Riding Herd

by LEE PITTS

MAY 15, 2015 • www.aaalivestock.com Volume 57 • No. 5

Where Did It All Go?by Lee Pitts

Sometimes you have to really dig to find a story. And then sometimes it finds you.

In the past few weeks I’ve received several phone calls from people associated with the beef checkoff. This alone is a minor miracle because I haven’t exact-ly been on speaking terms with these folks. Suffice it to say, I’m not on the Christmas card list of the NCBA or the Beef Board.

At first I was skeptical. The callers, fearing retribution, did not want their names used but insisted their information was accurate. Were they setting me up by feeding me incorrect in-formation? So I checked out the sources and the information they gave me as much as I could, after all, getting any information out of the NCBA usually involves the Freedom of Information Act. I found that the callers all had something NCBA execs don’t have...a conscience.

The Right To KnowBelieve me, I really did not

want to wade into the check-off mess again as it has only brought me grief and an enemy’s list a mile long. I’ve learned the hard way that you can’t criticize anything about the beef check-off. That would be heresy! Un-American! It’s like criticizing mom and apple pie, only when it comes to the checkoff, mom is

Lawyers, bankers, and hoot owls

sleep with one eye open.

NE

WS

PA

PE

R P

RIO

RIT

Y H

AN

DLI

NG

a street-walking harlot willing to do anything for money, and the apple pie is made with horse ap-ples.

Still, I thought you had a right to know how your money is be-ing spent.

Just to make sure I have your attention let’s start with a big bombshell. Prior to the phone calls, the last info I was privy to about the salary of NCBA’s CEO, Forrest Roberts, was from his 2013 federal tax forms when

he was paid $428,319. That’s ex-travagant enough but according to a Cattleman’s Beef Board big wig who called me, Mr. Rob-erts is now allegedly making $550,000 per year! But that’s not the biggest insult. I wouldn’t have a problem if Mr. Roberts was being paid with NCBA dues money, that’s their money and let them spend it how they want. But according to my source, 72 percent of Robert’s salary is paid by the beef checkoff because

that’s how much time the NCBA says he spends on checkoff mat-ters. 72 percent! The NCBA sure couldn’t pay that kind of a salary if they had to live off dues, now could they? One of the reasons they found ways to appropriate the checkoff money to begin with 30 years ago was they were slowly going broke.

Keep in mind that the NCBA is a lobbying organization and checkoff money is not supposed to be spent on lobbying because the checkoff is a government program. It is supposedly illegal for Congresspersons to levy a tax which will then be funneled back to those same Congresspersons in the form of campaign contri-butions. Anywhere but Wash-ington, D.C., this is known as a bribe.

Mr. Roberts is not the only one with his hand deeply into the checkoff cookie jar. Accord-ing to one source, there are at

BY RON ARNOLD

Google, Inc., with its $385 billion share val-ue, has bumped Exxon to become Amer-ica’s No. 2 ranking company in market capitalization.

That may not be a good thing. A February ar-ticle in New Scientist announced, Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links, and writer Hal Hodson said, “The internet is stuffed with garbage. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.”

The idea of changing page rank from popu-larity to “truthfulness” based on a Google-made “knowledge vault” did not go down well.

Fox News reported, “Google’s plan to rank websites raising censorship concerns.” Douglass Kennedy opened with, “They say you’re entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. It’s a concept not everyone is comfortable with.”

They’re saying we’re only entitled to Goo-gle’s facts, which completely shortcircuits how slippery facts are and naively equates facts with truth. Ask any lawyer about truth.

Today’s climate wars consist of arguments between highly qualified scientists about facts

that some sincerely believe are true and some sincerely believe are false, each for solid reasons. It should be an honest debate among equals, but it’s degenerated into a power play by alarmists to kill debate for policy’s sake, pushed by politi-cians and their social base.

Google’s truth plan is not so simple. Facts are statements about existence. Statements about existence can be true or false. Existence itself – your kitchen sink or the climate or whatever – can’t be true or false, it just exists. Say anything you want about existence and it won’t change a thing – it still just exists. Existence doesn’t give a damn what you think about it. Facts are statements about existence, and statements are always arguable.

But get everyone to believe Google Facts, and you can enforce political policy worth trillions to climate profiteers.

You can see where this is going.Imagine: Big Google the Universal Truthsay-

er. That’s as scary as “Mr. Dark” in Ray Brad-bury’s 1962 novel Something Wicked This Way Comes, only worse, because it’s the perfect ma-chine to kill all dissent and wither the Internet

The Trouble with Google as Truthsayer

continued on page two

Now What Do I Do?

I hope I never have to retire because, quite frankly, I’m not very good at it. My friends

can’t understand why I don’t want to retire while I can’t understand why they worked their entire lives doing some-thing they can’t wait to quit.

My wife and I don’t own a motor home, nor a second house, and I don’t fish, play bridge, golf or belong to any fraternal organizations. And I don’t have any relatives I’m dying to visit. I love my life the way and what I do best is work. Having said all that, I thought I’d retire for a one day just to see what all the excitement is about. Here is my diary from that day.

4:30 – Tried to sleep late but I was so excited about my first day of retirement I couldn’t wait to get started.

5:00 – Read the paper to see if any of my retired friends had died, and decid-ed to catch up on some long overdue personal hygiene. Trimmed my toenails and pruned the brushy outgrowth in my nose and ears. So far I was really liking this thing called retirement.

7:00 – Sharpened my chainsaw, put new line in the weed whacker, saddle soaped my saddle, polished my boots, sorted some screws, filled the birdbath and dust-ed the inside of my mailbox.

9:00-11:00 – Alphabet-ized all my books by the au-thor’s last name, dusted my old FFA trophies, inked the rubber stamp pad, changed a weak light bulb, and re-moved all the Rolodex cards of people who had died in the last 20 years. Getting a little bored, I wandered into the kitchen where my wife was preparing lunch. “Let me help,” I said, dropping a jar of blackberry jelly on the floor and breaking it. My wife sug-gested it would be better if I wouldn’t help. “Why don’t you sort the everything-draw-er,” she suggested.

Noon – After I separat-ed the rubber bands from the old keys, my wife and I had lunch together. “Isn’t re-tirement nice?” I said. “Now what do we do?”

www.LeePittsbooks.com

continued on page seven

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

continued on page four

Page 2 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

Farmers and ranchers don’t find their jobs in the back of a newspaper. It’s something you’re born into. We’ve been farmer and rancher owned since 1916, providing loans, insurance and other financial services to help generations of New Mexicans prosper. We know where you’re going. And how to get you there.

Call 1-800-451-5997 or visit www.FarmCreditNM.com

David Sterrett, Member Since 1995

Where Did It All Go? continued from page one

least ten people working for the checkoff who are making more than $290,000 per year! NCBA paid out $13 million in yearly sal-aries and 82 percent of NCBA’s budget comes from your check-off dollars.

Speaking With One VoiceEveryone who called me said

that the beef checkoff is “staff driven” to the point that when an NCBA President or other emis-sary gives a speech, you are not hearing independent thoughts but a speech written by staff. And the speakers are not to de-viate from the prepared remarks. One CBB caller told me he once strayed from the staff written speech and was called on the carpet for it. I suppose this is what they mean when they say, “Speaking with one voice.”

I was often frustrated by NCBA’s refusal to even discuss the use of beta agonists and hor-mones, until I read Forrest Rob-ert’s resume. For the 16 years prior to hitting the jackpot and being named NCBA’s CEO, “Roberts held several marketing and sales positions in two ani-mal health companies,” says his resume on NCBA’s web site. “He started with Upjohn Animal Health in 1992 and remained with the company through two mergers with Pharmacia Animal Health and later Pfizer Animal Health. In 2004 he left Pfizer to join Elanco Animal Health, where he served as the marketing manager for Elanco’s Beef Busi-ness Unit.”

Gee, do you think he might be a bit prejudiced when it comes to antibiotics, hormones, and natu-ral versus chemically produced beef?

The reason I got those tell-all phone calls was because the NCBA/CBB is in the process of raising the checkoff to two dol-lars. Three dollars in some cases. Several states had votes asking their members if they wanted to raise the checkoff to two dollars per head. In some states, like Texas, it passed, while in others, like California, it did not. The only way the state beef councils had any hope of getting a “yes” vote was to promise that 100 per-cent of the new dollar would be kept in-state and out of NCBA’s greedy hands. I was informed this is nonsense. It might not come in through the front door, but all the NCBA/CBB has to do is raise the cost of its board seats (that’s right, you have to buy them) and the new checkoff dol-lars will flow to NCBA’s coffers.

A Big Waste Of TimeFor over three years a dozen

groups have been working to im-prove the checkoff through the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group. Recently that group came to a Memorandum of Understanding to ask Con-gress for another dollar per head. But like making sausage or leg-islation, it wasn’t a pretty thing to watch. The National Farmers Union (NFU) dropped out call-

ing it a “big waste of time.” NFU President Roger Johnson said, “The meetings were a bridge to nowhere, because they were largely controlled by the organi-zation that has a vested interest in making sure the current struc-ture never changes.” That would be the NCBA.

The checkoff working group agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding asking for anoth-er buck and promises there will be a referendum. And you can ask for a refund, but only on the second dollar. I can only imagine how difficult they will make it to get your money back. As for the referendum on the second dol-lar, I’ll believe it when I see it.

We’ve already seen how that process works when the LMA gathered what they thought were the necessary signatures for a referendum only to have a chunk of those signatures declared in-valid. With the checkoff, things have a way of changing from the agreed upon deal. It reminds me of how the government broke treaties with American Indians, only this time it’s the cowboys getting deceived instead of the Indians. For example, when they wanted you to approve the initial checkoff they said it was a pro-ducer controlled program but when they went to the Supreme Court the only way the NCBA could save it was by saying it was a government program. And who would have ever thought an or-ganization that did not even exist when the original checkoff finally passed (after three tries) that in the future a new group calling it-self the NCBA would be getting 97 percent of the contracts!

A Bridge To NowhereMy Beef Board source said

that early in the process there was a deal on the table in which the groups would sign off on the Memorandum of Understand-ing asking for the extra dollar per head checkoff if the NCBA would give up its stranglehold on the process whereby the NCBA controls the Federation of State Beef Councils and the awarding of contracts.

