LMD apr 2014

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

Riding Herd

MARKET

Digest T

by LEE PITTS

Out Of Order

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL APRIL 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com

Volume 56 • No. 4

The New Rules A bumble bee is B faster than a John

by Lee Pitts

y now I probably sound like the boy who cried wolf with my warnings of impending doom thanks to the big, bad meatpackers.

You’ve been reading about the dangers of captive supply and industry concentration for decades now in this paper and yet we are enjoying the greatest prices in the history of the cow business. Which begs the question: if our industry is so controlled by packers how come cattleman are getting $1,000 for their calves? The Livestock Market Information Center predicts that rancher’s returns for 20142015 per cow-calf unit will be $350 . Does that sound like an industry controlled by a few greedy packers? Is our industry really destined to look like the pork and poultry industries as I’ve been saying for years now?

These are all fair questions, don’t you think?

Deere tractor. percent of hog producers and 82 percent of dairymen exited those industries due to less price discovery and increasing use of contractual agreements.

Missouri economist Scott Brown has predicted that a beef cow will produce a $250 profit in 2014 compared to $100 per cow in the highs of the last cattle cycle. Please note that Brown talks about the cattle cycle, to which we reply, “What cattle cycle?” We are living in new and different times that can no longer

be analyzed using the old rules or defined by such archaic parameters as the “cattle cycle”.

R-CALF’s CEO Bill Bullard understands the beef business better than anyone I know and if you don’t think so, get your hands on a copy of the paper he wrote for the South Dakota Law Review titled “Under Siege: The U.S. Live Cattle Industry.” In that paper he quotes the USDA: “The last normal liquidation phase of the U.S. cattle cycle began in 1975 and ended in

1979, lasting the typical four years. The next liquidation phase began in 1982 and ended in 1990, lasting an unprecedented eight years. The liquidation phase that began in 1996 is ongoing today and has lasted an unprecedented 16 years.”

Says Bullard, “In late 2007, the USDA began cautioning the industry that “some analysts suggest the cattle cycle has gone the way of the hog and dairy cow cycles. The historical cattle cycle is now disrupted, and the obvious trend since 1975 is an evershrinking cattle herd. The competition-induced demand/supply signals that once led to expectations about changes in cattle prices are no longer functioning properly.”

One reason the cattle cycle isn’t working is that some ranchers don’t believe the good times will last. Chris Hurt, a Purdue economist, says “Some see the continued on page two

Their Last Hurrah

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

Before I attempt to defend my position I’d like to congratulate anyone who might be reading this. If you are still left in the cow business you are a survivor and deserve every beef dollar you can stuff in your Wrangler® pockets in these heady days. But please be advised, this is exactly what some other animal industries looked like just before 91

The Monster Hiding in the Closet

BY CALLIE GNATKOWSKI GIBSON

hat has multiple tentacles, smiles a lot and says it is here to save you from certain doom? Certainly the correct answer is the government. In this particular instance the monster in the closet is named Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).

LCCs were created by the signing of Secretarial Order 3289, Amendment 1 on February 22, 2010, with full-blown government support and funding (http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/SecOrder3289.pdf). The authorizing language reads, in part, “The Climate Change Response Council will implement Department-specific climate change activities through the following mechanisms: . . . (c) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Given the broad impacts of climate change, management responses to such impacts must be coordinated on a landscape-level basis. For example, wildlife migration and related needs for new wildlife corridors, the spread of invasive species and wildfire risks, typically will extend beyond the borders of National Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, or National Parks. Additionally, some bureau responsibilities (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service migratory bird and threatened and endangered species responsibilities) extend nationally and globally. Because of the unprecedented scope of affected landscapes, Interior

W

bureaus and agencies must work together, and with other federal, state, tribal and local governments, and private landowner partners, to develop landscape-level strategies for understanding and responding to climate change impacts. Interior bureaus and agencies, guided by the Climate Response Council, will work to stimulate the development of a network of collaborative “Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.” These cooperatives, which already have been formed in some regions, will work interactively with the relevant DOI Regional Climate Change Response Center(s) and help coordinate adaptation efforts in the region.

The concept has grown steadily since then, and today there are 22 LCCs across the country with some extending into Canada and Mexico. These are governed by steering committees comprised of the full alphabet stew of federal and state agencies along with disguised and not so disguised non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The idea behind these LCCs is to bring together agencies, governments, scientists, and others to collect data climate change will affect a landscape, and to develop management strategies on a landscape level. This sounds all right, until you consider that landscapes include a multitude of landowners and continued on page five

he accused entered the court room wearing on orange jump suit, with his arms shackled to his waist. He looked for his wife’s friendly face amongst the angry crowd while outside the courthouse the police and the National Guard kept an angry crowd at bay. They carried signs that read, “Free Food” and “Down With Ag”.

“Hear Ye, Hear Ye, the court of public opinion is now in session, The Honorable Liberal Wingnut presiding. The court will now hear the case of the U.S. Government versus Mr. Fodder Feeder who is accused of being both a farmer and a rancher.”

The government lawyer rose from his seat and approached the defendant.

“Mr. Feeder, would you tell the court what you do for a living?”

“I farm, have a small feedlot and run some cows.”

“In other words, you use a greenhouse gas spewing tractor to grow crops that you then feed to water-wasting cattle to produce unhealthy beef. Am I missing any other heinous act you engage in, Mr. Feeder?”

“But I feed people,” said Fodder in self defense.

“Objection your honor.

That is not relevant to this case and I’d ask that the defendant’s answer be stricken from the record.”

“So ruled,” said the angry judge as he hammered his gavel and gave Fodder a dirty glance, and a $10,000 fine.

“Mr. Feeder, have you ever used pesticides, herbicides, or GMO seeds?” asked the prosecutor.

“Yes, admitted the defendant,” as the crowd gasped in horror.

“Mr. Feeder, do your cattle belch and emit gas after eating the corn you grow?”

“I suppose so. Don’t we all?” replied Fodder as those in the court tried to suppress their giggles and guffaws.

“You’re out of order,” roared the Judge, “and I hold you in contempt of this court!”

The prosecutor then gave Fodder a photo and said, “Do you recognize this person?” continued on page three

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 2

April 15, 2014

New Rules higher prices as a great opportunity to get out of business.” For them this is their last hurrah.

“In February 2008,” says Bullard, “the USDA attributed a similar disruption that was occurring in the U.S. hog cycle to the hog industry’s “new structure”.

The USDA declared this dramatically changed structure includes the consolidation of the industry, where fewer and larger operations account for an increasing share of total output. More importantly, the USDA said that a normal functioning cattle cycle itself could be used an indicator of a competitive market. The USDA came to the conclusion that, “the disrupted cattle cycle is clear evidence of market failure caused by abusive monopsony power.”

With the cattle cycle broken and a “new structure” that Bullard mentions, it’s clear we are playing with a new set of rules, the main one being . . . there are no rules.

Riding Bareback

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: 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

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN . . . . . . . Publisher LEE PITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS . . . . . . . .Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS . . . . .Sales Rep FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES: Ron Archer . . . . . . . . . . . 505/865-6011 archerron@aol.com

Subscribe Today

FIELD EDITOR: DELVIN HELDERMON 580/622-5754, 1094 Kolier Rd. Sulphur, OK 73086

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

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

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

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

Even though ranching ranks have almost been cut in half since 1980, we still have 700,000 cattle ranchers left. And the packers have painted a big bullseye on them. According to Bill Bullard, “in many respects, the live cattle supply chain is the meatpackers’ ‘Last Frontier.’” Says Bullard, “From the 1980 onset of merger mania and through 2010, the number of U.S. beef packing plants declined by 81 percent, leaving the entire U.S. live cattle industry with only 138 marketing outlets for its 33.6 million slaughter-ready cattle. In 2011 approximately 22.3 million of those 33.6 million cattle were slaughtered in just 26 beef packing plants owned by the Big Four.”

It wasn’t only the market for fed cattle either. The four-firm concentration level for slaughter cows and bulls increased from just over 30 percent in 2000 to just over 50 percent in 2010. And growing. Oklahoma State University Economist Clement E. Ward has stated that concentration levels in the U.S. meatpacking industry are among the highest of any industry in the United States “and well above levels generally considered to elicit noncompetitive behavior and result in adverse economic performance.”

What this translates to is that during one year in the Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico fat cattle markets there were 18 weeks in which there was only one buyer in the market. Four weeks there were none. This means that small feeders without a captive supply agreement in place with one of the Big Four were left without any competitive bids for their cattle. Small feeders were riding bareback, working without a safety net as the big boys tightened their grip. And please save me from NCBA’s constant refrain that we’re all in this together and need to speak with one voice. Clearly our goals are NOT the same. Ranchers

continued from page one

want to sell their cattle for the most money while packers want to buy them as cheap as possible.

