lmd sept 2014

Piled Higher and Deeper

LivestockDigest

Livestock“The greatest homage we

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

NEWSPAPER

PRIO

RIT

Y H

AN

DLI

NG

by LEE PITTS

MARKET

DigestRiding Herd

The last time we visitedabout Zilmax® two of thenation’s biggest meat pack-ers had ceased buying Zil-

max®-fed cattle and Merck, themaker, had pulled the feed addi-tive off the market in the U.S.and Canada. This was after crip-pled and overheated Zilmax®-fed animals kept showing upthat couldn’t, or wouldn’t, walkto the kill floor. It was as if somecattle were suddenly on to thesecret of what happens to themonce inside the slaughterhouse.So they sat on their haunchesand refused to budge.The last we heard, Merck was

trying to put a team of meat sci-entists together to do a study toprove that Zilmax® was harm-less. But Merck’s big study hit aroadblock when the questionarose, “Who would buy the Zil-max® fed test cattle when har-vested?” Certainly not Tyson orCargill who had earlier voicedtheir displeasure with the dispo-sition of Zilmax® cattle and thequality of their meat.Imagine my surprise when all

of a sudden I read similar head-lines in several weekly livestocknewspapers: “Zilmax® Has NoApparent Detrimental Effect onCattle Health.” Or, “StudyShows No Zilmax® Impacts.” Iwas shocked because I hadstaked my writing reputation ontwo stories I wrote criticizingbeta agonists. I was also curious

versity of Nebraska at Lincolnand USDA’s Ag Research Serv-ice after conducting a 26-daytest on 20 head of heifers.According to Ty Schmidt, assis-tant professor of animal scienceat UNL, this was one of “themost extensive tests ever doneon Zilmax®.” Twenty head, you must be

kidding. (Actually, only ten headwere given Zilmax®.) If Schmidtis correct I think it’s a fair ques-tion to ask, “Did the FDA givetheir seal of approval for the feed

additive after tests of less than20 head?”The 20 head number com-

pares to three different studieson beta agonists conducted byresearchers at Kansas State Uni-versity and Texas Tech that cameto far different conclusions.Their first test was done on79,171 cattle owned by fourcompanies in at least seven feed-lots, their second set of observ-able negative data came from722,704 animals and the thirdtest looked at 149,636 animals ina single feedlot. All togetherthat’s 951,511 head of cattle.Compared to 20 head!And yet there it was in the

headlines . . . “The cattle feedadditive Zilmax® has no notice-able detrimental effect on cattlehealth or well-being.”If you read the actual reports

and conclusions of the 20 headtrial you might reach a differentconclusion than the headline

as to why all the headlinesseemed to have been written bythe same editor. They read morelike press releases more thanthey did any serious scientificstudy. Were they all headlinedthe same because Merck-fundedprofessors were busy sending outfavorable press releases, or areeditors all of a sudden plagiariz-ing headlines?

You Get What You Pay ForThe all-clear signal on Zil-

max® came courtesy of the Uni-

Words that soak into yourears are whispered,

not yelled.

continued on page four

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Ten Things ToLove About Cows

Consumers don’t make theconnection between cowsand all the great thingsthey provide. Here’s

my top ten list of the things Ilove most about cows.#1 Hamburgers: Ever

since burgers were firstintroduced at the St. LouisWorld’s Fair in 1904 Ameri-cans have had a hamburgerhabit. Sixty percent of thebeef consumed in this coun-try is in the form of groundbeef, and rightfully so. Put aburger between two buns,add some lettuce, tomato, aslice of cheese and you havethe perfect meal! Groundbeef is also a major ingredi-ent of my all-time favoriteform of sustenance: Mexicanfood. No fish tacos for me, ifit’s not beef you can throw itback in the ocean as far asI’m concerned#2 Milk: Any cow that

doesn’t give milk is a bigMilk Dud. If there’s a betterform of beverage thanchocolate milk it has neverpassed my lips. Sure, somefolks contend milk is forbabies but then they turnright around and putmounds of butter on theirbaked potato. Gee, I wonderwhere that came from?PETA people, thinkingthey’re boycotting cows, eatonly oleomargarine butthey’re in for a big surprisewhen they find out that oleostock also comes from theudder of a cow. Personally, Itrust cows more than I dochemists and I was glad tofinally read about recentresearch that said butter isbetter for you than mar-garine. I could have told youthat.#3 B S: One of the most

regenerative powers on earthis manure. What’s more sus-tainable than a steer thatconverts grass into a deli-cious food at the same timeit is fertilizing the earth toproduce more grass, insteadof brush that feed wildfiresthat kill animals. Cattle trulyare “white man’s buffalo”and that’s no B S.#4 Ice Cream: Two words

. . . I think that’s all I need tosay.#5 Cowboys: Without

cows there’d be no cowboys.That means no J. FrankDobie books, Larry

continued on page two

BY BRIAN SEASHOLES,

REASON FOUNDATION

While the most memo-rable word from themovie The Graduateis famously “plastics”,

a key word for keeping the sagegrouse off the endangeredspecies list may be “home-steads.” According to an articlein the current issue of Progres-sive Rancher, by a professor andthree extension personnel atthe University of Nevada, long-abandoned homesteads inNevada may well be the solu-tion to the state’s efforts toconserve the sage grouse moreeffectively in order to keep itoff the endangered species list.Much of the effort to con-

serve the sage grouse, both inNevada and elsewhere, isfocused on managing livestockthat graze in the grouse’s sagebrush habitat. Yet, as the articlein Progressive Rancher pointsout:

“[A]ppropriate livestockgrazing management alonedoes not seem to be apprecia-bly improving the plight ofsage-grouse. Better manage-ment of sagebrush ecosystemsis always paramount for anynumber of reasons, includingsage-grouse, but the ranchingindustry should become proac-tive and look at specific vegeta-tion management actions thatcould directly improve thesage-grouse habitat in shortestsupply: mid- and late-summerbrood rearing areas. Instead oflamenting what is out of theranching industry’s control, let’sask a very important question.If, according to wildlife biolo-gists, the big general bottleneckfor increasing sage-grouse num-bers at population levels inNevada is a shortage of late-season brood habitat, and ifnumbers were once much high-er than they are today, justwhat has changed in the inter-vening period? What on the

landscape has changed thatmay account for the bottleneckand the numerical decline? Theanswer may be found in oneword, homesteads.”According to the article,

from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s there were hundreds,perhaps even thousands, ofsmall homesteads scatteredacross large portions ofNevada. These homesteadsalmost invariably were locatedon a spring or stream that theowners used to irrigate mead-ows in order to feed a few live-stock and grow hay. The home-steaders also vigorously shotand trapped predators, such ascoyotes, ravens and badgers.The result, according to thearticle, was a higher sagegrouse population than existstoday and a distinct geographyto the grouse’s high qualitywater-dependent habitat: lotsof it in small pockets scattered

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com Volume 56 • No. 9


by Lee Pitts

Could Abandoned Homesteads Help Keep theSage Grouse Off the Endangered Species List?

writer. Here are a couple high-lights:

n Results from the studydemonstrated some differencesin physiological and endocrinemarkers of stress and muscleaccretion in heifers that weresupplemented with Zilmax®compared to heifers not fed Zil-max®.

n Results from this studydemonstrated that heifers sup-plemented with Zilmax® had adecreased production of thestress hormone cortisol, anddecreased body temperatureduring the simulated stressevent. Histopathology of theheart, lungs, liver, kidneys, andadrenal glands revealed some dif-ferences between the heiferssupplemented with Zilmax® andthe heifers not receiving Zil-max®. The livers and right adre-nal gland of the Zilmax® heiferswere slightly smaller than heifersthat were not fed Zilmax®, butthere was no difference in lungs,kidneys, or heart.I thought there were no detri-

mental impacts on cattle? Stresslevels and differences in vitalorgans sound like they could besignificant to this reporter.Ty Schmidt says “these differ-

ences are minor” and there was“no indication that supplementa-tion of Zilmax® is detrimental tothe health or well-being of cat-tle.” How does one square the dif-

ferences in physiology men-tioned above with the universalheadline that everything was finewith Zilmax®? It’s almost as ifMerck was paying for theresearch. Well, actually theywere, at least part of the cost.According to the Lincoln StarJournal Merck paid about$85,000 of the $350,000 —$400,000 cost of the study.Schmidt, says Merck’s moneywas used “to cover analysis notoriginally planned but thatbecame part of the conclusions.”Whatever that means.

Don’t Believe Your EyesThere were a couple other

problems with the 20 head testthat the headline writers failed tohighlight. For one, it was NOTconducted during hot weatherwhen most of the problems withZilmax® reared their ugly head.“From this trial, our prelimi-

nary suggestion is that there isno animal well-being issue,” saidSchmidt. “If you change theenvironment, you might see adifferent response, but fromwhat we have here, nothingjumped out as being an animalwell-being issue.”A few other college professors

respectfully disagreed. Guy Lon-eragan, a food safety professor atTexas Tech, Daniel. Thomson,DVM, PhD, Kansas State Uni-versity and H. Morgan Scott,DVM, PhD, Kansas State Uni-versity, came to the conclusionafter looking at the previouslymentioned 951,511 head of cat-tle that the death loss from cattlefed beta agonists was 75 percentto 90 percent higher than cattlethat were not fed beta agonists.

Even this data was taintedbecause Loneragan sits on anadvisory board for Elanco, whichprovided seed funding for thestudy. Elanco makes Optaflexx®the competing beta agonist.Many feeders, when Zilmax®was pulled off the market, mere-ly switched to Optaflexx®. TheTexas Tech, Kansas State studyreached the conclusion thatOptaflexx® did not kill as manycattle as Zilmax®. According to a story by

Reuters, “The number of U.S.cattle deaths that may be linkedto the Merck & Co Inc feedadditive Zilmax® are much high-er than the figures reported bythe drug company to the federalgovernment. The findings byresearchers from Texas TechUniversity and Kansas StateUniversity show that more than3,800 cattle in 10 feedlots thatwere fed Zilmax® died in 2011and 2012, with between 40 per-cent and 50 percent of thedeaths likely attributable to Zil-max®.”In response, Merck said in a

statement that it was confidentin the “safety and performance”of Zilmax®, and criticized themethods used in the study andsaid the the findings were “basedon observational informationand we disagree with them.” Merck did have a point. The

nearly million head were merely“tested” by observation, whereasthe 20 head were tested usingmore traditional parameters.

The Zilmax® DanceIsn’t there some animal sci-

ence professor somewhere whodoesn’t have a dog in this hunt?One professor whose integrity isbeyond reproach is ColoradoState’s Temple Grandin whowrote in April of this year thatbeta agonists are an animal wel-fare issue. She wrote, “In thesummer of 2006, a severe cattlewelfare problem was firstobserved at three slaughterplants. Large numbers of fedfeedlot cattle were lame and afew animals had severe heatstress symptoms. I have workedwith cattle for over 30 years andthis is the first time I have seensevere heat stress in crossbredswhich were part Brahman (BosIndicus) genetics. “Ten to 25 percent of the ani-

mals were mildly to moderatelylame. About 5 percent to 10 per-cent were panting and one ortwo animals from each truckload were lying down and panti-ng hard. Their tongues werehanging out. One animal was sit-ting like a dog and acted stiff andarthritic when the driver madehim get up. I have observedfeedlot fed beef cattle during hotweather in Arizona, Australia,and other places where it is veryhot. This was the first time I sawthis odd combination of lame-ness and heat stress. “To figure out what is causing

the problem, one has to ask:What changes have been madein the feeding industry that

Livestock Market Digest September 15, 2014

Piled Higher continued from page one

continued on page three

Subscribe Today

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARKET

would have happened during thelast two years?” Grandin saidthese changes were feeding betaagonists, growing and fatteningcattle more quickly to reachmarket weight by 20 months forexport, and feeding wet grainproducts from ethanol plants.Grandin ruled out the wet grainproducts “because this feed wasnot available during the summerof 2006 in the area where thefeedlots were located.”Grandin came to the conclu-

sion that beat agonists were theguilty party after her own obser-vational studies and “after hear-ing from processing plants aboutthe ‘Zilmax® dance’ — cattlelifting up one foot and thenanother as if the floor is red-hotand a ‘statue steer’ which walkedoff the truck and when it wastime to be moved to the slaugh-ter line he stood and refused tomove. He acted like he was toostiff or sore to move. Theseobservations,” wrote Grandin,“indicate that there are severewelfare problems in some ani-mals fed beta-agonists. Poorfeed mixing may be part of theproblem. From an animal wel-fare standpoint, lameness, openmouth breathing, and a stiff gateare not acceptable.”

Follow The MoneyThere is another professor

whose integrity is sterling andwe have found above reproach.He’s Robert Taylor, from theschool of ag at Auburn Universi-ty.Taylor wrote a paper called

“Hijacking Universities” thatevery incoming college studentor parent ought to read beforethey sign on the dotted line forthe $100,000 to $250,000 loanthat a four year degree can cost.Says Taylor, “For those of youwho paid big tuition bills foryour children thinking the uni-versity was all about education.Wrong expectation!”Taylor says that “Land-grant

colleges have gone from servingthe public interest to serving pri-vate agendas of career advance-ment and fundraising.” And hewould know. “The public univer-sity I work for,” he wrote, “hasfed me very well for over 40years. I have had a rewardingcareer, comfortable salary andbenefits, job security and a goodretirement system. But I alsohave a growing unease about thechanges I have seen in highereducation. Are land-grant uni-versities and other public univer-sities helping American families,as they were intended? Increas-ingly, the answer is no.” “Public universities have gone

from outward looking to inwardlooking. It’s no longer aboutyou, the public — it is about me— academic faculty. In a sense,the public interest focus hasbeen subtly hijacked by academ-ics,” wrote Taylor. “The only out-ward look is by administratorswho have their hand out beggingfor your tax dollars, or corporatemoney and donations fromwealthy folks.”For some time now corpora-

tions have been using universi-ties as job training centers andde facto research departments. Ithink it’s safe to say we can nowsay they are performing publicrelations campaigns as well. Thatcould explain the outbreak ofheadlines such as, “Zilmax® hasno apparent detrimental effecton cattle.”At the same time that infla-

tion-adjusted tuition at four-yearinstitutions has increased 235percent since 1980, federal andstate moneys that used to flowto colleges and universities hasbeen cut drastically. So whereand how do colleges get themoney they lost? More andmore from corporations and agame Taylor calls “grantman-ship”.

