lmd feb 2014

LivestockDigest

Livestock“The greatest homage we

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

NEW

SPAPERPR

IORITY HANDLING

by LEE PITTS

MARKET

DigestRiding Herd

by Lee Pitts

There are more than 22,000federal lands ranchers whoare currently paying theBureau of Land Manage-

ment and U.S. Forest Service$1.35 per animal unit month torun cattle on 250 million acres offederal land. Truth be told, thatrankles eastern, and even somewestern, ranchers who view thefederal lands ranchers, not ascowboy brethren, but as competi-tion who are getting an unfairadvantage. Get rid of them, theyfigure, and their piece of the beefpie would be bigger.This unholy alliance is joined

by greenies and radical environ-mentalists who want the federallands ranchers gone at any price.They believe the West should bereserved, not for people andcows, but for so called “wild”horses and wolves. You can saythis for them, they aren’t alldumb, they know that if the fed-eral lands ranchers didn’t haveaccess to the federal grazingground for part of the year, it’shighly unlikely many of themwould be able to continue ranch-ing on the 120 million deededacres that they do own. Takeaway the BLM and Forest Serv-ice ground and there would be adomino effect, as ranchers andthe rural communities they sup-port, would disappear faster thanthe tofu turkey at a Sierra Clubpotluck.

from 10 to 20 years on federallands in the 16 contiguous west-ern states, where half of theground is owned by the feds.Even better for the federal landsranchers, the Act would alsoallow for certain grazing permitsto be excluded from constantNEPA reviews.That’s a very big deal because

if you want to send shivers downthe spine of any businessman, justmention NEPA. It stands forNational Environmental Policy

Act and anyone who has been runthrough the NEPA wringer willtell you it’s worse than a com-bined colonoscopy/root canalwithout anesthesia! It’s a long,arduous and costly process which“requires federal agencies to doextensive environmental analysisand consider alternatives for any“major federal action” that isexpected to significantly affectthe human environment.” Afterfederal judges ruled in several cas-es that grazing renewals are“important actions” it meant thatto renew your grazing permit youhad to go through a NEPAreview every ten years. In otherwords, it’s an environmentalimpact study for ranchers inwhich the feds throw the bigbureaucratic book at you. Quitenaturally, this makes independentranchers a little nervous andqueasy whenever they hear thedirty four letter word NEPA.This NEPA review process

Dirty WordA year ago, when Wyoming

Republican Senator John Barras-so was joined by eight otherRepublican Senators in sponsor-ing The Grazing ImprovementAct the news was hailed by feder-al lands ranchers, and vilified byangry greenies. The GrazingImprovement Act would amendthe Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 tochange the current terms of BLMand Forest Service grazing leases

Dying a Slow DeathThe best way to appreciate

how another person rides isto get on their horse.

continued on page fourteen

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Titanic Two

It must have been veryembarrassing for the 74scientists, who meant togo to Antarctica to vali-

date global warming theo-ries, when the Russian shipthey were on got stuck in iceten feet thick far from whereit should NOT have been ifthe polar cap was melting.Even more humiliating, icebreakers couldn’t get withinten miles of the frozen shipso the group had to be savedby helicopters and shipsburning fossil fuels, youknow, those terrible green-house gas emitting tools ofthe right-wing rich.Couple that event with

last month’s polar vortexthat sent thermometersplummeting to record lowsand it hasn’t been a verygood time to be a globalwarming fanatic, or“warmist” as they are nowcalled. Despite the fact theearth has been in a coolingoff stage the last 15 years,the “warmists” still cling totheir trumped up theorieslike a Titanic passengerclinging to a life preserver.Much to the scientist’s

dismay, this aborted scientif-ic expedition will be remem-bered for suggesting thatmaybe we aren’t all gonna becooked medium well; Holly-wood isn’t going to drop offinto the ocean (darn it); andthe leader of this embarrass-ing fiasco is not going to getgood seats, or be a speakerat the next United Nationsconfab on global warming. Iwas especially interested inthis story because the leaderof the scientific team wasChris Turney, a professor ofclimate change at the Uni-versity of New South Walesin Australia, of which I aman alumnus.When I attended the Aus-

tralian university I wasimmediately shocked at thedifferences between theireducational system and ours.At college in the U.S. testswere based on one’s knowl-edge of facts; there wereright and wrong answers. InAustralia in the 1970s a testmight consist of one ques-tion asking for a defense ofyour opinion. If you wanteda good grade, and whodidn’t, you would mimicback the opinion of yourprofessor. Perhaps this is

continued on page two

SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

PORKNETWORK.COM

Recently, livestock producers and veteri-narians have been hearing about changescoming in the way antibiotics are used infood animals. In mid-December, the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pub-lished a final “guidance for industry” that startsthe clock running on some of these changes.Initially, it’s the animal health companies thatwill be adjusting their practices —adjustmentsthat will eventually make their way down to thepeople who prescribe and use the drugs: veteri-narians and livestock producers.The role of livestock antibiotics in contribut-

ing to resistant bacterial infections in humans iscomplex and has been long-debated. Producerassociations have seen the writing on the wallfor a couple of years now that these changeswere coming. But what do they actually meanfor producers?

What will change:The labeled uses of “medically important”

antibiotics for growth promotion and improve-ments in feed efficiency will go away. The FDAis asking drug manufacturers to voluntarily takethese uses off their products’ labels. Because

Using feed-grade antibiotics for livestock: Changes are coming

extra-label use of feed grade antibiotics is illegal,these uses will no longer be legal as well. Thecompanies have until mid-March to tell theFDA what products they plan to do this with.After that, they have three years to make thelabel changes, so livestock producers currentlyusing antibiotics for growth promotion will havetime to adjust, depending on how quickly thecompanies switch over.The list of what FDA considers “medically

important” antibiotics is pretty long. It containsolder drugs like tetracyclines and penicillin alongwith classes of drugs that are more critical tohuman medicine, such as cephalosporins andfluoroquinolones. When it comes to growth-pro-moting antibiotics that fall into this category, it’sdrugs like tetracyclines, tylosin, and neomycinthat will be affected.These “medically important” products will

shift from over-the-counter to “Veterinary FeedDirective” (VFD) classification – possibly withnew label indications for treatment, control, orprevention. The VFD is not a new classification;it’s currently being used for newer feed-gradedrugs like Pulmotil® in pigs and cattle andNuflor® in pigs and fish.

continued on page twelve

FEBRUARY 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com Volume 56 • No. 2

also gives radical environmentalgroups an opportunity to throwtheir two cents in. They hire highpowered lawyers, mostly paid forby the taxpayers, to throw uproadblocks in order to achievetheir eventual goal of the com-plete removal of all livestock fromfederal lands. And it seems to beworking.All this litigating in the courts

has made the NEPA process solong and cumbersome that thefederal land management agen-cies, who are supposed to do thereviews on every allotment everyten years, got seriously behind intheir work. As a result, federallands ranchers have to dependeach year on the whims of Con-gress to allow them to continueoperating while the agenciescatch up. But they never will. Thisbacklog of work creates seriousuncertainty for federal landsranchers and it’s why when youread some real estate listings forfederal lands ranches in the West,the owners seem to be begging,“Here, please take this ranch forless than it’s worth so I can savemy marriage, lower my bloodpressure and calm my bleedingulcers.”

So What’s Not To Like?To get a 20-year lease instead

of ten years is a very big deal ifyou are a federal lands rancher.Better yet, for the cattlemen andsheepherders there is also a provi-sion that would NOT make itmandatory to go through theNEPA process for every leaserenewal if you don’t significantlychange your modus operandi inthe operation of your federallands ranch.Many cattlemen groups, like

the NCBA and the Federal landsCouncil, have hailed the Grazingimprovement Act and have urgedits passage. Others have read thefine print and can easily envisiona doomsday scenario where TheGrazing Improvement Act is aprecursor to the end of the Westas we know it.So what’s not to like about The

Grazing Improvement Act?

Once And For AllThe Grazing Improvement Act

bill first proposed by the Republi-can Senator from Wyoming was agood one. Representative RaulLabrador, a Republican from Ida-ho, sponsored the same bill in theHouse. The scrutiny of the issuehas brought to light some neces-sary changes in that version aswell.But keep in mind that the Sen-

ate, as currently composed, is stillcontrolled by Democrats. (Atleast for a little while anyway.) Sotwo liberal Senators marching tothe green beat of their supporters,Senators Ron Wyden of Oregonand Martin Heinrich of NewMexico, were able to add on anamendment that changed theSenate bill from a good one to adisaster with the potential forending federal lands ranchingonce and for all. The amendmentwould create a pilot programwhich would allow for “voluntary”

buyouts of grazing permits in twostates, Oregon and New Mexico,which just so happens to bewhere the two Senators are from.So what was passed in the Sen-

ate was a substitute that lookednothing like the original measure.Yet the NCBA and Federal landsCouncil are still urging its pas-sage. Others have actually readthe act, seen behind the ruse andput a little bit more thought intothe matter. One of those peopleis José Varela Lopez, President ofthe New Mexico Cattle Growers,a group that hasn’t always seeneye to eye with the NCBA.Varela Lopez says that not onlydoes the Grazing ImprovementAct not contain many improve-ments for federal lands ranchfamilies, it does just the opposite,by taking dead aim at ranchers inNew Mexico and Oregon. VarelaLopez says, “The bill contains aprovision for voluntary relinquish-ment of up to 25 allotments inNew Mexico and Oregon. Thoseallotments would be mandated topermanently exclude grazing.”Yes, you read that right. A bill

that was meant to improve feder-al lands rancher’s plight has lan-guage in it that would end federallands ranching. Senate bill 258 ascurrently composed wouldrequire the Secretary of the Inte-rior to accept permits that are vol-untarily relinquished by currentpermit holders. Under the bill,relinquished permits would beterminated and future grazing onland covered by those permitswould be prohibited. Forever.

“Hi, I’m Your New Neighbor”We have already seen this

movie, as grazing permit retire-ment has already removed live-stock from some federal landswhere allotment owners have vol-untarily relinquished their grazingpermits to the government inexchange for compensation fromthird parties. In the future whenan old rancher wants to retire andno one wants to buy his or herranch because a big chunk of it ispublic ground, or if he or she ishaving a hard time making endsmeet and no one in the family iscrazy enough to carry on the fed-eral lands ranching tradition, doyou think he or she might be awilling seller? Even more proba-ble, say the government has madeit almost impossible to run a fed-eral lands ranch, like the feds didwith the Hage family in Nevada,or countless other cases we couldlist, and say some organizationlike the National Federal landsGrazing Campaign (NPLGC)comes along and offers the ranchfamily the going rate of $175 peranimal unit month for his federallands ranch. You think he or shewould take the deal? After all, it’sprobably the best he or she cando. But that doesn’t mean it’s thebest for the land, our country orfor neighboring ranchers still try-ing to tough it out amidst a sea ofwolf and wild horse sanctuaries.If you think these scenarios are

contrived or far fetched pleaseconsider what the National Fed-

Livestock Market Digest February 15, 2014

Slow Death 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 Mgr.CAROL PENDLETON . . Special AssistanceCHRISTINE CARTER . . . . Graphic Artist

MARKET

February, 2014 “America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

eral lands Campaign is, and whothey are. It is composed of West-ern Watersheds Project, Ameri-can Lands Alliance, The ForestGuardians, The Center for Bio-logical Diversity, The OregonNatural Desert Association andthe Committee for Idaho’s HighDesert. That’s a veritable who’swho of radical green groups; arancher’s enemy-list if there everwas one. The organization wasformed solely for the purpose ofbuying out federal lands ranchesand retiring that ground fromgrazing.The supergroup NPLGC was

formed for the purpose of gettingCongress to pass legislation toauthorize the voluntary buy-outand permanent retirement of fed-eral grazing permits WITH FED-ERAL FUNDS. In other words,your money. They want this “toreduce the contentious and oftenadversarial conflicts surroundingthe use of federal lands fordomestic livestock in the Ameri-can West.”Jon Marvel, Executive Direc-

tor of Western Watersheds Proj-ect and the biggest cow-hater inAmerica, says of the NPLGC andtheir efforts to buy out federallands allotments: “It will literallychange the face of federal lands inthe West. It is an historic ideathat will make possible therestoration and recovery of pub-lic-lands watersheds everywhere.”They know that to entice fed-

eral lands ranchers they have tooffer a decent buyout and theamount they propose is almosttriple the average value per AUMof federal grazing permits intoday’s market. For example, arancher with 400 cows that grazeon federal lands for five monthsof the year would get $350,000,plus whatever he or she could selltheir deeded ground for to somebed and breakfast operator, or toThe Nature Conservancy, whowill then flip it to the feds for anice commission. But you ask, “Where would

these groups get the money tobuy out allotments?” After all, weare talking here about 270 millionacres in 11 western states. The cash will come from the

same place that many of today’sranch buyers are getting it: hightech and Wall Street. These twogroups are not exactly in tunewith the ranching community. Itis projected that in the next 20years we will witness the greatesttransfer of wealth from one gen-eration to another in history. Alot of those billions will end up inthe hands of greeny urban liberalswho don’t want to step in a cowpie next time they go trekking.The money will also come fromthe United States Governmentwho will allocate billions of print-ing-press tax-dollars to expandthe scope of their Nature Disney-land. And just think about the

potential for “green jobs” whenwildfires are blackening the Westwithout cattle, sheep or forestersto periodically prune the vegeta-tion!Granted, the buyout program

as it now stands would be a “pilot

Slow Death continued from page two

project” and would ONLY allowup to 25 permits PER YEAR inOregon and New Mexico to be“voluntarily” relinquished. Butmany a firmly entrenched federalprogram started out as a pilotproject. Please note that there isno sunset clause or expirationdate on the program and if youreally think the buyouts will belimited to those two states youprobably believed all thatmalarkey about keeping your owndoctor and insurance too.