Now, not only do ranchers find themselves competing against, packers, chicken and imports, they are also competing with other ranchers to see who survives as our industry shrinks. This does not mean that prices for steers and heifer will necessarily crash, after all, the packers have to buy cattle from someone if they want to keep their U.S. packing plants busy. The pork industry has lost 90 percent of its producers and yet they, too, are now enjoying the highest prices in history. The problem for ranchers is that there will be far fewer ranchers left standing to enjoy the periodic good markets.

Formula For A Fall While we were enjoying good prices we were losing for good a crucial segment of the cattle industry that kept the big boys semi honest: the small cattle feeder. They could not withstand the big losses and most of them simply quit. You can see the evidence all over the Midwest in the form of falling down pens and empty lots. Just how bad was it?

According to Bullard, over 36,000 feedlots have exited the industry, nearly all of them were farmer-feeders with capacities of less than 1,000 head, and without deals in place to provide captive cattle to the Big Four. At the same time, according to the USDA, the volume of cattle procured in the cash market has fallen from over 52 percent in 2005 to only 26 percent in 2012, while formula volumes increased during this period from less than 34 percent to nearly 55 percent.

“The marked reduction in competitive marketing options for feedlots and the decline in the number of feedlots themselves,” says Bullard, “resulted in fewer competitive marketing options for persons that raise and sell lighter weight cattle to feedlots.

Indeed, independent live cattle producers lost more than 36,000 buyers for their lighter weight feeder cattle. Not surprisingly, more than four of every ten U.S. beef cattle operations in business in 1980 are gone today.”

If you are looking for an answer as to why we are selling our cattle for record prices there it is. We are clearly on the path blazed by the poultry, dairy and pork industries who have lost 80 to 90 percent of their independent producers since 1980. If you don’t think so consider this: we have been losing an average of 17,000 ranchers per year for the past 31 years! “That’s the equivalent of losing more beef cattle ranches per year than there are in each of the entire states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and many other states considered to be “cattle” states,” says Bullard.

At that rate there won’t be any continued on page three

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

New Rules ranchers left in just 40 years! I’m sure that will make PETA and the Sierra Club happy but it’s not so good for rural America.

Where’s The Moo Moo? While the small feeders have all but disappeared, the big meatpackers are doing very well, thank you. Tyson reported a 41 percent increase in fourth-quarter profit, bolstered by strong demand for chicken. The big beef producer projects receipts of $36 billion this year as it ramps up chicken production in China and said strong U.S. consumer demand for chicken has carried over into its new fiscal year, spurred in part by poultry's lower price compared with beef and pork. “We like the way that the chicken supply and demand fundamentals are setting up,” said Tyson CEO Donnie Smith.

Tyson expects U.S. chicken production to rise 3 percent to 4 percent in its current fiscal year.

Looking forward, Tyson projects growth mainly would come from domestic chicken sales, prepared foods and greater international chicken production.

In 2013 Cargill, owner of Excel, nearly doubled its profit from 2012 earning $2.31 billion!

Revenues were $136.7 billion!

JBS, the Brazilian meatpacker and owner of the huge Five Rivers feeding company, said its net profit also jumped in the fourth quarter of 2013 to $60 million. JBS growth has come through acquisitions and last year they bought poultry producer Pilgrim’s Corporation and Brazilian pork and poultry producer Seara.

Notice a familiar theme here?

I’ll give you a hint: Pluck, pluck, oink, oink.

On The Biological Clock All three of those meatpackers produce competing meats to beef and according to Bullard, beef is at a strong disadvantage. “Due to the long biological cycle of cattle, the cattle industry is particularly susceptible to exploitation by firms that control the production and output of other competing protein sources, such as hogs and poultry. Those animals have much shorter biological cycles that enable their respective industries to respond much more quickly to changes in price by adjusting production and output.

In addition, because the meats from these competing protein sources are a market substitute for beef, multiple-protein firms can control the output and price of the competing proteins to manipulate both the demand and price for cattle while the cattle industry remains constrained from responding due to cattle’s prolonged biological cycle.”

The USDA has found that beef is particularly susceptible to increased poultry supplies, such as poultry broilers at relatively lower prices. The USDA calculates that if the price of beef goes up while the price of chicken remains lower than beef, consumers will likely buy less of the relatively more expensive beef

continued from page two

and buy more of the relatively less expensive chicken. A 1 percent decrease in poultry prices results in a 0.13 percent decrease in beef consumption.

Losing The Home Field Advantage As good as cattle prices are today, an argument can be made that they would be even higher if not for another trick up the sleeve of the Big Four. There is yet another way multi-protein, multinational producing meat packers can affect the price of beef. Bullard says that “from 2004 through 2007, the U.S. cattle industry experienced the largest shortfall in its history between its domestic beef production and the nation’s beef consumption.” Bullard says that shortfall “is being satisfied with imported beef and beef derived from imported cattle slaughtered in the United States. Thus, a growing shortfall in domestic production means the U.S. cattle industry is losing market share in its own market.”

According to researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln for every 1 percent increase in fed cattle supplies, fed cattle prices can be reduced by 2.5 percent. “Because of this extreme price sensitivity to increased supplies,” says Bullard, “domestic cattle prices are susceptible to manipulation from the meatpacker’s strategic importation of live cattle from foreign sources, which are substitute products that compete directly with domestic cattle for the meatpacker’s weekly available shackle space.”

If you don’t believe packers can control price through imports just think back to the previous highest level of prices ever received by cowmen. It came after the importation of live cattle into the U.S. from Canada ceased. As R-CALF CEO, Bill Bullard was largely responsible for that spike in prices as it was his organization that was responsible for getting the border closed due to mad cow’s in Canada.

Bullard says the subsequent rise in prices “represented an unprecedented per head increase of $325 for an average Nebraska Direct Choice steer weighing 1,250 pounds.”

While the good times roll our industry is undergoing a metamorphosis that means when we come out on the other side of this boom, the industry will look much different. Another intelligent observer of our business is Randy Blach, CEO of Cattle Fax. At this years much-anticipated outlook conference at the NCBA convention he warned, “The cow herd must expand while we have all the stars lined up for the next two, three or four years. If it doesn’t, don’t kid yourself, this industry won’t look the same five or ten years down the road. We’ll have a smaller industry, and we’ll move from the center of the plate to more of a specialty market if that doesn’t happen.”

Page 3

Riding Herd

continued from page one

“I better, it’s my wife,” joked Fodder.

“Isn’t it true Mr. Feeder that you work your wife 12 hours a day feeding hay, doctoring calves and running to town for parts without any rest and then expect her to raise the kids and keep the house? Isn’t it also true that you waste precious water by making her irrigate while people in cities can’t even water their lawns or fill their hot tubs? And then you have the nerve to take a shower every day!”

“Well, it is a dirty job but someone has to do it,” replied the befuddled Fodder.

“I assure you Mr. Feeder that has no bearing on this case.” He then handed Fodder another photo and asked, “Do you know what this ghastly device is?”

“Yes, it’s a squeeze chute and I use one to confine cattle so that I may administer vaccinations in a safe manner.” Just then a PETA protester in the courtroom threw a head of lettuce at Fodder but she missed wide right and the leafy projectile walloped the court reporter instead.

“Where were you on the night of March 11?” the prosecutor bored on.

“I was at a Farm Bureau meeting?” said Fodder.

“Ah hah! You admit then that you are a member of a rural terrorist organization whose mission is to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency!”

It went on like this for two days until, finally, Judge Wingnut left Fodder’s future in the hands of 12 people who

weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. They were a microcosm of today’s society: three jurors were unemployed, three were federal employees, three were students and one poor sap was a working stiff.

Needless to say, they voted for a guilty verdict in an 11 to 1 vote.

Judge Wingnut then pronounced the sentence. “If it were left up to me Mr. Feeder I would give you the death penalty. Instead, I am bound by the law to sentence you to life doing hard labor without pay, where your every move will be watched by government guards.”

“No offense your Honor,” said Fodder as he was led from the courtroom, “but I fail to see how that is any different than what I do now.”