Consider The Source“People the public universi-

ties were intended to help typi-cally don’t have the money toplay this game. Corporations do,leading to deeply troubling cor-porate influence on research,”says Taylor. “Rather than livewithin their means, administra-tors in many public universitiesbegan enticing faculty to obtainoutside funding. Most land-grant faculty with a “research”appointment have base salarypaid wholly or in part out of so-called “hard” funds, namely tax-payer funds — your money. Cor-porate grants often redirectresearch to focus on problemsdefined by the corporate funder,which is increasingly not alignedwith the public interest.”Taylor believes that, “Practice

does not match theory. Manyland-grant administrators, whenholding their hands out for pub-lic support, loudly trumpet theresearch, training and servicemission. Yet, the reward struc-ture in land-grant institutions isheavily skewed to research, andvery narrowly defined researchat that.“Faculty who obtain grants

often buy out part of their teach-ing responsibilities. This can begood if the faculty member is a

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

Piled Higher continued from page two



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

Piled Higher continued from page three

bad teacher, but often lessexperienced graduate stu-dents or PhD's who have notbeen able to find permanentjobs carry the teaching load.The American Association ofUniversity Professors reportsthat 76 percent of college andinstructional appointmentsare now outsourced to lowerpaying full-time members offthe tenure tract, part-timefaculty members, and gradstudents.”It seems professors are

now way too busy doing cor-porate dirty work to teach.Concludes Taylor, “Narrow

research agendas, an empha-

sis on grantsmanship, coupledwith the expense of providingstudents with a country-clubenvironment for their so-called education, have takentheir toll. In doing so, theyhave undermined the middleclass — and our democracy.”So next time you read the

headlines consider the sourceand try to determine whichteam the PhD’s are playingfor. And remember the wordsof my Grandpa who said PhDstood for “piled higher anddeeper”.I’ll leave it to your imagina-

tion as to what he was refer-ring to.

McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove,Michner’s Centennial, ClintEastwood westerns, Man fromSnowy River, the state of Califor-nia, Tim Cox or Charlie Russellpaintings, the Texas lifestyle,cow dogs, Roy Rogers and DaleEvans, Gunsmoke, and on andon. Personally I don’t want tolive in a world without cowboys,or their culture.#6 Insulin: There are

5,000,000 diabetics in thiscountry who need insulin injec-tions merely to survive and ittakes the pancreas from 26 cat-tle to produce enough to keep adiabetic alive for one year.Know any diabetics? Thenthank a cow.#7 Barbecue: Some of the

best times of my life were spenthuddled around a barbecue pitwith some guys burning ourbuns, with the smoke from anoak fire getting in every pore ofmy body for, as we all know . . .smoke follows beauty. Barbe-cue is an American birthrightand unless it’s beef . .. it’s not abarbecue. #8 Cheese: Cheese has been

nibbled on since Roman timesand there’s not a food in theworld that doesn’t taste better

with cheese on it. Besides, with-out cheese we’d have beenoverrun by mice long ago with-out bait for our mousetraps.#9 Leather: As a leather-

worker I’m very aware of all theproducts made from leather,such as belts, bags, boots,shoes, wallets, etc. Withoutleather, pants would be fallingdown, cowboys would have toride bareback and people wouldbe barefoot. Oh sure, there arepetroleum substitutes but tellthe greenies that it takes 6.9pounds of crude oil to makeone pound of polyester fiberand 12 pounds of crude oil tomake one pound of nylon. So,do you want your clothes madefrom chemicals or cattle?#10 Football: We’re in my

favorite season of the year, notAutumn silly, football season.Although they are often called“pigskins” most footballs aremade from the hides of cattle.So next Sunday watch yourfavorite football team, fire upthe barbecue pit, throw onsome steaks followed by threehelpings of homemade icecream and celebrate that won-derful creature that made it allpossible . . . the common cow.

Riding Herd continued from page one

Abandoned Homesteads continued from page one

widely across the landscape.As it turned out, families

could not eke out a living fromthese small landholdings, and asa consequence during the early-to-mid-1900s these homesteadswere either abandoned orbought-up and combined in tobigger ranches. Without peopleto maintain the land, the mead-ows often became overgrownand were no longer suitable, orwere of much lower quality, sagegrouse habitat.The intriguing point raised by

the article in Progressive Rancheris that if many of these meadowswere restored they could providean enormous amount of the cru-cial late-season sage grouse habi-tat that is currently in short sup-ply and perhaps the mostimportant limiting factor for thebird’s population. If these mead-ows are to be restored, ranchersare the crucial link, as the articleexplains:“It is our contention that

efforts to increase sage-grousepopulations in Nevada will bemarginal unless the ranchingindustry comes to the rescue.Ranchers own much of the landthat provides a significant part ofthe answer. They control manyof the homestead sites that wereonce productive meadows andthey own the water needed toimprove those meadows. Animalagriculture to a large degree cre-ated the conditions that allowedsage-grouse to darken the skies,and animal agriculture holds atleast one important key to solv-ing the riddle today. Further-more, the redevelopment of his-toric homestead meadows canprovide additional feed for live-stock, and research has clearlyshown that sage-grouse prefermoderately grazed meadowsover both ungrazed and heavilygrazed meadows.”Note the attribution of higher

historical sage grouse popula-tions to the meadows managedby homesteaders. The article alsohas more general insight on howthe Endangered Species Act’spunitive nature is counterpro-ductive to conservation, includ-ing creating uncertainty, onesource of which is the behaviorof federal regulators. Accordingto the article:“If we are going to manage

sagebrush ecosystems as thoughthe greater sage-grouse is listedas threatened or endangered, inorder to keep it from being list-ed, then what’s the difference?When people ask this question inpublic meetings, it has been ourexperience that they receiveblank facial expressions fromthose tasked with the determina-tion.”Nevada, like all eleven states

in the sage grouse’s range, has avery robust conservation pro-gram. Nevada published its firstsage grouse conservation plan in

2004, which was updated in2012 by separate plans for thegreater sage grouse, the bi-statesage grouse population thatinhabits the Nevada-Californiaborder, as well as a detailedaction plan for implementingsage grouse conservation meas-ures (all these documents areavailable online from the PublicLands Council’s Sage GrouseConservation Library).While the article in Progressive

Rancher is critical of federal offi-cials in charge of determiningwhether the sage grouse will belisted under the EndangeredSpecies Act, the article also rec-ognizes that ranchers need totake a more proactive role toprevent the sage grouse frombeing listed. “The critical ques-tion is what can public landranchers and the Nevada live-stock industry do for sage-grousethat would also improve theirodds of maintaining viable busi-nesses, and perhaps evenincrease the production and effi-ciency of their operations?”, thearticle asks. It adds:“Is it time that Nevada ranch-

ers, as a professional community,realize they have an importantrole to play in removing thegreater sage-grouse from eitherconsideration or actual listing asa threatened or endangeredspecies? We believe the ranchingindustry may control much of itsown destiny. A concerted move-ment by the industry, accompa-nied by an appropriate publicrelations effort, would go a longway toward delisting efforts.”There are several larger impli-

cations of this thought-provokingarticle. First, much of the focus,especially by the federal govern-ment, is on sage brush habitat,which is largely on federal lands.But so much focus on sage brushmay be misplaced because of theimportance and high potentialfor dramatically improving thehistorical meadows that playedsuch a key role sustaining thesage grouse in Nevada and likelyelsewhere.Second, sage grouse conserva-

tion, at least in regions like thosein Nevada where there are his-torical meadows, could poten-tially be much more effective ifthese meadows were restored.The meadows that remain todayon working ranches are still cru-cially important to sage grouse,but the prospect of substantiallymore of this habitat is a tantaliz-ing prospect.Third, ranchers are the linch-

pin to successful sage grouseconservation because they ownalmost all the crucially importantwater-dependent meadow habi-tat. Furthermore, ranchers, bydint of living on the range, arebest positioned to implementactual “boots-on-the-ground”conservation measures over thevast majority of the sage grouse’s

habitat—as opposed to the arm-chair “paper” conservation (e.g.,listing petitions and lawsuits) atwhich advocates of listing thesage grouse under EndangeredSpecies Act excel. Conservationis often difficult work that occursfar from the urban areas inwhich many proponents of theEndangered Species Act live andwork.Driving ranchers off the land,

by making it difficult if notimpossible for them to earn a liv-ing due to increasingly onerousregulations combined withreductions in grazing lands andthe number of cattle allowed onthese lands as a result of lawslike the Endangered Species Act,is not in the best interests of thesage grouse. The grouse needspeople to implement conserva-tion measures for it. For evi-dence, look no further than thearticle in Progressive Rancherabout the importance of ranch-ers maintaining meadows. With-out people living on and workingthe range, the sage grouse hasdiminished prospects.Furthermore, a key part of

conservation, in addition to pro-tecting and improving habitat, ismonitoring data on species. Nomatter what business you’re in,whether it’s oil and gas orwildlife conservation, good dataon which to base decisions isessential. Conversely, bad datagenerally leads to poor decisions.Unfortunately, because theEndangered Species Act punish-es conservation, landowners withendangered species on theirproperty or even habitat suitablefor endangered species haveenormous incentives to keep qui-et and hope they go undetectedby regulatory authorities andgroups that support the Act.Such is the fear of being clob-bered by the EndangeredSpecies Act. As a result, data onendangered species is generallyof very poor quality, which con-tributes to flawed decisionsabout what to protect and why,as well as how to conservespecies effectively, both beforeand after they are listed underthe Act.Fourth, if the sage grouse is

listed, or even proposed to belisted, under the Act, much ofthe outstanding work done bystates like Nevada, and especial-ly by its ranchers, will be undoneas ranchers withdraw from stateand federal conservation initia-tives for the grouse and takeshelter from the coming Endan-gered Species Act storm. Let’shope for the sake of the sagegrouse and this country’sincreasingly embattled westernranchers that this does not hap-pen.

See more at: http://reason.org/blog/show/could-abandoned-homesteads-helpkee#sthash.dFXZG8 Vo.LgKwj9nH.dpuf


By Frank DuBois

My column this month cov-ers reform of the ESA; theEPA and privacy; andMichelle O, the military andschool lunch.

Is the Endangered Species Act(ESA) ripe for some reason-able reform? The ESA was passed four

decades ago and hasn’t beenrenewed by Congress since1988. Under its authority over1,500 species and subspecieshave been listed. Unfortunatelythere has only been a two per-cent recovery rate, which doesn’tsay much for the effectiveness ofthe Act.Furthermore, any objective

observer will admit the ESA hasbecome a litigation-driven mon-strosity. The Department of Jus-tice reports that more than 500ESA-related lawsuits were filedor opened against federal agen-cies since 2009, and more than$21 million has been awarded intaxpayer funded attorneys’ feesto environmental lawyersthrough the Judgment Fund andthe Equal Access to Justice Act.For federal fiscal years 2009-2012, concerning cases inRegion 2 of the Fish & WildlifeService (which includes NewMexico), environmental groupsreceived $2.5 million in attor-neys’ fees. The championship forraiding the federal treasury dur-ing this time period, however,goes to Region 8 (Nevada &

California) where environmentalgroups received $7.2 million.Which environmental groups

are filing all these lawsuits? Youcan probably guess, but here is alist of the top five and the num-ber of cases filed during the timeperiod under consideration: 1) Center for Biological

Diversity – 1172) WildEarth Guardians – 553) Sierra Club – 304) Defenders of Wildlife – 295) Western Watersheds Proj-

ect – 21Adding urgency to all this is

the so-called 2011 “mega-settle-ment” negotiated behind closeddoors by the Department ofInterior and the Center for Bio-logical Diversity / WildEarthGuardians, which may result inan additional 799 species beinglisted as threatened or endan-gered. In the year following thesettlement the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service listed 107 morespecies. Most recently has beenthe listing of the meadow jump-ing mouse which is wreakinghavoc on livestock grazing acrossForest Service lands in NewMexico, Arizona and Colorado.Then there is the transparency

issue. The ESA requires listingsto be based on the “best avail-able scientific and commercialdata” but in many instances thepublic is denied access to thisdata. Doc Hastings, Chairmanof the House Committee onNatural Resources, has stated,

“It is troubling that hundreds ofsweeping listing decisions by theFish and Wildlife Service and theNational Marine Fisheries Serv-ice cite unpublished studies, pro-fessional opinions, and othersources that are inaccessible tothe public yet this data would beused to regulate the very peoplewho don’t have access to thisinformation. This secrecy goesagainst the grain of good scienceand transparency.” Not only is the ESA ripe for

reform, its actually rotting on thevine, and in response the U.S.House of Representatives hasjust passed H.R. 4315, theEndangered Species Transparencyand Reasonableness Act. This is no huge reform of the

ESA, but is an attempt to makethe Act’s implementation morereasonable for humans and moreeffective for wildlife and plants.According to a release by theHouse Natural Resources Commit-tee, H.R. 4315 would specifically:

n Require data used by federalagencies for ESA listing decisionsto be made publicly available andaccessible through the Internet,while respecting state data priva-cy laws and private property.

n Require the federal govern-ment to disclose to affectedstates data used prior to an ESAlisting decision and it wouldrequire the “best available scien-tific and commercial data” usedby the federal government toincorporate data provided bystates, tribes, and local countygovernments.

n Require the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service to track, reportto Congress, and make availableonline the federal taxpayer fundsused to respond to ESA lawsuits,the number of employees dedi-cated to ESA litigation, andattorneys’ fees awarded in the

course of ESA litigation and set-tlement agreements.

n Prioritize species protectionand protect taxpayer dollars byplacing reasonable caps on attor-neys’ fees to make the ESA con-sistent with existing federal law.For example, the federal govern-ment limits the prevailing attor-neys’ fees to $125 per hour inmost circumstances, includingfederal suits involving veterans,Social Security, and disability.But under the ESA, attorneys arebeing awarded huge sums, inmany cases, at a rate as much as$600 per hour.When an environmental

lawyer is awarded four times asmuch for defending jumpingmice and long-eared bats as otherattorneys are awarded for defend-ing our veterans and the handi-capped, I’d say its way past timefor “reform”. The House of Rep-resentatives agreed and passedthese simple reforms on July 29.Some apparently didn’t agree, asNew Mexico rep’s Ben Ray Lujanand Michelle Lujan Grisham vot-ed against the bill.