The Big UnansweredQuestionEven though the Federal lands

Council is supposed to be lookingout for the best interests of feder-al lands ranchers they support theSenate bill, yet they oppose buy-outs. They have yet to explainhow they justify their diametrical-ly opposed position. “The PLCstrongly opposes buyouts — vol-untary or otherwise,” says BriceLee President of the PLC. “Ulti-mately, buyouts create an issuefor the industry due to thewealthy special interest groupswho work to remove livestockfrom federal lands. The languagein the amendment addresses ‘vol-untary’ buyouts; however, radical,anti-grazing agendas are likely atplay. Litigation and persistentharassment serve as a way toeliminate grazing on federal landsand could force many ranchersinto these ‘voluntary’ relinquish-ments, unwillingly. There can beno ‘market based solution’ inwhich any given special interestgroup is able to ratchet up ranch-ers’ cost of operation, and artifi-cially create a ‘voluntary’ sale orrelinquishment.”So how can the PLC and

NCBA, of which the PLC is apart, be in favor of a bill thatlaunches a program to buy outallotment owners which they saythey don’t condone?Scott George, the NCBA

President when all this was hap-pening, could barely hide his gleein support of the curiously namedGrazing Improvement Act. “Theact is vital for ensuring the fate ofour producer’s permits — liveli-hoods are depending on the effi-ciency of the system — whichundoubtedly needs restructur-ing,” said George.But what difference does it

make that federal lands rancherscan get 20 year leases instead of10 if there are no more leasesavailable because they wereretired? What difference does itmake that the rate to run a cowon BLM and Forest Serviceground is $1.35 per animal unitmonth if no animals are allowedto graze there?The Grazing improvement Act

has not yet been voted on but if itcomes to fruition you can expectto read press releases from boththe NCBA and PLC braggingabout how they increased theterm of leases and tamed theNEPA monster. Hurray forthem! There will be no mentionthat their actions were a signifi-cant contributing factor in theslow death of federal lands ranch-ing in America.


RancherRelief Fund helpinghundreds of ranchersRAPIDCITYJOURNAL.COM

Four short months afterthe devastating winterstorm Atlas struck west-ern South Dakota, the

Rancher Relief Fund (RRF) ispoised to disburse an addi-tional $3.3 million to hun-dreds of livestock producers inthe impacted area.Cory Eich, President of the

South Dakota Cattlemen’sAssociation, noted, “We can’tthank the Rancher ReliefFund donors enough. The out-pouring of support fromaround the country has beengratifying and we’re pleased tobe able to distribute over $4million back to the livestockproducers of western SouthDakota and neighboring stateswho lost animals in the earlyblizzard.”The Rancher Relief Fund

distributed nearly $775,000 toimpacted livestock producersprior to the application dead-line of Dec. 31, 2013. Withmore than 600 applicationsreceived, the SD VolunteerOrganizations Active in Disas-ters (SDVOAD) will be work-ing as quickly as possible todisburse an additional $3.3million to the qualified appli-cants in the coming weeks.All disbursements are

based on criteria establishedby representatives of thefounding livestock organiza-tions. In order to qualify forassistance from the RancherRelief Fund, applicants mustdemonstrate they are livestockproducers and they must havelost a minimum of ten percentof their livestock herd.“With approximately 600

applicants reporting losses ofroughly 43,000 head of cattle,sheep and horses, we recog-nize the financial assistancefrom the Rancher Relief Fundwill not come close to fullyreimbursing the ranchers thatsuffered devastating losses.However, we know every littlebit helps in the wake of thehistoric storm,” said Bob For-tune, SD Stockgrowers Asso-ciation President.Tax deductible donations

are still being accepted for theRancher Relief Fund and canbe made online by going tothe Black Hills Area Commu-nity Foundation's website atwww.giveblackhills.org. Addi-tional funding rounds may beprovided to RRF applicants,depending on continued con-tributions. For answers to fre-quently asked questions or formore information on theRancher Relief Fund, pleasevisit www.ranchersrelief.org.

��

��

��

��

��

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

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%/��

The National Cattlemen'sBeef Association(NCBA) has announcedthat it opposes the farm

bill. This farm legislationauthorizes provisions thatthousands of U.S. producershave been waiting for; nonemore than the ranchers in myhome state of South Dakota,where winter storm Atlas rav-aged the livestock industry lastOctober. Yet, NCBA opposesit. On Monday, January 27,

NCBA joined the meat pack-ing lobby to announce itsopposition to the farm bill(Agricultural Act of 2014).Speaking for NCBA was itspresident, Scott George, adairy farmer from Cody,Wyoming who called COOL a“mistake,” adding that COOL“has already resulted in steepdiscounts to our producers.” Discounts? What dis-

counts? I am a U.S. rancherand I haven’t noticed thatCOOL has resulted in any dis-counts. I’d like to see the evi-dence Mr. George and NCBAcan provide for their brashstatement. For the week end-ing January 25, the combinedauction markets in my homestate of South Dakota reported500-600 pound feeder steersbringing an average of$211.06. Last year at this timethe same class of cattle wasbringing $169.48. Marketsacross the nation are reportingthe same sorts of increases.Let’s face it, U.S. markets setthe price for Canadian cattle,

so Canadian producers aresharing the benefits of ourtremendous cattle markets.The COOL revised regulationswere implemented on Novem-ber 23, 2013. Cattle marketshave continued to increasesince then. The sky has not fall-en. Further, Mr. George says

Congress’ failure to “fixCOOL” will lead to retaliatorytariffs on a host of commodi-ties and that it's “only a matterof time before the World TradeOrganization (WTO) rules infavor of Canada and Mexico.”That’s a worn out argumentand it’s premature for anyoneto attempt to predict what theWTO may or may not do.However, USDA and the U.S.Trade Representative (USTR)believe the COOL revised reg-ulations have brought theCOOL program into compli-ance. Retaliation, if authorizedbecause the US revised regula-tions are found not to be incompliance with WTO obliga-tions, does not occur beforecompletion of the panelprocess in Geneva and (ifappeals are taken) the Appel-late Body process and afterarbitration as to the proper lev-el based on the facts. Moreimportantly, if, as the US andgroups like USCA believe, theUS is in compliance with itsWTO obligations, then noretaliation is permitted underthe WTO. The briefing processis underway and the partieswill have their chance to com-municate their views to the

WTO panel in the next monthwith a decision likely sometimein the spring (or later) and thepossibility of an appeal by oneor all parties. COOL is impor-tant legislation and USDA’sregulation is an important reg-ulation. Those of us who havepursued improved labelingdeserve the opportunity tohave our government confirmthe correctness of the changesthey made to address the firstdecision. We applaud theAdministration’s pursuit ofU.S. rights, and we applaudCongress’s staying the course.That is what we as a nationtypically do in these types ofsituations. There is no reasonto depart from that path onCOOL.There is no doubt that the

revised regulations do twoimportant things – theyaddress consumer confusion inthe marketplace by makingclear where muscle cuts ofmeat are from and second itlets cattle ranchers in the U.S.(and ranchers in our neighbor-ing countries) have their prod-uct identified correctly. Weknow most consumers believethe beef they are buying isfrom U. S. cattle. Now theycan confirm that fact throughthe retail label. Now is thetime we can communicate thatfact through factually accuratelabels. Similarly, cattle ranch-ers in other countries have theright to have the origin of meatfrom their animals correctlyidentified. When cattle areslaughtered in Canada, themeat products that enter theU.S. have long identified theproduct as a product of Cana-da. That is not discrimination

against Canadian product; it isa statement of fact. Indeed,beef (or pork or chicken)processed in any country andexported to the United Statesshows the country of originand one has seen that in gro-cery stores across the countryfor decades. A free trade areadoesn’t change the origin ofwhere cattle are born, nor doesit change the origin of wherethe animal is raised or where itis slaughtered. We are not citi-zens of North America. Weare citizens of the UnitedStates or of Canada or of Mex-ico. It is beyond absurd toargue that telling people wherethe food they eat comes fromdiscriminates against produc-ers. Canadians are proud oftheir farm products as are ourMexican neighbors. CertainlyU. S. ranchers are proud ofwhat we do in raising cattle tothe highest standards. COOLsimply informs consumers ofthe uncontested facts and letseach country’s producers berecognized for their contribu-tion to the product appearingbefore consumers in retailstores.Mr. George and NCBA say

that the “livestock sector isstanding shoulder-to-shoulderin opposition” of the farm bill.That's not true. The truth isNCBA is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the meat lobbyto oppose the farm bill. Sayingthe livestock sector is unifiedin its opposition implies thatevery U.S. rancher opposes thebill and I, for one, do not. ThisU.S. rancher supports passageof the farm bill just as the vastmajority of U.S. producers do. – Danni Beer

Letter To The Editor:

BY RON ARNOLD,

WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

Erich Jantsch was an Austri-an astronomer and technol-ogy forecaster, the oneman who can plausibly be

branded as the scientist who cor-rupted science into today’s glob-al warming monster.As one of the seven men who,

at dinner on the evening of April8, 1968, founded the Club ofRome, he possessed the gravitasto evangelize his radical beliefthat science cannot be neutral.In order to prevent ecological

and social collapse, Jantsch said,Western countries must halttheir economic growth and sur-render their goods for equitabledistribution throughout theworld. The alternative: “an even-tual worldwide class war.”His ideas permeated the

development of the club’s sensa-tional 1972 work, The Limits toGrowth, the hugely influentialbook of doom which firstexplained to a mass audience thethree things that must beaccepted to prevent the apoca-lypse: computer modeling,anthropogenic global warming,and strong government control.It reeked of Jantsch’s “sciencecannot be neutral.”Jantsch faded into obscurity,

but his ideas gained fame assales of the book soared to 12million, and it remains the best-selling environment book ever. Itwas the textbook for the obsceneblend of science and politics thatis the Intergovernmental PanelonClimate Change and theinsanity that climate scientistsare the only bearers of truth.Austrian philosopher of sci-

ence Paul Feyerabend, whowrote an introduction to one ofJantsch’s books, was leery of theartificial certainty inherent incomputer modeling. He wasindignant that science wasobsessed with its own mytholo-gy, making claims to truth wellbeyond its actual capacity.He wrote that scientists who

trust too much in “method” riskturning into “miserable,unfriendly, self-righteous mecha-nisms without charm or humor.”Recently an unsigned editori-

al in the Investors Business Dai-ly proposed that global warmingis a back door to socialism. Itseems that United Nations cli-mate treaty hotshot ChristianaFigueres praised China as, “ableto implement policies becauseits political system avoids someof the legislative hurdles seen incountries including the U.S.”My experience corresponding

with the climate crowd saysthat’s not an endorsement ofeither China or socialism, justjob protection. I asked a promi-nent climate skeptic who knowssomething about socialism whatshe thought.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

said by email from the UnitedKingdom, “My take is that AGW[anthropogenic global warming]was and remains ‘a god sent’ forbureaucracies wanting to

expand, nothing much to dowith socialism. In my humbleopinion, Soviet communism wasbrought down by bureaucracy.”Boehmer-Christiansen should

know. She was born and raisedin communist East Germany,moved to Southern Australia forher undergraduate work (geo-morphology with climatologyand physical geography) earnedher doctorate in England (Uni-versity of Sussex), is lectureremeritus at Hull University andis a past member of a UnitedNations Environment Programforum. She now edits the peer-reviewed academic journal Ener-gy & Environment.The corruption of scientific

ethics concerns her deeply:

“Some university research unitshave almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of govern-ment departments. Their sur-vival, and the livelihoods of theiremployees, depends on deliver-ing what policy makers thinkthey want.”Boehmer-Christiansen noted

how climate regulations havecreated private profit centers.“Carbon counting, trading, ‘con-trolling’ and investing not onlyemploys an army of counters,etc, but also attracts governmentmoney, which can then be redis-tributed/invested. . . . Is thissocialism?”I doubt that we’ll be overrun

by socialist revolutionaries ram-paging through our nationalized

infrastructure shouting, “This ismy nano-tech laboratory now.”President Obama panders to

the left but seems personallyunmoved by Marxism or any ofthe dozens of socialisms. His vis-ible outrage instead targets our“neocolonial sins,” in remarkslike “America has 2 percent ofthe world's oil but uses 25 per-cent.”That harks back more to

Jantsch’s “Stop being wealthyand give it to the world,” than toMarx’s “Workers of the world,unite.”My take is that Obama vis-

cerally hates rich people and cor-porations, but for their power,not for his ideology. He wantsthem brought down, which he is

doing to the nation’s powerindustry now – and consequentlythe entire nation – with his cli-mate policy.Obama seems perfectly aware

that disempowering America’senergy sources will disempowerAmerica’s place in the world.That’s not socialism, that’s sui-cide. But that’s exactly what themiserable, unfriendly, self-right-eous mechanisms without charmor humor and all of the left reallywants.Don't worry about socialist

America, worry about powerlessAmerica.

RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist,is executive vice president of the Center for theDefense of Free Enterprise.

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

Global warmists aim to disempower America

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

The increasing wolf popula-tion in the West is having asignificant impact on ranch-ers and livestock. The Ore-

gon Beef Council funded a studyproject that was begun in 2008,to look at how wolf activity affect-ed cattle behavior. Several ranch-es in Idaho and Oregon havebeen part of this project, utilizingGPS collars on a sampling of thecattle and on a few wolves.Dr. John Williams, Ag Natural

Resources, Oregon State Univer-sity Extension, is one of the peo-ple involved with this study. “Thisis a long-term study and we areonly 6 years into it. Some of thespin-offs from it thus far, howev-er, have contributed to ourknowledge base to help us answerseveral resource managementquestions. We have a good set ofdata regarding how cattle spendtime on the mountains on the

range,” he says.“Even if you disregard the wolf

question, the knowledge we’vegained about how cattle use therange is larger than any otherwe’ve had. We are collaring morethan 80 different cattle every year(10 each from each participatingranch) and we have more than 4years of data now. Each of thosedata sets (study sites) brings us tomore than a half million datapoints,” he says. This is a lot morethan what can be gleaned withvisual observations.Several graduate students have

done their masters theses on vari-ous aspects of this study project.“For instance one of these is areport on how much time cattlespend in a riparian area. Regard-less of where they are, on the var-ious ranges, it turns out that cat-tle spend less than 3 percent oftheir time within 5 meters of thestreams,” he says.Another graduate student

looked at the broader data fromthe GPS points. “We did one-sec-ond collars (giving the GPS loca-tion once every second) in a morecontrolled setting here at theExperiment Station and looked atwhat cows do, to find out whatthey spend their time doing in ariparian pasture,” says Williams.This was done at the Hall Ranchin a long, narrow pasture similarto what is found on many ranchesin a valley bottom with a creekrunning through it.There were some exclosures

along the creek from old researchsites on the Hall ranch, but thecattle had access to the rest of thecreek. “We put one-second collarson some of the cattle to see howmuch time they spend eating,how much time they spendlounging, and how much totaltime they spend within 5 metersof the creek—and where theycross the creek. They were in thecreek a certain amount of time,but they picked about 3 spotswhere they go down to the waterto drink and then go back out,”

he says.“Cows don’t really like to wan-

der around in the water. Thegravel streambeds are hard ontheir feet. We are gaining moreriparian knowledge—about wherecattle were actually spendingtheir time during our study,” hesays. “We are beginning to get some

preliminary results regarding cat-tle distribution in the areas inIdaho where wolves are, and dataon cattle distribution over here inOregon where there are fewerwolves. We can’t make compar-isons with ranches where thereare no wolves, because the wolveshave already started moving intoour county in Oregon, but we areable to compare high density wolfareas with low density wolfareas,” he says.“We’ve added a couple more

cooperator ranches that are locat-ed where the wolves are, so wecan compare. Data from thoseranches complicates the picturewhen we are looking at all thedata, but we can leave thoseranches out when we are doingthe paired data comparing withand without wolves on the Idahoand Oregon ranches. Right nowwe have analyzed 2 years of data.One year was with a collared wolfin the middle of one herd in Ida-ho,” he says.The big challenge has been to

get wolves collared in the Idahoarea where they are interactingwith the cattle. “The struggle ofgetting one of our research collarson a wolf has turned out to be amore difficult issue than wethought it would be. First we hadto get permission, and then getthe people who can actually putcollars on—and then actuallycatch a wolf and get the collar on.So far we’ve put collars on 3wolves. One was in 2009 and weobtained very good data fromthat one. We put a collar onanother wolf 2 years ago, andhaven’t seen that wolf since. Wedon’t know whether it died or wasshot by a hunter, or is still outthere and we might see it some-day. We still have hope, but wedon’t know where that collar is, orif we will be able to retrieve it. Wecollared another wolf morerecently—a wolf that had a previ-ously damaged leg that hadhealed. That wolf did not survivelong enough to give us usefuldata,” he says.One of the purposes of this

study was to try to answer thebasic question about how cattlereact differently because of thepresence of wolves. “This is whatwe hope to be able to determineafter 10 or more years. In themeantime we are learning manyother things along the way. Weare finding that cattle tempera-ment changes drastically whenthey have to live with wolves, forinstance,” says Williams.“This winter we are putting

collars on cattle and doing someblood tests on the ones that havebeen living among wolves, and

comparing their stress level (mea-suring cortisol levels in the blood)with cattle that have not been liv-ing with wolves. Our hypothesis isthat yes, we will be able to detectthis. We are also far enough intothis study to know that cows areindividuals and some will bestressed more than others.”“We don’t like to equate it

with human emotions or put itinto human terms, but if a groupof people witness a tragedy (forinstance, a shooting in a roomwith 50 people there), some ofthose people will be so emotional-ly upset that they will go to piecesand be in tears for awhile butthey’ll get over it and life will goon. Some will be changed forever.Others will get up and go out ofthe room and shrug it off and goon with their lives. This same kindof spectrum is what we expectwhen 50 cows go through a trau-matic experience, such as inter-acting with wolves,” he explains.“One thing we want to eventu-

ally find out about is how longthis effect lasts. If we were able tomeasure the stress on a cow thatis attacked, her cortisol level thenext day would be very high. Per-haps a month afterward it wouldbe less. What our ranchers havebeen telling us is that many ofthese cows’ changed behaviorlasts for awhile and in some cowsit becomes less pronounced andin some cows it disappears, andin others it does not. We willeventually be looking at a largeherd, but we will start with 50cows and see if we can see a corti-sol difference between the cowsthat haven’t been with wolves andcows that have,” says Williams.These various studies are helpingus learn more about cattle/wolfinteractions and what is involved. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF

WOLVES — Neil Rimbey, arange economist with Universityof Idaho, has been evaluating theeconomic impact on ranches inthe study. “I’ve talked with theranchers and gathered informa-tion that we’ve used in buildingrepresentative ranch budgets. Wewill use those to develop econom-ic models that will be used toassess the economic impact ofmanagement alternatives,” hesays.The depredation loss (direct

losses, in killed animals) is whatgets attention, but the first yearsof this study have shown thatsome of the indirect losses actual-ly have more impact on a ranchprofitability and sustainability.“There was a study in LemhiCounty, Idaho about 10 yearsago in which the calves on thatallotment were tagged with spe-cial tracking devices at the timethey were turned out. In thisstudy, the ranchers andresearchers were only able toactually find one out of every 5calves that disappeared. Inrugged country, this is probablytypical,” says Rimbey. “A more recent study in

Wyoming indicated that this rate

was actually a little low; in thatstate they are compensatingranchers on a one to seven basis(figuring a rancher will only beable to find one out of every sev-en animals killed by wolves).They are only getting one con-firmed depredation for every sev-en animals that are lost. Thisrecent research in Wyoming alsosuggests that some of the indirectlosses—such as more open cows,reduction in weight gain on thecalves, more veterinary treat-ments for injured calves (orstressed calves that got pneumo-nia)—should raise the compensa-tion rate (from one to seven) upto one to 13 or 14,” Rimbey says.The change in cattle behavior

when in the presence of wolvesnot only affects the cattle them-selves but also impacts their man-agement and is harder on theland and facilities. Cattle may notstay in the areas where they areput—coming right back down offthe mountains to try to get awayfrom the wolves. They may usesome areas more heavily whileavoiding others. Cattle also crashthrough fences and are harder tohandle.“Both the Oregon and Idaho

ranchers have mentioned theincrease in time/labor and costsassociated with managing cattlenow, compared to before theyhad wolves. There’s more travelinvolved when dealing with dis-tant areas; they now have to gomore frequently to try to checkon the cattle. There must bemore time spent meeting withFish and Wildlife Service to try toget confirmation on death loss,etc.” This can become a drain onthe ranchers’ time and energy.“These are some of the things

we are trying to look at. Mostpeople don’t realize the extent ofthese impacts. Some of theranchers mention the cattle beingmore difficult to manage,” hesays. They can’t bring dogs alonganymore, when working cattle;the cattle just keep attacking thedogs. They can no longer usedogs to help move a herd. Thecattle will also attack a person onfoot.“With the budget information

we’ve gathered, we will developsome models that will then beused to impose different thingson that model. We can calculatewhat happens if death loss goesfrom two percent to eight per-cent, or what happens if theranch has to hire another rider inthe summer, etc.”The study has helped confirm

some things ranchers have sus-pected regarding behavioralchanges in cattle, and it will beinteresting to see how the eco-nomic impacts calculate out. “Forinstance, each one percentchange in percent of calvesweaned in Idaho (using conserva-tive prices) is amounting to abouta $1750 change in gross revenue,or nearly $6 per cow. This is just astarting point of this componentof the project,” says Rimbey.


Study Assessing Wolf and Cattle Interaction and WolfImpact: Economic Impact and New Knowledge

BY BARRY DENTON

Here I am in Kentuckyshoeing some race horsesin a large training barn.The barn was saturated

with the acrid smell of burninghooves as I was swedging myown racing plates in those daysand burning them on hot. I won-der if that still happens any-where. The owner wanders inand asks me if we could trimsome hooves on his broodmareband. Keep in mind that the trainer

would never ask his racing black-smith to trim broodmares. Iasked him how many he had andhe said four hundred and twelve.At first I thought are you nuts,but the entrepreneur in me tookover and I said of course. I hadno idea how I would get themdone, but I figured I could hiresome helpers. As luck would have it a guy

that had helped me in the pastgave me a call that very eveninglooking for work. I told him thathe was in luck and could go towork on the broodmares as soonas he got here.Orvis McCalla was an inter-

esting sort as he had a PhD insome sort of microbiology. How-ever, Orvis preferred ranch lifeto research labs. He opted towork on Wyoming ranches mostof the year and to work some-where in the warm south duringthe winter. McCalla’s father hadbeen a great horseshoer in hisday and had taught his son verywell. Orvis was very handy with a

pair of nippers and a rasp andhorses liked him. Even thoughhe was very talented his keenacademic mind often got in hisway when it came to commonsense problems. He was a littlesawed off guy with a great bigblack hat and always had jinglebobs on his spurs. Orvis couldnever sneak up on anyone asthey would hear him coming.Orvis always walked erect andnever slouched. He was verykind to women and animals, butwould fight a man if he looked athim cross eyed. Orvis’s academic curiosity

kept him seeking out new waysto train and handle horses. Hewas never satisfied with the triedand true methods. According toOrvis there had to be a betterway. Gawani PonyBoy was a popu-

lar horse clinician at the timeand Orvis attended one of hisclinics. One thing about Orvis ishe listened and retained infor-mation quite easily. After hecame home from the horse cliniche could repeat just about every-thing the clinician had said. Hewas very anxious to put his newlylearned horse training tech-niques to use. According to him these meth-

ods were developed over thou-sands of years by Native Ameri-cans. I never could quite figurethat out as the Native Americanshave only had horses since the

Spanish arrived in the late1500s. He was armed with newways of horse handling and trim-ming broodmares that wouldgive him a chance to try themout.Orvis finally arrived in Ken-

tucky and was eager to get rightto work. The horse farm provid-ed two men to catch broodmaresand a groom to hold them forthe trimmer. Keep in mind thatbroodmares are only handledabout four times per year andare turned out on big rolling pas-tures. Needless to say, some ofthe mares get pretty independ-ent. Orvis started trimming at first

light and was making goodprogress. Most of the mareswere well trained and would set-tle down with a little encourage-ment. Right after lunch that daythe groom brought up a dark baymare that stood over seventeen

hands. She seemed a little nerv-ous and the groomed warnedOrvis about her. The Big PurpleMonster, as she was named, hadbeen a stakes winning mare andher progeny were winners aswell. Orvis tried to comfort the

mare by talking to her and pet-ting her which was clear she did-n’t like. There was no point intrying to pick up her foot at thispoint because getting near herwas impossible as she whirledaround the groom. Next Orvistried rubbing some pressurepoints he had learned about tocalm her down. The Big PurpleMonster’s answer to that was tostrike him on the arm anddestroy his watch with the silverNavajo watch band. Why he was wearing a watch

to trim horses in is beyond me?Wrist watches typically getcaught on everything around a

horse including manes and tails.Like I said, there was nothingnormal or typical about Orvis.He lived in his own world andhad his reasons. The groomthought the horse broke his arm,but after a few minutes Orviswent back to work.All this time I had been shoe-

ing in the training barn aboutone hundred feet away. Orviscalled me over so I could see thebest thing he had learned fromGawani PonyBoy. While I waswaiting for my groom to bringme another horse I venturedover to see what was so interest-ing to Orvis. He then walked upto the nervous mare and pro-ceeded to gently blow in her nos-tril. With the speed of lightningshe reared back and with oneswoop of her hoof struck Orvison the top of the head. Itcracked like thunder when it hit.I swear it drove him into the

ground. All that was left was asmashed black hat. We had topick up the hat to see if Orviswas still under it. There he was all crumpled

and bleeding, but not moving.We thought perhaps he wasdead so someone went to getsome water to throw on him.The water did nothing otherthan get him wet. Finally some-one brought a truck around andwe loaded him in the back of it.They drove him to the hospitalwhere he still didn’t wake up fora few hours. Around suppertime that night Orvis woke upand we were all relieved. Youmight have guessed that he hadquite a headache for about amonth and I think he lost aninch in height. After he wasawake we all thought it waspretty funny and we made surehe got advance notice of allfuture horse clinics.


