president, and chair of the 2009 Junior National Here-ford Expo committee. He served as breed superintendent for both junior and open Hereford shows at the Tulsa and Oklahoma State Fairs.

In addition to the ranching operation, Richard was profes-sor of operations management and director of assessment in the Collins College of Business at the University of Tulsa(TU). He held a law degree from TU; an MBA from Syracuse University; a master’s degree in agricultural economics/animal science from Mississippi State University; and a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Arkansas, doing post graduate work at the University of Kan-sas. Before joining the faculty at TU, Richard served as a colonel in the U.S. Army as an infantry officer. He was certified in Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and was a Masters of Beef Advocacy

(MBA) graduate, both of which are national beef producer-orient-ed education programs.

Richard is survived by his wife Susan; daughter and son-in-law, Erica and Matt Boyer; daughter Roxanne Gebhart; and grandchil-dren McKenzie and Gus.

“To Richard’s family, OCA sends our deepest condolences and says thank you for sharing this great man with us,” says OCA’s Swanson. ”Please know that we – individually and as a beef industry – are sustainable long-term chief-ly because of Richard and men like him. While he will be sorely missed, we honor his legacy by dedicating ourselves to continu-ing the highest standards that he held for himself and his industry.”

In lieu of flowers, the family is requesting that memorials be sent to the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Foundation (2500 Exchange Ave., Oklahoma City, Okla., 73148), which is establishing a Richard Gebhart legacy program through the Oklahoma Jr. Cattle-men’s Association.

On June 4 – which would have been Richard’s 59th birthday – at 10 a.m., a celebration of Richard’s life took place at the Claremore Expo Center.

We are diminished.

According to a recent Amer-ican Lamb Board (ALB) survey, the taste, origin, and sheep raising prac-

tices (i.e. whether or not it was grassfed) of lamb are among the most important considerations for retail and foodservice lamb purchasers.

The study, entitled “Preferenc-es and Complaints Associated with American Lamb Quality in Retail & Foodservice Markets,” was commissioned by the ALB and conducted and compiled by the Center for Meat Safety and Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State Uni-versity, and by the Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University.

Between May 2014 and March

2015, 120 protein purchaser rep-resentatives in the lamb supply chain were interviewed, includ-ing 60 retail representatives 45 in foodservice and 15 purveyors, or lamb suppliers. Participants were asked to rank and define seven qualities – origin, sheep raising practices, eating satisfaction, weight/size, product appearance, product convenience, and nutri-tion. They also were asked about their willingness to pay for those qualities and to define “must-have” quality attributes.

As expected, quality of the meat was most important to lamb purchasers, although it can be difficult to define. Eating sat-isfaction, or flavor and taste of lamb, ranked highest, and Amer-ican lamb ranked higher than

imported lamb, both for its taste/flavor and size. In addition, pur-chasers indicated that they would be most willing to pay a premium for eating satisfaction.

Origin and sheep raising prac-tices were ranked #2 and #3 in the survey, and were the most likely to be non-negotiable for lamb purchasers. Product ap-pearance/composition ranked #4, followed by weight/size, nu-trition and product convenience.

The study suggests that color, attractiveness and freshness are more important than product composition to those who display lamb in retail settings, and that product safety is of far less con-cern in the lamb industry than in the beef industry. In addition, nearly one third of the respon-

Survey Says…Taste, Origin Most Important to Lamb Buyers

Richard Gebhart continued from page thirteen

dents indicated that a Certified American Lamb program would not be a good idea for a variety of reasons — there was little agree-ment on what traits, if any, would be preferred or required.

In conclusion, developing a strategy around an industry-wide commitment to production standards to ensure that eating satisfaction and lamb flavor are optimized for American lamb is key to increasing demand and creating lamb-loyal consumers. Those consumers are already

willing to pay more for meat that is locally raised. Providing them with a consistently high quali-ty product will do much to help them choose lamb over other lower-priced meat options.