EPAThe EPA stands for an Ever

Present Attack on liberty. Recall how hard it is to get the

data on endangered species. Wellthat’s certainly not the case if youare an environmental group andrequest data on farmers andranchers. Many folks were sur-prised last year when the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, inresponse to a Freedom of Infor-mation Act request, publiclyreleased to three environmentalgroups a huge database of per-sonal information about thou-sands of livestock producers andtheir families in 29 states. Whatkind of information was released?The database included the names

of the producers and other familymembers, home addresses, GPScoordinates, telephone numbersand emails. How would you likeHSUS, PETA, ADF or some oth-er agriterrorist group to have thatkind of info on your property andfamily?Thankfully, the American

Farm Bureau Federation andothers have filed suit to stop theEPA from future releases of thistype. We’ll keep a close watch onthat.

Michelle, the military, and war

Politico reports that Mission:Readiness, a group of nearly 500former military leaders, is plan-ning to “storm the Hill”and“bring out the big guns for thekids” when Congress comes backto town in an attempt to saveMichelle Obama’s increasinglyunpopular changes to theNational School Lunch Program.The military brass says the obesi-ty epidemic is seen as a “threat tonational security.”Now we have a War on Obesi-

ty? Attention Mr. Generals: Donot deploy. This will go the sameway as the War on Poverty andthe War on Drugs. Besides, oneeducational group points out thatbased on a 180-day school year, aschool lunch only amounts to 15percent of a child’s meals. Betterto aim your “big guns” at ade-quately funding P.E. programsand forget about this silly, sissi-fied, anti-meat program. Besides,do we really want a bunch of tofutoughies running the military?Till next time, be a nuisance to

the devil and don’t forget tocheck that cinch.

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculturefrom 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The West-erner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and isthe founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship(http://www.nmsu.edu/~duboisrodeo/).


www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

KADDATZAuctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales

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

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.ClassifiedsDigest

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

[email protected]

DanWendt

S

S

Santa Gertrudis Cattle

Polled and Horned

HERD ESTABLISHED 1953S

S

SANTA GERTRUDIS

angus

Bell KeyAngusDennis Boehlke 208/467-2747

Cell. 208/989-1612

A few ChoiceBulls Availableat PrivateTreaty.

NAMPA, IDAHO

Bradley 3Ranch Ltd.

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

Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

Our Next Bull Sale:February 14, 2015

at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX

www.bradley3ranch.com

PhillipsRED ANGUS

Spring & Yearlings For Sale

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

5500 bueNa ViSta Rd.

ioNe, Ca 95640

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR

RED ANGUS GENETICS

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

209/727-3335

RED ANGUS

BRANGUS

Willcox, AZ

R.L. Robbs520/384-3654

4995 Arzberger Rd.Willcox, Arizona 85643

g•u•i•d•e

RegisteredPolled Herefords

Cañones Route P.O.Abiquiu, N.M. 87510

MANUEL SALAZARP.O. Box 867Española, N.M. 87532

Bulls &HeifersFOR SALE

AT THE FARMPhone: 575/638-5434

HEREFORD

BY: BEEFMASTER BREEDERS

UNITED COMMUNICATIONS

It is clear that the US beefcow population is as low asever. The prolonged droughtacross the nation, high feed

costs and other competition forthe land use has certainlychanged the dynamics of thebeef industry as we once knew itto be. The traditional ten yearbeef market cycle may be chal-

lenged moving forward. Theseinteresting dynamics lead me tobelieve that there is a tremen-dous opportunity awaiting us inthe beef cattle industry. Morespecifically, Beefmaster cattleshould be part of the upcomingherd rebuilding that is bound tooccur sooner than later. USDA data suggests that cat-

tle (ranch) owners are an aginggroup with over one third ofthem being 65 years of age or

Rebuild Your Cowherd with Time Testedand Improved Beefmaster Females

older. Additionally, more thanfifty percent of them are age 55or older which is even more rea-son to use Beefmaster cattle inthe rebuilding phase. Beefmas-ter cattle have been selected fordocility for more than sixty yearsand you can rest assured thatthey will make working cattlemore pleasurable because oftheir superior temperament.Data clearly shows that selectingfor calm, docile cattle simultane-ously improves feedlot gain,health and ultimate carcass per-formance. Beefmaster cattle optimize

traits necessary to rebuild thecow herd because they excel infertility, calving ease andlongevity. Commercial cattle-men understand the economicadvantages that improvementsin these traits offer a beef opera-tion. These include, but are notlimited to, higher conceptionrates, more weaned calf per cowand reduced replacement heiferdevelopment costs. You willappreciate the high qualityfemales that Beefmaster bullsproduce as they will excel in thehot, humid environments of theSouth to the wet, cool climatesup north and everywhere inbetween.Efficiency is also a strong

attribute of the Beefmasterbreed. In a recent all-breeds per-formance test in Texas, yearlingBeefmaster bulls were the high-est average daily gain (ADG) ontest as well as the lowest residualfeed intake (RFI) on test. Beef-master cattle not only have highdaily gains, they also consumeless feed per pound of gain. Useof Beefmaster influenced cattleallows you to be a low-cost pro-ducer with reduced input levelsin the cow/calf enterprise. Thesecost cutting measures have beenbuilt into the Beefmaster influ-enced female and will be neces-sary for cow/calf operators tosurvive in the developing beefindustry.Docility, fertility, efficiency,

and longevity are just a few ofthe traits that Beefmaster cattle

offer as you will also appreciatethe early growth of these calves.Your weaned calves will haveheavy weights at the marketplace and will have added valuein the feedlot segment of thebeef industry. For example, feedout data from Mississippi showsthat Beefmaster sired calvesmade $201 more per head thanAngus sired calves. All of thecalves were born on the sameranch, in the same season,weaned and backgroundedtogether and all fed in the sameKansas feedlot. The Beefmastercalves harvested with an averageyield grade of 2.7, high selectquality grade and 1361 poundlive weight whereas the Anguscalves averaged a yield grade2.5, high choice and weighed1112 pounds. The Angus calvesmay have had a higher qualitygrade but the combination ofincreased weight and efficiencyof gain improved the bottomline for the Beefmaster siredcalves.

Beefmaster HistoryThe Beefmaster breed gained

popularity in the 1970s, howeverthe Beefmaster breed dates backto the 1930s when Tom Lasater,the breed’s founder, developedBeefmasters from a systematiccrossing of Hereford, Shorthornand Brahman cattle. His pur-pose was to develop cattle thatwere more productive thanexisting breeds; cattle thatwould produce and make moneyduring economically hard timesin the harsh environment ofSouth Texas.The new breed was developed

on what has become known asthe Six Essentials – Weight,Conformation, Milk Production,Fertility, Hardiness and Disposi-tion. These essentials becamethe economic strength of Beef-masters and have made themfavorites with those who dependon cattle for a living. Beefmas-ters are the only beef breedspecifically developed to excel inthese important economic traits.While brownish-red is the

most common color, the breedhas no color standards. Beef-masters were recognized by theU.S. Department of Agricultureas a pure breed in 1954.Since the early 1970s, when

the breed began rapid expansionfrom its South Texas birthplace,Beefmasters have survived sever-al wrecks in the cattle marketwithout adversely affecting theirgrowth and demand. From 1974to 1998, membership in Beef-master Breeders United (BBU)grew from 300 to nearly 7,000.BBU, which was founded in1961, is one of the top fivelargest beef breed registry in theUnited States in membershipand top ten in registrations.Responding to change and

tough challenges are part of theBeefmaster heritage. Today, likeyesterday, Beefmasters and thecattlemen and cattlewomenwho raise them are ready tohandle the ever changing beefcattle industry. With this everchanging industry, cattle pro-ducers have several aspects thatneed to be focused on and Beef-masters can make these tasks alittle easier. Beef cattle produc-ers can focus on rebuilding theirherds with strong and fertileBeefmaster females and focuson genetic performanceimprovements with Beefmasterbulls. While heifer selectionplays an important role in herdimprovement, Dr. Kent Ander-son, Zoetis associate director ofanimal genetics, says that bullselection is a primary driver ofgenetic improvement in a herd.The Beefmaster bull is making aname for himself in the cattleindustry because he is “The Bestof Both Worlds”. Commercialcattlemen and women have wit-nessed that a Beefmaster bullwill produce extremely fertile,functional and docile females torebuild America’s cowherds, aswell as produce profitable andefficient feeder calves that deliv-er results in the current marketplace.If you are looking for solid

colored (red, black or dun),muscular, fertile, and easy calv-ing cattle don’t hesitate to call210/732-3132 or go to our web-site at www.beefmasters.org foradditional information. BBUworks for its members by offer-ing adult and junior member-ships. The association encour-ages Beefmaster enthusiasts tolearn more about BBU pro-grams, which include wholeherd reporting, genetic evalua-tion, marketing efforts, The Beef-master Cowman, field days, sem-inars and satellite organizations.Stay connected to the Beefmas-ter breed and BBU throughFacebook, follow us on Insta-gram, view our videos onYouTube, follow us on Twitterand Pinterest, as well as receiveour news updates through join-ing our mailing list.

To:_________________________________

From:_______________________________

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

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

P.O. Box 7458Albuquerque, NM 87194

505/243-9515 • Fax 505/[email protected]

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

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

~Gift Certificate ~

Beefmaster BreedersUnited (BBU) is proudto announce thatMatthew Woolfolk of

Jackson, Tenn., will be servingas the FieldRepresentative/CommercialMarketing Director for theBeefmaster membership.Woolfolk will provide assis-tance to Beefmaster breedersand commercial beef producersthroughout the United States.Woolfolk will provide consulta-tion and farm visit services tomembers, while also increasingthe Beefmaster breed’s expo-sure in the commercial market-place. His responsibilities willinclude providing classificationservices, managing commercialmarketing programs and sup-porting BBU educational pro-grams that create visibility anddemand for Beefmaster cattle. Woolfolk grew up raising

cattle with his family and theycurrently operate WoolfolkFarms, a Hereford and com-mercial female cow-calf opera-tion in Western Tennessee.Woolfolk has an extensive agri-cultural background and heldvarious leadership positionswhile a member of the Nation-al Junior Hereford Association.Woolfolk brings to BBU a vaseknowledge of commercial cat-tle operations and animalgenetics from his previous posi-tions with Marshall CattleCompany of Burlington, Colo.,and his education at Mississip-pi State University and TexasA&M University. As a Tennessee native,

Woolfolk attended MississippiState where he studied Animaland Dairy Science and receiveda Bachelor of Science degree.While at Mississippi StateWoolfolk worked on variouscattle research projects andheld several leadership roles inagricultural organizations. Hecontinued his education atTexas A&M University wherehe earned a Master of Sciencedegree in Animal Breeding andGenetics. His graduate workincluded teaching numerouscourses on animal science andanimal breeding, as well asgraduating with honors. Priorto becoming a BBU staff mem-ber, Woolfolk served as theMarketing Specialist for Wool-folk Farms where he imple-mented seedstock and com-mercial marketing programs fortheir beef cattle operation. “We are excited to have

Matt on board,” said BBUExecutive Vice President BillPendergrass. “Matt’s back-ground in genetics, beef cattleproduction and marketingseedstock will be beneficial tothe breed and its members.” Woolfolk will begin his

duties next week at the Beef-master International Group

event in Fort Worth, Texasfrom Aug. 18-21 and he will beattending the SoutheasternBeefmaster Breeders Associa-tion Convention in Tunica,Miss., the weekend of Aug. 22-23. Please help us in welcom-ing Matt to the Beefmasterfamily. Due to his requiredwork travel, Matt Woolfolk willbe residing in College Station,Texas and will work remotely asa BBU employee. He can bereached directly via email [email protected] orvia cell phone at 210/464-0923.


Beefmaster BreedersUnited Welcomes Woolfolk to Staff Internationally acclaimed singer/song-

writer, Ian Tyson starts his SW tour inSonoita, AZ on Oct. 10 at Pioneer Hall atthe Santa Cruz Co. Fairgrounds. Sonoita isa special place to Ian as he spent some win-ters there to escape Alberta’s cold and towrite songs.

He’ll continue to Albuquerque, NM foranother intimate show on Oct. 12 at theSouth Broadway Cultural Center.

Ian is celebrating 6 decades of music be-ginning with the folk duo Ian and Sylvia.

Enjoy the western/folk stories and songsthat tell the real truth about horses andmen, love sustained and relationships bro-ken, heroes and heroines, the land, weatherand the prairie sky.