For catalog call 575/535-2975 or email [email protected]

Remember: IT’S NOT BLACK HIDE, IT’S ANGUS INFLUENCE!

March 10, 2014SELLING: 100 YEARLING &

COMING 2-YEAR-OLD ANGUS BULLSALSO SELLING: 100 QUALITY BLACK REPLACEMENT FEMALES

Wayne Connell – Auctioneer Cattlemen’s Livestock Auction – Belen, New Mexico

C A L V I N G E A S E • G R O W T H • C A R C A S S

BLACK

AN GUS

��

Heartstone Angus, LLCU Bar Ranch

J-C Angus Hartzog Angus Cattle

BlACK ANGUSREADY FOR WORKBULL SALE

BLACK

AN GUS

Purple Monster and Pony Boy


ANGUS MEANS BUSINESS.



,inerr,adale TRegional ManagerR

tner is usiness parle bA reliab

®

®,

egional ManagerR

x 203 Bo.. Bo.OPP.OTX 77445Hempstead,

[email protected]

w MexicoNeexasTTexas

AssociationAngus American 3 12-201© 20

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

Beefmaster BreedersUnited (BBU) hasannounced that RyanCummins, Katy, Texas

will be serving as the Market-ing and Member ServiceCoordinator for the Beefmas-ter membership. Cummins willprovide assistance to Beefmas-ter breeders and commercialbeef producers throughout theUnited States. Cummins willprovide consultation and farmvisit services to members,while also increasing the Beef-master breed’s exposure in thecommercial marketplace. Hisresponsibilities will includeproviding classification servic-es, managing commercial mar-keting programs and support-ing BBU educationalprograms that create visibilityand demand for Beefmastercattle.

Cummins is no stranger tothe beef industry. Cumminshas an extensive agriculturaland livestock background,specifically with cattle and theBeefmaster breed. Cumminsgrew up raising and showingBeefmaster cattle through theJunior Beefmaster BreedersAssociation (JBBA) and con-tinues to raise and manage asmall herd of purebred Beef-masters and commercial cattle. A native of Brenham,

Texas, Cummins attendedClarendon Junior Collegereceiving an Associates Degreein Science and competed ontheir award winning livestockjudging team. Two years later,Mr. Cummins graduated fromOklahoma State University(OSU) with a BachelorsDegree in Animal Science. Hewas also a member of the

OSU livestock judging teamfrom 2002-2003. Following hiseducational roles at OSU, Mr.Cummins attended SamHouston State Universitywhere he earned a MastersDegree in Agriculture. Prior tobecoming a BBU staff mem-ber, Cummins taught agricul-tural education at multipleTexas high schools.“We are fortunate to have

such a qualified personbecome a member of the BBUteam. Ryan has an immenseknowledge of cattle and theBeefmaster breed,” said BBUChief Operating Officer CollinOsbourn. “Mr. Cummins willbe representing the Beefmas-ter breed throughout thecountry and I am confidentthat his skill set and knowledgewill be an asset to this greatbreed.”

Beefmaster Breeders UnitedHires Cummins to Staff BY TIFFANY WOODS,

/HTTP://BIT.LY/OSU_AGNEWS1351

Eliminating grazing won’treduce the impact of cli-mate on rangeland, accord-ing to nearly 30 scientists

in the western United States.The researchers, who work for

nine universities and the U.S.Department of Agriculture,made this argument in a journalarticle in response to a debateover whether grazing on westernpublic lands worsens ecologicalalterations caused by climatechange.“We dispute the notion that

eliminating grazing will provide asolution to problems created byclimate change,” the 27 authorswrote in the peer-reviewedpaper, which was a summary ofscientific literature that was pub-lished online recently by thejournal Environmental Manage-ment. “To cope with a changingclimate, land managers will needaccess to all available vegetationmanagement tools, including

grazing.”Some scientists argue that

livestock, deer, elk and wildhorses and burros exacerbate theeffects of climate change on veg-etation, soils, water and wildlifeon western rangelands. As aresult, they claim that removingor reducing these animals wouldalleviate the problem.In this latest paper, however,

the authors argued that grazingcan actually help mitigate someof the effects of climate change.Climate change, they said, islikely to increase the accumula-tion of flammable grasses andincrease the chance of cata-strophic wildfires unless thosegrasses are managed.“Grazing is one of the few

tools available to reduce theherbaceous vegetation thatbecomes fine fuel on range-lands,” said co-author DaveBohnert, the director of OregonState University’s Eastern Ore-gon Agricultural Research Cen-

Eliminating grazing won’treduce impact of climate onrangeland, scientists say

continued on page nine


The Arizona National Live-stock Show and ArizonaPioneer Stockmen Associa-tion honored Velma and

Leroy Tucker, Roosevelt, Arizonaas the 2014 Pioneer Stockmen ofthe Year. The Tucker’s were hon-ored at the Annual PioneerStockmen’s luncheon, December28 during the 66th Annual Ari-zona National Livestock Show atthe Arizona State Fairgrounds inPhoenix.The Pioneer Stockmen Associ-

ation members are true Arizonapioneers. To be a member of theassociation you have to be age 75and older and have been involvedin Arizona’s agriculture industry.Leroy was born July 18, 1928

in Greenback Valley at the FlyingPan Ranch. Velma Lucille wasborn May 21, 1933 in Globe.They are parents to three chil-

dren, Tenna Lucille, Roy Daleand Lee Ann. The Tuckers havebeen involved in the ranchingindustry their entire lives. Thecouple celebrated their 64thanniversary this year. Leroy and Velma are members

of the Gila County Cattle Grow-ers, Arizona Cattle Growers andthe National Cattlemen’s BeefAssociation. Velma joined theArizona State Cowbelles andhelped form the Gila CountyCowbelles in 1971. She wentthrough all the chairs for bothGila County and the State,becoming president of Gila in1976-77 and State Cowbelle pres-ident in 1980. While State Presi-dent she was given a seat on theBoard of the Arizona Beef Coun-cil. In 1981, Gov Bruce Babbittappointed her to that Board andshe was reappointed by Gover-

nors Mofford and Mechambefore retiring in 1996. Velmawas proud to be appointed to theNational Livestock and MeatBoard in Chicago where shechaired the Education Commit-tee and the Research Committee.While serving on the board, Vel-ma helped develop the promo-tions “Where’s the Beef” and“Beef, it’s What’s for Dinner.”Velma was named Cattle Womenof the Year by the Arizona StateCowbelles in 2010.Leroy served as president of

the Gila County Cattle Growersand later became the sales chair-man for eleven years for the GilaCounty Annual Yearling Sale. Hehas graded bulls for over twentyyears at Cattlemen’s Weekend inPrescott. Leroy also sat on theArizona Stabilization Conserva-tion Board.

Arizona National Livestock Show Honors Pioneer Stockmen

BY DR DAVID WHITEHOUSE

WWW.THEGWPF.ORG

In mid January in a jointpress conference theNational Oceanic &Atmospheric Administra-

tion (NOAA) and NationalAeronautics & Space Adminis-tration (NASA) have releaseddata for the global surfacetemperature for 2013. In sum-mary they both show that the‘pause’ in global surface tem-perature that began in 1997,according to some estimates,continues.Statistically speaking there

has been no significant trendin global temperatures overthis period. All these years fallwithin the error bars of 0.1deg C. The trend is less thanthis and is statistically insignif-icant. There is no statisticalcase for representing the post-1997 data as anything otherthan a constant line. Thegraphs presented at the pressconference omitted those errorbars.When asked for an explana-

tion for the ‘pause’ byreporters Dr Gavin Schmidt ofNASA and Dr Thomas Karl ofNOAA spoke of contributionsfrom volcanoes, pollution, aquiet Sun and natural variabil-ity. In other words, they don’tknow.NASA has a temperature

anomaly of 0.61 deg C abovethe average of 14.0 (1951 –80) making it the 7th warmestyear. Note that it is identicalto 2003 and only 0.01 above2009 and 2006. Taking intoaccount the errors there hasbeen no change since last year.NOAA also has 2013 as the

4th warmest year, at 0.62 degC above the global 20th centu-ry average of 13.9 deg C. Notethat only 0.09 deg C separatestheir top ten warmest years.Each year has an associatederror of 0.1 deg.

The Leroy and Velma Tucker Family. Photo by Anna Aja.

NASA & NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues

ter in Burns.Globally, grazing is used for a

variety of vegetation manage-ment objectives, in addition tofine fuel reduction, said leadauthor Tony Svejcar, a researchleader at the USDA’s office inBurns who also has a courtesyappointment in OSU’s Animaland Rangeland Sciences Depart-ment.The scientists also said that it’s

unclear how removing grazingwould overcome the effects oflarge-scale climatic changes suchas reduced snow packs.The authors also pointed out

that some criticism of grazing hasbeen based on decades-old stud-ies, when the scars of unfetteredforaging were still fresh on thelandscape. They added that insome places it's hard to tell ifimpacts from grazing are fromcurrent practices or if they are leftover from the homesteading erawhen grazing was unregulated.

“Before the Taylor GrazingAct of 1934, it was a first-come,first-served competition, with thewinners taking as much of theforage as they could because ifthey didn’t someone else would,”said Bohnert, who is a beef cattlespecialist with the OSU Exten-sion Service and a professor inOSU's College of AgriculturalSciences. “Since then, we’velearned more about the ecologyand management of rangelands.Ranchers are constantly lookingat ways to be more sustainable intheir grazing practices.”Collaborators on the paper

are from OSU, the University ofArizona, Brigham Young Univer-sity, the University of California-Davis, the University of Idaho,Montana State University, theUniversity of Nevada-Reno,Utah State University, the Uni-versity of Wyoming and theUSDA’s Agricultural ResearchService.

Grazing continued from page eight


Real Estate GUIDEGUIDE

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

��

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

Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

��%�� "��#��

��%��

�� !�� $$$� ��!��

Bottari &Associates Realty

�-&�"*,��/'��*..�,%��,*&!,��

111��*..�,%,!�'.3��*(

��

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

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

�

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

� 113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.”Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres in grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-functionbarn. 2-bedroom, 1-bath rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641

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

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

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

MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORSSPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

��

To place your RealEstate Guide listings,contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515

Bar MReal Estate

BAR M REAL ESTATE New Mexico Properties For Sale...

www.ranchesnm.com

Roswell, NM 88202Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker

Six Shooter Ranch – Located approximately 15 miles west of Carrizozo, New Mexico inwestern Lincoln County. The ranch is comprised of 640 ± Deeded Acres, 961.4 New MexicoState Lease Acres and 11, 246 Federal BLM Lease Acres. Grazing capacity is controlled bya Section 3 BLM grazing permit for 175 Animal Unit on a yearlong basis. Improvementsinclude one residence, which has recently been remodeled, hay barn, storage sheds and cor-rals, all functional. Water is prov ided by three wells and an extensive buried pipeline sys-tem. Much of the water system has been replaced or installed new within the last five year.The Carrizozo Malpai lava outcrop forms the entire eastern boundary of the ranch. Accessto the ranch is gated and locked from Highway 380. Public access is by permission only.Price: $1,300,000.

Border Ranch – Located approximately 10 miles east of Columbus, New Mexico along theinternational boundary with Mexico along and on both sides of State Highway 9. The ranchis comprised of 1,910 ± Deeded Acres, 11,118 NM State Lease Acres and 52,487 FederalBLM Lease Acres. Grazing capacity is set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit for 613Animal Units. Livestock water is prov ided by three wells and a buried pipeline system. Fivesets of working corrals are situated throughout the ranch. Adjoins the Mt. Riley Ranch tothe west. Price: $1,100,000, but negotiable, come look and make an offer. Seller wants theranch sold.