2014 DEBRUYCKER CHAROLAIS BULL SALE RESULTS HIGH SELLING BULLS Lot 561 536 131 46 90 167 390

$60,250.00 $16,000.00 $14,000.00 $13,000.00 $10,250.00 $10,250.00 $10,000.00

Reese Cattle Co. Sullivan Charolais Schurrtop Charolais Silver Spur Ranches Vandenbos Charolais Utopia Genetics Utopia Genetics

160 BULLS TO 46 MONTANA BUYERS

VOLUME BUYERS 40 Bulls 24 Bulls 23 Bulls 20 Bulls 19 Bulls 19 Bulls

UC Cattle Co Crawford Cattle Barry Farms Ensign Ranch Wellman Ranch Dragging Y Cattle

Sire LT Ledger 0332 P DS Ocean Y2209 BHD Zeus X3041 JDJ Comark W393 SM Mikhail X0166 P BHD Zeus X3041 DS Mr Big Cigar W20

Didsbury, AB CAN Paris, KY Maywood, NE Encampment, WY Valier, MT Grovesprings, MO Grovesprings, MO

Nevada Nevada Iowa Utah Montana Montana

48 Long Yearling Bulls 503 Yearling Bulls Overall @ 551 Bulls

@ $5,859.38 @ $4,780.32 @ $4,874.32

BULLS SOLD TO 22 STATES, & CANADA AR, CO, FL, IA, ID, KY, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WY, & CANADA

FARMINGTON

April 15, 2014

TO SACRAMENTO

SALE SITE

HWY 4

STOCKTON

J17 M

ARIPO

SA RD

VALLEY HOME

HWY 99 OAKDALE

HWY 120 ESCALON

SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS

N

MODESTO

TO FRESNO

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

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

" 2. ,#- 1##' +*

+*" 2

##$ //(# &-2 //(# CONSIGNMENTS WELCOME! Call for more information on consigning your stock.

MIGUEL A. MACHADO President Office: 209/838-7011 Mobile: 209/595-2014

#"*#." 2 +0(/-2 3

-&" 2

) (( *&) (.

0/!%#- +1.

JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

DUDLEY MEYER Field Representative 209/768-8568

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 4

April 15, 2014

COOL: U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Preliminary Injunction Request n a unanimous decision, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit seeking to halt the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) program. The United States Cattlemen's Association

I

(USCA) praised the Appellate Court ruling, which affirms the September 11, 2013 decision by a lower court denying plaintiffs' motion for an injunction. The Appellate Court ruling was handed down on March 28.

USCA, National Farmers Union, the American Sheep Industry Association and the Consumer Federation of America are joint defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit originally filed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), American Meat Institute, Canadian Cattlemen's Association and six other plaintiffs on July 8, 2013 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs have been seeking to prevent implementation of USDA’s revised COOL regulations.

USCA President Jon Wooster, San Lucas, California said his group is pleased with, but not surprised by, the Appellate Court’s decision. “From the very start of this legal challenge USCA has mustered a vigorous defense of COOL and we will continue to do so if needed. We recognized from the beginning that it was critical for the court to hear directly from the U.S. cattle industry and USCA is proud to provide that voice as a defendant-intervenor.

The plaintiffs in this case, who seek to deny U.S. cattle producers the right to label their product and to deny consumers their right to enhanced labeling information, now have the opportunity to ask that their appeal be heard by the full Court of Appeals. If plaintiffs

do seek rehearing by the full court, USCA will continue to defend the revised regulations before the Court. Defending COOL is USCA’s highest priority and we are prepared for any eventuality.”

USCA Director Emeritus Leo McDonnell, a Montana rancher, said support for COOL and support for the defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit has been remarkable.

“U.S. ranchers will not be denied the right to differentiate their product for consumers as there can be nothing more basic to a competitive market system than the ability to differentiate one’s product. This lawsuit has unified the cattle industry at a grassroots level where there is an undeniable groundswell of support for COOL. U.S. ranch-

ers have supported the COOL Defense Fund financially and they engaged with lawmakers when an attack on COOL was attempted during the farm bill debate earlier this year. Time after time they’ve stepped to the plate to defend their right to label their product. I’m proud to be a U.S. rancher, I’m proud of my industry and I’m proud of the way ranchers have responded to protect and preserve COOL. It’s inspiring to see this level of passion. We are winning this battle one step at a time. No doubt, there are some challenges yet to come and those may be both in the legal arena and at the Congressional level, but I am absolutely committed to a successful outcome and I know the majority of cattle producers are as well.”

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Clarify Protection for Nation’s Streams and Wetlands Agriculture’s Exemptions and Exclusions from Clean Water Act Expanded by Proposal SOURCE: US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) jointly released a proposed rule in late March 2014 to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in deter-

T

mining coverage of the CWA. The agencies are launching a robust outreach effort over the next 90 days, holding discussions around the country and gathering input needed to shape a final rule.

Determining CWA protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006.

The proposed rule clarifies protection for streams and wetlands. The proposed definitions of waters will apply to all CWAt programs. It does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the CWA and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more

narrow reading of CWA jurisdiction.

“We are clarifying protection for the upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Clean water is essential to every single American, from families who rely on safe places to swim and healthy fish to eat, to farmers who need abundant and reliable sources of water to grow their crops, to hunters and fishermen who depend on healthy waters for recreation and their work, and to businesses that need a steady supply of water for operations.”

“America’s waters and wetlands are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations,” said Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy. “Today’s rulemaking will better protect our aquatic resources, by strengthening the consistency, predictability, and transparency of our jurisdictional determinations.

The rule's clarifications will result in a better public service nationwide.”

The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depend on the streams and wetlands where they begin.

Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities – they trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. They are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.

About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S only flow seasonally or after rain, but have a considerable impact on the downstream waters.

And approximately 117 million people – one in three Ameri-

cans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams. These are important waterways for which EPA and the Army Corps is clarifying protection.

Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act and based on the science: n Most seasonal and rain dependent streams are protected. n Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected. n Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not protecting similarly situated waters in certain geographic areas or adding to the categories of waters protected without case specific analysis.

The proposed rule preserves the CWA exemptions and exclusions for agriculture.

Additionally, EPA and the Army Corps have coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop an interpretive rule to ensure that 53 specific conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Section 404 dredged or fill permitting requirements. The agencies will work together to implement these new exemptions and periodically review, and update USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation practice standards and activities that would qualify under the exemption. Any agriculture activity that does not result in the discharge of a pollutant to waters of the U.S. still does not require a permit.

The proposed rule also continued on page five

April 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Monster managers, all with their own plans and uses for their property – including vacation property, developing, mining, logging, ranching, and farming – and no desire to be included in or managed by the LCC. Closer to home here in the Southwest is the Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative, which includes parts of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, as well as a substantial portion of northern Mexico. (http://www.usbr. gov/dlcc/) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation are the lead agencies. The focus of the DLCC is to determine what plant and animal species will be impacted by climate change. How will these species adapt? Where will they move to escape the increasing heat if they can’t adapt? What lands need to be set aside for refuge and corridors to get there?

Then there are the pesky questions. What if the lands that are needed for refuge and corridors are private property, state, local government or Tribal lands? And what if the water rights belong to someone?

Eastern New Mexico, along with parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado, is part of the Great Plains LCC. The similarities between the LCC effort and the Wildlands Project, now called the Wildlands Network, are hard to miss.

The goal of the Wildlands Project, brainchild of Earth Firsters Dave Forman and Dr. Reed Noss, is “a science-based solution is the creation of four Continental Wildways (http://www. twp.org/wildways), large protected corridors of land running coast to coast, and north to south throughout Canada, the U.S. and Mexico — providing enough Room to Roam© to protect wildlife and people for the long-term. Our current areas of focus are the Western and Eastern Wildways.”

The ultimate goal is the rewilding of Northern Western hemisphere with fifty percent of the land area in wilderness surrounded by core buffer areas of limited human activity and connected via the above Wildways.

Within this maze of regulated lands there will be allowed islands of human occupation.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Bing Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University states on the Wildlands Network web site, “Although the Wildlands Project's (now Wildlands Network) call for restoring keystone species and connectivity was met, at first, with amusement, these goals have now been embraced broadly as the only realistic strategy for ending the extinction crisis.”

This is the monster in the closet. This is the Wildands Project on steroids. Already several million dollars have been granted to universities, researchers and NGOs to examine and map climate change impacts on

Page 5

continued from page one

species and ecoregions. The sheer number of governmental agencies and NGOs involved and the millions of dollars that have been spent on this task to date are big concerns to people who have learned from experience that when this amount of money is spent, the end goal is not just to collect information, it’s regulatory . . . or worse.

Some of the dots may be connecting for the reader at this point. This process has been ongoing, in obscurity, for some time. But now the answer to why our government is closing down logging, mining, and oil and gas development, ranching and farming across the country can be brought into focus. Bit by bit, through litigation by NGOs and federal regulation,

rural economies are losing their stability, and therefore their populations.