The study was conducted under the Lamb Industry Road-map, which is focused on making American lamb a premier prod-uct every time; promoting lamb as a premier meat; improving productivity to remain compet-itive; and working together as a whole industry.

THE BEST ADVERTISING VALUE IN WESTERN LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.

Reserve your space now in Livestock Market Digest’s

Annual Fall Marketing Edition

Call Ron Archer today: 505/865-6011

email: archerron@aol.comADVERTISING DEADLINE: August 1

Page 16 Livestock Market Digest June 15, 2015

BY CODY HIEMKE

The American Sheep In-dustry suffered a great loss on Friday, May 8. Clark Willis, with his herder

and friend Magno Lozan, were traveling to visit Magno’s fami-ly when they were involved in a fatal single-car accident.

Clark has served this sheep industry with tireless dedica-tion. Among numerous vol-unteering efforts, Clark was also a past president of the Utah Wool Growers and most recently Chairman of the Na-tional Sheep Industry Improve-ment Center and a member of the Roadmap Implementation Team.

Clark was a Niman Ranch Lamb producer – which is how I got to know him first. Before we ever met face to face, Clark mailed a list of rams with Esti-mated Breeding Values (EBVs) to me with a note that could be summed up as, “you buy my lambs, tell me which rams

to buy”. Over the last decade I came to learn that using EBVs was only one of the many things that made Clark stand out as a progressive sheep man. And over the last decade I also came to know Clark as a great friend.

Clark’s grandfather settled the Laketown, Utah area – at the south tip of Bear Lake – with a flock a sheep. Clark took over the ranch from his 96 year old father, Elijah. Tradition is something that Clark has al-ways respected, but it never hampered him from being a progressive sheep producer.

Clark was always looking to better his flock and his ranch. Most of the feed with which he finished his approximately 1300 lambs annually was ranch raised. During my visits to the ranch Clark and I often dis-cussed his goals for the ranch: be they adding a new irrigation pivot, improving his handling systems, mixing a better TMR ration for the lambs, animal

care modifications, and a mul-titude of other ideas he had to increase efficiency and produc-tivity. During every visit to the ranch I saw the improvements Clark was making and his vi-sion for the ranch come togeth-er; after the memorial services I stopped out to the ranch to see the new pivot and handling systems he put up since my last visit.

During his time in the busi-ness Clark observed with in-creasing concern the near-con-stant decline in sheep numbers, an increased variation in lamb quality and a shrinking infra-structure. He cared deeply for the sheep industry, and was al-ways willing to put in the effort to affect positive change.

Clark believed in three crit-ical components to make his operation successful. These are in line with the overarching goals of the Roadmap:

Utilize genetics, feeding, good animal care, land im-provement and timely harvest

to produce the best quality lamb possible.

Connect with the consumer.Be proud of what you do.During Roadmap calls

Clark would often state that “we know how to make a high quality lamb, let’s make sure we do it”!

Clark put these ideas into practice. It’s very sad that he isn’t here to continue his ongo-ing efforts for a better industry and continually improving his own enterprise. I have always respected his active willingness to try something new in his op-eration, his advocacy for the entire industry, and his strong desire to make the best tasting lamb. These are legacies that Clark Willis leaves to this in-dustry.

Clark started his participa-tion with “The Roadmap” be-fore it existed. He was among those who advocated for a fresh look at the industry from an external consultant. This led rapidly the hiring of the Hale

Group, which in turn lead to creating the Industry Advisory Group. Clark was part of the Industry Advisory Group that developed the vision for the Roadmap plan, and was then placed on the Implementation Committee once the plan was put in place.

Clark leaves us too soon with portions of his vision for the future unfinished. I will continue his efforts toward goals we both shared: work to-ward a thriving industry across all segments, continuously im-prove my own flock and opera-tion, and continuously improve the Niman Ranch Lamb pro-gram.