Mt. Riley – Located approximately 30 miles northwest of Santa Teresa, New Mexico alongand on both sides of State Highway 9. The southern boundary of the ranch is the interna-tional boundary with Mexico. The ranch is comprised of 160 ± Deeded Acres, 6921 NM StateLease Acres and 74,977 Federal BLM Lease Acres. Grazing Capacity is set by a Section 3BLM grazing permit for 488 Animal Units on a yearlong basis. The biggest portion of theranch is located north of the highway. The headquarters is located approximately one milenorth of the highway. Headquarters improvements consist of a camp house, maintenanceshop, storage sheds and a large set of working pens with scales. Water is prov ided by fourwells and a buried pipeline system. Adjoins the Border Ranch to the east. Price: $725,000,but negotiable, come look and make an offer. Seller wants the ranch sold.

�� "2*3��&8"3��&8$&-�-&/4� 1"3452&�� 1"6&%� 20"%'20/4"(&�� )5(&� -",&��."/3*0/)0.&��

�� $"44-&2"/$)��0'��-"2,36*--&��!��&%�*6&2� �0�� /*$&� #2*$,� )0.&�� #"2/3��1*1&�'&/$&3��(00%�%&&2�)0(3�� %5$,3�� )5/4*/(��

�� 024)".�� &8"3��"$��5/4*/(�"/%�$"44-&��20/43��79�

�� 2*/*49��05/49��8��/&84�40��"69��20$,&44��"�4*0/"-� �02&34�� &"54*'5-� �)0.&�4)"4�-00,3�06&2�"�/*$&��"$2&� -",&�� 420/(� 7&--�� %&&1(2"33��"2/3��$"44-&��1&/3��--'02��

�� &7��0.&��#"2/3��2&%�*20/�$0/3425$4*0/��"44-&��3)07��

��

��79��&"(06*--&��!��:��

�� :� �"8��+0&12*&342&�/&4�:�+0&12*&342&�&"24)-*/,�$0.

�� !��!��"��!��

�� !��!��

�� W-R

RANCH18,560 ACRES

20 MILES NORTHEAST OF ROSWELL, N.M.

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

� 680 Deeded Acres

� 17,900 State Lease Acres

� 927 BLM Acres

� 300 Animal Units Year Long

� Good fences; 4-strand barbwire

� Newly remodeled Southwestern Home

� Good water; windmill and submergible tanks

� $1,800,000

�03�#110+/5.'/5��.03'�+/(03.#5+0/03�.03'�-+45+/)4�%#--�03�'.#+-��

#/%*��#/&��0��

��.#+-��3#/%*'4�3#/%*-#/&%0�%0.

888�3#/%*-#/&%0�%0.

�#!"�� ;� �� #%3'4�� '#45� 0(�#--+/)'3�� "'9#4�� 06545#/&+/)� 8#5'3� 4:45'.��30&6%+/)� 0+-� 8'--4�� '9%'--'/5� *6/5+/)�� $&3.��$5*�*'#&26#35'34��.+/'3#-4�/')05+#$-'�

��$� �� ;� � �� #%3'4�� /035*� '#45� 0(�#--+/)'3�� "'9#4�� #%� 0(� %6-5+7#5+0/�� 1#4�563'4�� *0.'�8+5*�)#3#)'�#/&�#� �%#3�%#31035�-#3)'�4503#)'�$#3/��)3'#5�*034'�(#%+-+5:��1+1'�%03�3#-�� -#,'�#/&��5#/,4��)3'#5�/#5+7'�)3#44�%07'3�#)'�� )00&� *6/5+/)�� .+/'3#-4� /')05+#$-'�� '0/�#/%'��8/'3�30,'3�

�$�"�� ;� �� #%3'4�� +/� �0-#/� �06/5:�� #%3'4�+/�� 30--+/)�*+--4��-64*�1-#+/4�+&'#-(03� (00&� 1-054�� 8#5'3�8'--4�� 463(#%'� 5#/,4�'9%'15+0/#-�*6/5+/)��456%%0�*0.'��08/'3�8+--%0/7':��.+/'3#-4��3+%'�50�!'--�

��'8��'9+%0�;�� #%3'4;� /035*'#45� 0(� 048'--�� '8��'9+%0� +/��*#7'4�06/5:��6450.�$6+-5��*0.'�5*#5� +4�#�536'5'33+503+#-� �'8� �'9+%#/�� 42� (5� �� #/&� #(03'.#/<4�*0.'��42� (5� ��#/&�#�4'1#3#5'-0&)+/)� (03� 3#/%*� *#/&4� 03� *6/5'34�� %0.1-'5'4'5� 0(� %033#-4� 8+5*� 4%#-'4� #/&� �� 07'3*'#&� (''&4503#)'�� #%3'4�&''&'&��#%3'4��:06�.645� 4''� 50� 3'#--:� #113'%+#5'� 5*'�26#-+5:� 0(5*+4�3#/%*�

�� ,-#*0.#� ;� �� #%3'4� +/�'(-03'� #/&� �#5+.'3� �06/5+'4� 0(� �,-#*0.#�'9%'--'/5�)3#44�%07'3#)'��1#4563'4��53#14��.+-'4� /'8� ('/%'�� #%3'4� 0(� *#:�.'#&08��9%'15+0/#-�%#55-'�01'3#5+0/�8+5*�/'8�%033#-4�#/&)308� -05�� /'8� %'.'/5� %0..0&+5:� $#3/�� *#:$#3/4� �� 4*014�� 4'5� 0(� 4%#-'4�� *:&3#6-+%%*65'4�� 07'3*'#&� (''&� $+/4� �� %0/%3'5'(''&�5306)*4�� 01+/)�#3'/#�� 42�(5� ��30%,*064'� 8#1#35.'/5� #/&� $#5*�� /'8� �� 42� (5 ��$3+%,�*0.'�#/&�#�/'8��42�(5�'��&06�$-'� 8+&'� 8%#31035�� 3+%'� +/%-6&'4� '26+1.'/5��9%'--'/5�%#55-'�3#/%*��

��

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

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

SOUTHERN PLAINS LAND��


F.T. MCCOLLUM III,

PAS-ACAN TEXAS A&M

AGRILIFE EXTENSION AMARILLO

Stocker programs on rangelandare opportunistic, margin-based enterprises. Oppor-tunistic from the standpoints

of utilizing excess grazing capacitynot allocated to cow/calf produc-tion, utilizing forage seasonally tocapitalize on forage quality orachieve other management objec-tives, adding value to ranch-raisedor purchased calves prior to finish-ing for beef, or adding a revenuestream from custom grazing. As climate conditions hopefully

stabilize and improve, stocker graz-ing may be one of the strategies tomanage recovering rangelands andutilize carrying capacity as cowherds are eventually rebuilt. Annu-ally allocating a portion of theranch carrying capacity to stockercattle, whether as purchased calves,custom grazing, or retained owner-ship of ranch-raised calves, addsflexibility to grazing plans andserves as a buffer against climateand forage production risk.

Challenges in Today’s EnvironmentClimate and rangeland con-

ditions – although the last fewmonths have brought some relieffrom the drought conditions, therangelands in the region still needtime, precipitation and patientmanagement to fully recover. Aconcern is the climate outlook forseveral years out. The prevailingoceanic temperature conditionsthat influence precipitationamounts and patterns in this regionsuggest that the region will be sub-ject to more variable and less desir-able conditions over the next sever-al years. Operating capital, equity

requirements – the reduced cattleinventories and relatively gooddemand for beef have continued topush calf prices to higher levels.Costs of all other inputs have alsoincreased. With these increases, theequity/capital required to financeoperations has also increased andmay present challenges to somethat wish to consider stocker pro-duction. Economic policy has heldinterest rates at low levels.

Margin InfluencersValue of weight gain – The

relationship of purchase price andsale price determine the amount ofgross margin available to cover pro-duction costs. To paraphrase an oldadage, the first cost is the mostimportant cost. Value of weightgain across a period of time is cal-culated by dividing the buy/sellmargin by the total weight gain.For instance, if a 450 lb steer is pur-chased for $200/cwt, or $900, andis projected to market at 750 lb for$163/cwt, or $1222.50, then steerweight increased 300 lbs while steervalue increased $322.5. Value ofweight gain is $107.5/cwt gain andtotal cost of gain must remainbelow this in order to profit. Valueof weight gain can vary seasonallyand at times among differentweight classes of cattle. Value of added weight reflects

the value difference among differ-ent weight classes of cattle on a giv-en market and can vary acrosstimes of the year. The value ofadded weight may be a decisionpoint determining the weight classto purchase initially. For instance,assume the prevailing steer calfmarket is: 400 lb @ $220/cwt($880), 450 lb @ $200/cwt ($900)and 500 lb @ $190 ($950). The first50 lb weight increase adds $20/hd(or $0.40/lb added weight) and thesecond 50 lb increase adds $50 (or$1.00/lb added weight), and theentire 100 lb increase adds $70($0.70/lb added weight). The differ-ences in value of the added weightmay affect the decision of whichweight class of calves to purchase.The value of added weight

should be a decision point whenconsidering whether to apply man-agement practices (such as supple-mental feeding) to increase sale

weight. For instance assume themarket is applying a $6.00/cwt slideon feeder cattle and projected steermarket is $165/cwt @ 700 lb($1155). A producer is consideringa management practice that willadd 30 lbs of sale weight; the pro-jected value for the 730 lb strswould be $163.20 ($1191.36). Theadded 30 lbs of market weight isworth $36.36 or $1.21/lb. The$1.21/lb value of added weight pro-vides the benchmark to evaluatethe cost and efficacy of the man-agement practice. Health management for

incoming calves – Health man-agement for calves is the first man-agement challenge in a stocker pro-gram. Morbidity and mortalityrates vary and are dependent onmany factors ranging from thebackground history of the calves tothe procurement and transporta-tion process to the conditions,labor, and management afterarrival. The cost of morbidity incalves is the sum of antibiotic ther-apy, death loss, chronics, andreduced performance by the calvesthat were sick and recovered. In order to provide an estimate

of the cost of morbidity, a sensitivi-ty analysis was conducted with var-ied morbidity rates and the follow-ing inputs: purchase 450 lb calves@ $195/cwt, market value of$165/cwt at 675 with a $6 slide,306 lb base weight gain for healthycalves, 12 percent reduction in gainfor morbid calves, 8 percent casefatality rate for morbid calves, 45percent retreatment rate for mor-bid calves, $15 antibiotic cost pertreatment. Pasture costs werepriced on about $0.57/gain. Otherfeed, labor and equipment costswere not varied by morbidity rate. Using this approach, each 1 per-

cent of morbidity reduced profit by$1.22/head. Sawyer (2006) esti-mated losses at $0.8772/hd foreach 1 percent of morbidity basedon 2006 markets. The difference inSawyer's estimate and the currentreflect the difference in calf pricesand value of gain between 2006and today. Independent of associ-ated treatment costs and reducedperformance, Sawyer (2006) esti-mated that 1 percent mortalityreduced profit by $6.64/hd while inthe current analysis 1 percent mor-tality reduced profit by $9.01/hd. Breaking down the $1.22/head/

percent morbidity loss in the cur-rent analysis, 55 percent is attrib-uted to calf mortality, 29 percent toreduced performance of morbidcalves, and 16 percent to treatmentcosts. The greatest impact of sick-ness on profit is death loss. Manag-ing the purchase and managing thecalves to reduce the incidence sick-ness is a first objective. But, manag-ing to reduce the severity of diseaseand reduce case the fatality rate(percent of calves that were treatedthat died) are a close second. In theanalysis above, at 30-40 percentmorbidity each 1 percent decreasein case fatality rate increased prof-it/hd by about $3.50. Adequatelabor and time to identify and treatcalves, prudent and timely use ofmetaphylaxis, providing palatablefeed and water, and low stress han-dling procedures and managementprocesses are important.Rate of gain and total gain –

Stating the obvious, rate of gainand total gain are keys to profitabil-ity. More marketable weightdilutes the associated productioncosts.Some factors that affect weight

Stocker Programs onRangeland

continued on page twelve

gain are not directly manageable –genetic potential for gain in pur-chased calves, and seasonal andannual variation in forage qualityare a couple. Morbidity can reduceweight gain (12 percent reductionwas used above based on publisheddata from Pinchak (2005)) and canbe influenced by management.Other means of altering weightgain, such as stocking rate/forageavailability, use of growth implantsand feed additives, and provision ofsupplemental feeds, are underdirect managerial control. Forage allocation – Supple-

ments, additives, and growth pro-moting implants can be used toenhance weight gains but the pri-mary factor setting the base for per-formance is the amount and nutri-tional value of forage available tothe cattle. Stocker performance isclosely related to forage availabilityand although the amount and qual-ity of forage produced annually isbasically beyond the control of themanager, forage allocation via graz-ing management practices is undermanagerial control.As stocking rates (head/ac)

increase gain/hd declines as nutri-ent intake is limited and energyexpended to harvest nutrientsincreases. As a rule of thumb, fol-lowing stocking guidelines for mod-erate (approximately 25 percent

harvest efficiency of annual forageproduction) will ensure the higherweight gains possible by stockers.However, this may not be the eco-nomically ($/ac) optimum stockingrate.Supplemental feeding –