The revolving door between the radical environmental organizations and federal and state agencies is facilitating the implementation of Dave Forman’s call, “Back to the Pleistocene.” into a new dark age for humans.

Few in Congress and at the state and Tribal government levels realize that the monster in the closet is not there for benevolent purposes. Anyone concerned about LCCs and their potential impacts to land use, especially landowners whose private property rights could be affected, should contact their congressional delegation and request that they work to defund the program.

EPA helps states and tribes – according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, 36 states have legal limitations on their ability to fully protect waters that aren’t covered by the CWA. The proposed rule is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science, including a draft scientific assessment by EPA, which presents a review and synthesis of more than 1,000 pieces of scientific literature. The rule will not be finalized until the final version of this scientific

continued from page four

assessment is complete.

Forty years ago, twothirds of America’s lakes, rivers and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing and swimming. Because of the CWA, that number has been cut in half. However, one-third of the nation’s waters still do not meet standards.

The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days from publication in the Federal Register. The interpretive rule for agricultural activities is effective immediately.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 6

April 15, 2014

UK wants more fracking after Crimea ‘wake-up call’

BY WILLIAM JAMES, REUTERS

nergy independence and the adoption of technologies like shale gas fracking should top Europe’s political agenda, British Prime Minister David Cameron said recent-

E

ly, calling the Crimea crisis a “wake-up call” for states reliant on Russian gas.

Escalating East-West tensions over Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine have endangered the energy security of some European states, including Ger-

Arizona National Elects Board of Directors he Arizona National Livestock Show held their annual Board Meeting on March 21 where they officially approved the newly elected Board of Directors. Each year, approximately onethird of the Arizona National Livestock Show board is elected to a three year term.

The newly elected board members are Heidi Beljean, Jerry Black, DVM, Jarold Callahan, Gary Childs, Steve Chucri, Jack Doughty, Peggy Fiandaca, Brian Hanger, Steve Le Valley, Ron Pint, Robert Shuler, Steve Todd, Dr. Shane Burgess and Jim Williams.

The new board members will join current board members Bill Brake, Patrick Bray, Don Butler, Marilyn Harris, Ken Johnson, Lance Knight, Dave Schafer, Hal Vinson, Mary Williams, Kelly Wright, Janice Bryson, David Feenstra, Galyn Knight, David Kennedy, Kathy McCraine, Jim O’Haco, Kevin Rogers, Cliff Saylor, Terry Van Hilsen and Linda Vensel.

T

The Executive Committee members are President, Jim Loughead; President-Elect, Dean Fish; Vice President of Livestock, Tim Cooley; Vice President Special Events, Scott Loughead; Secretary/Treasurer, Cindy Tidwell Shelton; MemberAt-Large, Galyn Knight and Member-At-Large, Robert Shuler.

Michael Bradley, Executive Director shared “The leadership of the Arizona National is dedicated to our membership and volunteers as they continue to actively support the organizations important efforts. We are further encouraged by the active and recently engaged interest demonstrated by the Board of Directors in the development of our Strategic Plan as we establish carefully outlined goals in Growing the Future. The important work that will be accomplished by the Board’s Strategic Planning Task Force will be available preview on our Web Site in the fall of 2014”.

many, who are heavily dependent on Russian gas supplies.

“Some countries are almost 100 percent reliant on Russian gas, so I think it is something of a wake-up call,” Cameron told reporters on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit.

A hastily-convened meeting of the G7 major industrialized nations agreed that ministers would work together to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas.

During the security summit, Cameron pointed to reserves of shale gas, which can be extracted by a process known as fracking, in south-eastern Europe, Poland and England as a means of boosting energy independence for the whole region.

“I think it’s a good opportunity,” he said. “Energy independence, using all these different sources of energy, should be a tier one political issue from now on, rather than tier five.”

In Britain, fracking has been held up by public protests over the environmental impact of the technique, which involves blast-

ing underground rock with high pressure liquid to release trapped gas. It has been banned outright in France and Bulgaria.

Although Britain only buys a small amount of gas from Moscow, Russia provides around one third of the EU’s oil and gas and some 40 percent of the gas is shipped throughUkraine.

European Union leaders last week agreed to accelerate their quest for more secure energy supplies by looking to import gas from the United States and pooling their purchasing power to empower the bloc in negotiations with Moscow.

Fracking Focus In the United States, a fracking revolution has – as well as spawning its own protest movement – helped energy prices tumble and spurred a manufacturing renaissance, something Cameron and his finance minister George Osborne have been keen to replicate.

But a hoped-for rise in gas production across Europe has been slow to develop, with estimates

for Poland’s reserves having been slashed along with the hiatus on fracking.

Cameron said during the summit that it was Britain’s duty to get behind fracking, and that he was confident of winning the public around once the first drilling operations started to benefit the surrounding communities.

He said most of voters’ concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding of the way that wells are tapped.

“When I look at a lot of the concerns expressed . . . I think there’s a really good answer to all the questions. So I’m confident we’ll win the argument,” he said.

Environmental group Greenpeace criticized Cameron, calling his comments a cynical attempt to exploit the Ukraine crisis. Citing industry estimates, they said fracking would take at least a decade to reach a useful scale, and that even at that point it was likely to displace other gas sources rather than Russian imports.

(Additional reporting by Karolin Schaps, Editing by John Stonestreet)

University of Nevada, Reno launches Living With Drought website and education Cooperative Extension collaborates with partners to provide information for coping with looming drought ith the 2014 drought looming, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension has partnered with other agencies to help Nevadans prepare for and cope with the drought. Coopera-

W

The Best of the Bunch & !) % *&&# &, ( *& * , (. # )* )*&(. /) % - )* &&" % $ ! !) '+( !**) % * *( !*!&% & !(* & ) % & /) &+%*(. /) # * )* -!## %* ( * !% % !%)'!( )*!% *& # ))!

(--0% !,4 &-2/ -& %%60 "--*0 !,$ .!4 !,$ 1(!1 -,+4 ),#+2$%0 /)-/)14 -01!'% 5 1 !++ !$$0 2. 1- ! .-1%,1)!+ 0!3),' -& -3%/

tive Extension has launched its Living With Drought website, a one-stop shop where homeowners, gardeners, farmers, ranchers, natural resource managers and others can find information to help them respond to their various drought-related challenges.

The website is at http://www.unce.unr.edu/programs/sites/drought/.

“We want to be proactive,” Mark Walker, dean of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, said. “We know that our offices in every county are going to be getting questions – everything from how to maintain lawns, to how to irrigate crops most efficiently during the drought. So, we have compiled information and links for various groups, and tried to make it easy for them to find.”

Cooperative Extension chose to take the lead in helping Nevadans cope with the drought because many of its six educational program areas, including agriculture, horticulture, natural resources and community development, will be directly affected by the drought.

“We saw there was information and websites that contain information about the current drought conditions, and much information about how to respond to drought conditions.

But, the information is spread among a wide range of sources, which makes it difficult for Nevadans to know how to answer very specific questions,” Walker said. “We have a lot of that expertise in Extension. And, what we don’t have, many of our colleagues on campus and our other partners have. It was logi-

cal for us to develop a website that makes a wide range of resources available in one spot.

It’s what Extension does; we respond to community needs.”

Walker chose the “Living With Drought” model partly because Cooperative Extension’s “Living With Fire” program has been so effective. That program provides education to help Nevadans live more safely with the threat of wildfire. About 20 other states now also use the successful Nevada program.

“Wildfires and drought are both facts of life in Nevada. It’s not a question of if they will occur; it’s a question of when they will occur,” Walker said.

“These programs are aimed at minimizing their detrimental effects and the danger they can pose.”

As part of the Living With Drought effort, Cooperative Extension is also offering workshops across the state next month to give Nevada agricultural producers information to help them prepare for the drought. Topics will include water availability, recommended irrigation practices, insurance options and an outlook on prices. Workshops will be on April 1 in Eureka, April 14 in Schurz and Yerington, and April 29 in Minden.

In addition, Cooperative Extension will offer Living With Drought workshops for Nevada ranchers, including topics such as insurance options, how best to downsize herds, infrastructure recommendations, animal nutrition recommendations, availabilcontinued on page eight

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

April 15, 2014

Page 7

Conservation: Report highlights 10 bills that have ‘languished’ in Congress PHIL TAYLOR, E&E REPORTER GREENWIRE

P

artisanship in Congress has stalled locally supported conservation bills for decades, stifling the protection of treasured landscapes and thwarting potential economic development, according to a report released today by conservation groups and touted by a bipartisan duo of former lawmakers.