For more info and tickets: www.gopattywagon.com or call 800-838-3006

Ian Tyson��

��

Photo by Kurt Markus


BEWARE CONNOIS-SEURS! A new discoverymay change the wayAmerica eats! Love your

broccoli? Savor your home-growntomatoes? Would give your eye-teeth for a blueberry pie?This discovery could create

sweeping protests and black mar-kets like marijuana has neverseen! PLANTS FEEL PAIN!That’s right, PLANTS FEEL

PAIN!Science has discovered, that a

relative of the cabbage plant wasproven to be sensitive and reactto an insect chewing on it byincreasing its “chemical defens-es.” Silly, you say? How silly doyou think the Humane Treat-ment and Endangered Speciescongregation takes this newopportunity?Selected species of fungi, coral

Plants’ Rights!

and insects have already beendeclared endangered. There is noreality connected to the extent ofdamage and sacrifice that mustbe made by the humans to SAVETHE FUNGUS! Now, there willbe zealots who will solicit millionsof dollars to SAVE THE FUN-GUS!They will adopt the mantra of

PLANTS FEEL PAIN! LET-TUCE KILLERS! SAVE OURTURNIPS! FREE CHILE!HAVE YOU HUGGED YOURKUMQUAT TODAY? SPON-SOR YOUR OWN PINEAPPLEOR BUNCH OF GRAPES FORONLY $25 A MONTH! JOINTHE VEGETABLE PROTEC-TION LEAGUE!These ANTI-PLANT CON-

SUMPTION groups will rise inself-righteous indignation! Theywill use the tried and true meth-ods used today by ANTI-MEATEATERS of yesterday. There willbe billboards with pictures of abunch of limp carrots with their

top knot sagging, another show-ing a potato with tears comingfrom its eyes, an artichoke with abroken heart.They will seek out the most fla-

grant violators of the Plant’sRights; vegetarians and theirextremist branch, the VEGANS!Media will pick up the bannercovering rallies demanding equalrights for plants. Whole Foods,Sprouts, Trader Joe’s will be suedby the Plant Savers of the UnitedStates (PSUS) for everythingtheir lawyers can think of. Smallgrowers who sell their fresh pro-duce at local Farmer’s Marketswill become pariahs; ridiculed,demeaned, cursed and hung ineffigy in their own pumpkin patch. . . and on and on.Well. Nobody with any sense

would even consider somethinglike the Vegetable ProtectionLeague or that the PSUS couldhappen. What would advocatessuggest people eat? The humanbody can be sustained by mouth

or intravenously by taking a slurryof chemicals containing hydro-gen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon,sulfur and phosphorus. Thatwould be their answer. Which isirrelevant because all they need isa cause. They don’t need to proveanything. Even if they could con-vince only 2.4 percent of the pop-ulation that eating vegetables isethically bad and unhealthy, itwould be a victory for their causeand make them feel good aboutthemselves. They would be theirown little industry and we all got-ta make a living.Today only 2.4 percent of

Americans consider themselvesvegetarians, who for practical rea-sons do not include eggs anddairy products. And they feelgood about themselves.I asked in jest if anyone with

even half a brain would actuallyconsider plant’s rights and theVegetable Protection League . . .and then I remembered Con-gress.

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Montana State SenatorVerdell Jackson( R e p u b l i c a n ,Kalispell) is the off-

reservation representative forthe area north of FlatheadLake. “Having been on theNatural Resources CommitteeI’ve done a lot of research instate water law. That back-ground has helped me in myeffort to have a Compact thatis fair and equitable to every-one involved,” he says. When the Compact was

presented, Jackson took thetime to read and study it. “Ifound there were a lot of prob-lems with it, and some ulteriormotives hidden in it—and notjust the attempt to securemore water for the Tribes.There is the motive to controlall the water in western Mon-tana,” he says.The efforts are continuing,

to try to push it through.“Right now the CompactCommission is on tour tryingto ‘sell’ the very same Compactthat was killed in the House inits last session in April 2013.So they now have a dead billand are still trying to convincepeople we should pass it.There’s some question as towhether this is legal, at thispoint. I carried a bill to extendit for two years (hopeful thatadditional negotiations wouldresult in changes that would befair to everyone). My bill didpass the House and Senate butwas vetoed by the Governor.”The Governor wants to goahead and pass the currentCompact as is, and may call aspecial session to do it.

“They are trying to pass itthe way it is—without anychanges atall. This isthe Tribes’p o s i t i o n ,because theygot every-thing theywanted, theway it is cur-rently writ-ten. Wedon’t know whether there willbe a special session of the leg-islature to try to pass it, or if itwill come up again in the nextsession, which will start in2015,” says Jackson.“We meet every other year,

in Montana. The way it works,the people who win the elec-tion in November have theirfirst session in January anddon’t have much time to pre-pare for that first session. Onthe other end, some of us havealready had our last sessionbut are still legislators for morethan a year—and are basicallytermed out unless there arespecial sessions called—because our terms are not overuntil the legislators meet in2015,” he explains.“A worrisome thing about

the off-reservation rightsclaimed by the Compact isthat any of the three partiescan make a call for the water.This is scary, to realize that thefederal government couldcome in here and stop us fromusing water. This, in and ofitself, violates the U.S. Consti-tution. The federal governmentcontrols the navigable rivers,but all of the other streams(that don’t fit that definition)are controlled by the States.”

The various states have had along history of being the entity

that administers the waterrights for the people who usethe water.“In the early 1900s when

the Kerr dam was built and theFlathead Irrigation Project wascreated, according to federallaw they had to get waterrights through the state ofMontana. It is interesting togo back and read the detailsthe federal government wentthrough to make sure theywould not violate Montanalaw,” says Jackson.The feds got their water

rights and built the project.“When you are doing anythingwith water you must have awater right. After the Reserva-tion was opened to home-steading the federal govern-ment helped the homesteadersget private property and pri-vate water rights but they werefiled through the state and arestate-based water rights. TheIndians got their property freeand their water rights free.The other people who home-steaded paid for theirs,” hesays.“I got into the present con-

troversy on these water rightsbecause I wrote a letter to theeditors of all the regional dailynewspaper. I mentioned that

these water rights were givento the land owners in the early

1900s, and Isaid theseshould be leftalone. There isno reason totake these rightsaway from theproperty owners.Taking themwould be con-trary to state law

because the water rights areattached to land,” says Jack-son.“In 1981 the Flathead Joint

Board of Control (FJBC, thegroup who manage the waterproject) decided that theyshould get a water right for theproject since they were manag-ing the water,” he explains.“With water rights, you get

a water right for a certain pur-pose. This is why the federalgovernment got their waterrights to build the irrigationproject and the irrigators gottheirs for the purpose of irri-gating their land. Then theFJBC on the Reservation got awater right to manage thewater. Thus we have threewater rights for this water. Ibelieve that the last one wasunnecessary but I also believethat it did not eliminate theindividual water rights of theirrigators,” he says.“First of all, these water

rights that belong to all theindividual irrigators are men-tioned in the Compact, andthey are transferred to theTribes. So the Compact takesthe individual water rightsfrom the individual propertyowners and gives them to thetribes. Then the Tribes—

through the FJBC, since theycontrol the water rights—saidin the Compact that they aregoing to give an allocation of1.4 acre-feet of water per acreto each irrigator. Most of thewater rights are 10-acre feetand most of the time the farm-ers don’t use that much, butthat’s the way Montana doesit. This amount would takecare of the farmer’s irrigationneeds regardless of what typeof crop he had (melons, forinstance take more water thanpasture and pasture takesmore water than hay),”explains Jackson.“But this one-size-fits-all of

1.4 acre-feet will not beenough for some crops. It’s nota good idea. I started out justlooking at the off-reservationwater rights and then I discov-ered all of these problems onthe reservation and the factthat it is unconstitutional totake these water rights fromthe individual irrigators.”These have always been tied tothe land. The heart of ourConstitutional Republic is pri-vate property.“Most people would never

consent to giving away theirprivate property to the govern-ment. This would be givingaway our means of making aliving. But the Tribe is doingthat to individual Indians.They say, ‘If you’ll turn yourproperty over to the Tribe youdo not have to pay propertytaxes to the state of Montana.Quite a few of the Indianshave done that. Most of thenon-Indian people in ourcountry do not trust govern-

Montana Water Problems Part 5 – Unconstitutional “Takings”

continued on page ten

“There is the motive tocontrol all the water in western Montana.”


THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

��%�� "��#��

��%��

�� !�� $$$� ��!��

To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515 or

RON ARCHERat 505/865-6011

��

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

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

[email protected] PPeerreezz AAssssoocciiaatteess

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

Missouri Land Sales675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your Own

Plane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2-ba home down 1 mile privatelane. New 40x42 shop, 40x60 livestock barn, over 450 ac. in grass.(Owner runs over 150 cow/calves, 2 springs, 20 ponds, 2 lakes, consist-ing of 3.5 and 2 ac. Both stocked with fish. Excellent fencing. A mustfarm to see. MSL #1112191

113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.” Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acresin grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-br, 1-ba rock home. Pricedto sell 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: 417/839-50961-800/743-0336

MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORSSPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

SCOTT MCNALLYwww.ranchesnm.com

575/622-5867575/420-1237

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Bar MReal EstateReal Estate

� ��5�� ,3�� 0��,'+5/��!� ��

222�'%"$-1".0%./2%/0�#,*�� 4��"3�� 4��%))��

(+&,�'%"$-1".0%./2%/0�#,*

��

�� ,��;�� %*� ��*;6�(� E0��#�� ,>*;B�� E6%C,*��;@��*�E(0%*��*��06%*"�6?%((��(,*"��%"#@�B�-�D�%*�;#��>;6%,7,��((�B��;�;#��,*�(>�*��,��,(;�6��6��'��*��>;6%,7,��6��'�@%;#�,?�6�.)%(�� ,�� )��*��6%*"� �>;6%,7,� �6��'� 6>**%*"� ;#6,>"#� ;#�� 06,0�6;B1�*�(>��7� ,?�6� --�� 6�7� ;,;�(� @%;#� "6�*�$��;#�6��@�;�6� 6%"#;7� �,6� <<1��6�7�,�� %66%"�;��0�7;>6�1� ��6)��(��6��"��#�7��*�>;%(%C�� ,6� (%?�$7;,�'� "6�C%*"� ,*� %)06,?��0�7;>6�� *�� %7� %66%"�;�� ?%�� "6�?%;B� �(,@��%6;�%;�#�71��>;%�>(�?%�@7�,��7�>�%((��,>*;�%*�(,��;��%*�;#��#��6;�,��;#��#%;��,>*;�%*71��#�6��6��*>)�6,>7�#,)��7%;�7�,*�;#��06,0�6;B�@%;#�A��((�*;� ��77� %*�(>�%*"� ,?�6� /� )%(�� ,�� 0�?�� 6,*;�"�� (,*"� ��%"#@�B�-�D1��E��%;%,*�(��77�%7�06,?%��B��,>*;B�)�%*;�%*��6,��7,*��,;#� ;#��*,6;#��*��7,>;#��,>*��6%�71� � 6%��-�=DD�DDD��-�DDD�DDD

�� ,�,*%*,��,>*;B��E6%C,*��;@��*��(�"7;��*��%*")�*�&>7;�*,6;#�,��*;�67;�;��!D�%*�;#��%��;%,*�(��,6�7;1��#�6�*�#� �,*;�%*7� *��6(B� ��DDD� �� 6�7� %*�(>�%*"� ;@,� 3%*$#,(�%*"40�6��(7�@%;#%*�;#��,6�7;��,>*��6B1��#��6�*�#��66B%*"��0��%;B�%7��,6�=98�*%)�(�>*%;57� B��6$(,*"��*��?�6%�7� %*��(�?�;%,*� �6,)� �=DD� ��;� ;,�9�=DD��;�@%;#�;#��#��2>�6;�67�7%;>�;��;� �!9D��;1��E��77�%7�06,?%��B�,6�7;��,��+-!=��006,A%)�;�(B�9�)%(�7�*,6;#�,��*;�67;�;��!D��;�E7#�,6'�E6%C,*�1� ��#�� 6�*�#�#��2>�6;�67� %*�(>��7�� 6�*�#�#,>7��@%;#��6*��*��,66�(71� � �#�� 6�*�#� %7� @�;�6�� B� ,?�6� <D� ��6;#�*� 6�7�6?,%67� 7��;;�6��;#6,>"#,>;��#�0�7;>6�1��#��6�*�#�%7��*��*��6,77$��*��%*;,�7%A)�%*�0�7;>6�7�@%;#�*%*��@,6'%*":#,(�%*"�;6�071��#��*,6;#�6*�0,6;%,*�,�;#�� 6�*�#� %7� ��#%*�� (,�'��"�;�� *�� ,>(��"�*�6�;�� %;%,*�(� %*�,)��6,)�#>*;%*"��@,,�$�>;;%*"�,6�7�*�7;,*��2>�66%�71�� 6%��<��DD�DDD

��77;;��66**�EE66%%CC,,**�� **��##��,6;#� ,�� ;1� �,#*7� %*� E0��#�� ,>*;B�� E6%C,*��%*�(>��7�-�89D��6�7�@%;#��;�;��(��7�7��,6�-=-��*%)�(�>*%;7B��6(,*"1��@(B�%)06,?��@%;#�7�?�6�(�)%(�7�,��*�@�0%0�(%*��*>)�6,>77;,6�"��;�*'7:�6%*'�67�7>00(%��B��,>6�@�((71��,;�(�6�*�#�%7�,?�6�--�DDD��6�7�@%;#��%?��0�7;>6��6,;�;%,*�(�"6�C%*"�7B7;�)��*��,*��7)�((�#,(�%*";6�01� �E((� 6�*�#� ��*��7�#�?��*� 6�@,6'�� %*�(>�%*"�,?�6� ;@,�)%(�7�,�*�@��*�%*"1��#��)�%*��(,�'�,��;#��6�*�#�%7��#%*��(,�'��"�;��06,?%�$%*"�;#��,@*�6�@%;#�"6��;�06%?��B��*��7��(>7%,*1�� 6%��8DD�DDD