The NCBA was allegedly not willing to sign off on such a deal. The NCBA keeps telling every-one how much the beef industry needs the extra dollar yet they were not willing to give up any of their power in exchange for the extra buck. In other words, the NCBA put their own well-being ahead of beef promotion and the beef producers who are largely paying NCBA’s way.

NFU’s Johnson says the “NCBA regards the checkoff as its own personal financial trough and will do everything possible to cement that status into eterni-ty.” That’s why the NFU left the working group and why the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association refused to sign the MOU.

PIGSAfter the MOU was signed

continued on page three

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 3

The Federation of State Beef Councils recommended to Con-gress that there be an increase in the checkoff, but precise-ly because they are funded by your checkoff dollars they are supposed to be prohibited from using checkoff funds to lobby for rate increases. We wonder, where is the line between “rec-ommending” and lobbying? It’s as dubious as the supposed “firewall” between the lobbying NCBA and the checkoff-spend-ing NCBA. Laws mean nothing to these arrogant people. One of my sources went into great detail in explaining how the NCBA controls the nominat-ing committee, the Federation of State Beef Councils and how they got half the seats on the checkoff’s contracting commit-tee, which decides who receives contracts for checkoff dollars.

So now we have the MOU going to a Republican Congress for their action to increase the checkoff and you can count on it because in the 2014 mid-term elections the NCBA gave nearly $800,000 to mostly Republican candidates who now control the House and Senate. Lest you think I’m bashing Repub-licans, I am lifelong registered Republican and I still think this deal stinks to high heaven. The NCBA is no better than all the green groups and progressive in-terest groups (PIGS) who have nearly destroyed this country, and the idea that Beef Checkoff funds are being unlawfully used to support the rate increase

should make any honest person hold their nose, regardless of party affiliation

An Illegal Cattle TaxThe USDA is supposed to be

in charge, not the NCBA, but the feds are in on the take, be-ing paid to oversee the checkoff. Ag Secretary Vilsack promised he’d do something but at the first hint of resistance he folded like a broken ironing board. He didn’t have the courage to stand up to the NCBA even though he has said there are “offensive and glaring conflicts of interest within the Beef Checkoff Pro-gram.”

According to R-CALF’s Bill Bullard, “there were two Of-fice of Inspector General re-ports that found the Secretary was not properly overseeing the Beef Checkoff Program and, as a result, it’s not possible to de-termine if the millions of dollars collected by the checkoff each year are being spent properly.” Yet ranchers are going to be asked to pay another dollar per head even though there has nev-er been a complete audit of the old checkoff.

In 2010 an independent re-view found that over $216,000 in producer beef bucks had been misappropriated and compli-ance reviewers said the NCBA had breached the so called “firewall”. And those auditors only looked at 983 transactions between the beef checkoff and the NCBA, out of 19,000 total transactions. That’s less than 5

percent.The Organization for Com-

petitive Markets tried to get a look at 40,000 pages of docu-ments that would have painted a clearer picture of how check-off funds have been spent, but like reporters who ask for facts, they are merely told, “Producer approval of the beef checkoff program is at an all time high.”

Dudley Butler was once a part of USDA’s inner circle and got to smell the stench first hand. “The administration is well aware that the NCBA has misappropriated producer mon-ey and the NCBA has helped defeat policy reforms that would have helped small producers,” said Butler. He calls the check-off an “illegal cattle tax” and says Vilsack has the power to reform the program, but won’t. He wrote to Vilsack, “Your lack of leadership has ensured that independent cattle producers will continue to be systematical-ly pushed toward the slaughter-house of vertical integration.”

Bought And Paid ForThe NCBA has lobbied

against a number of rancher supported programs, like Coun-try of Origin Labeling, and they act like they don’t care that we have only 730,000 ranchers left, down from a million and a half. They don’t seem to care where America’s beef comes from. A CBB board member told me for every 600 pounds of beef imported into this coun-try the CBB gets a dollar. Most of which ends up in NCBA’s hands. NCBA employees would keep their outrageous salaries even if there wasn’t one Ameri-can cattleman left on earth. And they wouldn’t have to listen to dues-paying members, or try to keep secrets from curious jour-nalists. You can bet they’d still be saying “a recent study calcu-lated that every dollar collected by the checkoff delivers $11.20 in return.” Blah, blah blah. It’s amazing what you can get a pro-fessor to say when you paid for the results.

Says NFU’s Johnson, “Every other commodity checkoff pro-gram has separated the policy organization from the non-politi-cal, promotional entity. The beef checkoff is the only program that has failed to embrace this new model.”

Why would they when they’re making such big bucks?

What have all these beef checkoff dollars got us, besides well-paid employees? The answer comes from beef’s biggest com-petitor. The National Chicken Council says that during the 29 years of the beef checkoff’s ex-istence about $2.2 billion has been collected and spent. During those same 29 years, per capita beef consumption fell by a third, from 79.2 pounds per person in 1985 to 54.1 pounds per person in 2014. At the same time poultry consumption grew by 35 pounds per person, a 55 percent increase in per capita consumption.

And, oh, by the way, the chicken producers don’t have a checkoff.

Where Did It All Go? continued from page two

Customer AppreciationBBQ and

Stocker Feeder SpecialMay 21, 2015

Sale Day every Thursday at 11:00am.View sale live at www.dvauction.com

1020 N. Haskell Ave., Willcox, AZOffice: 520-384-2206 Fax: 520-384-3955Sonny: 520-507-2134 or 520-384-2531

Page 4 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

into a wasteland of groupthink, susceptible to disinformation campaigns from any power cen-ter from the CIA to the rich bosses of Google, Inc.

What about those rich boss-es? Google’s two co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, created a corporate founda-tion in 2005, Google Foun-dation, with 2013 assets of $72,412,693, grants of $7.9 million, and $29.4 million add-ed from corporate profits.

Three of Google’s top-ten re-cipients are key climate alarm-ists: World Wildlife Fund ($5 million); Energy Foundation ($2.6 million); and the an-ti-fracking Natural Resources Defense Council ($2.5 million).

NRDC is particularly in-fluential because it received $3.01 million in Environmental Protection Agency grants since

2009 and has 50 employees on 40 federal advisory committees: NRDC has 33 employees on 21 EPA committees, and more in six other agencies.

The big gun in Google philanthropy is Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose Schmidt Family Foundation ($312 million, 2013 assets) is a major armory for anti-skep-tic groups. Schmidt has given $67,147,849 in 295 grants to 180 recipients since it was en-dowed in 2007.

Top Schmidt money went to Climate Central ($8.15 mil-lion), a group of activist cli-mate scientists bolstered by $1,387,372 in EPA grants since 2009.

Schmidt gave $3.25 million to the Energy Foundation, which was almost superflu-ous, since EF is practically the

Mother Ship of green grants, with $1,157,046,016 given in 28,705 grants to 11,866 recip-ients since 1999.

Among the shadier grants in the Schmidt portfolio are anti-fracking, anti-fossil-fuel grants totaling $1.19 million to Sustainable Markets Foun-dation, a shell corporation that gives no recorded grants, but funnels money to climate and anti-fracking organizations such as Bill McKibben’s 350.org so the donors are not traceable.

Schmidt supported the far-left Tides Foundation empire with $975,000 for an anti-con-sumer film, “The Story of Stuff;” the Sierra Club ($500,000 for anti-natural gas activism); the Center for Investigative Report-ing ($985,000 for an anti-coal film), and so forth. This list goes on for pages.

With all the massive resourc-es of wealth and power alarm-ists have, we must ask why they give so much to destroy the cli-mate debate and the debaters? What are they afraid of?

It may be what Eric Schmidt said at January’s World Eco-nomic Forum in Davos, Swit-zerland, when he was asked for his prediction on the future of the web. “I will answer very sim-ply that the Internet will disap-pear.”

How? The mature tech-nology will be wearable, give us interactive homes and cars and simply fade into the back-ground to become something that we all have, that most of us don’t really know very much about (or care) only that it can do whatever we want.

That’s the view from the pin-nacle of wealth and power. On

the ground, the joke is on Goo-gle.

Michael Humphrey, Forbes contributor and instructor at Colorado State University sees younger people abandoning the public forum in favor of one-to-one connectivity. He says they don’t trust the Internet.

Why? Millennials say the In-ternet is cheapening language, it is stunting curiosity (because answers come so easily), we are never bored so we lose cre-ativity, it steals innocence too quickly, it makes us impulsive with our buying and talking, it is creating narcissists, it creates filter bubbles which limits dis-covery, it hurts local business, it is filled with false evidence, it desensitizes us to tragedy, it makes us lonely.

They want the real world.Google that.

BY SHARON NIEDERMAN

Born in 1960 and raised on a ranch, the Wil-liamson Cattle Co., 40 miles south of Por-tales, Stewart Williamson learned about cowboy gear first hand, from four decades in

the saddle. When the time came for him to hang up his spurs, he decided to follow a long-simmer-ing interest and learn how to make them himself, by studying with the best.

“From the time I was a kid, I started braiding, then I did some leather work. But I had bits and spurs in the back of my mind. When I developed rheumatoid problems and got more stove up ev-ery year, I needed a career change. I was fascinat-ed with engraving.

“I sold my feed yard and, with the help and support of my wife, Toni, enrolled in the intro-ductory engraving class of master engraver Johny Weyerts in Alpine, Texas. He was like an uncle to me, very influential. My dad, Jim Williamson, was very progressive in the cattle business. He’d search for someone better than him, then he trav-eled the U.S. to go meet and learn and bring back what he could to improve his operation. He lived until he was 97 and he never stopped learning.

“I just modeled my approach to bits and spurs

continued on page five

Stewart Williamson: Maker of Fine Cowboy Gear

The Magic of the Art

Google continued from page one

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 5

the way he approached the cattle business.”

Williamson’s family ranching her-itage goes back to the 1880s; and, in 1915, his grandfather, Asa William-son, homesteaded in the Portales area, after first trying Arizona, Mex-ico, and Texas.

Following his years cowboying on the family ranch, starting colts and shoeing horses, Stewart operated a pre-conditioning yard.

Another of his important influ-ences is William Capron from Mid-land, Texas.