The report http:// w e s t e r n priorities.org/wp-cont e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 4 / 0 3 / L anguishing-Lands-.pdf by the Denver-based Equal Ground campaign highlights 10 conservation bills that been introduced into Congress a combined 52 times over the past 30 years – but have yet to be signed into law.

The campaign includes the Center for Western Priorities, Center for American Progress,

Wilderness Society and Conservation Lands Foundation.

“Every conservation bill that’s stuck represents a missed opportunity,” said former Interior Secretary and Democratic Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who was joined by former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) in a conference call this morning urging congressional action.

The report includes bills to designate wilderness in Idaho’s Boulder-White Clouds mountains, Nevada’s Pine Forest, New Mexico’s Organ MountainsDesert Peaks and Washington state's Alpine Lakes, among other places.

“In addition to the 10 pieces of legislation that we highlight, there are dozens of other public land protection bills sitting before Congress that have broad public support,” the report said. “In today’s political climate, however, even the most nonpartisan issues

are overwhelmed by Congressional dysfunction and partisanship – land conservation included.”

While Congress recently did pass its first conservation bill in five years – designating more than 30,000 acres of wilderness at Michigan’s Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore – movement of other bills has been slow, particularly in the House Natural Resources Committee and as election season approaches.

In some cases – including Rep. Mike Simpson’s (R-Idaho) Boulder-White Clouds bill and New Mexico’s Democratic senators’ Organ Mountains proposal – not all of the state’s delegation is on board, which can hamper passage.

“A small group . . . seems to be standing in the way,” Salazar said.

There are issues on which Republicans and Democrats ought to disagree, said

Court Misses the Mark on ESA Settlement Ruling ouse Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) issued the following statement regarding the federal court ruling upholding the Obama Administration’s closed-door Endangered Species Act (ESA) settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians: “I’m disappointed with today’s court ruling that upholds the Administration’s mega-settlement with litigious environmental groups to make listing decisions for hundreds of species behind closed-doors and in a rushed, arbitrary time-frame. Over 160 new species have already been added to the list just since these settlements. In many cases, such as the White Bluffs Bladderpod in my district, or in the Lesser

H

Prairie Chicken listed just last week, legitimate concerns have been raised about the science or the lack of state or local government involvement. The potential listings of even more species, including the Greater Sage Grouse, could have devastating job and economic impacts across the entire country. Listing decisions should be made in an open, transparent manner and based on the best available science and data. This decision today proves even more why common sense legislation to curb these lawsuits and closed-door settlement agreements will do more to aid endangered species than lawyers and courtrooms. That’s why I and other colleagues will work to advance targeted legislation to improve and update the ESA by focusing on transparency and species recovery.”

LaTourette, who was an outlier in his party in supporting the Land and Water Conservation Fund, “but I never saw the preservation of public lands and protection of resources as one of them.”

LaTourette said the Western caucus is particularly influential in the House but has become more “radicalized” over the past handful of years.

While Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (RWash.) is retiring at the end of the year and likely will be replaced by Rep. Rob Bishop (RUtah), “you’re really getting Doc Hastings Jr.,” LaTourette said.

“For reasons I'm sure are valid in their minds, those members have stood in the way of progress being made,” he said.

But there are ways to address

Western Republicans’ concerns over the acquisition of federal lands and the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog, he said, adding that there needs to be a political will.

“There’s no willingness to have a dialogue,” he said.

Bishop has moved conservation bills and is seen by some as slightly more amenable to conservation than Hastings; however, he's insisted on adding language that he argues is necessary to promote local energy development and loosen restrictions to ensure lands are properly stewarded.

He’s also tried to move a Nevada national monument bill but has run into technical obstacles with the House’s earmark ban.

Farm Credit of New Mexico stockholders to share in Association’s success with distribution of $6.8 arm Credit of New Mexico, ACA, is pleased to announce the distribution of nearly $6.8 million dollars in cash to be paid to Stockholders by March 31, 2014, as part of the Farm Credit of New Mexico’s Patronage Distribution Program. The patronage payment is based on each Stockholder’s average loan balance during 2013. This cash distribution reduces member interest rates by approximately 0.50 percent.

Farm Credit of New Mexico is a $1.35 billion organization by asset size and since the inception of the Patronage Program in 2005, has distributed $61 million dollars back to its Stock-

F

holders. Al Porter, Farm Credit of New Mexico’s President/CEO stated, “As a cooperative we are proud to be able to share profits with our Stockholders. Our Board of Directors and Staff thank our Stockholders for their loyalty and business. The success of the Association is a direct result of their support.”

Farm Credit of New Mexico had a strong year in 2013 as net income exceeded $26 million and average outstanding loan volume increased by $38 million. The Association ended the year with capital of over 20 percent showing the strength and stability of the agricultural lender.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 8

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

April 15, 2014

Living with Drought

continued from page six

ity of water for animals, and how drought affects plants and grazing options. These workshops will begin in May. As details become available, they will be posted on the Living With Drought website. Farmers and ranchers seeking more information on drought-related workshops can also call Cooperative Extension at 775/945-3444, ext. 12, for more information.

Walker said homeowners, gardeners, landscapers and others should also check the Living With Drought website regularly, as Cooperative Extension’s various horticulture programs, such as its Master Gardener Program and its Grow Your Own, Nevada! Program, will also be offering workshops and presentations with drought-specific information throughout the spring and summer.

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST

Real Estate GUIDE Advertise to Cattleman in the

Livestock Market Digest

THE RANCH FINDER presents...

HILL COUNTRY RANCH Hairston Creek Ranch being 150+ fee acres located four miles east on County Road #330. From Burnet, Texas just a short drive to Austin, San Antonio or Fredericksburg and only nineteen miles to Marble Falls. A four season recreational ranch with outstanding improvements, good deer and turkey hunting in a native habitat with four hay fields for haying or grazing. Hairston Creek runs the length of the ranch north and south. Will consider 1031 exchange for proven minerals or production.

THE MACHO CREEK RANCH A four season cattle grazing unit located 45 miles north and west of Roswell in Chaves and Lincoln Counties, New Mexico. The Macho Creek runs through the ranch west to east and offers extra grazing during the summer run off periods. Acreage - 7271 deeded, 5781 NM state lease, 1344 BLM lease (noncontrolled) acres and 80 uncontrolled acres for a total of 14,476 acres, 23 sections. The asking price is based on a $280 a deeded acre - all lease values included.

Contact The Ranch Finder:

Missouri Land Sales 675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your Own Plane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2-ba home down 1 mile private lane. New 40x42 shop, 40x60 livestock barn, over 450 ac. in grass.

(Owner runs over 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

Ranch Properties now available through Bottari & Associates Realty, Inc #&, ( ## / % ( ) 8+5* 17'3 #%3'4 8#5'3 3+)*5'& #0& +33+)#5'& 8+5* # )3#7 +5: (.18 4:45'/ (31/ 53'#/ (.18 #0& (31/ 4'7'3#. 60&'3)3160& +33+)#5+10 8'..4 %%'44 10 2#7'& 31#& #0& ,645 /+.'4 165* 1( "'..4 '7#&# 0' $'&311/ $#5* *1/' 3+%' + / ## / ( ) & - ! ''(&. ( ) , - * ( (! *) 0 2#7'& 5#5' 5 0.: /+065'4 (31/ .-1 11& 46//'3 3#0)' 3+%' #"& & -!* ( 0!% ' ($!* *'4' 23+7#5' 4'%5+104 #3' +0 5*' %*'%-'3$1#3& #3'# #0& #3' +05'3/+0).'& 8+5* 26$.+% .#0&4 *' 3#0%* *#4 *+4513+%#..: $''0 # 23+0) *''2 3#0)' *' 2'3/+5 +4 10.: 26$.+% .#0&4 3+%' +0%.6&'4 1( 5*' /+0'3#. 3+)*54 10 #.. $65 #%3'4 ! ! " $ " " # ! 3+%' #%3' 3 104+&'3+0) #&&+0) 5*' 2312'35: $'.18 51 +5 51 /#-' # :'#3 #3160& 60+5 #"& & +$ &# * !, ( (&' (*/ #%3'4 .1%#5'& $'58''0 5*' :0&10 #0& 4+01 9+54 10 *+4 2312'35: *#4 17'3 #%3'4 1( 463(#%' 8#5'3 3+)*54 165 1( 5*' 6/$1.&5 +7'3 *' 2'3/+5 (13 5*' #%3'4 #$17' +4 # 4*135 &+45#0%' (31/ 5*+4 2312'35: 8+5* # 451%- &3+7'8#: 10 5*+4 2312'35: 3+%' /+..+10 %* &+%* !% % 22319 &''& #%3'4 +0 5#33 !#..': +%' .#3)'3 *1/' 10 2#7'& 31#& 2.64 /1605#+0 %#$+0 3'#5 46//'3 3#0)' 8+5* 8#5'3 (31/ 06/'3164 %3''-4 #0& 4''24 *+4 3#0%* +4 /#&' 1( 62 1( 17'3 4'2#3#5' 2#3%'.4 +( # $6:'3 8'3' /13' +05'3'45'& +0 07'45/'05 2312'35: 74 )3+%6.563#.