�&�#�� $�"��#'��"�� !��!�� $�"��

�� &�%%%�� $�"��"#�#��"��

� ��##��'��

��

��

� � � � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��!��!��

��

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

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

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

��

��

��

��

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

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

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

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

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

��

��46��#�%-3'**#��

��7�� 7� ��5��

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

�

�� C��346:;��:,*;065:��46:;3@�+,,+,+��>,33�04796=,+>/64,:��)(95:��:,=,9(3�:,;:�6-�7,5:�>:*(3,:��>(;,9,+�)@�:63(9��,3,*;90*�76>�,9,+�:<):��>05+4033:��(5�,?;,5:0=,�707,305,�:@:;,4��:7905.:��:7905.�-,+�+9(>:��*(5@65:��,(9;/,5�+(4:��90=,9�-965;(.,��7=4;��(33�>,(;/,9�96(+:�� C��(:;��+.,� -�#(5;(�"6:(��C��>@�� -965;(.,�65�)6;/:0+,:�6-��/>@��-965;(.,�65�)6;/�:0+,:�6-��>@��/>@��-965;(.,�65��>@��(*��+,,+,+��(*��:;(;,�3,(:,��>,33�04796=,+��,?*,33,5;>(;,9�:@:;,4�796=0+,+�)@�(�3(9.,�:7905.�(;�;/,�/,(+8<(9;,9:��>,33:�,8<077,+>:<):��>05+4033:�796=0+05.�>(;,9�-69�(5�,?;,5:0=,�707,305,��*6>*(3-��@,(9�305.�*6<5;9@�� "� @,(9305.�69�*6>*(3-�*6<5;9@��(4(A05.04796=,4,5;:��(*��+,,+,+�� (*��:;(;,�3,(:,��-965;(.,�65;/,�>,:;��>@��65�;/,�569;/��#7905.,9�� C��05<;,:�-964�"<0+6:6��4<3;0�7<976:,�7967,9;@�>�� (*��3()69(;69@6--0*,��*6=,9,+�7,5:��/64,��+,(3�-69�<:,�-69�/69:,�69�*(;;3,)9,,+05.��,4)9@6�;9(5:-,9�-(*030;@��=,;�*3050*�69�4(5@�6;/,9�<:,:�05�(�),(<;0-<3(9,(�6-�� "�� C��(*��=,9@�50*,�/69:,)6(9+05.��;9(0505.�-(*030;0,:�>30./;,+�(9,5(��5,(;�)<52�/6<:,�� 8�� C�� (*��6-�.66+�9(5*/*6<5;9@�>/64,�"�� 9�� C��,�(*(�<(+(3<7,��6�� (*��,?*,33,5;�04796=,4,5;:��-,5*,:��>(;,9,+��*6>*(3-��@,(9�305.�*6<5;9@�05�,?*,33,5;�*65+0;065��65�7=4;�� C��(*��>,33�04796=,+�>/64,:��)(95:��7,5:�>,33�>(;,9,+��7=4;��(33�>,(;/,9�96(+:�-964�;/,�05;,9:;(;,�� 8� �� 04(9965��6�� (*��5(;0=,�.9(::�569;/>,:;�6-��(3/(9;��$,?(:��3(9.,+9(>�;/96<./�:6<;/�7(9;�6-�7967,9;@�(--69+:�.66+�/<5;05.��>05;,9�796;,*;065-69�30=,:;6*2��>03+30-,��>(;,9,+�)@�(�4033��(�:<)��:;,,3�7,5:��099��76;,5;0(3�65569;/�769;065��!"��"��%��"�� 7(:;<9,:�9<5�05�:0A,�-9��(*��,(*/�<7�;6� � (*��>3(2,�� 70*2� ;/,� :0A,� 6-� 9(5*/� ;/(;� @6<�>(5;�>(� ;6;(3� 6-� �� (*��6;3,@��6��$'��9(5*/3(5+�>(�3(9.,��7,940;;,+�+(4�796=0+05.�(�/<.,��),(<;0�-<3�3(2,�>>(;,9�)(*2,+�<7�05�(�5<4),9�6-�:4(33,9�*(5@65:��-69�)6(;05.��-0:/05.��6;/,9�9,*9,(;065�;6.,;/,9�>.66+�/<5;05.�65�;/,�9(5*/�� 5�7=4;�� (:;�#367,�6-�;/,�#(*9(4,5;6��6<5;(05:��;96<;�-0:/05.��4<3,�+,,9��(9)(9@�:/,,7��;<92,@��),(<;0-<3��5,>�*<:;64�)<03;/64,�>,?*,7;065(3� 3(5+:*(705.��.<,:;�/6<:,6--0*,�5,>3@� 9,46+,3,+��50*,,4736@,,�/6<:05.��)(95:��:;,,3�7,5:��>6=,5��)(9),+�>09,�-,5*,:�� (*��+,,+,+��:;(;,��3,(:,:��65�7=4;� �� 8� ��!� ��C��(*��70=6;:��+0;*/�>(;,990./;:��,32�/<5;05.��65�7=4;�� 8�� C�>,33�36*(;,+�65��>@:�� B� :,*;065:�� ,?*,33,5;� 707,305,� :@:;,4�>4<50*07(3� >(;,9�� 67,5�963305.� 9,7<;(;065� @,(9305.� *6<5;9@�� *6>*(3=,:� (3:6� 9<5� 05� ;/,� (9,(�� +6<)3,�>0+,�46+<3(9�/64,��3(9.,�4,;(3�)(95:��7,5:��(�:*(3,�� 8��"�� C�65�7=4;��9,7�<;(;065�(9,(�-69�>05;,9�>/,(;�796+��.9(A05.��(*��5(;0=,�.9(::��-(943(5+��-<33@�-,5*,+��>(;,9,+�-69�.9(A05.�� 8��"� ��,?*,33,5;�*(;;3,-(9405.�67769;<50;@�-69>05;,9�>/,(;� .9(A05.�� :7905.:<44,9�4036� 796+<*;065� ;6� ),� /(9=,:;,+� 69.9(A,+�6<;��(*��05*3��(*��*9673(5+��)(3(5*,�5(;0=,�.9(::�-69�,?*,3�3,5;�(9,(�65�>/0*/�;6�79,*65��*(3=,:�-69�>05;,9�.9(A05.� �� 8�� C�1<:;�6<;�6-�;6>5��*695,9:�;/,��0;:65�9,,2�"(5*/��(*��05*3��*9673(5+��)(3(5*,�5(;0=,�.9(::�-69�30=,�:;6*2�.9(A05.�� (*��>(;,9� 90./;:�6<;�6-� ;/,��9*/��<93,@�&(;,9��0:;90*;�>(;,9,+�)@�+64,:;0*�>,33�>:<)��,3,*;90*�46;69��7<47��.9,(;�-69�(�*64)05(�;065�.9(A05.-(9405.�67,9(;065��(33�>,(;/,9�96(+�� (*�� 6-� */60*,�.9(::3(5+�>/6<:,:�� )(95:�� :;,,37,5:��3(@:�05� �;9(*;:��790*,+�:,7(9(;,3@��,'#2'�5+'6�/41�6'$2+3'2�(/1�&'3#+,2�/.�3*'2'�01/0'13+'2��%*/+%'��1#.%*'2��,#1)'��2-#,,��%*/+%'�1#.%*'2�+.�3*'�*+)*�1#+.(#,,�#1'#2�/(��+11��&17,#.&� ��%/--'1%+#,�01/0'13+'2�� '�.''&�7/41�,+23�

+.)2�/.�#.7�370'2�/(�#)�01/0'13+'2�+.��!��/1� ��

Scottand co.L Ranch & FarmReal Estate

11330011 FFrroonntt SSttrreeeett ,, DDiimmmmiitttt ,, TTXX 7799002277BBeenn GG.. SSccootttt –– BBrrookkeerr

KKrryyssttaall MM.. NNeellssoonn,, NNMM QQuuaall iiffyyiinngg BBrrookkeerr880000--993333--99669988 ddaayy//eevvee..

wwwwww..ssccoottttllaannddccoo mmppaannyy..ccoo mmwwwwww..tteexxaassccrrpp..ccoo mm

Montana Water Problems Part 5 – Unconstitutional “Takings”

give the whole irrigation proj-ect 179,000 acre feet and therest is theirs. This is a reversequantification!” says Laskody.“One of the stipulations—

for them to give water to theirrigation project—is that wehave to give up our claim towater. It goes against the stateconstitution and the federalconstitution. We’ve alreadyhad a district court judgereview this and he said it wasan unconstitutional taking. The

Western MontanaWater Users filed acomplaint and we hadto go to a hearingbefore the judge.When he reviewed allthe documents hesaid that this repre-sents an unconstitu-tional uncompensated

taking. He would not approvethe contract to be submitted toa vote,” says Laskody. “The issue of whether the

judge should even review theWater Use Agreement was

appealed to the StateSupreme Court sinceit was claimed thatthis was not a finan-cial contract with thegovernment. TheState Supreme Courtsaid it was not afinancial contractwith the federal gov-

ernment for money. Yet therewere all sorts of compensationterms within it—that we weresupposed to get a certainamount of money to repair theirrigation system that theBureau of Indian Affairs hasrun into the ground over theyears. So we lost that part ofthe case, but State SupremeCourt specifically stated thatthey were not ruling on the

constitutional issues ofthe taking of privateproperty rights,” he says“I don’t see how

the state could toler-ate this. I know theattorney general iswatching this issuevery closely, but Idon’t see how thetribes can do a taking

like this and not have a hueand cry from the state. Mon-tana is a property rights statebut the people in power rightnow don’t seem to worryabout the constitution gettingin their way,” Laskody says.The frightening thing is that

this movement seems to be anational trend, and not just inMontana. “The people whowrote our Constitution andthe Declaration of Independ-ence were very wise, and theyunderstood people. When theyput the checks and balancesinto our government it was toprotect against these sorts ofthings; they didn’t want onebranch of the government tooverride all the others. Some-how, over the past 2 ½ cen-turies we seem to have forgot-ten about the basics of ourcountry’s Constitution,” heexplains.


ment enough to ever do that!”The government is supposed torepresent the people, and be ourservant, and not the other wayaround. The Tribal constitutionis much different; the tribe is nota constitutional republic. Tribalownership of the propertynegates private property rights.In essence this is a communistsystem.“Equal protection under the

law is guaranteed in our Consti-tutional Republic by the State ofMontana and U.S. Con-stitutions. This meansthat all the laws applyequally to all citizens.Montana manages riverflows and administerswater rights for the ben-efits of its citizens and isaccountable to the ruleof law developed by thelegislature. Montana cannotturn over its constitutional andstatutory responsibilities to asovereign nation with its ownconstitution and different lawsthat have no accountability tothe Montana legislatureor its citizens. It violatesthe equal protectionclauses of the U.S. andMontana Constitu-tions,” explains Jackson.Private property

rights are rigorously pro-tected by the Montanaand U.S Constitutions,yet the proposed Compactwould transfer private waterrights of the irrigators to the fed-eral government in trust for theCSKT. “The Compact shouldprotect individual water rights,not take them away. It is a viola-tion of Article II of the MontanaConstitution and of the U.S.Constitution to take state-basedwater rights from citizens on thereservation (Indian and non-Indian alike) and trans-fer them to the CSKTor the federal govern-ment,” he says.The target, with the

off-reservation waterrights claimed by theCompact, is to shut offirrigators. “They don’tgive a specific figure inthe Compact; you haveto try to add it up, and when youdo, you discover that the Tribesare claiming more water thanthere is actually is. It’s severaltimes more than the amount ofwater that exists. If anyonewanted to get a new water right,they would have to buy it fromthe Tribe. And if the Tribe didn’twant to sell or lease them thewater, they’d be out of luck,”says Jackson.Under traditional water law,

the state of Montana owns thewater. “A water right simply

gives you the right to use thewater, and once you use it, thewater goes back to the state ofMontana. That’s why the triplewater rights on the Reservationdo kind of fit together becausethey are for specific uses andthey don’t necessarily contra-dict.” For instance, water from ariver can be used by an irrigatorand then goes into the ground-water supply or back into the riv-er. “But the Compact Commis-

sion’s position is that the individ-ual irrigators don’t have theirwater rights anymore and thatthese are Project water rights. Ina court of law, the individual irri-gators who got their water rights

in the early 1900s would be ingood shape. You can’t just takesomeone’s water right or proper-ty. Water rights are the same asprivate property rights,” saysJackson. The property is notworth very much without thewater.Jerry Laskody, one of the irri-

gators affected by the water dis-pute, says that the over-archingissue for these ranchers/farmers

is giving up their water rights tothe tribe. “We have never deniedthat the tribe has a federallyreserved water right claim. Welive on fee land and we have aclaim to water just like they havea claim to water for theirreserved right. This wholeprocess we are now goingthrough was supposed to get thetribe to quantify what their fed-eral reserved right was, butthey’ve never done that. Instead,they are saying that all of thewater is theirs and that they will

“We need a goodanalysis of theCompact,” says

Jackson. “It needs to bechecked to see if it violatesthe Constitution so thereneeds to be a legal analysis ofit. There also should be aneconomic analysis so peoplewould know what type ofimpact it’s going to have. Weneed that, as legislators, whenwe vote,” he says.Yet the Montana legisla-

ture at present does not haveenough help to properly andresponsibly review this hugeCompact and the 130 pageHouse Bill. “State govern-ment has provided no legal,environmental, regulatory oreconomic assessments toreveal the impacts of thiscompact on private propertyvalues, individual state-basedwater rights, future growth,and economic development.No legislator in good con-science could consider pass-ing a document of this magni-tude without thisinformation,” says Jackson.What impacts will this have

on the economy—with prop-erty value reductions and themultiplier effects if some peo-ple leave? There would also beimpacts on the environment,including dewatering of shal-low ground water aquifers,and water systems dependentupon return irrigation flows.There would be a dry-up ofwetlands, since they existbecause of irrigation water.There are three major parts

to the Compact. “The peoplewho are trying to pass it aretrying to divide the communi-ties. I’ve been asked by somepeople saying, ‘If they get ridof the section regarding off-reservation water rights, areyou going to support it?’ and Ihave to say no, because onthe reservation the Tribes aredoing things that are uncon-stitutional and are not beingfair to the irrigators. I seeproblems with all three partsof the Compact. There’s theConstitutional problem andthe fact that it is not fair andequitable. Having studied theflow of the Flathead and theClark Fork River I know thereis enough water for everybodyto have all the water theywant. There is no reason totake anything away from any-body,” says Jackson.“The Flathead Irrigation