Through a combination of ap-prenticeship and sheer diligence, Williamson turned himself from a cowboy into an engraver. The pre-cision and flow of his designs defies the standard dividing line between “art” and “craft.” Whatever he makes out of silver is both beautiful and functional.

“The work itself is not that much fun,” he says. “I’m out for perfection, so I’m holding my breath the whole time. It’s very challenging.”

But Williamson gets his satisfac-tion from watching the reaction on the faces of his customers when they see the finished product. “That’s the reward,” he says.

Another pleasure, and a relief from all the solitary concentration at his workbench, is the travel that brings him out to meet his fellow craftsmen all over the West. “It’s like a big family,” he says. “I spent the first half of my life isolated, so be-ing able to interact with people has brought me a lot of happiness,” he says.

His distinctive style has won him prestigious awards, including: 2010 Engraver of the Year awarded by the Academy of Western Artists; 2013 Adolph Bayers Memorial Spur Mak-

er of the Year awarded by the National Bit, Spur, and Sad-dle Collectors A s s o c i a t i o n and 2014 Best of Show Award at the NBSS-CA Mark of the Maker Contest in Denver, CO.

Williamson regularly dis-plays his work at the Trap-pings of Tex-as in Alpine, the National Ranching Her-itage Center in Lubbock, the National Cowboy Poet-ry Gathering in Elko, the Western Heri-tage in Abilene, and the WRCA World Finals in Amarillo, which he considers his “really big show.”

His work has been recognized by such publications as Cowboys & Indians, Cow-boy Way, Enchantment, Clovis Livestock Market News and the Western Horseman magazine.

In his shop on South Roosevelt Road in Portales he makes mostly bits and spurs, along with buckles and conchos, and a little bit of jewelry. His works al-most exclusively on commission, with a waiting list several years long. And those commissions can range between creating diamond-encrusted spurs, and Texas-style bits and spurs for the working cowboy. Whether designing them for a collector or for a cowboy to use every day, each item to come from his workshop has the fine engraving, flowing designs, and refined

lines that distinguish his style.“Function and comfort for the horse

are my goals,” he says. He can be reached at sw@custombitsandspurs.com.

Final Beauty

Toni & Stewart Williamson. “I couldn’t have done what I’ve done in the spur world without her support,” says Stew-art.

Stewart Williamson continued from page four

Page 6 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

BY LACEY JARRELL,

HERALD AND NEWS

Two court cases against the federal government — both more than a decade in the making — reached a major

milestone.The suits allege that the Unit-

ed States must compensate ir-rigators for shutting off water to the Klamath Project in 2001 and instead, sending it down-stream. The cases were filed after the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation made the call to divert water only to the Klamath River. The deci-sion was based on two conf lict-ing biological opinions meant to protect species on both sides of the California-Oregon border.

The water shutoffs brought Basin agriculture to a standstill and caused more than 12,000 farmers and ag supporters to ral-ly in downtown Klamath Falls for the historic Bucket Brigade.

Since then, the cases have been quietly working their way through the judicial system. Re-cently, the court filed summary reports for both, signaling the end of the discovery process and the potential for reaching the fin-ish line.

“They will provide a roadmap to trial,” said Bill Ganong, gener-al counsel for the Klamath Irriga-

tion District (KID).Counsel for the U.S. could

not be reached for comment.The suits allege that the 2001

water shutoffs violated the Fifth Amendment takings law, which requires government entities to compensate property owners when their property is taken for public use.

The lawsuits maintain the federal government illegally shut off water for irrigators, making it a “take” that requires financial compensation.

According to Ganong, expert witnesses have valued the water between $35 and $104 per acre-foot. But, he added, the cases isn’t intended to be a money-maker.

“It’s not going to be a great deal of money — nothing com-pared to what the loss was,” Ganong said. “The idea is to try to establish a principle for the future and help maintain the vi-ability of irrigated agriculture in the Project.”

Irrigators’ rightsKID is the lead defendant in

the first suit, which was filed in April 2001. Twenty-four plain-tiffs, including KID, are named in the case: 10 individual land-owners and 14 water districts.

According to Ganong, much

of this suit hinges on whether ir-rigation districts have a right to the water that was considered a taking. He explained that Fifth Amendment rights apply only to those who use a resource.

“What is in question is wheth-er the districts can file on behalf of the landowners,” he said.

John Anderson Farms is the lead plaintiff in the second tak-ings case against the U.S. Twenty other landowners are named in the suit.

Early in the court process, the plaintiffs requested to submit their cases together as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all 1,400 Klamath irrigators. The request was denied. Documents state that instead, the court plans to hear individual cases with the “hopes of bringing at least some of the issues in this case to com-pletion” before deciding whether a class-action filing is appropri-ate.

According to the summary re-port, the U.S. is prepared to file motion to dismiss claims for a class-action suit by April 8.

If a class-action filing is ap-proved, anyone entitled to — but who did not receive — water from Upper Klamath Lake or the Klamath River in 2001 will be able to file a claim, according to Ganong. But even if a class-

action is approved, finding Basin residents impacted by the 2001 controversy will be challenging because many have moved on or passed away.

“We are losing our knowl-edge,” he said.

Consolidation possibleKID and Anderson Farms

have requested their cases be tried before 2016. The U.S. has proposed allocating at least one more year for briefing and sub-mitting motions.

Ganong said the next step is for Francis Allegra, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge overseeing the cases, to schedule a status conference, which typ-

ically occurs 30 days after sum-mary reports are filed. After the conference, Allegra can schedule pre-trial proceedings, if he de-cides the cases are ready to move forward.

Plaintiffs have requested for the trials to take place in Wash-ington, D.C., and for the KID and Anderson Farms suits to be consolidated.

According to the summary reports, the U.S. position is that most of the claims can be deter-mined by a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, meaning there are no major facts left to dispute and the judge can rule without going through a tri-al.

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!

Milestones reached in 2001 water lawsuits.Cases could be decided before 2016

The 68th Annual Arizo-na National Livestock Show is set to be held December 27, 2015

through January 1, 2016 at the Arizona State Fair-grounds in Phoenix, AZ. The Show Committee is gear-ing up with a lot of positive changes and new develop-ments. Additional updates will continue to be posted on the ANLS website and in the Premium Books.

1. NEW: Official Live-stock Show dates for the 68th Annual ANLS are December 27, 2015 through and includ-ing January 1, 2016

2. NEW: Junior Market Auction Date: Friday, Janu-ary 1, 2016.

3. NEW: A New Year’s Eve celebration December 31, 2015 at the ANLS will take place. Open to all exhib-itors and their families.

4. NEW: Pork Quality Assurance (PQA or JPQA) training is required for all Swine Exhibitors exhibiting in 2015. Details of require-ments for online training and approved trainings will be list-ed in the Premium Book. Ex-hibitors in any other species are NOT required to have these trainings at this time.

5. NEW: A Hereford/Tam-worth Division will be offered at the National Affiliate Pedi-gree Barrow Show and at the National Affiliate Pedigree Breeding Gilt Show.

6. CHANGE: Age and Membership Rule: Any Ju-nior Exhibitor in Market or Breeding shows must be a member in good standing of a national livestock orga-nization ( 4-H, FFA, Breed Association, Youth Live-stock Organization, ANLS, NCBA NJSA, Team Pure-

bred, CJLA, etc.) And any Junior Exhibitor in Market or Breeding Divisions must be at least eight (8) years of age and less than twenty two (22) years of age as of January 1, 2015.

7. NEW: The Arizona Na-tional Western Gala is sched-uled for Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7PM. The dinner and awards portion of the Gala is a ticketed event.

8. CHANGE: Require-ments for Junior Show live-stock registration papers: Registered Breeding Live-stock (all species) and Ped-igree Market Barrows must be registered in the junior ex-hibitor’s name, the exhibitor’s family name or the exhibitor’s farm name and must be done so by the ownership deadline.

9. NEW: The Arizona Ranch Replacement Heifer Show will have space available for up to 100 head. As a new feature, during the Ranch Re-placement Heifer Sale, up to three horses from the Arizo-na Ranch Horse Competition will be offered within the auc-tion on December 29, 2015.

10. NEW: The Arizona National will open up the FFA Public Speaking contest to any out of state non-green-hand FFA member in good standing.

11. NEW: Feeder Steers: The entry of single Feeder Steers will be allowed. Pen entries will continue. New entry fees and process for en-tire show is in development.

12. CHANGE: Feed-er Steers and Sun Classic Heifers will be housed in the Open Cattle Barn.

The Arizona National Livestock Show, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to “Growing the Future.” For more informa-tion call the Arizona National office at 602/258-8568.

New Developments & Changes at the 68th Annual Arizona National Livestock Show

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 7

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

“We could have a conversa-tion,” she suggested.

So we sat at the table in stone cold silence for ten minutes until she said, “Why don’t you go to the store and get some bread and milk?”

1:00 – Got home from the store with bags of candy, gum, soda pop and chips but no bread or milk. The wife is starting to get a little testy I think.”

2:00 – All I was trying to do was help her with the house-work but she did not appreci-ate it when I spilled the vacuum bag on our white carpet. I think I’m starting to get on my wife’s nerves. So I polished our tar-nished silver, sharpened all the pencils in the house and used my powerful air compressor to

“dust” the furniture.3:00 to 5:00 – The wife said I

could watch TV with her but we only have one TV and she was watching Dr. Oz and Ellen. Ten minutes was all I could take so I went to the shop to realign the wheels on the vacuum cleaner. I’m starting to think retirement may not be all it’s cracked up to be.

5:00 to 6:00 – I gave the wife a break and cooked dinner be-fore realizing I don’t know how to cook. So we ate cold cereal without the milk I was supposed to get at the store earlier in the very l-o-n-g day. I even answered the telephone, even though I hate talking on the phone. It was Amber, a telemarketer. She lives in St. Louis and doesn’t really

like her job but is trying to make some money for beauty college. She wants to be a fingernail art-ist. Since I’m retired I bought a timeshare in Cancun to help her out.

7:00-8:30 – I tried to watch TV again with the wife but she was watching Dance Moms and said, “If you can’t keep your sar-castic remarks to yourself why don’t you just leave.” So I went to bed. I was exhausted from my first day of not doing anything anyway. Tomorrow I’m going to unretire.