2312'35: 7'3 #%3'4 8+5* 463(#%' 8#5'3 3+)*54 3+%' /+..+10 " " " ! " ! "

Bottari Realty and Associates PAUL D. BOTTARI, BROKER www.bottarirealty.com • paul@bottarirealty.com 775/752-3040 • Cell: 775/752-0952 • Fax: 775/752-3021 Bottari Realty & Associates • 1222 6th St., Wells, NV 89835

J o e Stu b b l ef i el d & A s s o c i at es 13830 Wes ter n St ., A m ar i l l o , TX 806/622-3482 • c el l 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Mi c h ael Per ez A s s o c i at es Nar a Vi s a, NM • 575/403-7970

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARD Cell: 417/839-5096 1-800/743-0336 MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORS SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

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-function barn. 2-br, 1-ba rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641 GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704; Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com, enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!

Ronald H. Mayer Real Estate

P.O. Box 2391 - Roswell, NM 88202 505/623-5658 ronald@ranchfinder.com

INTEREST RATES A S L OW A S 3% Pay m en t s Sch ed u l ed o n 25 Year s

"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*/(

20/43

"$

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

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott – Broker Krystal M. Nelson, NM Qualifing Broker 800-933-9698 day/eve. www.scottlandcompany.com www.texascrp.com

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

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

April 15, 2014

Page 9

Senators John Barrasso, David Vitter and Mike Enzi warn of EPA moves to control all water

BY RON ARNOLD, WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

yoming welder Andrew Johnson had a state permit, so he thought he was building a perfectly legal stock water pond for his livestock where Six Mile Creek runs through his private farm in Uinta County.

But U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcers said Johnson was actually building a dam in violation of the Clean Water Act. Johnson’s permit from the Wyoming State Engineer’s office to build a “stock reservoir” is dated June 28, 2010, reflecting years of his careful preparations for the pond, including visits by EPA and Army Corps of Engineers agents to see the work, followed by a cordial multi-agency conference call in mid-2013 in which everything seemed fine.

Then, on Jan. 28, without notice and without due process, EPA regional bureaucrat Andrew M. Graydosh issued a compliance order requiring Johnson to return the creek to its original condition

W

in 60 days.

Graydosh threatened Johnson with fines of $75,000 per day per violation – which could reach $187,500 per day, or over $5.5 million in a month – if he didn’t comply. Johnson had 10 days to reply.

Graydosh’s foaming-at-themouth, sentence-without-trial demand, reeking of disgraced EPA official Al Armendariz’s “crucify them” attitude, crushed a citizen’s constitutional right to face his accusers.

Some of Johnson’s fellow Wyoming residents contend ultragreenies, including one federal employee in particular, complained to Graydosh and helped nullify a lawful state permit.

The attack also infuriated Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, who requested the EPA to “immediately withdraw the compliance order.”

In a March 12 letter to EPA water boss Nancy Stoner, three Senate Environment and Public Works committee Republicans – Ranking Member Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, and Wyoming’s Mike Enzi and John Barrasso – characterized EPA’s vile treatment of Johnson as “a draconian edict of

a heavy-handed bureaucracy.”

They also called it “an ominous signal of EPA’s intentions for its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking.”

Ominous indeed, for this vicious government surprise attack against a private citizen represents a potential threat against everybody.

The “rulemaking” the senators referred to is Big Green’s yearslong campaign to remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act, so that all water, not just navigable water, falls under its regulatory authority.

EPA justified its demand to Johnson by claiming that “Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Black Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the U.S.” Neither Six Mile Creek nor the Black Fork River are navigable.

With such connect-the-dots logic, EPA could declare kitchen sinks are navigable U.S. waters. Is the EPA planning to unilaterally declare municipal water supplies to be tributaries of tributaries of trib-

utaries?

How long before private water wells become subject to the EPA regulating every American’s “PDWR” – “personal daily water ration”?

The senators saw that specter looming on the EPA’s horizon and wrote that if the compliance order “stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country.”

Johnson’s lawyer, Daniel B. Frank of Cheyenne, said “we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for EPA’s documents related to their claim of jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s stock water pond, and we’re still waiting for a reply.”

That reply will determine how they proceed. It’s possible that, even if the EPA shows its claim of jurisdiction to be valid, Johnson can obtain an after-the-fact exemption under existing law.

There’s more behind this EPA assault on Johnson. When Big Green’s water-grabbing Clean

Water Restoration Act of 2010 failed inCongress, the Obama administration simply proposed a “guidance” – a document stating a policy position – that attempted to seize all state waters without any legal authority.

On May 14, 2013, Barrasso proposed an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act to nullify that guidance. His amendment won 52 Senate votes, with eight Democrats voting with the Republicans.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set an arbitrary threshold of 60 votes for the amendment’s passage as a pre-condition for even allowing a vote on the measure. So the amendment didn’t become law. The guidance lacks legal authority but EPA still acts as if it does.

All but eight Senate Democrats voted for the federal government to seize all waters, and did so with the 2014 mid-term election just months away. The Senate could sure use some climate change.

Ron Arnold, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

5 ,3 0 ,'+5/ !

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

6,*; " (,*" %"#@ B - D1 E %;%,* ( 77 %7 06,?% B ,>*;B ) %*; %* 6, 7 ,* ,;# ;# *,6;# * 7,>;# ,>* 6% 71 6% - =DD DDD - DDD DDD

Fallon-Cortese Land

NEW MEXICO % "

# %

! !

! !

$$$

SOCORRO COUNTY HORSE FARM In the Rio Grande Valley.

Custom-built home with 100 acres of irrigated land. House has approximately 3,700 sq. ft., 4 bedrooms, and 2 baths. One hour from Albuquerque Int’l Airport.

Close to 5 racetracks: Sunland, Ruidoso, Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Farmington.

1100 ACRE RANCH in San Antonio, NM $335,000. BLM allotment

!

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

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

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

Bottari & Associates Realty -& "*, /' *.. ,% ,*&!, 111 *.. ,%,! '.3 *(

'" " ' %"

& & &

!

# # (

#!

$" %

$"

%"

,,, ) ' " % ' * (&

!

! "

!

! !

" "' !

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

Livestock Market Digest

Page 10

April 15, 2014

“The Terminator” – The Latest in Cattle Fly Control n 2012, the ultimate fly control system for cattle called “The Terminator” was released for sale by its inventor, Roger Larson of L&S Farm Supply. Larson has been raising cattle and farming for 45 years

I

and he still runs a successful 400 acre beef operation.

Roger also has five (5) other patents relating to products used in storing tires, bicycles, garments, boats, wheelchairs, plants and a variety of merchandise

The Western Migration Invasion he legalization of marijuana in Colorado has brought to a head a common point of contention that has happened in state after state. It is a generational change, a population shift that is the result of the inevitable roll of civilization.

It also marks a shift from rural to urban.

Over the years I have watched certain western towns and cities evolve into mini-metros that no longer belong to the state that bore them; Santa Fe, Aspen, Missoula, Sedona, Monterey and Deer Valley.

They become baby Berkeleys or Austins or Madisons. They grow and metastasize. They start changing the laws, the values and the livelihoods of the invaded towns and states, into those from the cities they left behind.

It is often referred to as “Californication.” The new wave of settlers leave the state of their upbringing because it’s too crowded, crime is omnipresent, politics are corrupt, freeways are snarled and it’s no place to raise a family.

One day, on vacation, they drive through a western city with spectacular views, open space, friendly folk, and not much crime, so they buy a piece of property. They build a second home and commute back and forth, it’s so quaint, they stay.

They bring with them the conveniences and expectations they took for granted their

T

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194 Telephone: 505/243-9515

metroplex. The locals originally look at it as a blessing, a taxable addition. The more they cater to new money, the deeper they fall into the trap of dependency.

Then the newcomers begin to miss the attitudes and modernity that made big city living bearable. “This is the 21st century! Let’s get with it!”

They have no historical sense of intrinsic value or the hardship of generations, or the workin’ man culture. They are the Princess Di trying to fit in with the Duck Dynasty!

The newbies don’t enjoy having a hog farm down the road, kids getting out of school for hunting season, or for skiing on Fridays. They despise zoning laws that allow sale barns, dairies, timber mills, mining claims, or gas wells to prosper.