Project actually needs morewater and I think they shouldget more, but this hasn’t beentheir objective. They are nottrying to go after water to addmore to the irrigation proj-ect,” he says. “People also need to have

water for future expansion,and I think the deep aquiferwells would provide plenty of

water for domestic purposes.But the Compact Commis-sion needs to project what theincrease in population wouldbe. Is there more land that wecould irrigate if we had morewater? If there is, then thewater should be made avail-able,” he says. The purpose of a federal

reserved water rights compactis to determine the amount ofwater needed to meet thepurpose of the reservation,but this has not yet beendone. “When the amount ofwater needed to fulfill thepurpose of the reservation isquantified (justified) there isenough water in the FlatheadBasin to meet those needswithout taking water frompeople who grow our food,”says Jackson.“The federal government

has water in Hungry Horsedam (and other federal damsin Montana) which can beleased for future developmentand can also be used to fulfilltribal needs. A cost allocationstudy set the cost of HungryHorse water at $10 an acrefoot. The tribe wants to takethat water and lease it back toMontanans for $40 per acrefoot. Research models showthat 85 percent of the timethe release of 90,000 acre feetof water from Hungry Horsedam would not affect otheruses. The original request for100,000 acre feet was basedon the water needed forfuture development for thenext 50 years for the entireClark Fork Basin. Dividingthe 90,000 acre feet (request-ed by the executive branch ofthe State of Montana, in theCSKT Compact) equallybetween the State and CSKTwould go a long way in devel-oping a fair and equitableCompact as required by law,”he says.“More than 14 million acre

feet per year runs down theriver and goes into Idaho. Thehuman impact is so small thatthe USGS measuring gaugescan’t even measure it. All thatwater is going down the riverand I think we should beallowed to use more of it.After we use it there’s returnflow. The DNRC says it’sover-appropriated, but when Iask them how much there is,their response is that theydon’t know! They say that ifwe add up all the appropria-tions it is more than flow ofthe river. My answer is: ofcourse it is, because it’s thesame water, being reused as itflows down. Yet in all of theircalculations they don’t con-sider return flow. They don’thave any idea what it is! Theypay more attention to legalavailability than the actualwater,” says Jackson.

Montana Water Problems continued from page eight

The Need for ThoroughAnalysis of the Compact

This is scary, to realize that the federal governmentcould come in here and stop

us from using water.

Most of the water rights are 10-acre feet and most of thetime the farmers don’t use that much, but that’s the way Montana does it.

The government is supposed torepresent the people, and be our servant, and not the

other way around.

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:

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


��

��

��

��

��

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

The Best of the Bunch

��

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

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

BY RON ARNOLD,

WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

While all eyes turn to thegunfire and Molotovcocktails of War ZoneFerguson, Mo., many

minds turn to questions of mind-less faith in the political estab-lishment.What’s happening to us?One such mind belongs to

basketball champion turnedactor and best-selling author,Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, whoseMonday commentary on Fergu-son for Time Magazine bore thechilling headline, “The ComingRace War Won’t Be AboutRace.”It will be about class warfare,

he predicted, the powerful andwealthy elite against the 50 mil-lion Americans who are poor –black, Latino and white. “Fiftymillion voters is a powerful blockif they ever organized in aneffort to pursue their commoneconomic goals,” Abdul-Jabbarwrote.This great icon’s class warfare

insight reaches farther than heknows, into the multimillions ofmarginalized, demonized anddespised workers of the resourceclass — loggers, coal miners, cat-tle ranchers, commercial fisher-men, oil rig roustabouts, tunnelblasters, heavy equipment opera-tors, and on and on, every one ofus who gets dirty hands makingthe stuff of elite splendor andmajesty — and, yes, I once shov-eled foundation trenches andshouldered kegs of ten-pennybrights (nails) for a living.All these hardworking people

are mocked, devalued anddestroyed by Big Green’s privi-leged few, as told in the recentSenate report, “How a Club ofBillionaires and Their Founda-tions Control the EnvironmentalMovement and Obama’s EPA.”It’s a class warfare warning.Natural Resources Defense

Council President Frances Bei-necke (heiress of the Sperry &Hutchinson fortune) doesn’thelp the poor with their econom-ic goals using her $427,595annual compensation or thegroup’s $241.8 million assets,but ruins every resource workerpossible.The Gordon and Betty

Moore Foundation’s chiefinvestment officer, DeniseStrack, doesn’t help the poorwith their economic goals usingher $1.6 million annual compen-sation or the foundation’s $5.6billion assets from the Intel for-tune, but helps ruin everyresource worker possible.Big Green conducts class war

with its power over the federalgovernment.If that sounds impossible, let

me tell you a story.

On July 27, 1991, 30 U.S.Forest Service agents on horse-back, some armed with semi-automatic weapons and wearingbulletproof vests, raided rancherWayne Hage’s cattle in MeadowCanyon in the Toiyabe NationalForest, high in the mountains ofcentral Nevada. The cows weredrinking from disputed waterand were to be impounded thatday, destroying Hage’s livelihood— and dooming some of themeat supply that gave minimum-wage urban burger flipperssomething to flip.The agents hoped to infuri-

ate Hage into violence and killhim. However, he showed upwith a camera, immortalizedthem on film, sued them, andafter years in a federal court,won a ruling that he owned thewater. The Forest Service hadno right to impound his cattle.A court document showed

that David Young, special agentin charge of the raid, had per-sonally brought with him sever-al Remington Model 870 pump-action 12 gauge shotguns,Ruger Mini-14 semi-automaticrifles, Sig Sauer P220 .45 cal-iber semi-automatic pistols anda Smith & Wesson Model 36.38 caliber revolver.On April 2, 1990, Deputy

Chief of the U.S. Forest ServiceJames C. Overbay sent a letterto his subordinate regionalforesters, urging support ofenvironmentalists in return fortheir help supporting largerForest Service fish and wildlifebudgets, removal of ranchers,and expansion of USFS author-ity and power. It said:“Conservation groups repre-

senting the organized wildlifeand fish interests across thecountry have given considerableeffort, time, and money to helpthe Forest Service promotethese important programs. Weneed the support of thesegroups to avoid possible reduc-tions in fish and wildlife budg-ets. They would like to see theresults of these efforts. We owethis to them.”A little over a year later, the

Forest Service paid off richenvironmentalists by ruiningWayne Hage. The service’s cul-ture of resource stewardshipwas drifting far from its conser-vation roots to political obse-quiousness and ostentatiouszeal.Overbay had already devas-

tated other ranchers with lesspublicity, but it was the Hageraid that reinforced ClivenBundy’s misguided beliefsabout federal authority and ledto President Obama’s Bureau ofLand Management stormingthe Bundy ranch from attackhelicopters duded up in mili-tary-grade body armor, flashing

short-barreled assault rifles, andcrashing around in armoredvehicles — enough combatequipment to remove the tinfoilhat stigma from the black heli-copter crowd’s collective head.As John Steinbeck famously

wrote in The Grapes of Wrath:“Repression works only tostrengthen and knit theoppressed.” A rabble in armsmaterialized from all over theWest to protect the Bundyranch — ready to die. It wasblatant armed insurrection, butfederal prudence prevailed andthe BLM stood down — prose-cutors are dealing with it now.The militarization of federal

agencies has a long history butshould have a short future. BigGreen’s federal power gripneeds to be smashed and itsstorm troopers disarmed.In June, Rep. Chris Stewart,

R-Utah, introduced the Regula-tory Agency DemilitarizationAct, to stem the trend of federalregulatory agencies developingSWAT-like teams.Maybe it’s unrealistic, but

perhaps Kareem Abdul-Jabbarcould recommend a diplomaticmission from the poor to thereviled workers of the resourceclass, put aside any past hurtsand hates for a while, andorganize in an effort to pursuetheir common economic goals.

RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner colum-nist, is executive vice president of the Centerfor the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Workers suffer whenmilitarized police andBig Green get together W

hile overall medianland prices steadilyrose 4 percent, indi-viduals and families

continued to invest in land andaccount for 58 percent of buy-ers in land sales transactions,according to a 2014 Land Mar-ket Survey, conducted jointly bythe REALTORS® Land Insti-tute and National Associationof REALTORS®. In addition,the survey also revealed that 17percent of land purchasers arecorporations/partnerships, 17percent are investors, and 10percent are expansion farmers.The 2014 Land Market Sur-

vey is the first of many biannualreports aimed to develop accu-rate information on currenttrends in the land markets andon the general state of landsales. The results are represen-tative of over 625 land profes-sional respondents from acrossthe United States.According to the survey, 43

percent of the purchases whereindividuals/families were buy-ers were purposed for farm andranch (24 percent agricultureand 17 percent ranch) and 31percent for recreation. Ofthose surveyed, expansionfarmers purchased 98 percentof land for farm and ranch (85percent agriculture and 13 per-cent ranch). Investors pur-chased a diversified portfolio ofland (21 percent agriculture,20 percent timber, 17 percentdevelopment, 14 percent com-mercial). Of the 17 percent ofland purchased by corpora-tions, development landaccounted for 30 percent,commercial land accounted for

26 percent, and 17 percentaccounted for timber.Terri Jensen, ALC

Advanced, 2014 InstituteNational President-Elect ofREALTORS® Land Institute,states that the findings “followmy experience in that 70 to 85percent of land buyers areexpansion farmers/individuals/families; the balance areinvestors and/or 1031 ex-change buyers.” The results appropriately

correlate to the findings thatresponding land professionalsacross the United States pri-marily focus their practices inagriculture (69 percent) andrecreation (59 percent). Themarket and growth for land issteady. The survey recordedthat over the past twelvemonths, ending in July 2014,the median land price changeis growth of 4 percent.According to Jensen, “Land

prices are noting stable versusrapidly rising prices withdecreases noted in some areas.Most decreases were less than10 percent of responses andreflected 0 to 10 percentdecreases and increases. The 0to 5 percent increase in 50 pluspercent of responses note thechange to stability versus rapidchanges up or down.”The 2014 Land Market Sur-

vey was based on data collectedin July 2014. The survey wasemailed to 1,000 REAL-TORS® Land Institute mem-bers and approximately 9,500non-members and generated629 usable responses. The fullsurvey is available for freeonline.

Land Markets Survey Shows Individuals& Families Continue to Invest in Land


MATTHEW A. DIERSEN,PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OFECONOMICS, SOUTH DAKOTASTATE UNIVERSITY

Feed Supply and Demand

In recent weeks people indifferent livestock sectorshave been wondering aboutthe relative price impacts of

corn and other feeds. Otherpeople have asked about thelonger-run price outlook forfeed and for cattle. Havingexpectations for corn and hayin this setting is necessary asthey ultimately feed into theprices for different classes ofcattle. For crops using a bal-ance sheet allows for both sup-ply and demand adjustments.Starting with the current

marketing year and balancesheet for corn, the large supplyhas dominated the news. Live-stock herds cannot be expand-ed nor can ethanol or otherindustrial uses (expect exports)increase as fast as corn will beadded this year. All of this isfactored into the current WAS-DE price projection of $3.55-$4.25 per bushel for corn.However, if one is looking atretaining heifers or valuingfuture calf crops, then the2015/16 marketing year is ofinterest. One way to determinea 2015/16 corn price is toextend the balance sheet for-

ward. Levels from the USDAbaseline are kept constantexcept for the different begin-ning stocks. Doing so impliesfurther growth in the endingstocks level for 2015/16, whichin turn gives a lower price. Thebaseline price was $3.30 perbushel on corn for 2015/16.Modeling the corn priceagainst the ending stocks to useratio gives an even lower pro-jected price ($3.21 per bushel)than the USDA baseline wouldsuggest. Looking at the futuresmarket one sees different story– carry or higher prices out toDecember of 2017.The situation for hay is a lit-

tle more immediate. TheAugust Crop Production reportsuggests a sharply higher hayproduction level than expectedbased on trend yields. Theprice impacts have been mixedsince then. Alfalfa prices arebeing supported in drought-affected areas and are decliningin other areas (e.g., SouthDakota). At the national levelhay supplies have effectivelybeen rationed in recent years.Disappearance or use based onthe number of livestock hasbeen quite low by historicalstandards. Now, during the hayproduction year, the supply ofhay has effectively increasedwhile livestock numbers havecontinued to decline. The netresult is that use can increase

and the price can also fall. Anexpanded cattle inventorywould need additional hayacres in future years if normalyields and prices are to follow.Lower corn and hay prices

both factor into higher feedercattle and calf prices for both2014 and 2015. Fundamentalforecasts for cattle prices typi-cally have fed cattle in the $155per cwt area for 2015. In con-trast, futures prices for much of2015 have been $10 per cwtless. Feeder cattle follow a sim-ilar pattern. The bottom line isthat with corn futures tradingabove the fundamental pricelevel for next year, cattlefutures prices remain below thefundamental price levels. Cat-tle feeders cannot lock in corncheap enough to bid higher forfeeders or calves. If this logicholds, the implication for pricesin 2015 would be a set of sur-prises of lower corn and higherfeeder cattle that is difficult toexploit. It would also implyhigher calf prices in 2015 thanthe futures market will allow tobe exploited also.

The MarketsCattle were lower across

classes last week. Fed cattlewere lower although thechoice-select spread improved.Higher feed prices also had animpact on feeder and calfprices. Various NASS reports

recently confirmed some tradeexpectations. The Cattle onFeed report showed record lowplacements and marketings forJuly. Nebraska stood out a littlein terms of having more cattleon feed. There was no obviouspattern in the weights placed.Cattle supplies across classesare tight in both the U.S. andCanada. Neither country hasany statistics indicating expan-sion is occurring in the cattlesector. Thus, this fall would be

the first time for potentialexpansion, where heifers areheld back at large enough num-bers to further impact feedersupplies. The slaughter statis-tics showed a shift in July towhere the weights of steers andheifers were increased for themonth and to a level likely tobring up the year-to-date aver-age weight. Put another way,weights are finally exceedingyear-ago weights at a substan-tial level.