Although supplemental feeding ofstocker cattle in winter months iscommon to maintain thriftinessand health, heavier feeding rates topromote higher gains during thewinter or supplemental feeding inthe spring/summer is not commonin this region. In addition toenhancing gain, supplemental feed-ing in the summer may prove valu-able by settling cattle and improv-ing handling during gathering andshipping. This may reduce shrinkand improve weighups.The decision to provide addi-

tional supplement to enhance gainsshould estimate the relationshipbetween marginal cost of gain fromthe supplement and the marginalvalue of the added gain resultingfrom the supplement. The value ofadded gain was discussed earlier. Ifa practice increases gain by 10lb/hd, what is the net increase invalue ($/hd) as a result. The cost ofthe marginal gain can be estimatedfrom supplement efficiency. Sup-plement efficiency is the lbs of sup-plement/lb of added gain. Forinstance, on rangelands where for-

age quality declines in the late sum-mer/early fall, feeding the equiva-lent of 1 lb of a high protein supple-ment such as cottonseed cake hasbeen shown to increase daily gainabout 0.3-0.4 lb/hd/d. The supple-ment efficiency rate in this case is 1lb supplement/0.35 lb added gainor 2.8 to 1. Cost of added gain isthe $ cost per lb of supplementmultiplied by the supplement effi-ciency. So, if the supplement in theprevious example cost $400/ton (or$0.20/lb) then the cost of the addedgain is $0.56/lb added gain. If thevalue of added gain is greater thanthe cost, then supplementation maybe considered.Supplement efficiency varies

from 2:1 to over 10:1 depending onforage quality, type of supplement,and the quantity of supplementoffered. At supplemental feedingrates that would be employed inmost range settings, the efficiencymore likely ranges from 2:1 to 6:1. With the value of added gain in

today’s markets, supplementationto enhance gains and marketweights may be more attractivethan in the past when value ofadded gain hovered in the $0.50 to0.65/lb range.Ionophores – Monensin

(Rumensin) and lasalocid(Bovatec) are feed additives thatcan improve weight gain in grazing

calves. These additives have a dif-ferent mode of action thanimplants (see below) and theireffects are additive. Based onnumerous studies with grazingcalves, ionophores are expected toincrease gains about 8-12 percent.These are delivered to cattle in self-fed mineral supplements or can beincluded in hand-fed supplementssuch as range cubes. Comparisonpricing of mineral supplementswith and without ionophores maycause some to avoid the mineralsupplements that containionophores. However, the cost ofthe additives are about $0.02-0.03/hd/d; the cost of theionophore-containing mineral sup-plement appears high because the$0.02-0.03 is being delivered in 0.2-0.25 lb of supplement. Implants – Numerous studies

over the last 40 years have demon-strated the efficacy of that growth-promoting implants in stocker cat-tle. Across varied conditions andbase rates of gain, implants willincrease weight gains about 14 per-cent on average. At higher rates ofgain, the absolute response (lb/d) isgreater than at lower rates of gain.However, this response has beendemonstrated at base rates of gainas low as 0.5 lb/d. At a base gain of0.5 lb/d, the expected gain with animplant would be about 0.57 lb/d.

This response would add about 6.5lb gain/hd over the life of theimplant, or between $6.50 and$7/hd for an implant cost $1.00-1.30. At base gains of 1.5 lb/d, theexpected gain with the implantwould be about 1.7 lb/d or a differ-ence of about 18 lb/hd ($18-20/hd)over the life of the implant. Use ofimplants for grazing cattle will nothinder performance once the cattleenter a finishing program.

Other approaches to“stockers”Historically stocker programs

have involved growing calves toheavier weights for feeders.However if one applies the

“temporary” and “opportunistic”and “value-added” characters ofstocker enterprises, there may beother “stocker” opportunities toconsider given the current statusand outlook for the domestic beefindustry. Low cow inventory,expected expansion of the cowpopulation, reduced beef suppliesmay add some different facets tostocker production such as develop-ing bred heifers for resale, upgrad-ing cull cows for slaughter, turningopen cows into bred cows forresale. These would all be evaluatedas margin operations just as enter-prises growing calves for resale asfeeder cattle.


Stocker Programs continued from page eleven

On the north side of Denver abidesthe city of Commerce City. There,last fall, U.S. officials dumped mil-lions of dollars worth of ivory tusks,

carvings, and jewelry into a steel rockcrusher and pulverized it into dust andtiny chips.The officials’ objective was to reduce

the slaughter of tens of thousands of ele-phants each year.ECONOMICS 1: What happens to a

commodity’s demand and price when youreduce its availability? DUH . . . The pricegoes up!For instance, cattle prices are at an all

time high because . . . the U.S. Cow herdis down to its lowest since 1952. Averagehorse prices have plunged due to the elim-ination of horse slaughter, which floodedthe country with unwanted horses.Ivory’s value is primarily intrinsic,

meaning it serves no essential purpose,though it does work as a forklift andweapon when still on the elephant. That’sunlike other precious stones and metalslike diamonds, silver, gold and uranium,which can be used in all sort of engineer-ing processes, high tech manufacturingand dentistry, in addition to jewelry. Thevalue of these minerals is also increasedbecause there is a finite amount on ourplanet.So how can we help the ivory problem?

Flood the market, that’s how.Elephants continue to reproduce, thus

manufacturing ivory. How ‘bout increas-ing the number of elephants? A greatexample of this solution is the salmonindustry. Twenty years ago wild salmonfrom Alaskan fisheries was priced out ofthe range of the average family. Then theworld started “farming salmon” commer-cially. Now it is readily available.Would elephant farming be practical? If

people want ivory, why not make it avail-able? Maybe grow your own elephant inyour backyard. Let capitalism work. Look at the economics of the illegal

drug business. As long as selling marijuanais illegal, the price will be high. Make itavailable to everyone, as it appears to bedoing, and the price will get lower as thenumbers of users get higher!Another solution would be to encour-

age the farming of alternative sources forivory; narwhals, hippos, walruses, etc.Workable, you say? Stick up a wantedposter in Mt. Pleasant, TX for tusks fromferal pigs and wild boars and turn the rednecks loose! In twenty years people will befarming hogs for ivory. Make pigs a three-purpose animal; meat, hunting and jewel-ry.I can see it now, our own Cable Net-

work show; we’ll call it . . .THE PIGDYNASTY!

The Price of Ivory

This means that before a producercan obtain (for example) CTC (chlorte-tracycline) crumbles for his calves orpigs, he will have to obtain a VFD formfilled out by his veterinarian. The formwill specify the farm and animals to betreated, the duration of treatment, andwhich drug is to be used. The feed millor distributor would need to have aproperly completed VFD before theycould supply the feed.The VFD forms will be easier to

manage. Everyone’s recordkeepingrequirement will be cut from 2 years to1 year. The forms will be able to betransmitted and stored electronically.And thankfully for this veterinarian,they will no longer have to include anestimate of how much of the medica-tion the animals will consume in thegiven time frame (this was hard toaccurately guess a lot of times). Theform will need to simply specify theinclusion rate of the drug, the numberof animals to be fed, and the durationof the feeding.

What won’t change:The ability to use feed-grade antibi-

otics to treat, control, or prevent bacte-rial diseases. The term “prevention” isused in the situation where there is avery high risk of illness if you don’tadminister the antibiotic. However,producers will need to obtain a VFDfor these products as explained above.How one uses and obtains non-

“medically important” feed grade prod-ucts. Examples of these includeionophores like Rumensin®, Bovatec®,most coccidiosis medications, and cer-tain growth-promoting medications likebacitracin (BMD®). Since they’re notused very often if at all in human medi-cine, there will be no changes in theiruse.Uses of water and injectable antibi-

otics—yet. There are proposals outthere that would move water medica-tions to “prescription” status like manyinjectable antibiotics.Extra label uses of feed-grade med-

ications. Any use of feed grade medica-tions not in accordance with their labelis illegal now, and it will remain so.The ability of current distributors

and feed mills to supply these products.Yes, there will be more paperworkrelated to more VFD forms, but thesenew proposals do not limit these busi-nesses in what they can carry or manu-facture.The need for veterinarians to be

involved in decisions about feed-gradeantibiotics. There is no better source ofinformation about the proper uses ofthese products in livestock populationsthan the herd veterinarian. A close rela-tionship with a veterinarian means thatproducers may avoid wasting time andmoney on ineffective uses of theseproducts. Better yet, it may result inpractical advice on how to prevent ill-nesses that would necessitate the usesof these products.Antibiotic resistance is a complex

and sometimes contentious topicamong animal and human health pro-fessionals. The complexity of the issuemeans that a “silver bullet” solution isnot going to present itself any timesoon. All of us involved in using theseproducts—in animals and peoplealike—play a role in ensuring that theycontinue to work for the sake of ouranimals and our family members.Understanding these proposed changesand proactively deciding how they willwork into your operation is a great firststep that we can all take.NOTE: Product trade names are used

for purposes of illustration only and do notconstitute an endorsement of those prod-ucts.

Feed-grade Antibiotics continued from page one

Part Two – An Unfair Compact

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Conflicts over water in west-ern Montana have beenbrewing for several decadesbut recently came to a boil.

The surface issue is the quantifi-cation of the federal reservedwater rights for the tribes on theFlathead Reservation, but thedeeper issue is a “taking” of pri-vate state-based water rights andgiving them to the federal gov-ernment, via the current Com-pact document. This documentis supposed to negotiate “theequitable division and apportion-ment of waters” between “thestate and the people” and thefederal reserved interests—whichinclude the reserved water heldin trust for Indian tribes on thevarious Indian reservations.Compacts for the other 6 Indianreservations in Montana wereaccomplished without problems,but this one is different.The question is not whether

the Indians have water rights. Itis whether the tribes, the state orthe federal government will con-trol those rights—and those ofnon-Indian landowner irrigatorson and off the reservation. Theoutcome of this conflict mayaffect all of Montana (and notjust the Flathead Reservation)and eventually the West.A BIT OF HISTORY —

The Flathead Indian Reservationis an open reservation, meaningit was opened by Congress tosettlement in1908. The reserva-tion was established for the Con-federated Salish and KootenaiTribes (CSKT) in 1855 by theTreaty of Hellgate. With thistreaty the Tribes ceded 12 mil-lion acres of western Montana—the Clark Fork and KootenaiRiver basins—in exchange for$120,000 and a 1.3 million acrereservation between FlatheadLake and Missoula. Dr. Kate Vandemoer, a

hydrologist and water managerwith more than 26 years of expe-rience working with Tribes onquantification, management anddevelopment of federal reservedwater rights on Indian reserva-tions points out that there aremany different Acts and lawsrelating to this particular reserva-tion. “The Flathead AllotmentAct of 1904 allotted lands toindividual Indians and in 1908opened the reservation to settle-ment by non-Indians. The Flat-head Indian Reservation is theonly reservation in Montana thatwas opened to settlement. Thefederal government built an irri-gation project to serve all landson the reservation. This openingof the reservation is permitted byArticle 6 of the Treaty of Hell-gate,” she explains. Tribal members got first

choice of the 80-acre and 160-acre parcels. The National BisonRange was also established onthis Reservation. Then the rest ofthe land on this Reservation was

opened to non-Indian home-steaders on parcels of 40 to 160acres. The federal governmentbuilt the Flathead IrrigationProject to serve all lands andthusencourage settlement. Con-gress instructed the buyers ofthese lands to pay a proportion-ate cost for constructing the sys-tem. Congress then directed theoperation and management ofthe irrigation system to be trans-ferred to the owners of the irri-gated lands after the construc-tion costs were repaid.Today there are a lot of pri-

vate landholdings within thereservation. Of the total acreage,about half of the reservation isnow privately owned land. A lotof the tribal land is mountainousterrain, however, and not subjectto irrigation. Roughly 90% of theirrigators (on privately ownedland within the reservation) arenon-Indian. Yet the language inthe present Compact definingthe reservation puts all the land,including private land, in reserva-tion status, and by claiming allthe land, the Tribes are nowclaiming all the water.Indian water rights have

always been well supported inU.S. law, along with tribal rightsto all other resources on theirreservation lands includingforests, minerals, wildlife, farmland, etc. “All of the resourceshave been under federal and/orIndian control for Indian benefit.In the Pacific Northwest thetribes also have language in theirtreaties negotiated by IsaacStevens which secured for themaccess to hunting and fishing inusual and accustomed places, ‘incommon with the citizens of theTerritory.’ These are calledStevens Treaty rights,” says Dr.Kate. “Through litigation in the