Please, I beg you, keep read-ing my writing so I can keep working or you’ll be responsible for my wife’s institutionalization, a divorce and my being bored to death.

Riding Herd continued from page one

BY SARAH YANG, UC BERKELEY

A new study quantifying the amount of carbon stored and released through California forests and wildlands finds

that wildfires and deforestation are contributing more than ex-pected to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2013 Rim Fire in Califor-nia burned more than 257,000 acres, the second largest wild-fire in the Sierra Nevada and the third largest fire in California since 1932. A new study finds that carbon released through wildfires contribute more than expected to greenhouse gas emissions in the state.

The findings, published online Wednesday, April 15, in the jour-nal Forest Ecology and Manage-ment, came from a collaborative project led by the National Park Service and UC Berkeley. The re-sults could have implications for California’s efforts to meet goals mandated by the state Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill, which passed in 2006, assumed no net emis-sions for wildland ecosystems by 2020.

The researchers noted that the information available at the

time the bill was passed may have underestimated the release of carbon through landmass con-versions and wildfires, which are projected to increase in intensity in the western United States due to climate change. The authors pointed out that California is one of the few jurisdictions in the world to set mandatory green-house gas emissions targets.

“Determining the balance be-tween carbon storage and emis-sions is essential for tracking the role of ecosystems in climate change. Growing vegetation nat-urally removes carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the mag-nitude of climate change,” said study lead author Patrick Gon-zalez, the National Park Service climate change scientist. “Con-versely, burned or dead vegeta-tion releases carbon into the at-mosphere, exacerbating climate change.”

Gonzalez worked with forest ecologist John Battles, a profes-sor in UC Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management and the prin-cipal investigator on the project to quantify carbon storage and emissions in the state’s wildlands.

The study, funded by the Cal-ifornia Air Resources Board, used 2001-2010 data from mul-

tiple public sources, including plot-level carbon stocks from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Inventory and Assessment Program and U.S. Landfire re-mote sensing data of vegetation at a 30-meter spatial resolution.

The analysis confirmed that California’s forests are huge car-bon reservoirs for the state. Pre-vious research has found that redwood forests near Redwood National Park contain the most carbon per hectare on the ground of any ecosystem in the world. One hectare of redwood forest can store an amount of carbon equivalent to the annual green-house gas emissions generated by more than 500 Americans. The giant sequoia forests of Se-quoia and Kings Canyon Nation-al parks come in second.

Altogether, the forests and vegetation of state wildlands stored an estimated 850 million tons of carbon in 2010. How-ever, those areas also account-ed for approximately 69 million tons of carbon emitted between 2001 and 2010. Two-thirds of the carbon loss came from fires that burned just 6 percent of the area of wildlands in nine years. Annu-al carbon losses from forests and wildlands in California represent as much as 5 to 7 percent of state

carbon emissions from all sectors between 2001 and 2010, accord-ing to the study.

“National parks and other pro-tected areas clearly provide an important function in removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it,” said Battles. “But we also know from previous research that a century of fire suppression has contributed to a potentially unsustainable buildup of vegeta-tion. This buildup provides abun-dant fuel for fires that contribute to carbon emissions. Projections of more wildfires in the West mean that we need to account for this source of carbon emis-sions. Meeting the state green-house gas targets for 2020 might require a reconsideration of wild-land management policies.”

This research is among the latest examples of the long, pro-ductive partnership between UC Berkeley and the National Park Service, highlighted in the recent “Science for Parks, Parks for Sci-ence” summit commemorating the centennial of the National Park Service.

Other co-authors of the study include researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, the Spatial Informatics Group in Pleasan-ton, California, and the Univer-sity of San Francisco.

Wildfires emit more greenhouse gases than assumed in state climate targets

Larry and Deborah Slager, Slager Angus, have raised Angus cattle for more than 50 years.

Larry Slager, Polo, Ill., pur-chased his first registered Angus heifer when he was 10 years old. The year was

1960, and thanks to a $270 loan from the bank, he brought home Eiltonier Erica 215 from Eilton-ier Angus in Tipton, Iowa. That was the official start to Larry’s registered Angus herd, which is still in operation nearly 55 years later.

To recognize his dedication to the Angus breed, the American Angus Association® is proud to name Slager Angus as a Historic Angus Herd. The award is pre-

sented to Angus breeders or im-mediate families who have been in continuous production of reg-istered Angus cattle for 50 years or more.

Before investing in his first Angus heifer, Larry had a Here-ford steer. Then, he says, he “saw the light.” The first calf out of Ei-ltonier Erica 215 sired the grand champion steer at a county 4-H competition. Through 4-H and FFA he showed cattle extensive-ly at county and state fairs during the 1960s.

In fact, Larry met his wife, Deborah, in the cattle barn at the Wisconsin State Fair.

They married in 1974, and she officially became a partner in the

Slager Angus herd. That same year, they exhibited the first-place bull at the Internation-al Livestock Show in Chicago, which was known as the nation’s premier livestock event for many years.

In 1975, the couple expanded their herd by purchasing 13 heif-ers from Circle L Ranch in Hu-goton, Kan. The family’s current cow herd can still trace back to two of those early females.

“Through constant perfor-mance testing since 1970, the entire herd is descended from two of these cows,” Larry said. “We have had a closed herd for 30 years.”

And their genetic selections

have been working. Slager Angus bred the high-gaining bull at the 2012 Wisconsin Bull Test at 5.85 pounds-per-day.

Larry and Deborah continue to manage the herd of 17 regis-tered Angus cows at their home farm in northern Illinois. Their passion for the Angus business — started more than 50 years ago — is sure to continue for many years to come.

Visit www.ANGUS.org for more information on the Histor-ic Angus Herd Award and view a list of awarded members since the program began in 1988.

Illinois Family Honored for Historic Angus Herd

Page 8 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

BY JAY EVANS, CHAIR OF TSCRA

NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

Ranching in South and West Texas will natu-rally expose a person to drought. I have always

tried to understand how precious water is across the state, but the recent drought of record has raised awareness to levels many of us have never experienced.

We have been blessed with more rain since 2011, but we ar-en’t back where we need to be. When we look at the level of our reservoirs and stock ponds west of IH 35, a person realizes we have a long way to go.

Additionally, people are mov-ing into Texas at a more rapid pace. While we are extremely proud of our state and realize how great it is to live here, this population growth will continue to create increased demands on our limited water supply.

As expected, water issues are coming to the forefront as the 84th session of the Texas Legisla-ture progresses. Texas and South-western Cattle Raisers Associa-tion (TSCRA) leaders and staff have been tracking and weighing in on water related legislation to make sure landowners’ private property rights remain intact.

TSCRA is opposed to a bill that could require local ground-water conservation districts to give special treatment to pow-er plants that have permitted groundwater wells.

Under this proposed bill, power plants could be allowed to continue to pump groundwater at their permitted amount while other permitted wells, such as irrigation, would be required to make reductions. In fact, these other permitted wells may have to take larger reductions to ab-sorb the amount of reduction the power plants did not take.

A power plant could be grant-ed up to 10 years to pump at their existing permit amount while ev-ery other permitted well would be required to reduce pumping.

This puts local groundwater conservation districts in a dif-ficult position of having to pick winners and losers and it increas-es their liability.

The power plants that would benefit from the passage of this legislation have the right to a fair share like any other ground-water owner. However, if their fair share is not adequate, they have the same right as any other groundwater owner to purchase and/or lease more land and/or groundwater rights.

While TSCRA recognizes that providing reliable electric service is important, we do not believe that it is constitutional for state law to discriminate between per-mitted groundwater well owners based on type of use.

After all, is generating elec-tricity more important than providing food? This bill implies that it is and sends the wrong

message. All groundwater well owners should be treated equal-ly and be afforded the same due process.

TSCRA is also concerned about legislation that would cre-ate a separate permitting sys-tem for brackish groundwater, which is water that is generally not potable. With the popula-tion growth in Texas, entities are looking to increase efforts to tap

into these brackish groundwater resources and use desalination technology to help meet our in-creasing water needs.

While TSCRA supports the development of brackish ground-water, we do not support legis-lation that would further com-plicate our current groundwater permitting system, give special treatment to brackish ground-water wells, and put additional

pressure on the property rights of landowners.

Brackish groundwater has been, and can continue to be, developed under existing law. Additionally, we must develop reliable science with input of landowners and groundwater conservation districts, which will help us all better understand our brackish groundwater resources. TSCRA supports additional state

funding for the development of this science.

As we look at the big picture of providing water for all Tex-ans, we must make certain local control is preserved. The leg-islature decided years ago that local groundwater conservation districts are the preferred meth-od for managing groundwater in

Page 8 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

The LivesTock MarkeT DigesT

Scottand co.L Ranch & FarmReal Estate

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

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

� 70 acres 23 miles from Dal-las Court House. Excellent ranch or homes $5,450 Per

� 134 acres Wortham, Tex-as, $1,750 Per acre. Hunting

� 700 acres, Kaufman Coun-

� 275 acres

apartment, 25 miles from

Per acre.

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 ,750 Per acre. Hunting SOLD ,750 Pe acre. Hunting SOLD

SOLDSOLDSOLD

SOLD acre SOLD acre Home Site & SOLDH me Site & 20 miles from Dallas SOLD 20 miles from Dallas

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

owner�s residence, guest house and bunkhouse. This is one of a kind. Offered for sale in cooperation with Schrimsher Ranch Real Estate.

LMD-May2015 5/9/15 11:55 AM Page 8

Texas Water Shortage Spurs Legislative Concern

continued on page nine

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 9

Iowa Angus breeder to receive prestigious livestock honor this fall.

Dave Nichols of Bridgewa-ter, Iowa, has been select-ed as the 2015 inductee into the Saddle and Sirloin

Portrait Gallery, largely consid-ered the highest honor in the livestock industry. The Saddle and Sirloin Gallery was estab-

lished in 1903, and recognizes one individual each year for their lifetime of exceptional service to the livestock business, both na-tionally and internationally.