The new settlers gain influence and numbers primarily because of their financial advantage. Over a period of years a tipping point is reached. The town is now being run by money made elsewhere. Eventually the locals are relegated to serving their conquerors. In a community that 25 years ago would have been appalled, now welcomes topless bars, a resort tax, gated neighborhoods, private security guards, license tags for your dog or a Pot Hole that now sells marijuana to users.

Oh, well, I better go look at Princess Di’s horse. She always pays her bill.

that major retailers like Target, Macy’s, Wal-Mart and REI are using. He is extremely proud of the fact that all of the products his companies sell are totally produced in the U.S.A. This innovative piece of equipment was field-tested for three years on a cattle operation in east central Minnesota with truly remarkable results. The study consisted of 100 head of Angus cattle and yielded results that astounded the designers and the farmer beyond anticipated expectations. The weaning weights averaged 55 pounds heavier over the previous fall weights when the bull calves were sold off. Bymostly eliminating the fly and pest problems the cattle faced on a daily basis, they expended significantly less energy maintaining comfort levels adding dollars to their marketable weight. These weights were significant enough that they elicited curiosity from the local stockyard, as they were some of the best spring calves that had been through that year!

In addition, dairy herds will produce more milk and cows will breed back better because they are in better condition (not

fighting flies and ticks, etc.).

A farmer or rancher with a 100 cow herd will save thousands of dollars compared to using the usually methods – insecticide blocks, spraying from the back of a pick-up truck or dust bags, etc. One unit will effectively handle up to 100 – 150 head of cattle.

This patented design is the perfect solution for any farm or ranch. The Terminator’s heavyduty construction and powdercoat finish will withstand rubbing, kicking and leaning and the thick rubber tray will resist deterioration from exposure to the elements. Forklift openings designed right into the body allow a tractor or skid-loader to move the equipment to any pasture. The Terminator is solarpowered so it never needs an electrical outlet. The Terminator is built with heavy gauge steel and durable powder coating for years of trouble-free service.

The on-board electronics will sense each cow as it visits the mineral tray. The motion of the animal triggers a light misting of insecticide which is applied evenly across the back and neck of the animal. The Terminator is

also fitted with 3 outriggers which allow the misting of other cattle in the immediate vicinity that may be congregating to use the mineral tray.

The Terminator is complete with a comprehensive assembly and operations manual, and two people with minimal tools can assemble the unit in less than one hour. Each Terminator comes with a single bottle of concentrated insecticide that mixes with water to yield hundreds of gallons of effective control. A farm or ranch with 100 head of cattle can expect to control flies and other pest insects for approximately $60 each grazing season.

The Terminator is an absolute must for any cattle rancher or farmer. It will eliminate flies and ticks PERIOD! Start reducing your overhead costs, increase your profits today. Multiple unit discounts are available.

For more information and a price quote, please contact the Manufacturer’s Representative, John Vrabec, who coversthe New Mexico and Arizona markets. Telephone: 505/301-2102.

E-Mail: jvrabecoffice@earthlink.net.

New Mexico creates agricultural instituteto prepare future farmers, ranchers, agribusiness leaders AgriFuture to be hosted in Albuquerque, May 12-14

A

gricultural organizations and agencies in New Mexico are looking to expand upon an exciting new trend: more young people are taking up farming, ranching, and other careers in agricultural production in the Land of Enchantment.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) and a dozen other agencies and organizations involved in New Mexico agriculture are coordinating and hosting the 2014 AgriFuture Educational Institute for beginning/future farmers and ranchers, as well as those aiming for other careers in agriculture.

The institute will be hosted May 12-14 in Albuquerque.

“The goal of the AgriFuture Educational Institute is to inform, inspire, and connect the people who will produce our food and fiber going forward,” said New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte. “And how the Institute aims to achieve that lofty goal is by bringing together future ag producers and current ag producers, and really facilitating a conversation among that diverse group.”

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture released by USDA recently, New Mexico saw an increase in the number of people age 34 and younger who are agricultural producers, from 818 in 2007 to 1,200 in 2012. At the same time, the census showed a slight uptick in the average age of farmers in New Mexico from 59.6 years old in 2007 to 60.5 years old

in 2012.

“Taken together, what those two statistics tell us is that we’re headed in the right direction in terms of getting more young people into agriculture, but that we still have work to do,” Witte said.

Access to land and capital are often said to be the major roadblocks for young people who want to join the ranks of today’s farmers and ranchers. Witte said that topic will be one of many addressed in the breakout session piece of the institute. Then attendees will board several buses to take private tours of a wide variety of agricultural businesses in and around Albuquerque.

“New Mexico depends on agriculture, and thus we depend on future generations getting involved with the entire spectrum of agriculture from farming and ranching to banking to teaching to communications and much, much more,” said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, one of the institute’s organizers and sponsors. “[AgriFuture] hopes to expose young people to the wide range of possibilities.”

The institute is open to future agricultural producers age 40 and under; veterans are encouraged to attend. It is also open to current agricultural producers of all ages in hopes that they will serve as mentors going forward. Witte said the idea of community is critical in agriculture, because people often develop their best practices on the farm or ranch by talking with others rather than by, say, reading a handbook.

The registration fee for future agriculture producers is only $50

for the Institute, while the fee for current agriculture producers (those who can potentially mentor beginning farmers and ranchers) is only $100. Institute activities are also being funded in part by such sponsors as Farm Credit of New Mexico, which is also helping organize the institute.

“Farm Credit of New Mexico is passionate about youth and their development in agriculture,” said Al Porter, president and CEO of Farm Credit of New Mexico. “This conference is a great way for us to all work together to make sure future agriculturists are prepared to enhance rural New Mexico.”

In addition to NMDA, Cattle Growers’, and Farm Credit, institute organizers include Ag New Mexico Farm Credit; New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau; New Mexico Beef Council; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; New Mexico Soil and Water Conservation Districts; New Mexico State University-Cooperative Extension Service; USDA-Farm Service Agency’s New Mexico office; USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service’s New Mexico office; and USDA-Rural Development’s New Mexico office.

The institute agenda and registration are available at www.nmda.nmsu.edu. People can also join the Facebook event page (via www.facebook.com/NMDepartmentofAg) to stay tuned for institute updates and connect with other attendees. If you wish to help sponsor the institute in any amount, you are asked to call NMDA at 575/646-3702.

April 15, 2014

Racetrackers

BY BARRY DENTON

ome of my fondest memories of the race track are the cast of characters I met. Many of them had been in the race horse business all of their life and others were just passing through.

You met people from all backgrounds and ethnicities. If I stop and think about it I guess my clientele was a miniature United Nations.

One day I started making a list of where many of them had come from and it was quite fascinating.

There were the usual doctors, lawyers, and businessmen. Then if you add some Arabian sheiks,

S

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Russian oilmen, heads of state, politicians, a railroad magnate, a large retailer, Hollywood folks, and a few New York Jews you had a pretty interesting mix. Can you imagine having them all at the same party?

Thankfully you deal with the trainer most of the time, but many times the owners love to check out who they are sending checks to on a regular basis. Many of the owners I got to know very well over the years and I learned so much by talking with them. You have to be bright to be successful and these folks were special. I always appreciated my owners and went the extra mile for them.

As interesting as the owners were I was always even more fascinated by the everyday guy or gal

that worked at the track. Many of the other farriers I worked with were very colorful .

I remember I went to Chicago to work on a horse and met a most interesting African American farrier. His name was Lightning and I never did know his real name.

Maybe he didn’t have one, which wasn’t uncommon in those days.

Lightning was in his forties and probably six foot tall and about eighteen inches wide. He was truly the narrowest individual I have seen to this day. He was a little tall to be a farrier and probably weighed about 130 pounds. When I first saw him I thought he was malnourished or had a tape worm. Lightning was actually very healthy and had a large client base.

People liked him as he had a very easy going manner with horses and people alike. However, the most amazing thing about him was that when he walked somewhere he always had a horse rasp in his hand.

As he walked along he would flip the rasp back over his shoulder and bounce it off his boot heel. The rasp would flip back over the shoulder and land in his hand every time. I have never seen anyone else do this.

Of course, all of us horseshoers would try it and incur a multitude of bruises. Lightning did this without thinking about it as he walked along. I didn’t go to Chicago often, but every time I was there I always marveled at Lightning and his antics.

USDA announces $20 million effort to reduce damage caused by feral swine ndersecretary for USDA’s Marketing & Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos has announced that USDA is kicking off a national effort to reduce the devastating damage caused by feral, or free ranging, swine. The $20 million program aims to help states deal with a rapidly expanding population of invasive wild swine that causes $1.5 billion in annual damage and control costs.