In The Cattle Markets

FROM THE

HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL

Responding to its market,the beef industry beganmaking important changesin both perceived and

actual nutritional properties ofits products nearly 40 years ago.Those changes and the resultingimpact they have had in market-ing beef are more significantthan most producers realize.The industry’s first wake-up

call came in 1977 when the U.S.Senate Select Committee onNutrition and Human Needsreleased the “Dietary Goals forthe American People.” Amongother things, that document rec-ommended Americans decreaseconsumption of meat in favor ofpoultry and fish.“All of a sudden, red meat

became demonized,” accordingto Jeff Savell, Ph.D., universitydistinguished professor at TexasA&M University, who has beeninvolved in beef industryresearch since the late 1970s.“We found people’s attitudeswere sometimes based onancient data.”Savell and colleagues, in fact,

found the biggest impediment toestablishing dietary recommen-dations at the time was faultyproduct information. For

instance, Savell says that up until1986, data for the beef porter-house steak showed the cut hadmore than 42 percent fat—andthis information was based onjust a few heifers from the1950s.“It was a horrible lag in data,”

Savell says. “We had outdatedinformation for decades. Fur-thermore, we needed to definethe concept of lean beef.” Com-pounding that was the fact theindustry was actually marketingbeef with too much fat—“dinosaur cuts, as we look at ittoday,” he says.With the power of Congress

against it, and with consumersincreasingly viewing beef asunhealthy, the industry knew ithad a fight on its hands. Startingin earnest in the mid-1980s andwith a battle cry of “War on Fat,”the industry effort intended tofind a way of incorporating beefinto a new American conscious-ness focused on fat.It’s important to note the war

was not waged against Congressor consumers.“At the time, just about every

man over 50 years old visiting hisdoctor was being told to quiteating red meat,” says EricHentges, Ph.D., who was direc-tor of nutrition research at theNational Livestock and Meat

Board from 1986 to 1995. “Wetook more of a ‘fit, don’t fight’approach to attacking the issue.”The results of this war were

impressive by any standard.Since the late 1970s, the

industry has demonstrated a 44percent reduction in available fat(from 13 percent to 7 percent)and a 29 percent reduction insaturated fat contributed by beefper capita (from 13 percent to 9percent). Furthermore, morethan 65 percent of whole musclebeef cuts sold at retail todaymeet government standards forlean, and 17 of the top 25 mostpopular cuts sold at retail(including sirloin steak and ten-derloin) are lean.Since the 1980 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans wereissued, external fat on retail beefcuts has decreased by 81 per-cent. Retail data show sales of 90percent or greater lean groundbeef increased by 25 percentbetween 2008 and 2013.

All hands on deckThe “gate-to-plate” effort to

increase leanness involved everysegment of the beef chain—cat-tle ranchers and farmers whoraised leaner animals, packersand processors who closelytrimmed beef cuts, supermarketsand restaurants that offered a

growing number of lean beefcuts to consumers, andresearchers who made sure accu-rate data were used in calculat-ing what was actually in theproducts. Also playing a criticalrole was a Beef Checkoff Pro-gram that helped fund much ofthe research and many of theefforts to get information intothe right hands.“It was the perfect storm,”

said Savell. “The need for goodinformation came at the sametime as the availability of fund-ing. And without the checkoff, itwould not have been done.”Hentges agrees, saying, “With-out the checkoff, we wouldn’thave had the resources to go for-ward.”“Every pivotal point in this

journey has had a checkoff ele-ment,” says Shalene McNeill,Ph.D., R.D., executive directorof human nutrition research atthe National Cattlemen’s BeefAssociation, a beef checkoff con-tractor. “For instance, checkoffwork led to collaboration thatupdated the entire gold-standardnutrient database for beef.”The Nutrient Database

Improvement initiative, in fact,was a unique public-private part-nership between cattle producersthrough their beef checkoff andthe government, which estab-

lished the database. The USDA’sNational Nutrient Database forStandard Reference, or SR, hasbeen in place for 115 years andis the official source for foodcomposition information.Through this initiative the

checkoff has been able to updatethe nutrient data for one ofAmerica’s favorite foods in theofficial database used by nutri-tion professionals, media, mar-keters, government agencies andothers. It’s part of an assuranceto consumers that the informa-tion they’re getting to makedietary choices is accurate andcomplies with public health rec-ommendations.Industry meetings about data-

base changes involved USDAstaff, which was an enormousbenefit, according to Hentges,who is now executive director ofthe International Live ScienceInstitute, North America. “Assoon as the data came in, itbecame their data,” he says. “Wehad the luxury of using data toget ourselves out of a hole.”With information in hand, the

beef industry made a huge pushthrough its checkoff program inthe 1980s and 1990s to reachout to health professionals. Forinstance, a program with state

Lean beef: Building on a success story

continued on page thirteen

Aplan to desalinize brackishwater could provide ananswer to Texas’ waterproblems, according to

William McKenzie, editorialdirector at the George W. BushInstitute.Texas’ population continues to

grow, but the state has sufferedrecurring droughts. Desalinationposes a potential answer to awater resource problem, though itcan be expensive. Desalinationtakes brackish water and seawaterand cleans it, removing the saltand turning it into water that canbe used for irrigation and fordrinking water. Desalination isnot an entirely new idea in Texas:In the Western part of Texas,

the Kay Bailey HutchinsonDesalination Plant supplies ElPaso and Fort Bliss with freshwater.Craig Pederson, formerly of

the Texas Water DevelopmentBoard, is working to create a pri-vate sector solution to the prob-lem, desalinizing brackish waterand selling the minerals that are

extracted on the commoditiesmarket.According to McKenzie,

desalination could be especiallysignificant in Texas because of itsrelationship with fracking, asfracking produces wastewater. Ifthat water can be recycled, it canbe reused and can keep watersupplies steady.NCPA Senior Research Fellow

Lloyd Bentsen recently wroteabout this topic on the NCPA’sEnergy and Environment Blog.

Source: William McKenzie, “Hope on the waterfront,” Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2014.


beef councils and the AmericanDietetic Association (now theAcademy of Nutrition andDietetics) starting in the late1980s and continuing today pro-vides seminars to local and stateAcademy groups on nutrientdensity and the new lean data.“The data was accurate and

believable, and the program verywell received,” says Hentges. “Ithink we laid a pretty solid foun-dation.”From a production and pro-

cessing standpoint, the key mile-stone was a major checkoff-funded National ConsumerRetail Beef Study in 1986 thatdemonstrated consumers wouldbuy more beef, and pay more forit, if they were offered a leanerproduct. “That was probably my‘aha’ moment,” says Savell.At that time, retail beef trim

was about .5 inches of externalfat. The information from thestudy created a “domino effect”in the retail industry to reduceexternal fat on retail cuts, Savellsaid, with one retailer trying tooutdo the other when it came tocloser trim.The move by retailers to

reduce fat trim led to increasedefforts by packers to reduce theamount of fat going into theback of the store, according toClay Burtrum, a cow-calf pro-ducer from Stillwater, Oklaho-ma, and chairman of the check-off’s Nutrition and HealthCommittee. Burtrum worked ina retail meat department forabout eight years early in hiscareer, and says in 1992 fatwould be trimmed extensivelybefore cuts were placed intotrays. Today, he says, that stepisn’t usually necessary.It also was being supplement-

ed by developments at the pro-duction level. Burtrum says onhis farm, “We select for differenttraits, matching attributes of abull with the dam, figuring outwhich pasture those animals willrun on, and evaluating otheroptions. It really is a pasture-to-plate process.”The results were demonstrat-

ed by a checkoff-funded Nation-al Beef Market Basket Survey in2005, which found that overallfat thickness for the cuts in indi-vidual store packages had beenreduced to an average of .09inches, 81 percent less than ithad been just 25 years earlier.“When you go to the meat

case today, it’s a sea of red,” saysSavell. “There is just no visiblefat. Over time, we have seen aredefinition of lean.”

Taking a different tack on lean beefAre there still opportunities

when thinking about lean beef?Yes, agree industry experts, butnot necessarily in the direction ithas taken over the past 40 years.“We’re now to the point we

just can’t get any leaner,”according to Savell. “Even if theonly grade eaten by consumerswas Select, it wouldn’t changefat intake (by Americans) appre-ciably.”The checkoff’s McNeill

agrees. “Because today’s beef isso closely trimmed, there’s notmuch more progress we canmake toward leaner product,”she says. “But the availability oflean beef cuts is extremelyimportant in helping consumersfeel better about beef.”The industry’s message on

lean could hardly be more posi-tive. Today more than 38 cuts,when cooked and visible fattrimmed, have been shown to fitthe USDA definition of lean,which is less than 10 grams oftotal fat, less than or equal to 4.5grams of saturated fat and lessthan 95 milligrams of cholesterolper 3 1/2 ounces. This comparesto seven cuts just 20 years ago.McNeill says, however, the

industry’s best messages maysometimes get lost in the discus-sion on lean. “While the focus onlean is important, it’s only part ofour great beef nutrition story,”she says. “All beef provides 10essential nutrients, includinghigh-quality protein, importantto good health.”Still, she says having the

tremendous lean message is veryimportant—even if it isn’t theparticular message the industrydecides to utilize in everyinstance. “Historically, it’s beenan important focus,” McNeillsays, “because unfortunately,when consumers and health pro-fessionals think of nutrition andbeef, they often think of fat first.“Today we’re suggesting to

our state beef council partnersthey don’t need to talk as muchabout the numbers, because leancuts have become so prevalent,”she says. “We need to stress thatmany popular cuts of beef arelean and all beef has 10 essentialnutrients.”While fat is still a leading bar-

rier for consumers choosingbeef, “the lean story is giving usmany chances to tell a goodnutrition story,” says McNeill.“We have a great opportunity toshow that beef is surprisinglymore lean and nutritious than[consumers] think.”McNeill points to the Beef in

an Optimal Lean Diet—orBOLD—Study as a means ofdoing that. The BOLD Studydemonstrated that a heart-healthy diet containing 5 ouncesa day of lean beef was just asheart-healthy as the govern-ment’s “optimal” diet based onchicken as a protein. It alsoshowed that the heart-healthydiet including beef can lowertotal and LDL-cholesterol levelsby 10 percent.“We found that researchers

were surprised not just by theresults, but by the terrific nutri-tion profiles of the beef cuts,”McNeill says, noting that evenbeef cuts that don’t fit the gov-ernment’s definition of lean canfit into properly balanced diets.“The unintended conse-

quences of such emphasis onlean cuts of beef might have con-tributed to a ‘good cut/bad cut’perception,” says McNeill. “Beefhas become leaner overall, andany beef cut can be part of ahealthy and balanced diet.

“People are really open to abalance of fat today,” she says.Savell says it’s a matter of

providing the right type of fat.“Consumers want taste fat, notwaste fat,” he says. “We can’tavoid the need for a certainamount of fat for eating accept-ability.”Of most importance, accord-

ing to Savell, is the industry mustensure data being used on pack-aging, in dietary recommenda-tions and in other venues staysup-to-date with the product.“We need to make sure thatevery product carries currentinformation,” he says. “There’smore of a problem with out-of-date information than there iswith the product itself.”

Brave new approachesIt’s great the industry has

developed a positive messageabout its lean products, but itisn’t necessarily one it will usepredominantly in the future.“The nutrition landscape is

getting more complicated,” saysMcNeill. “Now instead of ‘eatless fat,’ there’s more guidanceto ‘eat a plant-based diet.’ Sowe have to start understandinghow beef benefits the changingphilosophies in diet and health.“It also raises the question,

what is the future optimal diet?We need to stress the point thatbeef is simply better than ever—a great tasting, nutritionallyvaluable food for a satisfyingeating experience,” she says.McNeill says it isn’t neces-

sary for beef to push aside otherproteins to do that. “Forty per-cent of many Americans’ diet isjunk food,” she says. “It’s notabout replacing other proteins.”Staying engaged in the nutri-

tion arena is still critical for theindustry, says Clay Burtrum,who serves on the 20-memberBeef Promotion OperatingCommittee representing theFederation of State Beef Coun-cils. The Committee determineswhat programs to fund withnational beef checkoff dollars,and at what amounts.It’s still very much an impor-

tant issue because of today’shealth awareness,” he says.“Consumers are increasinglyaware of their diets.”For that reason, Burtrum

says he believes the BeefCheckoff Program needs to beinvolved. “We have to be for-ward-thinking about what isgoing to happen next,” he says.“We know there will continue tobe Dietary Guidelines from thegovernment, and we need tomake sure that we publicize themost current, most accuratedata. At the same time, we needto educate consumers about thenutritional benefits our prod-ucts offer. Not just the lean, butthe entire package.“With a shrinking budget, we

need to focus on those areasthat are most important,”Burtrum says. “Nutrition isimportant. We’re fortunate tohave this kind of research andfoundation to use in telling ourstory.”