Dave was raised on his fa-ther’s small cattle feeding oper-ation. Starting as a tenant farm, Nichols Farms has grown under Dave’s leadership to now encom-pass 5,500 acres, 1,500 head of breeding stock and a small feed-

lot. In addition, Nichols Farms oversees the breeding and mar-keting of an additional 750 co-operator and franchise cows. Nichols Farms has placed 42 bulls in studs and has exported cattle, semen and embryos to 30 countries, resulting in five Pal-ermo grand champions. During its 77-year history, all revenue of Nichols Farms has been gener-ated from cattle.

Dave bought his first steer in 1947 at the age of eight with a note from the bank, and entered the Angus seedstock business at 13 years of age. In 1957, he won the national FFA Public Speaking Contest by discussing the merits of performance test-ing bulls, and he and his father started selling performance-test-ed Angus bulls that year. Dave started submitting weaning weights the first year the Ameri-can Angus Association® accept-ed them, and by 1961 he had bred some of the early Perfor-mance Registry International’s Certified Meat Sires. In the late 1960s, Dave added Simmental as a second breed and helped pioneer the breeding of black, polled Simmental.

Dave was influential in the early formation of the Beef Im-provement Federation (BIF) and served on its first board of directors starting in 1967, and later served as BIF president. He continues to be a fixture at BIF meetings and, for those ef-forts, received BIF’s Continuous Service Award, Seedstock Breed-er of the Year award and Pioneer Breeder Award.

Today, Nichols Farms consists of Angus, Simmental, Angus/Simmental hybrids, and Angus/Simmental/South Devon com-posites. A leader in both the An-gus and Simmental breeds, Dave was elected to the American Simmental Association board of directors, serving as its president in 1991; and he currently serves on the board of directors of the American Angus Association.

Throughout his career, Dave has maintained a quest for knowledge and a desire to serve. This has led him to serve in nu-merous leadership positions and receive countless awards and ac-colades. Among the highlights was his service on the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Product Enhancement Subcommittee. With his leader-ship, this committee’s accom-plishments include the adoption of instrument grading and the $5,000,000 Carcass Merit Pro-gram, which included the collec-tion of SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) data that was used in the validation of today’s genomic panels. Dave was also integral in the thought process, funding and data collection in developing today’s ultrasound technology.

Internationally, Dave has

spread the message and lessons of performance testing as well as U.S. entrepreneurial spir-it throughout South America, Eastern Europe and Austra-lia. Dave has also always been youth-oriented, hosting 45 high school, college and foreign in-terns; as well as hundreds of judging teams and college tours. In addition, Nichols Farms is a frequent tour stop for state cat-tlemen groups, international del-egations and government offi-cials who seek Dave’s knowledge and example of management excellence.

Recently, Dave was awarded the 2014 NCBA Regional En-vironmental Stewardship Award and named the Livestock Pub-lications Council’s Headliner of the Year. He serves on the Beef Cattle Efficiency advisory com-mittee and as chairman of the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium. Dave has been in-vited to speak on approximate-ly one program a month for 40 years. Nichols Farms has one of the most extensive databases in the industry with more than 70 computer fields on each animal, and this database has been used in recent years for genomic val-idation and U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) animal breeding research.

The Saddle & Sirloin Club will honor these and Dave’s oth-er industry contributions, too numerous to list, during a special program and portrait unveiling Nov. 15 in conjunction with the North American International Livestock Exposition (NAILE) at the Kentucky Fair and Expo-sition Center in Louisville, Ky.

Supporters may make charita-ble gifts toward portrait and ban-quet expenses in Dave’s honor. Donations can be made payable and mailed to your choice of the American Simmental Associa-tion at 1 Simmental Way, Boz-eman, MT 59715; or the Angus Foundation at 3201 Frederick Avenue, St. Joseph, MO 64506. Contact American Simmental Association’s Nancy Tom at 210-487-0661; or Angus Foundation President Milford H. Jenkins at 816-383-5100 to learn more about each respective organiza-tion’s fundraising goals for the project, which include upcom-ing auctions of an elite cow from each respective breed, donated by Nichols Farms. More infor-mation will be released when available.

May 15, 2015 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper” Page 9

Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

To place ad herecontact RANDY

SUMMERS at 505/243-9515

or RON ARCHERat 505/865-6011

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

SCOTT MCNALLYwww.ranchesnm.com

575/622-5867575/420-1237

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Bar MReal Estate

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

continued on page thirteen

LMD-May2015 5/7/15 7:59 PM Page 9

Saddle & Sirloin to Honor Dave Nichols

the state and we must keep this in mind when working on these important groundwater issues.

TSCRA will continue work-ing with the Texas Legislature to protect the private property rights of landowners, especially groundwater. I encourage you to keep a close watch on these and other issues and contact TSCRA if you have ideas, questions or

concerns.In the meantime continue to

pray for rain, especially since we know you can’t legislate rainfall.

Jay Evans serves as president of Jay Evans Company, a ranch and resource management organization that provides services to ranchers and landowners in Texas as well as operating his own stocker program. Jay serves as chair of the TSCRA Natural Resources and Environment Committee and is a member of the TSCRA board of directors.

Texas Water continued from page eight

Page 10 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

BY JIM OLSON

Circa the 1920s, Rodeo be-gan to make a transition from “Wild West Show” to being more of a “Rodeo”

like we think of in today’s terms. One man who took a large part in that transition was a big-time

promoter called Tex Austin.Much of Tex Austin’s ear-

ly life is a mystery. There is an abundance of conflicting sto-ries. Many sources claim he was born in 1886 while others say the year was 1887. Some say his given name was Clarence Van Nostrand, others John Van Nos-

trand, yet others say John Van Austin was his birth name. Some say he was born in St. Louis, Missouri while others claim it was Victoria, Texas.

Tex claimed to have been born and reared on a cow ranch in Texas, but there are reports that he did not move West un-til he was about twenty (circa 1907). At that time he worked for various ranches in West Tex-as and Eastern New Mexico over a period of a few years.

Tex then claims he went down to Old Mexico where he worked as a cowboy for Don Luis Terraz-zo (reportedly the largest ranch-er in the world at the time). Tex also said he rode with Pancho Villa during the Mexican Revo-lution in 1911. Most sources re-instate these claims.

So much of what is known about Tex Austin prior to 1917 is lore, that it is hard to sep-arate fact from fiction. Some claim Tex invented this persona of a “bona-fide cowboy hero” for publicity reasons. Probably, there is a blend of both fact and fiction in stories told about his early life. What is known about Austin from 1917, through the end of his life, is well document-ed however. This is when he en-tered the public spotlight.

In 1917 Tex Austin produced

his first rodeo at El Paso, Texas. In 1918, he produced the first indoor rodeo of record, which was held in Wichita, Kansas. In 1922, he produced the first ever rodeo held at Madison Square Garden in New York and in 1926 at Chicago Stadium in Chicago. He produced rodeos in London, England in 1924 and ’34. Histo-ry tells us he produced a-bunch of rodeos from 1917 through 1934 both in the United States and abroad in many major cities. He was one of the premier ro-deo promoters of the 1920s.

Tex was known far and wide as a spectacular showman. He was charming and generous—al-most to a fault. He was one of the first to realize the impor-tance of “stars” at the rodeo and often promoted that “so-and-so” would be at his shows. He was one of the first to advertise HUGE payouts to attract the better cowboys and cowgirls—and also spectators who wished to see big money won. (When he produced the first Madison Square Garden Rodeo in 1922, the prize money was a record $25, 000, which he guaranteed out of his own pocket if the purse did not get there on its own!)

Austin was very forward in his thinking. He cut out many

of the traditional “Wild West” type events and condensed his “Rodeos” down to a few hours rather than the all day spectacles being produced up to that point. He felt the “sophisticated” spec-tators of the big cities where he entertained were “to busy” for the day-long Wild West shows and would appreciate a short-ened version.

Being a “Master Showman,” he often called his rodeos a “World Championship” rodeo, ie: Tex Austin’s World Champi-onship Rodeo; Madison Square Garden World Championship Rodeo; Chicago World Champi-onship Rodeo and so on. While it was good for promotional pur-poses, this has often led to con-fusion in the history books about who was the “World Champion” of any given year (Tex was not the only one promoting “World Championship” rodeos however, which leads to even more confu-sion). In 1929, rodeo organized and from then on, we have only one generally accepted “World Champion” for each event in each year.

After making a little money, Tex fulfilled a life-long dream and became an official “rancher.” In 1925, he bought the “Forked

Tex Austin Daddy of Rodeo

Why is it that we know couples that beg the question, “What does she see in him?” I’m

not going to use names for the sake of privacy. I can’t actually say ‘to protect the innocent’. I’m just going to use the aliasi of Geraldo and Lucinda.

I was on the phone with one of my good friends, Geraldo Uno. He had thrown a team roping party and asked our mutual friend, Geraldo Dos to come and help. “He’s the best there is at what he does.”

“You bet,” I agreed. “He sure got lucky.” I was referring to Lucinda Dos, his second of-ficial wife. After what seemed years of relationships and chil-dren, child support and hous-es, she showed up in his life. Now he has a business, grand-kids and the “Doses” are hap-py. “I never could figure out what she saw in him?”

Geraldo Uno said, “Well, look at you!” I had to agree. A failed marriage, two failed proposals, miles of alimony, a victim of mergers that cost my

jobs, frivolous relationships, lack of discipline and no real concept of a happy home. Then out of the blue my own Lucinda stuck an arrow in my heart that has lasted for years.

I did point out that he, Ger-aldo Uno, had no room to talk; married once, alimony, child support payments, she kept his mother’s wedding ring, had job after job, fell in love with a lady that was fatally ill, then Lucinda Uno found him. They are a power couple today and inseparable.

“Why?” I asked, “did we get so lucky?”

In our circle of friends there seems to be a preponderance of flawed Geraldos, as I refer to them, “People you wouldn’t have in your home on a hol-iday.” Some of us have not found their Lucinda. When you look at our accomplish-ments you begin to under-stand why. Captured with a stun gun, been in a Mexican jail, officially detained for mo-

lesting a stamp machine in the John Wayne airport, owns a bank but can’t get a date, is a charter member of Alcoholics Anonymous, crashed his heli-copter trying to dive under a power line, has been run over by a jeep while hunting and sold used cars…and they are still out there!