1970’s these tribal rights wereinterpreted to mean that theTribes had access to usual andaccustomed areas and a right toharvest a certain percent of thefisheries. In addition, the Kla-math tribes in Oregon won theAdair case in 1983 in the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,giving them treaty rights to fishand wildlife,” she says.The CSKT in Montana have

also been pushing for more con-trol over their resources, with agoal of having a self-sufficientsociety and economy. In 1996their tribal council mission state-ment promised to regain owner-ship and control of many Flat-head Reservation assets. “They now share management

of the lake’s fishery with Mon-tana Fish, Wildlife and Parks butdisagree with Montana in themajor lake fishery managementgoals. They have tried to takeover the management of theNational Bison Range from theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicebut were unsuccessful becausethey were unable to properlymanage the reserve,” says Dr.Kate. They are also involved in the

operation and maintenance of

the Flathead Irrigation Project(renaming it the Flathead IndianIrrigation Project). The Tribesare negotiating to buy Kerr damthat supplies the water for theproject, but are facing seriousopposition from their own mem-bers.Off the reservation, the tribes

successfully asserted their treatyrights to fish on the Clark ForkRiver and Silver Bow Creeks andwere awarded $18.3 million inmine tailings remediation dam-ages, using $13.3 million to buyback some of the land within theFlathead Reservation bound-aries. The CSKT have beennegotiating with the state ofMontana ever since the Mon-tana Reserved Water RightsCompact Commission was cre-ated in 1979, but only recentlyreached an agreement withMontana on a Compact.“Unfortunately, the agree-

ment with Montana—the pro-posed CSKT Compact--isfraught with difficulty, unconsti-tutional takings, and attempts totake over the management ofstate water rights from theState,” says Dr. Kate.The litigation begun by the

tribes (suit filed by the federalgovernment on behalf of thetribes) was stayed by the court in1983. Then in 2005, with theelection of Montana’s Demo-cratic Governor BrianSchweitzer, the compact negoti-ations began again, under anextended termination date forthe Compact Commission.The tribe has held firm on

their position that they own allthe water flowing through thereservation. “They’ve been veryconsistent in their demands inthis Compact, from the verybeginning,” says Terry Backs,one of the landowners inside theexterior boundary of the reserva-tion. “In the state of Montanawe have numerous historicaldocuments that show that thestate has rejected these claimsand arguments by the tribe, evenas late as 2008. We have a memofrom a man who is now thechairman of the MontanaDepartment of NaturalResources and Conservationwho said the state will administerthe water rights for its citizens,”says Terry.After 2008, however, the

Compact Commission actuallyconceded ownership of all thewater, administration of thewater, and the water rights ofirrigators to the tribes,which isnow proposed in the existingCompact documents. “We don’tknow exactly how it came about.We can tie it to some changes inthe political arena. For example,Governor Schweitzer came intooffice and this is when we beganto see the shift toward concedingall of this to the tribes in thesecompact documents,” she says.What this Compact tries to

do is put all the land, includingprivate land, under reservationstatus. “This essentially eviscer-ates private property rights,” says

Dr. Kate. “Now that they’veclaimed all the water, theybelieve that they should alsohave the management authorityover it—essentially having thestate give up its rights, agreeingto remove its citizens out fromunder the protection of the statelaws of Montana and put themunderneath the tribe’s laws.” Forthe citizens living on the reserva-tion, this would be like living in adifferent country. “Montana citizens would no

longer be under the protection ofthe laws of the state. This vio-lates the equal protection clausesof the U.S. and Montana Con-stitutions,” she explains.FLATHEAD IRRIGA-

TION PROJECT WATERUSE AGREEMENT — Thiswater use agreement was negoti-ated between the Flathead JointBoard of Control (FJBC) for theirrigators and the U.S./CSKT(Confederated Salish and Koote-nai Tribes). It was intended toaddress how the water rights andwater usage would be defined forthe Flathead Irrigation Project inthe future. “However, the proceeding

underway in Montana is sup-posed to resolve only the federalreserved water rights of theCSKT, not the water rights ofthe irrigators,” Dr. Kate pointsout. “As part of the Compact,the CSKT propose to take thewater rights belonging to individ-ual irrigators—and entered thesenegotiations with the expresspurpose of limiting irrigationwater rights. Our ConcernedCitizens group believes that thewater use agreement should notbe part of the negotiation of fed-eral reserved water rights of theTribes because the tribes do notown the irrigation project (thecanals and ditches) nor the waterassociated with it.” The Flathead

Irrigation Project was construct-ed for the Indians and non-Indi-ans alike. Yet the CSKT is nowtrying to use the proposed Com-pact and the irrigator Water UseAgreement as a way to take fullcontrol of the Flathead IrrigationProject.The 1908 Act opening the

reservation and constructing anirrigation projectrequired theproject’s operation and mainte-nance to be turned over to theowners of the irrigated land. Theland irrigated by the project isnow 90% owned by non-Indians.The irrigator water use agree-

ment proposed by the CSKTCompact effectively transfers theownership of privately held non-Indian water rights to the Tribes.This was legally challenged by agrass roots organization consist-ing of irrigators who filed suit inDistrict Court to halt the trans-fer of water rights to the Tribes.The District Court Judge ruledthat this part of the water useagreement was an unconstitu-tional taking of property rightswithout compensation. Howev-er, some irrigators who are set ongiving away their neighbor’swater rights are continuing todivide and threaten the irrigationcommunity to support this wateruse agreement.UNITARY MANAGE-

MENT ORDINANCE —Another document included inthe Compact is what is called theUnitary Management Ordi-nance, which forever preventsthe state of Montana fromadministering any of the waterwithin the reservation, even forwater users with state basedwater claims. It proposes to cre-ate a Unitary ManagementBoard that will determine howall water issues (state, federal


Federal Takeover of Montana Water Rights

continued on page fifteen

The National Cowboy &Western Heritage Museumannounces a symposiumfocusing on rural issues to be

held in March. The program titledSurviving the Elements: Land &Water Issues of the West aims toincrease awareness of drought andrural issues in the American West,by focusing on stewardship andconservation of land and water.Ranching and the iconic cow-

boy are both important aspects ofthe West and of the NationalCowboy Museum’s permanentcollections, exhibitions and educa-tional programming. The two inter-twined play an important role inbuilding a better connection to thepast, present and future of westernresources. Surviving the Elements:Land & Water Issues of the Westis a series of lectures and panel dis-cussions on such topics as land andpasture management, water usage,conservation measures,livestock/herd management, newresource preservation andenhancement strategies. This edu-cational series augments the storyof modern day ranching told in theMuseum’s permanent collection.The Museum aims to make an

impact and be a change agent forrural issues by creating a conversa-

tion between farmers, ranchersand their industry partners to helpcreate solutions. At the center ofthis conversation will be the sym-posium held each Friday in March2014 from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. andfeatures world-renowned expertson several topics.Past Influences (March 7,

2014)• Should Ranchers Study Histo-

ry? by Jay O’Brien, RancherIn a lifetime of grazing, Jay

O’Brien says, “I paid a lot of tuitionby making costly mistakes. Someof that tuition could have beenavoided had I paid attention towhat ranchers who preceded mehad learned from their mistakes. Ihave had few great ideas myself,but have copied many from others.My presentation will range fromthe mundane (cattle handling, cas-tration, horses and grazing sys-tems) to the global (governmentalinfluence and land prices).” Thepresentation may remind you ofyour middle school history teacherquoting Santayana, “Those whocannot remember the past are con-demned to repeat it.”• The Culture of Water Law in

the American West by Donald J.Pisani, Merrick Chair of WesternAmerican History, Emeritus, Uni-

versity of Oklahoma Water law isnot just a product of geographyand climate. The scarcity or abun-dance of water help shape the lawsto allocate and distribute water,but the broader culture and valuesof people play an even moreimportant role–including their con-ception of government. Water lawrepresents a series of choicesbetween communitarian and indi-vidualistic systems of law, betweenmaintaining stable, egalitarian set-tlements and generating newwealth. The western states havepreferred laws that minimize gov-ernment involvement and defer towater users themselves. This lec-ture will examine the legal choicesopen to westerners, ranging fromHispanic community water sys-tems, to riparian rights and priorappropriation, to local water dis-tricts, to direct federal and statecontrol. It will look primarily at thefoundation of such laws in the 19thand early 20th centuries, and howthese laws have shaped the mod-ern West.• Dust Bowl and Beyond – A

Lesson for the Future from PastHard Times by Timothy Egan,Author. Based on his NationalAward Winning book The WorstHard Time, and the PBS series“The Dust Bowl,” Timothy Egan’scritically acclaimed account res-cues this iconic chapter of Ameri-can history from the shadows in atour de force of historicalreportage. Following a dozen fam-ilies and their communitiesthrough the rise and fall of theregion, Egan tells of their desper-ate attempts to carry on throughblinding black dust blizzards, cropfailure and the death of loved ones.Brilliantly capturing the terrifyingdrama of catastrophe, Egan doesequal justice to the human charac-ters who become his heroes and toone of the greatest environmentaldisasters ever to be visited uponour land and a powerful cautionarytale about the dangers of triflingwith nature.Current Trends (March 14,

2014)• The Challenge of Changing

Climate: From the Cowboy toToday by Evelyn Browning-Gar-riss, Climatologist. Is the recent

drought in Oklahoma connectedto global warming or part of a nat-ural cycle? Can we predict when itwill end? From the earliest days ofthe Indian Territory, Oklahomanshave coped with dramatic weatherswings. No other state has hadboth the Dust Bowl and weatherso wet that it restarted a tropicalstorm (Erin 2007), creating hurri-cane force winds. Learn what iscausing these swings and whatthey will bring to our state thisyear.• A Look at the Economics of

Drought—Challenges for the Agri-culture Industry and AffectedCommunities by M. Ray Perry-man, Ph.D. Economist. A suffi-cient supply of fresh water is asessential to economic vitality as itis to human health and quality oflife. Many industries rely on anaffordable and reliable source ofwater, and regions with frequent orlong-lasting shortages are at a dis-advantage in attracting quality cor-porate locations and expansions.Over time, the amount of water

needed will grow due to expansionof the population and economy,and the agriculture industry willdoubtless face increasing pressureto use less water. Ensuring thatfuture needs are met is a slow andexpensive process, but the cost offailing to prepare is immeasurablylarger.This address will focus on the

current status of the drought, likelyramifications, and potential solu-tions.• Drought and Rangeland

Stewardship by Patrick E. Reece,Ph.D. Range Scientist, Prairie &Montane Enterprises. Plantspecies most preferred by livestockare often highly productivemidgrasses or tallgrasses. Goodrangeland stewards routinely pro-vide timely opportunities for pre-ferred species to recover after graz-ing.They also leave enough residual

herbage in grazed pastures to opti-mize infiltration and minimize soil-surface temperature extremes.Optimum grazing managementpractices differ dramatically amongenvironments because of the avail-ability of soil water. The quality ofone’s stewardship cannot be fully

evaluated until drought occursbecause of its profound impact onherbage production. Drought killsplants. Death loss and the amountof bare ground between plantsincrease as the severity and dura-tion of drought increase. Timelydestocking and cautious return topre-drought stocking rates are crit-ically important for optimizing theresilience of rangeland plant com-munities. When drought is severe,the Take-Half-Leave-Half mantrawill be a kiss of death because tak-ing half of well-below-average lev-els of herbage production willalways leave inadequate levels ofresidual herbage. Good stewardshave learned how to optimizerangeland resilience and livestockproduction in an ever-changingenvironment.Future Demands & Solu-

tions — Part 1 (March 21,2014)• The Oklahoma Mesonet: A

State-of-the-Art Network forWeather and Soil Monitoring,Ronald Elliott, Ph.D, RegisteredProfessional Engineer, Environ-ment and Natural Resources,Emeritus, Oklahoma State Univer-sity. As the National ResearchCouncil’s “gold standard” forstatewide weather networks, theOklahomaMesonet is a long-term collabo-

rative effort of the University ofOklahoma and Oklahoma StateUniversity. The Mesonet’s exten-sive network of field stations pro-vides an unparalleled suite of real-time weather and soil observationsand value-added information prod-ucts. Mesonet data sets and deci-sionsupport tools are widely uti-lized by individuals, governmentagencies and businesses engagedin agricultural production, droughtmonitoring, fire management, nat-ural resources stewardship, publicsafety, weather forecasting, educa-tion, research and other areas ofapplication. In order to betterunderstand and respond to ournatural environment, it is criticalthat we monitor and measure thatenvironment, and bring relevantinformation to bear in effectivedecision making. The Oklahoma


Riding Herd continued from page one

best illustrated by showing howI’d spin this example of a typicalAustralian test question if ChrisTurney was my professor: “Ques-tion: How would you defend theposition that global warming wasstill occurring if you were a stucklike a tongue on the frozen, sink-ing hull of the Titanic.”My Answer: This was just an

unfortunate circumstance thatnever would have happened ifthe brilliant scientist, Mr. Tur-ney, would have also had onboard some aerosol cans, AlGore and a bunch of cowsbecause they would have emittedso many greenhouse gases itwould have melted all the ice inthe southern hemisphere. I’ll admit there hasn’t been

any actual scientific evidence of

global warming the last 15 yearsbut according to my greatteacher, Mr. Turney, there’s agood explanation for that. Coin-cidentally, during that timeframe the U.S. cattle herd wasshrinking, therefore it can easilybe deduced that fewer cowsequals less methane gas beingemitted, equals cooler tempera-tures. If anything, this justproves that the United Nationsshould immediately assume aleadership role in regulating thenumber of cows in America. TheU.N. could limit U.S. cow num-bers by levying a cow tax, thefunds to be used in supportingthe thousands of people like mywonderful teacher, Mr. Turney,who are currently making a verygood living in the global warming

industry.We’ve had many climate

events lately that have all beencaused by global warming,including hurricanes, tornadoes,polar vortexes, hot summers,cold winters, drouths, floods andblizzards. The recent experienceof my truly gifted professor beingfrozen stiff like an intellectualpopsicle, clearly shows that gov-ernments should take a far moreaggressive role in combatting cli-mate change by having theirhand firmly on the earth’s ther-mostat. We can’t let the hopesand dreams of the warmists, likemy brilliant teacher, Mr. Turney,be frozen in all that ice, becauseas we all know, the weather is fartoo important to be left up toMother Nature.