Lean Beef continued from page twelve Desalinizing Water in Texas


BY THOMAS MITCHELL,

FROM THE WESTERN BLOG

In May the Bureau of Land Manage-ment relented and announced it hadcome to a year-long deal with ranch-ers on the Argenta allotment on

Mount Lewis in the Battle MountainDistrict to allow grazing. The BLMreneged.At the end of July the BLM told

ranchers using Mount Lewis that“drought triggers” had been met andcattle must be removed in seven days.“We must remove the cattle from our

summer grazing country on the moun-tain, where there is ample feed and ade-quate water, to the flat, where there isvery little of either,” rancher PeteTomera told the Elko Daily Free Press.Bob Schweigert of Intermountain

Range Consultants in Winnemucca saysranchers had to sign new grazing agree-ments with the BLM in May and theBLM is violating terms of those agree-ments.The BLM agreed to review key mon-

itoring locations in coordination withpermittees in early June, but the sched-uled joint monitoring was canceled.Instead days later a rancher came

across BLM employees conductingmonitoring without any ranchers pres-ent. Another monitoring outing wasscheduled on short notice while permit-tees were away from the area, and test-ing again was done without rancherspresent.“They lied to us again,” rancher

Eddyann Filippini told the Elko news-paper. “(Battle Mountain BLM manag-er Doug) Furtado can’t be trusted andwe don’t trust the data they collect fromthe range monitoring sites when theydon’t allow us to accompany them.”John Carpenter, chairman of the

Committee for Sustainable Grazing,said temporary electric fences should beerected around the “postage stamp”riparian areas as provided by the BLM’sown Drought Management Environ-mental Analysis.“These small riparian areas, as

administered by the BLM, are prevent-ing the livestock users from using theirprivate land and water rights,” Carpen-ter said, but added that the BLMappears to be unwilling to follow thoserecommendations.The ranchers say delays in getting

cattle out on the range and what fenc-ing they were required to do by BLM

has cost them half a million dollars.Reportedly some ranchers chose to

defy the latest order to remove theircattle, contending the BLM breachedthe agreements made with ranchers.A demonstration similar to one in

May, dubbed the “Cowboy Express,” isscheduled in September — in which rid-ers are to carry a petition to Washing-ton, D.C., seeking the local BLM man-ager’s firing.Of course, this prompted a writer

with the Huffington Post to huff and puffabout how scofflaw ranchers in Mayhad bullied the poor BLM bureaucratswith peaceful horseback protest ridesand petitions.He compared this with the standoff

at the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville andmade no mention of the fact the ranch-ers documented that grass on the allot-ment in May was nearly two-foot tall inplaces.“Like Cliven Bundy and his support-

ers, these ranchers think they are abovethe law. They refuse to be held account-able for the condition of public landsafter degradation by their livestock,” theHuffington writer pontificates. “Whenthe ‘Cowboy Express’ arrives in DC,those who sit in offices in Washington

should know that it is not the arrival ofheroic stewards of the western land.Instead, it is the descent upon theCapitol of an extremist group of rogueranchers who refuse to acknowledge theauthority of the federal government,while simultaneously demanding thatthe government continue its handoutsin perpetuity.”Handouts? Who does he think really

maintains the land and the vegetationand the water access so his beloved sagegrouse and wild horses can even exist?As for federal authority, that is debat-able under the U.S. Constitution.The controversy is now in front of an

administrative law judge in the U.S.Department of the Interior’s Office ofHearings and Appeals. On federal landthe BLM basically writes the law,polices the law and adjudicates the law.No separation of powers there.Thomas Mitchell is a former newspa-

per editor who now writesconservative/libertarian columns forweekly papers in central Nevada andblogs at http://4thst8.wordpress.com/Twitter: @thomasmnvhttp://watchdog-wire.com/nevada/2014/08/25/central-nevada-ranchers-fighting-blm-over-graz-ing-rights/

Central Nevada Ranchers Fighting BLM Over Grazing Rights

BY DR DAVID WHITEHOUSE,

THEGWPF.ORG

In popular science journalismthe latest is always the best.With all the explanations forthe “pause” in global surface

temperatures since 1997 – thereare now over 30 of them – it isalways the most recently pub-lished one that is the “answer.”This time it’s the Atlantic

Ocean that’s to blame. A paperpublished in Science says that a30-year periodicity warms andcools the world by sequesteringheat below the ocean’s surfaceand then releasing it.The paper concerned is not an

impressive one. It starts offassuming the answer it seeks andfinds it! Since the emphasis is onthe Atlantic take a look at their

data for surface temperature andocean heat content (OHC.) Asyou can see OHC is declining, asthe surface temperature remainsstatic. Incidentally, a few errorbars on the graphs would havebeen illuminating and wouldhave altered a false impressiongiven by the graphs data’s preci-sion. The OHC data comes from

the Argo array that has been inplace for about a decade. Whentalking to people about Argo Ihave heard many commentsabout how it is obviously show-ing a global increase in OHCover that period but this is some-thing that is not entirely born outby the data, and will be the sub-ject of a future post.Before the Atlantic it was the

Pacific storing heat beneath the

waves and taking it away fromthe atmosphere. Some scientistswere quite confident that it wasat the root of most of the “pause”and some still are despite therecent attention on the AtlanticOcean. Even the authors of therecent Science paper say they are“not downplaying the role of thePacific.” So there you have it. Itis the Atlantic that is the causeof the “pause,” and it is thePacific that is the cause of the“pause” as well. I’m glad that’sclear.For those who are impressed

with some of the media’s reportsthat the “pause” has its bestexplanation to date there are twopapers, published in Nature Cli-mate Change at the same timethat say it is, most definitely, dueto the Pacific.

The language of science jour-nalism is interesting here. Notethat the “pause” has been“seized” upon by “climate changesceptics and puzzled scientists,”and that the “pause” happenedafter “decades of rapid warm-ing.” (Recent warming startedaround 1980. The 80s hardly saw“rapid warming” and the warm-ing had stopped by the later halfof the 90s.)You don’t have to look very

deeply at the science to realizethat, despite the headlines, noone has come up with an answerto the “pause.” Some place theirfaith that there is a major driver– the Atlantic or the Pacific forinstance – that can explain mostof it. Others admit that there willnot be any one cause for the“pause” and that it is likely to be

the result of a patchwork ofinfluences. If so then they haveto explain why such a patchworkhas for 17 years kept the globalsurface temperature statisticallyflat in the face of rising green-house gas concentrations – sure-ly one of the most remarkablebalancing acts in the history ofscience.For many the proof of what is

causing the “pause” will not beforthcoming until it goes awayand what is expected to be accel-erated global warming resumes.But since whatever the culprit iswould have been a very signifi-cant contributor to the pre“pause” warming in the 80s and90s, one wonders how swift willbe that acceleration?

Feedback: [email protected]

The (latest) answer to the “Pause”

The International Brangus Breeders Asso-ciation (IBBA) has finalized plans for theinaugural Brangus Fall Conference setfor October 2 through 4, 2014, in San

Antonio, Texas. Participants can expectinformative sessions and fun social eventswhile networking with the Board of Directorsand committee members. Headlining theevent is keynote speaker Forrest Roberts,Chief Executive Officer for the National Cat-tlemen’s Beef Association.“We are excited to have Forrest Roberts

address members and provide his insight to thebeef industry,” said Tommy Perkins, Ph.D.,IBBA Executive Vice President. “We look for-ward to hosting our members here at the IBBA

headquarters and hearing their input. Theirparticipation is vital to our progress.”Member participation is welcomed for

imperative planning meetings. Discussion ofpressing topics will lead to advancements inte-gral in the upcoming year and for years tocome. As representatives of the IBBA mem-bership and the Brangus community, yourinput and thoughts will be important to thedialogue.The fall Board of Directors and committee

meetings will be hosted at the Drury Inn andSuites near La Cantera Parkway (15806 IH-10West) located across Loop 1604 from SanAntonio’s largest shopping area and amuse-ment park.

Inaugural Brangus Fall Conference Set for October


BLAIR FANNIN, TEXAS AGRILIFE,

SOUTHWEST FARM PRESS

Beef cattle producers mayfind themselves on the,well, horns of a dilemmaregarding replacement

heifers. They can raise them orsell them. They may want to

“take the money and run,” saysTexas A&M AgriLife ExtensionService economist Stan Bevers,Vernon.“We looked at what the mar-

ket is right now for replacementheifers,” he said. “We were tar-geting heavy bred heifers, andthey were anywhere from $1,650

to $2,300 a head. The secondnumber was what it was costingthe rancher to raise them them-selves.“One operation we tracked

(included) heifers weaned in2010 and 2011, (and) what thoseheifers were and what their accu-mulated expenses were over the

two years to the point wherethey were heavy bred. Theirexpenses totaled $1,100 to$1,400 a head. That ranch waspretty efficient and did a goodjob of reducing their expenses.”Bevers said since this ranch

was located in Oklahoma, onewould need to add $300 to $400

a head to that for Texas ranchersand regional market prices todevelop replacement heifers.“That comes out to $1,400 to

$1,800 to develop replacementheifers in Texas,” Bevers said.

Read more about ranchers’ replacement heiferoptions here. http://today.agrilife.org/

Beef cattle producers have options with replacement heifers

In support of its commitmentto 4-H, education and thedevelopment of the next gen-eration of industry leaders,

Merck Animal Health hasproudly sponsored the inauguralYoung Advocates for AgricultureAward. Through this award, highschool students are recognizedfor their grass roots advocacyefforts in support of the agricul-tural industry. Sarah Schuster ofDane County, Wisc., the recipi-ent of this year’s award, washonored for her work in educat-ing youth leaders and other 4-Hmembers about the significanceand value of science and tech-nology in agriculture.“Merck Animal Health is

committed to developing andempowering the next generationof leaders within our industry,”says Jim Miles, Merck AnimalHealth. “There is a real andgrowing need for people withinagriculture to help bridge the

information gap – to help tellour respective stories about whyagriculture is a crucial part ofour world. We are pleased to beable to help support those stu-dents who already are advocat-ing on behalf of the industry andhope this award, as well as otherprograms and recognitions,inspire others to get involved.”The advocacy award is an

extension of the 4-H NationalYouth Agri Science Summit,which was held earlier this year.Sponsored by Merck AnimalHealth, the summit providednumerous opportunities for 4-Hhigh school students to learnabout the latest innovations inagricultural science and technol-ogy, as well as increase theirawareness of careers in theserapidly expanding fields. Afterattending the summit, Schusterfelt she was armed with a wealthof knowledge, and was inspiredto share it with youth leaders in

her community.“Engaging and educating our

youth around the future of theagriculture industry is vitallyimportant,” says ChristinaAlford, executive vice presidentof external relations, National 4-H Council. “Through our part-nership with Merck AnimalHealth, 4-H’ers develop theskills that will help them infuture agricultural careers andallow them the opportunity toshowcase their abilities toexperts in the field.”The finalists and grand prize

winner each received a scholar-ship to attend the 2015 NationalYouth Agri-Science Summit,plus $500 to put toward theirrespective advocacy projects. Inaddition, the grand prize winnerreceived a $2,000 award that canbe directed toward a project or arelated youth agriculture educa-tion program in the winner’scommunity.

Merck Recognizes 4-H Members for Advocacy Work

E.C. Larkin / Texas by Lee PittsCraig Vejaska / Washington

Clayton & Johnny / California Frank Fox / California

Working Ranch Cowboys Association / Texas Hueftle Cattle Company / Nebraksa

Carlos Griffin / Texas Southwest Brangus Breeders Association / Arizona - New Mexico

Ward Cattle Company / California Tom Moorhouse / Texas Johnny Trotter / Texas

Juan Alejandro (Chapo) Varela / Sonora, Mexico Bilo Wallace / Chihuahua, Mexico

Akauski Cattle / USA The Cowbelles / Arizona

Beggar's Diamond V Ranch / Montana Mike Casabonne / New Mexico

Elkington Polled Herefords / Idaho Cowfolks Care / USA

Olson Double O Ranch / Montana Boe Lopez / New Mexico

Congressman Scott Tipton / Colorado Bill Sauble / New Mexico

Doverspike Ranch / Oregon Holistic Management / USA

anks to ALL the folks who advertised in the 2014 Fall Marketing Edition!You know the value of our readers.

Congratulations to the 2014 Digest 25!

ese men, women, ranches,groups, and horses from two

countries make up the fabric of agriculture, rural sports and

food production.

Watershed Rehabilitation Fundingto Repair Dams in 26 States

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recentlyannounced that communities across thenation will benefit from a $262 millioninvestment to rehabilitate dams that pro-

vide critical infrastructure and protect publichealth and safety. Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service (NRCS) Chief Jason Weller andRepresentative Frank Lucas, chairman of theHouse Committee on Agriculture, were inOklahoma to recognize the importance of thisannouncement to agriculture and communitiesnationwide.“This investment will protect people and

property from floods, help keep our waterclean, and ensure that critical structures contin-ue to provide benefits for future generations,”Weller said. “Families, businesses and our agri-culture economy depend on responsible man-agement of dams and watersheds, and we arecontinuing to provide that support to thesecommunities.” The 2014 Farm Bill, signed into law by Pres-

ident Obama earlier this year, increased thetypical annual investment in watershed rehabil-itation by almost 21 fold, recognizing the criti-cal role of these structures in flood manage-ment, water supply, and agriculturalproductivity. Earlier this week the Presidentdiscussed the importance of infrastructure tojob creation and commerce, noting that “Fund-ing infrastructure projects helps our families, itfuels our economy, and it better positionsAmerica for the future.”From the 1940s through the 1970s, local

communities using NRCS assistance construct-ed more than 11,800 dams in 47 states. Thesewatershed management projects provide anestimated $2.2 billion in annual benefits inreduced flooding and erosion damages, andimproved recreation, water supplies and wildlifehabitat for an estimated 47 million Americans.Weller said that funding provided through

today’s announcement will provide rehabilita-tion assistance for 150 dams in 26 states. Fundswill be used for planning, design or construc-tion. Also, 500 dam sites will be assessed forsafety through NRCS’ Watershed Rehabilita-tion Program. For a complete list of the proj-ects, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/landscape/wr/?cid=stelprdb1257659. The projects were identifiedbased on recent rehabilitation investments andthe potential risks to life and property if a damfailure occurred. Overall, an estimated 250thousand people will benefit as a result ofimproved flood protection made possible bythese rehabilitated dams.“These funds will go a long way towards

improving the safety and continued benefitsprovided by these watershed structures,” Wellersaid. “We will work closely with the local projectsponsors to ensure that these dams continue toprotect and provide water for communities andagriculture.”For more information, visit the Watershed

Rehabilitation webpage or local USDA servicecenter.

lmd sept 2014

Documents

zilmax cattle

head of cattle

cattle feedadditive

visitedabout zilmax

doneon zilmax

overheated zilmax

zilmax impacts

than20 head