But there is a legitimate handful who, like myself, has somehow found true happi-ness.

Geraldo Uno said, “I think I know how it happens. Look at what they endured before we came along.”

He was right. Most all of the Lucindas that found us Geraldos have come from a previous life so unhappy and unfulfilled that we looked good! We’re not abusive or stingy or overbearing or mean, we’re just not quite housebro-ken.

Our Lucindas simply had lesser expectations the second time around and we fit the bill.

One of the Mysteries of Life

continued on page twelve

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 11

Land O’Lakes, Inc. welcomes Tim Scott as Senior Vice President and Chief Market-ing Officer. Scott joins Land

O’Lakes on April 22.Scott brings 30+ years of

experience to Land O’Lakes, where he will lead brand strat-egy and execution across Land O’Lakes’ family of respected brands in agribusiness and food

production—including LAND O LAKES® Dairy Foods, Purina Animal Nutrition and WinField Solutions.

Scott joins Land O’Lakes af-ter leaving McGarryBowen and his role as President, CEO In-ternational. Prior to working at McGarryBowen, Scott held vari-ous leadership positions at DDB Worldwide, FCB and JWT.

“Tim brings deep expertise in working with global brands and brand teams—skills that will play a central role in this next chapter of our Land O’Lakes growth sto-ry,” said Chris Policinski, Presi-dent and CEO of Land O’Lakes, Inc.

As CMO, Scott will oversee B2C and B2B branding and marketing strategy. He will also

be responsible for building mar-keting competencies across all businesses and geographies for Land O’Lakes, and he will have oversight for FLM+, a recently acquired and wholly owned sub-sidiary of Land O’Lakes. Scott succeeds Barry Wolfish, who transitions to a new role as Se-nior Vice President, M&A and Ventures for Land O’Lakes, Inc.

National Junior Angus Show ownership and entry deadline is May 15

The National Junior An-gus Show (NJAS) is the highlight of the year for many Angus youth and

their families. This year, the event is being hosted in Tulsa, Okla., and is themed “Angus — Leading the Way.” The NJAS takes place July 13-18 in Tulsa’s

Expo Square.National Junior Angus As-

sociation (NJAA) members are encouraged to pay attention to upcoming deadlines in order to make sure documents are completed in a timely manner. Here’s a summary of what’s coming up soon.

Friday, May 15• Ownership and entry dead-

line for the 2015 NJAS. Re-quirements and rules can be

found online.• NJAA writing, photogra-

phy, creative writing and graph-ic design entries due.

• Entry and recipe deadline for the American Angus Aux-iliary-sponsored All-American Certified Angus Beef® Cook-Off.

Monday, May 25• Deadline to submit NJAA

career development contest ré-sumés and public speaking con-

test speech outlines. Complete contest information is also avail-able online.

• Late NJAS entry deadline; online submission only.

Monday, June 1• NJAA Board candidate ap-

plications due. Visit the NJAA website to learn more about Board member responsibilities.

• Entry deadline for state delegate names for NJAA elec-tions.

• Deadline to submit names for the NJAS showmanship contest.

The NJAA looks forward to hosting a record event in Tulsa, Okla., this summer.

Visit the www.angus.org/njaa for more information and dead-lines. Junior members can save time by submitting their entries online. Please note there are no exceptions to any of the owner-ship and entry deadlines.

Make Note of 2015 NJAS Deadlines

Land O’Lakes, Inc. Names New Chief Marketing Officer

Source: beefproducer.com

Beef industry’s move toward more tender cuts should also place focus on marbling, juiciness

Tenderness of a beef cut isn’t the be-all end-all, a carefully chosen panel of 120 consumers said.

Given only certified tender strip steaks that varied in mar-bling and juiciness, the consum-ers said flavor is where it’s at.

Sensory evaluation research, as part of a joint project among Texas Tech, Utah State and Mis-sissippi State universities, scored the strip-loin steaks to get at the role of taste fat in consumer ap-peal.

Mark Miller, the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo distin-guished chair in meat science at Texas Tech, helped conduct the recent study published in Meat Science last fall titled, “Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments.”

Moving past tendernessSince the mid-1980s, the beef

industry has worked to improve overall tenderness, Miller says. Now that the 2010 National Beef Tenderness Survey found no toughness issue with 94 per-cent of rib and loin cuts, the focus rightly moves to other fac-tors.

“We have the previous data that suggests tenderness, flavor and juiciness all affect palatabil-ity,” he says. “The data suggest-ed flavor was important but no study had isolated that compo-nent by leveling the tenderness in the samples. As the product is getting more tender, we want-

ed to know what are the primary drivers for consumer eating sat-isfaction.”

The study evaluated consum-ers who were the regular pur-chasers of beef in their families and ate beef one to three times per week. Most of them named tenderness as the top palatabil-ity trait, followed by flavor, but when it came to this test among equally tender steaks, most ranked flavor at the top.

Participants were provided samples of 10 strip-loin steaks meeting Warner-Bratzler shear force criteria for the USDA “Certified Very Tender” claim to minimize any halo effect of ten-derness in the evaluation.

Steaks in the study included: Australian Wagyu – finished on a barley ration, American Wagyu – finished on corn ration, USDA Prime, USDA High Choice, USDA Top Choice-Holstein, USDA Low Choice, New Zea-land grass-finished, USDA Se-lect-Holstein, USDA Select and USDA Standard.

“Flavor is magnified when tenderness is acceptable,” Miller says. “When juiciness and ten-derness factors are met, the eval-uation of that steak goes to fla-vor, so that’s why the focus of the evaluation is amplified, because we are more or less meeting the other two criteria.”

Because consumers perceive tenderness differences with vari-ations in marbling, some halo effect was unavoidable. For ex-ample, the panelists found no difference in tenderness among the three steak samples with the highest fat levels (AUWA, AMWA, and Prime), which also

received their highest palatabili-ty rankings.

However, the panel noted Standard, GR and Select steaks at the bottom for tenderness.

Juiciness and flavor liking ratings were positively associat-ed with fat content, higher with increased marbling. GR samples were rated lowest for overall pal-atability of the grilled strip loin steaks, just below Standard.

Asked to rate overall accept-ability for tenderness, juiciness, flavor and overall liking, consum-ers preferred Prime at 92.92 per-cent, followed closely by High Choice at 92.34 percent, com-pared to Standard at 61.16 per-cent. High Choice represents the marbling level required to meet Certified Angus Beef brand ac-ceptance.

Since panelists did not know actual grade or quality levels in the study, their perceptions were all that ranked 40 percent of Standard steaks as unsatisfactory for quality, compared to just 6.67 percent unsatisfactory for Prime samples.

More marbling paysAsked to rate each sample

for its ability to meet or exceed “good everyday quality, better than everyday quality and premi-um quality,” the higher fat (mar-bling) steaks were named to that premium category more often than all other samples.

While 50 percent rated High Choice as good for everyday quality eating, nearly another 40 percent called it better than that for a total 89.17 percent satisfac-tory.

The consumer panel results

are “pretty significant” in point-ing out the importance of mar-bling today, says Mark McCully, CAB vice president for produc-tion.

“With the product getting more tender through genet-ic selection, we need to look at the primary drivers of consumer eating satisfaction,” he says. “A tough steak is hard to sell—that trumps everything—but once it’s

Tenderness isn’t only factor that beef-eaters value

continued on page thirteen

Page 12 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

“Seedstock Plus Southwest Feed Efficiency & Cow-Maker Bull Sale” at Bar T Bar Ranch April 11, 2015 • Meteor Crater, Arizona

51 Calving Ease Bulls, $7,47063 Balancers, $6,13535 Southern Balancers, $5,7005 Angus, $5,600154 Bulls, $6,461Auctioneer: Justin StoutA beautiful spring day brought over 250 people

to the Prosser family’s first bull sale to be held on the ranch. In fact, it is thought to be the first bull sale to be held on any ranch in Arizona since John Wayne dispersed his famous 26 Bar Herefords in 1986, 29 years ago.

Bulls sold to 10 states and Mexico, with 65 percent staying in Arizona. Most buyers were long-time, repeat customers. Most of the bulls had been feed efficiency tested and that efficiency drove their value.

Topping all of the sale bulls at $18,000 was BTBR Mr Black Cross 4365, a black Balancer sired by BTBR Mr Black Cross 0224, a Lazy TV Flat Iron son. He sold to Jordan Diehl of CJSD Gelb-vieh, Bradford, OH. A March yearling, he boasted an actual RFI score of -3.75 and an Efficiency Prof-it Index of $227.49. His RFI EPD is -0.49 with a Marbling EPD .44.

Black Angus Ready For Work Bull Sale March 16, 2015 • Cattlemen’s Livestock Auction Belen, New Mexico

Sold 96 Registered Angus bulls to 65 buyers with a sale average of $5740.The high selling bull was a yearling Angus Bull (U Bar Paxton 4068) was bought by David McCauley, Silver City, New Mexico for $7600.

Tucumcari Bull SaleMarch 14, 2015 • NMSU Ag Science Center Tucumcari, New Mexico

45 bulls with an average sale price of $5510.Angus average = $5830Hereford average = $4810Top Selling bull was from J-C Angus sold for

$9500.

Alan Patranella is the newest sales manager to join global animal leader Alltech’s New

Mexico team. Patranella will provide support to dairy pro-ducers in the New Mexico and Texas area.

Patranella was raised on his family farm, overseeing show pigs and at one time show cat-tle as well. He showed animals as a 4-H member and was part of the 1990 National Cham-pion Livestock Judging Team. Patranella received his bache-lor of science in animal science from Texas A&M University. Patranella and his wife have two daughters and reside in Littlefield, Texas.

“Alan is a strong addition to

the New Mexico team,” said Eric Hibbard, New Mexico regional manager for Alltech. “Patranella has years of expe-rience and knowledge in the area but has also invested time in learning about multiple spe-cies and providing technical support.”

Founded in 1980 by Dr. Pearse Lyons, Alltech im-proves the health and perfor-mance of people, animals and plants through natural nutri-tion and scientific innovation. With more than 3,500 employ-ees in 128 countries, the com-pany has developed a strong regional presence in Europe, North America, Latin Amer-ica, the Middle-East, Africa and Asia.