I hope many others are will-ing to do as Clark did: think progressively with an eye to-ward continual improvement.

I was fortunate to have called Clark a friend. He left an indelible mark on the sheep industry and anyone who knew him well. I will miss him dearly.

A Tribute to Clark Willis – A Sheep Industry Leader

BY SHERRY BUNTING,

WWW.PROGRESSIVECATTLE.COM

So-called “tribal communi-cation” governs the way consumers gain informa-tion today, according to

Charlie Arnot from the Center for Food Integrity.

At a recent producer confer-ence in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, he talked about what it will take to build and maintain consumer trust in order to renew the social license that ensures agriculture’s freedom to operate.

“Instead of mass communica-tion, we have masses of commu-

nicators,” said Arnot about the wave of social media contribut-ing to consumers’ perspectives as they gravitate more toward the information they learn from friends, family and people who share their values than they do from experts and scientists.

“What does that mean for you, the producer?” he asked. “It means embrace who you are even more than what you know. Make the technology infor-mation we give our consumers more relevant to them.”

Beef production is rooted in both science and husbandry, but consumers rarely accept the sci-

entific answer until it becomes relevant to them through a con-nection or shared value.

Arnot encouraged producers to embrace consumer skepti-cism and not to take it person-ally.

“It’s our social condition and part of our culture now to be skeptical of institutions. Agricul-ture is increasingly viewed as an institution,” he said. “It’s tough, but we need to resist the visceral response to the attacks on what we do and respond more strate-gically as individual producers and as an industry.”

Arnot noted that producers

can start by listening and letting consumers know they hear their concern.

“The public wants informa-tion,” he said. “They are asking questions, and we need to start with more transparency. Trans-parency is truly no longer op-tional. That’s when you will have their ‘permission’ to give the in-formation you want to share.”

He traced the decline of con-sumer trust in “institutions” and explained that consumers give producers the “social license” to operate.

The differences between then and now are stark. Today’s con-sumer grants authority for in-formation by relationship, and there is no single social con-sensus on food issues. Instead, there are many voices commu-nicating in informal, diverse and direct ways.

“We must navigate these ‘masses of communicators’ to renew the social license once enjoyed by agriculture and the food system so we can create an environment where agriculture and food production can grow, prosper and remain competitive in a global market,” he said.

The goal of communication should be to find the connection point and use it. Arnot gave this advice to engage effectively in telling beef’s story:

1. Be yourself. Authentic transparency is essential. It re-duces fear of the unknown.

2. Don’t take consumer ques-tions personally, and strive to avoid getting defensive.

3. Instead of challenging their beliefs, listen for their values without judging and ask ques-tions to invite conversation to understand or clarify their val-ues. This is tough because we

often listen with the intent of formulating our reply because we are anxious to give the facts. Instead, listen to understand.

4. Think before engaging, and look for common ground.

5. Don’t go straight for the science. Instead, share your per-spective through values. Arnot says the gap is bridged and trust is built when producers show they care.

6. Offer resources, and ad-mit when you don’t know the answer. Building trust is more about sharing values and less about articulating a list of facts.

7. Know when to disengage. Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree. They’ll keep thinking on it!

8. Remember that values matter more than the science and the economics. Instead of talking about the research and focusing on how it is financial-ly in your best interest to care for the land and cattle, shift the approach to universal values of compassion, responsibility, re-spect, fairness and honesty.

Consumers have an interest in knowing how their food is produced. They trust farmers and ranchers, but they are skep-tical of the institutions. Each opportunity that touches a skep-tical consumer has the capability of spreading to others as farmers and ranchers, themselves, be-come solid resources within the disjointed masses of communi-cation that are influencing how consumers learn.

Why is this important? Build-ing trust renews the social li-cense that gives farmers and ranchers the freedom to operate, as well as the consumer trust for the product we are proud to pro-duce.

Building consumer trust: Transparency is not optional