Livestock Market Digest’s

FALL MARKETING

EDITIONFeaturing the

The best read annualpublication in thelivestock industry!

Reserve Your Advertising Space Now!

For the 2014 Edition of

RON ARCHER505-865-6011

[email protected] Market Digest

PO Box 7458Albuquerque, NM 87194

Please contact me todiscuss your

advertising plans

National Cowboy Museum Announces Spring Symposium

continued on page fifteen


and tribe) will be managed with-in the reservation boundaries.This document delegates the

state’s constitutional and legalresponsibility to administerwater for its citizens to a politi-cal board. This is the most dam-aging aspect of the compact,

because this UMO violates theequal protection clauses of theMontana and U.S. Constitu-tions. It would set a new prece-dent with far reaching implica-tions, placing the 23,000non-Indian people living on thereservation under tribal jurisdic-

tion for water rights. There is noprecedent for this in the UnitedStates. The tribal government’stenants and principles were setup in 1934. Some people call ittribalism but the principles arecommunistic. [to be continued . . .]

Water Rights continued from page thirteen

National Cowboy Museum Announces Spring SymposiumMesonet is a 21s t century assetserving a citizenry that knowsvery well the impacts of weatherand climate variability.• America’s Water Crisis and

What To Do About It by RobertGlennon, Author and WaterResource Expert. Are we run-ning out of water? Water policyexpert Robert Glennon goes in-depth on the irony and tragedyof America’s water crisis. Shar-ing eye-opening and sometimeshumorous stories, Glennonreveals the wanton extrava-gances and everyday inefficien-cies that are sucking the nationdry. Glennon argues that ourwater problem is very real, and,if not addressed, our watershortages will not only impactthe environment, but everyaspect of American life. Usingan economical perspective,Glennon offers suggestions onwhat we can do to reclaim andconserve this finite resource andwhy we must look at water asboth a commodity and funda-mental human right.• What is the Future of

Rangelands? Natural Resourcesand What Can Be Done toRestore Them by Allan Savory,President & Co-Founder,Savory Institute. Livestock,mainly cattle, when greatlyincreased in numbers and prop-erly managed, can reverse theserious desertification takingplace in America, and conse-quently, the decline of westernculture, rural towns and the pub-lic vilification of cattle. All will beput in global perspective, includ-ing America’s role in the mostvolatile region of the world;where ancient pastoral culturesare being forced into culturalgenocide for the same reasonsthe cowboy culture is fading.This presentation will addresssolutions rather than a dooms-day outlook—and how thisprocess can be reversed by man-aging holistically embracingmodern science and traditionalknowledge.Future Demands & Solu-

tions — Part 2 (March 28,2014)• How can you love the land

and still use it? Chet Vogt,Rancher, Silversmith Vogt raisesa series of questions to explorespecial issues of the rancher, theenvironment, grazing practicesand the livestock business. Heshares his successes and failuresat the Three Creeks Ranch.• Innovative Solutions for a

Dry Future by J.D. Strong,Oklahoma Water ResourcesBoard, Executive Director Okla-homa’s past has been plaguedwith significant droughtepisodes, from our definitionalDust Bowl of the 1930s to theeven more significant drought ofthe mid-1950s. We know theperiodic droughts faced in ourpast will repeatedly appear inOklahoma’s future. In fact,many climatologists believedrought will become moreprevalent in our future. Com-bine this ominous forecast with

the projections from the 2012Update of Oklahoma’s Compre-hensive Water Plan (OCWP)that demand for water willincrease by at least one-thirdover the next 50 years, and it’sclear that water stress will con-tinue to mount in our state. Ifwe hope to continue to growand prosper without the stress ofwater shortages frustrating ourevery move, Oklahoma will needinnovative solutions. Just as ourforefathers spent great sweatand capital in the decades fol-lowing the Dust Bowl buildingthe reservoirs and other waterinfrastructure we enjoy today, sotoo will current generations ofOklahomans have to make bolddecisions and costly sacrifices toensure reliable water supplies tomeet the needs of children andgrandchildren. Unlike past gen-erations, the days of simplybuilding reservoirs and giantpipelines to meet these needsare largely behind us. While theyare still options, most of thecheap and easy solutions weredeveloped long ago. A water-richfuture for Oklahoma will dependmore heavily upon water conser-vation, utilizing existing watersupplies more efficiently, tap-ping marginal and brackishwaters to quench certain thirsts,and other innovations not yetrealized. Renown for our pio-neering spirit and inventiveways, Oklahomans are undoubt-edly capable of ensuring that ournext 100 years will be at least asbright as our first 100 when itcomes to the lifeblood of oureconomy and existence—water.• The Farm Grandpa Gave

Me by Seth Pratt, EmergingLeader and Former WesternRegion Vice President of theNational FFA OrganizationFood production in our world ischanging under both social andenvironmental pressure. Globaltrends of increasing wealth andpopulation, alongside decreasingresources, affect the way farmersand ranchers produce food hereat home. The next 50 years willsee advanced, modern, agricul-ture spread to every country onearth and environmental stew-ardship reach a new height. Thisage-old way of life can be pre-served and revolutionized asgeneration “Y” steps forward tocombine grandpa’s work ethicand love of the land with data-driven management and a newperspective.The program is made possi-

ble by a grant provided by theCoca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO), through a partnership withGreat Plains Coca-Cola BottlingCompany in Oklahoma Cityand the Coca-Cola Foundation,has granted $100,000 to theNational Cowboy & WesternHeritage Museum in honor ofthe Browne Family.Registration fee is $10 and

includes lunch. Reservations arerequired and can be madeonline at www.survivingtheele-ments.org or by calling 405/478-2250, Ext. 280.

Spring Symposium continued from page fourteen

BY JULIET EILPERIN

AND STEVEN MUFSON,

WASHINGTON POST

State Department officialssaid they were still weighingwhether or not to reject theproposed Keystone XL

pipeline even after a recentrelease of a final environmentalassessment that concluded theproject’s construction would notsignificantly alter global green-house gas emissions.“Approval or denial of any one

crude oil transport project,including the proposed Project,remains unlikely to significantlyimpact the rate of extraction inthe oil sands, or the continueddemand for heavy crude oil atrefineries in the United States,”the new environmental reportsaid.The multi-billion dollar

pipeline, which would transportheavy crude from oil sands fromCanada’s Alberta province intothe heart of the U.S. pipeline net-work, has become the focus ofintense controversy. Foes say itwill contribute to climate changeand supporters say it will secureU.S. oil supplies from a friendlyneighbor and create U.S. con-struction jobs.The release of the long-await-

ed Final Environmental Impact

Statement will trigger an ava-lanche of lobbying efforts aimedat Secretary of State John Kerry,who has made climate change acentral focus of his career andwill now begin deliberating onthe pipeline decision.The decision remains political-

ly fraught for Democrats. Envi-ronmental activists fiercelyoppose it, on the grounds that itcould leak and spill oil in sensitiveareas, accelerate development ofthe greenhouse gas-intensive oilsands in Alberta, and increaseAmerica’s dependence on fossilfuels.The State Department’s report

includes 11 volumes of analysison how the proposed pipelinewould affect heavy crude extrac-tion in Canada’s oil sands, andreaches the same conclusion asits draft report did in March: nosingle infrastructure project willalter the course of oil develop-ment in Alberta.But a senior State Depart-

ment official, who asked not tobe identified in order to discussthe report’s findings in advanceof its release, said Friday thestudy “is only one factor thatcomes into the consideration” ofwhether to give TransCanada, aCalgary-based energy giant, apermit to build the pipeline.“It does not answer the broad-

er question about how a decisionon this potential pipeline fits inwith broader national and inter-national efforts to address cli-mate change and climate priori-ties or other questions of foreignpolicy or energy security,” theofficial said.The official added that while

the report notes “the approval ordenial or any single project isunlikely to significantly affect therate of extraction of the oil in theoil sands or the refining of heavycrude on the U.S. gulf coast,” itwas based on “a set of assump-tions” that could change overtime. Those assumptions includ-ed pipeline capacity, the price ofoil and the costs of both trans-portation and oil sands develop-ment.Oil industry officials wel-

comed the fact that the agencyhad affirmed the idea thepipeline decision did not have amajor climate impact. In June,President Obama said he wouldonly sign off on the proposal if it“does not significantly exacerbatethe climate problem.”“Five years, five federal

reviews, dozens of public meet-ings, over a million commentsand one conclusion � the Key-stone XL pipeline is safe for the

State Department report findsno major climate impact fromKeystone XL pipeline

continued on page sixteen

environment,” American Petrole-um Institute president Jack Ger-ard said in a statement. “This finalreview puts to rest any credibleconcerns about the pipeline’spotential negative impact on theenvironment. This long awaitedproject should now be swiftlyapproved.”“Time and time again, State

reaches the same conclusiondespite the unprecedented andthorough environmental review,”added Cindy Schild, API’s seniormanager for oil sands policy.Schild added that there are ninecriteria for determining whether aproject like this serves the nation-al interest, and that API expectedKeystone XL to qualify. “Whenyou look at the nine criteria, it ishard to figure out how they couldconclude that it is not in the

national interest,” she said.But in many ways the high-

profile decision is just entering anew phase, in which Kerry andhis deputies will field both publiccomments and internal feedbackfrom eight agencies including theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency and Defense and EnergyDepartments. The State Depart-ment will open a 30-day com-ment period on Feb. 5, and theagencies will have 90 days toweigh in. After a decision isissued other agencies have 15days to object, and if one does,the president must decidewhether or not to issue the per-mit.The EPA has repeatedly ques-

tioned whether the State Depart-ment has given sufficient weightto the project’s negative environ-

mental impact. The final environ-mental impact statement notesthat bitumen, the substance thatis extracted in Canada and dilut-ed in order to be transported toU.S. refineries, is more difficultto clean up than lighter crudewhen it spills.The report also concludes that

crude from the oil sands is 17percent higher in greenhouse gasemissions than the average crudeoil used in the U.S., but between2 and 10 percent higher than theheavy crude it would be replacingat Gulf Coast refineries.When asked whether the pres-

ident will directly weigh in on thedecision, White House press sec-retary Jay Carney said, “There’s along-term process in place todetermine whether projects likethis are in the national interest.”

“At this point, the process isnow at the State Department andwe’re going to let that run itscourse,” Carney added.The administration has signifi-

cant flexibility in when it wouldissue a final national interestdetermination on the project: theState Department could issue adecision either before the end ofthe 105-day agency commentperiod, or long afterwards.The State Department official

said Kerry “doesn’t really haveany particular deadline . . . He’llneed to take the time he needs totake.”Now, the attention turns to

Kerry, whom the official says is“just diving in now” to theprocess. On Tuesday environ-mental groups are organizing a“Day of Action” where they plan

to flood Kerry’s office with phonecalls and e-mails.“To some extent Secretary

Kerry has gotten a pass to date,”said Tiernan Sittenfeld, theLeague of Conservation Voters’senior vice president for govern-ment affairs. “Now that changes.This is a really a pivot point, andthis is a real opportunity for himto live up to the climate record hehas established through his veryaccomplished career.”TransCanada, the company

behind Keystone XL, just begantransporting heavy crude throughthe southern leg of the KeystoneXL pipeline. But it is still waitingfor the State Department todecide whether to issue a permitfor the 1,179-mile northern legthat would carry predominantlyheavy oil from Canada’s oil sands,cross the border in Montana andrun to the small town of SteeleCity, Neb.“Regardless of what the EIS

says, the Canadians have admit-ted that the amount of carbonthey’re going to be releasing fromthe tar sands will increase Cana-da’s total emissions by 38 percentby 2030 instead of reducing emis-sions when all the science saysthat’s what we need to do inorder to avoid catastrophic cli-mate change,” said LarrySchweiger, president of theNational Wildlife Federation.


State Department continued from page fifteen

CHANGE OF

ADDRESS

INSTRUCTIONS

If you’re moving or changing

your mailing address, please clip and

send this form to:

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458

Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Livestock Market DigestP.O. Box 7458

Name

Old Address

City, State, Zip

New Address

City, State, Zip

Don’t Miss aSingle Issue!

lmd feb 2014

Documents

federallands ranchers

federal lands ranchers

thefederal lands ranchers

federal grazingground

federal landsranchers

grazing improvementact

anymajor federal action

justmention nepa