Alltech new hire dedicated to New Mexico & Texas

Sales Reports2015 DeBruycker Charolais Bull Sale April 4, 2015 • Western Livestock Auction Great Falls, Montana

High Selling BullsLot Sire222 $50,000.00 Rocking S Ranch Bristow,

OK JDJ Equity Z370417 $16,000.00 Schurrtop Charolais Farnam,

NE BHD Zen X270 P77 $15,500.00 Semex Alliance Guelph, Ontar-

io CJC Symbol Y711 P78 $15,000.00 Rambur Charolais Sidney, MT

CJC Symbol Y711 P191 $13,000.00 High Bluff Stock Farm Inglis,

Manitoba BHD Magnum Z481 P123 $11,500.00 Bruce Neumann Geyser, MT

BHD Zeus X3041526 $11,000.00 Reich Charolais Bell Fouche,

SD LHD Matrix Y1270 PVolume Buyers

30 Bulls UC Cattle Co Nevada30 Bulls Wellman Ranch Montana30 Bulls Ensign Ranch Utah22 Bulls Lavaca Cattle Colorado21 Bulls Tim Delong Nevada21 Bulls Leland Siddoway Oregon

Bulls Sold to 22 States, & Canada• CO, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, MN, MO, MT, ND,

NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV, WY, & CANADA

• 209 Bulls to 60 Montana Buyers53 Long Yearling Bulls @ $5,245.28528 Yearling Bulls @ $5,903.88Overall @ 581 Bulls @ $5,843.80

Top Selling Sire Groups7 CJC Symbol Y771 P @ $9,392.8619 JDJ Equity Z370 P @ $8,434.2119 BHD Magnum Z481 P @ $7,960.5311 LHD Matrix Y1270 P @ $6,772.736 MD Captain Y920 @ $6,500.002 LHD Carbine Z1440 @ $6,500.007 JDJ Justice U319 @ $6,428.5776 BHD Zeus X3041 @ $6,401.329 CJC Half Ours Y837 P @ $6,361.1122 DS Mr Big Cigar W20 @ $6,295.456 LHD Legal Entity X717 P @ $6,250.002 SM Mikhail X0166 P @ $6,125.0019 CJC Mr President T122 P @ $6,039.4711 CJC Selective X666 P @ $5,795.4548 BHD Zen X270 P @ $5,734.38

Lighting” ranch near Las Vegas, New Mexico. He operated it as a working cattle ranch and also a “Dude” ranch. An old Stage Stop and Tavern on the historic Santa Fe Trail (which operated from 1858-1880) were part of his new holdings. He converted these into his ranch headquarters and a trading post. He advertised his ranch had, “The most com-plete, mod ern and comfort able ranch house in the West. The life of the romantic West is at its doors,” and it was located, “Way out west an’ a Little Bit South.”

One story about how Tex promoted his Dude Ranch says that he would take the train east to Chicago, or some other big city, where he would then an-nounce he needed help in mov-ing a large herd of cattle from his ranch, down to the railroad pens at Las Vegas. Dudes would line up, offering to help, even pay their own way, and eventually he would talk them into paying him to help move the cattle.

After the cattle drive was

completed, he would head back to another big city where he would advertise he needed help getting a large herd of cattle from the railroad pens at Las Ve-gas back to his ranch. He would then convince another set of “Dudes” into paying him to drive the cattle home. He was the ulti-mate promoter of his day!

Unfortunately, timing was against Tex as the onset of the Great Depression hit. He had spent money like it was a never ending stream of cool, clear wa-ter during the 1920s while pro-moting his Rodeos and Dude Ranch. When the Depression hit, he borrowed heavily to main-tain the same standards and pro-motional levels his events had seen in the past.

His return to London in 1934 was actually a last desperate at-tempt to regain financial stabil-ity. He risked everything—and everything seemed to go against him. British Animal Rights Ac-tivist protested the event, saying that steer wrestling was cruel-

ty to animals. This stopped the show for a time and caused low-er than expected attendance. Coupled with higher expenses and lower than expected in-come, Tex reportedly lost about $20,000 putting on the show. This was the final straw for him financially. He lost his ranch and rodeo company.

After losing the ranch, Tex and his wife, Mary Lou Mc-Guire, moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico and opened “Tex Aus-tin’s Los Rancheros” restaurant near the Plaza. In October 1938, Tex committed suicide. Rumor has it Doctors told him he was going blind. Photographs of his rodeo days were found stacked on his couch at home and those close to him figured he was very depressed over his current state of affairs.

Tex Austin, the “Daddy of Rodeo,” as he was affection-ately called, was posthumous-ly inducted into the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum Hall of Fame in 1976.

Cowboy Heroes continued from page ten

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 13

BY BARRY DENTON

Living only 15 miles from civilization used to have its advantag-es. However, with the

advent of the all-terrain vehicle no location is safe. Suddenly, all those town folks that were way too lazy to hike in the countryside now have access to it. These folks can throw their beer belly up on the gas tank and away they go.

We used to have the occasional hunter or hiker passing through, but not the daily onslaught that we have today. Our ranch is completely surrounded by National Forest land. That is no longer as desirable an asset, as it once was. In my book it devalues the proper-ty. I think the United States Forest Service (USFS) has become impotent since they opened up so many trails to the public.

I actually think the USFS thought people with all-terrain vehicles would follow their rules. Since that is not the case the ATV riders are going everywhere and wrecking everything they can because there is no consequence. The USFS is ill equipped to police an area this vast.

A good example is there was a great old adobe farm building adjacent to our pri-vate land that was used as storage. The building was typical with thick walls and a heavy roof. It was built around the early 1900s and showed very little deterio-ration. The ranchers that stored things there kept it up, even though it was on USFS land. This landmark and interesting piece of

western history has been destroyed just recently. There is literally nothing left. They had to work at it pretty hard as it was a tough old building. Just think if those folks put their energy into helping things instead of destroying them. All that remains of the building are ATV tracks.

Each fall before the deer hunting season starts we always receive a few calls concerning deer on our land. These calls come from city folks that would like to hunt on our ranch. One of the calls I got this year was rather comical.

The first thing I was asked is why all the deer run off the Forest Service to my private land when being chased? Of course, the only answer I could think of was to tell them about our deer escape training program during the off season.

That is correct sir, all the wild deer in the area are trained to run onto private land when they see a hunt-er. This is a national move-ment amongst deer across the country.

The next thing the call-er wanted to know was if he could pay a fee to hunt on the ranch. I told him I would be glad to work out a fee schedule for him. He could just send us pay-ments during the year and by hunting season he would be all paid up. I also told him if he wanted to bring any family or friends with him to hunt they could pay too.

What I thought was fair would be for him to pay the land taxes for the year. I assured him that I didn’t expect him to pay the tax-

es on the house and barns. The caller did not go for the deal and I can not un-derstand why.

The other thing that hunters seem to forget is that ranchers pay for the wells, windmills, and water tanks on public land. If we did not do this there would be no game to hunt at all, as there is no natural water above ground in this area.

The hunter is already using water the rancher provided at no cost to him. The other one that gets me is when you encounter a hunter on your private land and he says that he got per-mission from the owner to hunt.

Just because I’m wearing a grungy hat, dirty clothes, and driving an old beat up truck does not mean that I am not the owner. I have found that the greatest weapon against intruders is the camera.

When folks are trespass-ing or destroying property, take their picture. It really

intimidates them and you can send the evidence to the sheriff. License plate photos are helpful as well. You know that if one shoots you, they will say to the judge that you shot first, with your camera of course.

You are probably as amused as I am when some city person comes to your ranch as a guest and dis-covers that your phone and internet service is intermit-tent at best. Many times they think your lack of ser-vices is “quaint”.

After you give them a ranch tour and explain to them how the place works they ask you what you do all day. The other one I always hear is that they did not know there were so many stars in the sky at night. While you explain to them how to locate the North Star and some of the oth-er common constellations, they are just amazed.

Finally, they ask you where you learned so much about the stars. The third grade, if I remember cor-rectly. These are also the people that do not eat meat because it is cruel to kill the cow for human consump-tion and it is not good for you. However, they have on a pair of leather shoes and carry a leather handbag. I explain to them that when they are at my house they are sitting on dead cow chairs, they are standing on a dead cow rug, and they just went for a horseback ride sitting on a dead cow saddle.

Do not get me wrong, I do not hate all ATV’ers, all hunters, or all city slickers. Just the stupid ones!

Cry Me a River

deemed tender, juiciness and flavor matter the most, so marbling mat-ters.”

That’s not to say we can ignore tenderness now.

“We shouldn’t be comfortable with a near 7 percent failure rate,” McCully says. “Considering envi-ronments, 93 percent is pretty good for where we are, but also leaves room for improvement.”

Given today’s beef prices, ask-ing consumers to pay more for a steak they might find unsatisfactory doesn’t suit Miller or McCully. For consumers to suggest a Select steak from the loin is unsatisfactory up to 34 percent of the time means a lot

of risk for beef consumption, Mc-Cully says.

To keep growing beef demand, producers must think about the steak on the plate, and marbling contributes to that appeal, he says. Placing selection pressure on quali-ty is a logical way to respond to the market signals consumers are send-ing.

Miller agrees: “If we are going to ask consumers to pay current pric-es, or more, it’s going to have to eat really well, consistently. There is no room for error if you consider the price of competing proteins.”

The full paper is available on the Certified Angus Beef website.

Tenderness continued from page eleven

Page 14 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

BY HOLLY FRETWELL &

SHAWN REGAN, PERC

Nearly half of the western United States is owned by the federal government. In recent years, several western

states have considered resolutions de-manding that the federal government transfer much of this land to state

ownership. These efforts are motivated by concerns over federal land manage-ment, including restrictions on natural resource development, poor land stew-ardship, limitations on access, and low financial returns.

This study compares state and fed-eral land management in the West. It examines the revenues and expen-ditures associated with federal land management and compares them with state trust land management in four western states: Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, and Arizona. The report ex-plains why revenues and expenditures differ between state and federal land agencies and discusses several possi-ble implications of transferring federal lands to the states.

Key Points:n The federal government loses

money managing valuable natural re-sources on federal lands, while states generate significant financial returns from state trust lands.

n The states examined in this study earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust land man-agement. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management generate

only 73 cents in return for every dollar spent on federal land management.

n On average, states generate more revenue per dollar spent than the fed-eral government on a variety of land management activities, including tim-ber, grazing, minerals, and recreation.

n These outcomes are the result of the different statutory, regulatory, and administrative frameworks that govern

state and federal lands. States have a fiduciary responsibility to generate rev-enues from state trust lands, while fed-eral land agencies face overlapping and conflicting regulations and often lack a clear mandate.

n If federal lands were transferred, states could likely earn much greater revenues than the federal government. However, transfer proponents must consider how land management would have to change in order to generate those revenues under state control.

Summary:The federal government loses mon-

ey managing valuable natural resourc-es on federal lands.

The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management together lose nearly $2 billion each year. These agen-cies receive only 73 cents in return for every dollar they spend on federal land management.

States generate significant financial returns from state trust lands.

State trust lands consistently pro-duce generous financial returns. The four states examined in this study—

Divided Lands: State vs. Federal Management in the West

continued on page fifteen

May 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 15

Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, and Ari-zona—earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent managing state trust lands.

On average, states generate more reve-nue per dollar spent than the federal gov-ernment on a variety of land management activities.

TimberThe Forest Service generates 32 cents

for every dollar it spends on timber man-agement, and the BLM receives 38 cents per dollar spent. By contrast, Montana and Idaho earn an average of $2.51 for every dollar spent on timber management.

GrazingThe Forest Service generates only 10

cents for every dollar spent on rangeland management, and the BLM generates 14 cents for every dollar spent. State trust lands earn an average of $4.89 per dollar spent on rangeland management.

MineralsFederal land agencies generate $19.76

for every dollar spent managing mineral production on federal lands, while state trust lands generate an average of $138.08 per dollar spent on minerals management.

RecreationThe Forest Service generates 28 cents

for every dollar spent on recreation, and the BLM generates 20 cents for every dol-

lar spent on recreation. By contrast, Mon-tana and Idaho earn an average of $6.86 per dollar spent on recreation.

These outcomes are the result of dif-ferent statutory, regulatory, and adminis-trative frameworks that govern state and federal lands.

State trust land agencies have a fidu-ciary responsibility to generate revenues for trust beneficiaries. This provides trust managers with clarity and accountability to manage for long-term revenue genera-tion and resource stewardship. Because of the trust mandate, state trust land agen-cies are often able to resist excessive polit-ical influence, respond to market signals, and accommodate new resource demands.

On the federal side, public land man-agement lacks a clear purpose. Federal land agencies are not required to generate revenues sufficient to cover their costs. Overlapping and conflicting regulations create “analysis paralysis,” which increas-es costs and hinders the agencies’ ability to respond to resource needs or resolve competing resource demands. Political in-terests have also prevented federal agen-cies from evolving in ways that state trust agencies have—for example, by adjusting lease rates, encouraging competitive bid-ding, or allowing conservation leasing.

See more at: http://www.perc.org/articles/divid-ed-lands-state-vs-federal-management-west#sthash.qwLS3F2X.dpuf

Divided Lands continued from page fourteen

Page 16 Livestock Market Digest May 15, 2015

This month we tackle global warming at BLM, the learning curve of ranchers and bicyclists, and a sin tax on meat

Getting hot at BLM

According to an internal memo sent in April, the BLM is developing com-prehensive guidance on

calculating the climate change impacts of various activities on federal land. The memo, from Ed Roberson, assistant director for resources and planning, says climate change is a “reality” and “the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities.” The memo then directs that “all discussion of climate change in BLM’s NEPA documents” be “consistent with this conclusion.”

Notice that it says “all discus-sion.” Even though NEPA has all kinds of requirements for public input, as far as BLM is concerned the science is settled and the de-bate is over. No use wasting your breathe or ink commenting to BLM about climate change.

The enviros are giddy over this, with a spokesman for WildEarth Guardians saying this is “the most authoritative statement from BLM on the reality of climate change.”

I think the memo was written because BLM field offices have handled the controversial Obama Administration tool known as the social cost of carbon (SCC) differently. The memo states the SCC “estimates the cost to future generations incurred by the emis-sion of one additional metric ton of carbon dioxide.” Developed

by the Obama folks in 2010, the original SCC was set at $24 per metric ton but has since been in-creased to $38 per metric ton. Yes friends, the cost of everything has gone up under Obama. Anyway, some BLM field offices were us-ing the SCC and some weren’t, and we all know the one thing the enviros can’t stand is diversity.

It’s clear the enviro community is spurring hard to whip the federal agencies into line on global warm-ing. Two former Obama officials, one from Interior and the other from the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, have written a piece for the New York Times call-ing for the use of the SCC. They want the precedent set now and used in all documents for the next two years. They will tolerate no foot-dragging on this one. It’s all line-dancing for the agencies now. No more pick your own partner.

Ranchers & Bicyclists

They are both learning.Concerning the proposed

Grand Canyon Watershed Na-tional Monument, Arizona ranch-er Jim Parks has written, “While activities such as grazing within a national monument are not “automatically” prohibited, his-tory would indicate that, at some point, our livelihood as ranchers will be compromised.” Parks also says, “As someone who has lived off this land, as a rancher and sportsman, I fear my rights will be infringed upon with a mon-ument designation.” He then cites two examples of what has happened on two monuments in Arizona.

Here again, there is the clear intent of the enviros to clamp down on livestock grazing in Na-tional Monuments. Just track the language in the Proclamations. President Clinton, in his Proc-lamation on the Grand Stair-case-Escalante National Monu-ment (1996), has this language:

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, live-stock grazing on Federal lands with-in the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations oth-er than this proclamation.

Now, look at the language used by President Obama in his Proclamation on the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Nation-al Monument (2014):

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument, consis-tent with the protection of the objects identified above.

Similar language was in his Proclamation for the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument (2013). Nothing there saying the designation doesn’t affect exist-ing permits or levels of livestock grazing. In fact, it ties livestock grazing right in to the designation by saying it must be “consistent” with protecting all the objects list-ed in the Proclamation.

The enviros have lost sever-al cases where they had sued to have livestock grazing restricted in the agency management plans for a monument. In the most re-cent, Western Watershed Project v. Abbey (2013), the court ruled in favor of the BLM, saying their interpretation of the language in the Proclamation for the Missou-ri Breaks National Monument (2001) was “reasonable” in that “the Monument designation in it-self did not mandate a need for an adjustment of forage allocated to

livestock.” However, that Procla-mation does not include the “con-sistency” language.

We’ll see how the BLM in-terprets the new language and whether or not that will result in another lawsuit. It is quite evi-dent the enviros want livestock grazing restricted in the man-agement plan and will continue seeking Proclamation language until that is accomplished. That way the fight is over the gener-ic management plan where they can call in their legal guns and rely on their thousands of letter writers, instead of having to do on-the-ground, site-specific and science-based analysis for each al-lotment in the Monument.

One more item on the des-ignation of Monuments: In his column Jim Parks is doubtful that his U.S. Rep. will take rancher’s concerns into consideration, as she has written, “Overall, the comments have been overwhelm-ingly in favor of a national monu-ment designation.” That troubles Mr. Parks, who attended the only public meeting at the represen-tative’s Flagstaff office, where he says the 27 people who spoke were almost evenly split on the idea. He should consider himself lucky. In our case here in Doña Ana County, the enviros bussed in folks from Santa Fe, Albuquer-que, Silver City and El Paso for our one public meeting. They even barred our Sheriff, who was opposed to the Monument, from entering the meeting. Bottom Line: it’s all a façade and public sentiment doesn’t matter one iota to these folks. They’ve got two years until Obama is gone and they will push for all they can get during that time frame.

Let’s now turn to the bicyclists, who are in the process of learning but aren’t quite there yet. The Bit-terroot National Forest recently released the final draft of its for-est-wide travel plan which closes off 102,000 acres of two Wilder-ness Study Areas to motorized and mechanized transport. Lance Pysher, president of a backcoun-try cyclists group says he was “pretty shocked” by the final draft, which prohibits bicycling on 178 miles of trails currently used by his group and others. The Forest Supervisor claims their hands are tied because the Wilderness Act prohibits “mechanized transport”.

First, Mr. Pysher, the Forest Service has a lot more flexibility on management than they are telling. These are administrative-ly designated Wilderness Study Areas, not congressionally passed Wilderness Areas. If mountain

bicycling didn’t threaten the wil-derness characteristics before, it certainly doesn’t now and can be allowed until Congress acts. Second, many mountain biking groups have spent years lobby-ing against the interpretation of mechanical transport. Forget it. They won’t allow this wheelchair I’m sitting in so they sure won’t al-low your bicycles. Better to spend your time, money and prestige opposing Wilderness.

Sin Tax On MeatColumnist Heather Moore

recently proposed a sin tax on meat and dairy products for “your health and the health of the plan-et.” She figures Congress should levy a 10-cent tax on every pound of meat sold in grocery stores and restaurants – and a modest sin tax on each dairy item and carton of eggs. She says we “pay a tax on gasoline in order to motivate us to conserve fossil fuels” and asserts we should do the same on ani-mal-based food products to pro-tect us from pollution and climate change.

I’m pretty sure Ike and the 1956 Congress weren’t thinking of global warming, climate change or reducing pollution when they passed the Federal Aid Highway Act, which created the gas tax and the Highway Trust Fund. The purpose of the tax and fund was to build the Interstate Highway System. You know, so we could drive bigger rigs farther and fast-er and burn more fossil fuels than ever before. I know, Al Gore may have told you he invented the In-terstate Highway System, but it just ain’t so.

Then you state new taxes on meat and dairy products would “stimulate the economy.” How can that be when all the DC Deep Thinkers advocate tax in-creases to “cool off” an economy?

I’m sick of these so-called “sin” taxes. There wasn’t anything about smokin’, drinkin’, eatin’ meat or scramblin’ eggs in those clay tablets anyway. If there’s a sin, it’s the corrupt implemen-tation of our tax system itself. If you have to tax something, then tax the Congress critters, IRSers and their enablers who created this morally corrupt system and leave the rest of us alone to go our merry way.

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 Scholarship.