“Feral swine are one of the most destructive invaders a state can have,” said Undersecretary Avalos.

“They have expanded their range from 17 to 39 states in the last 30 years and cause damage to crops, kill young livestock, destroy property, harm natural resources, and carry diseases that threaten other animals as well as people and water supplies. It’s critical that we act now to begin appropriate management of this costly problem.”

The Wildlife Services (WS) program of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will lead the effort, tailoring activities to each state’s circumstance and working closely with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local entities. WS will work directly with states to control populations, test animals for diseases, and research better methods of managing feral swine damage. A key part of the national program will include surveillance and disease monitoring to protect the health of our domestic swine.

Feral swine have become a serious problem in 78 percent of all

U

states in the country, carrying diseases that can affect people, domestic animals, livestock and wildlife, as well as local water supplies. They also cause damage to field and highvalue crops of all kinds from Midwestern corn and soybeans to sugar cane, peanuts, spinach and pumpkins. They kill young animals and their characteristic rooting and wallowing damages natural resources, including resources used by native waterfowl, as well as archeological and recreational lands. Feral swine compete for food with native wildlife, such as deer, and consume the eggs of ground-nesting birds and endangered species, such as sea turtles.

“In addition to the costly damage to agricultural and natural resources, the diseases these animals carry present a real threat to our swine populations,” said Avalos.

“Feral swine are able to carry and transmit up to 30 diseases and 37 different parasites to livestock, people, pets and wildlife, so surveillance and disease monitoring is another keystone to this program.”

As part of the national program, APHIS will test feral swine for diseases of concern for U.S. pork producers, such as classical swine fever, which does not exist in the United States, as well as swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, swine influenza, and pseudorabies.

Ensuring that domestic swine are not threatened by disease from feral swine helps ensure that U.S. export markets

remain open.

APHIS aims to have the program operating within 6 months and funding for the comprehensive project includes, among other things: n $9.5 million for state projects n $1.4 million for establishing procedures for disease monitoring, including the development of new surveillance and vaccination methods n $1.5 million for WS’ National Wildlife Research Center to conduct research and economic analyses to improve control practices n $1.6 million for the centralization of control operations, and for making them safer and more costeffective Initial state funding levels will be based on current feral swine populations and associated damage to resources. Because feral swine populations, like most wildlife, cross international borders, APHIS will also coordinate with Canada and Mexico on feral swine damage management.

“We’ve already begun this type of work through a pilot program in New Mexico,” said Avalos.

“Through this pilot program, we have successfully removed feral swine from 1.4 million acres of land.

By applying the techniques such as trap monitors and surveillance cameras we have developed through this pilot project, we aim to eliminate feral swine from two States every three to five years and stabilize feral swine damage within 10 years.”

Andre Delonpres was a Frenchman through and through. He spoke with a thick accent and had come to America as a boy of about eight years. He had thick curly hair that stuck out below his fedora. He wore thick soled Brogans and you could always hear him coming before you could see him. If you heard a series of “galumps” you knew it was Frenchy on his way.

“Frenchy” as everyone called him had a special knack with horses.

All his regular horses that he shod just loved him and if you had a colt you couldn’t get shoes on you brought it to Frenchy. He was known far and wide for being the fractious horse panacea. Many people don’t realize that race horses are trained to “peak” at a certain time for a big race. Often times the training regimen leading up to a major race will put these horses in a nervous frame of mind. It’s quite the same as a human athlete getting ready for the big game. Nerves tend to get on edge. Because of this, Frenchy would get many horses to shoe just before the big race.

One day Frenchy was working on this big beautiful chestnut colt before his first stakes race. The horse had broken its maiden in high fashion and then won three races in a row. There was lots of promise in this youngster. However, this horse was being pretty

Page 11 tough to shoe.

Frenchy always remained calm even if there were hind hooves narrowly missing his head. The horse’s groom was holding him and doing the best job he could, but that colt was having none of it. Most thoroughbred race horses can be shod with a lip chain when things get testy. This was not the case today.

Finally the groom opted to replace the lip chain with a long handled rope twitch. That was a good idea and Frenchy got one more foot completed. Pretty soon the colt started rearing with the twitch so it needed to come off.

Keep in mind that Frenchy was shoeing this horse just a day before the race so tranquillizers were not an option. The next thing the groom did was grab a fistful of skin between the horse’s neck and shoulder.

This allowed Frenchy to get the last hoof trimmed and the shoe shaped. However, when he went to nail it on that rear hoof caught Frenchy in the back of the thigh and lifted him down the barn aisle about 15 feet. Frenchy never did say a thing, but went to the cab of his truck and got out a magazine.

He opened up the magazine and threw it down in front of the horse.

The horse never moved and let Frenchy finish his job.

Now that’s a horse whisperer!

Livestock Market Digest

Page 12

‘The wolf tapeworm’

BY GIB MATHERS, POWELLTRIBUNE.COM

Powell veterinarian warns of problems that may be spread by wolves nasty tapeworm found in Alaskan wolves has turned up in Park County and has infected multiple elk and four dogs, according to a Powell veterinarian.

State and federal officials say the risk of infecting humans is low, but veterinarian Ray Acker, who owns and operates Big Horn Animal Care Center in Powell, said it behooves hunters and dog owners to take precautions to protect themselves and their pets from the parasite.

Echinococcosis granulosus (E. granulosus) can infect and kill humans, but there have been no reported cases of human fatalities in Wyoming.

Acker said he fears it is only a

A

matter of time before the tapeworm’s cysts invade humans and potentially kill them.

E. granulosus tapeworm can infect all carnivores, but wolves and other canines are the primary host. “You could call it the wolf tapeworm,” Acker said.

“We always take any type of situation related to human safety and wildlife very seriously,” Dan Thompson, statewide supervisor of the large carnivore management section in Lander said in an email.

Hank Edwards, Wyoming Game & Fish Department laboratory supervisor in Laramie, said don’t panic, just be aware of the risk.

“I don’t know the prevalence in wolves, but certainly some carry it,” Edwards added. “It’s very, very rare that it infects people.”

Humans contract the hydatids (cysts) from E. granulo-

sus. Hydatid disease in humans is difficult to diagnose and may require surgery to remove them.

“It can be fatal,” Acker said.

Humans can be exposed to the eggs from canine feces or fur.

From there the cysts take up residence in the human’s lungs or liver.

“It is a silent killer,” Acker said. Humans can unknowingly carry the cysts for 20 years until it becomes critical. When cysts rupture, the person enters anaphylactic shock and dies within 10 minutes, Acker said.

“Right now it’s rare for humans because it’s just emerging,” Acker said.

In Alaska, there have been 300 reported cases of hydatid disease in people since 1950.

That is a result of canines, primarily wolves, contaminating the landscape with billions of E. granulosus eggs in their feces.

The invisible eggs are ingested by wild and domestic grazing animals and occasionally by humans who release clouds of the eggs into the air by kicking the scat or examining the feces to see what the wolf had been eating, according to a December 2009 article in The Outdoorsman.

“This is not limited to wolves, and quite honestly we as an agency always stress safety precautions when dealing with wild game and/or fur bearers as it related to ectoparasites and other potential parasites,” Thompson said. “This topic seems to flare up every now and then, but it is still important that we (Wyoming Game & Fish Department) make sure people have the facts and are safely enjoying our outdoors. Long sto-

April 15, 2014 ry short, the health risk is very low.”

In the last four or five months, it has been found in wild ungulates, but not domestic ungulates in Wyoming. It is not a problem for humans, but the possibility does exist, said State Veterinarian Jim Logan.

“It’s pretty rare as far as we know,” Logan said.

“In northwest Wyoming, hydatid cysts have been found in the lungs of a few moose and elk,” according to a 2010 Echinococcus granulosus in Wyoming fact sheet from the Game & Fish. “Where the parasite is found in wolves and wild ungulates, most public health agencies consider the public health risk to be very low.”

There have been no cases of E. granulosus in the Big Horn Mountains, but there are no wolves there, Acker said.

The definitive host for E. granulosus where they reach maturity and reproduce are canines and wild carnivores.

Wild or domesticated ungulates, such as elk or sheep and humans, serve as intermediate hosts where the parasite transitions between life stages. The larval stage results in the formation of hydatid cysts in intermediate hosts.

The eggs form inside the primary host. The eggs hatch into larva and migrate to the liver and lungs to form cysts. The predator, such as a canine, feeds on intermediate host prey and become the definitive or primary hosts, Acker said.

Stock on a national forest grazing allotment could pick up the cysts while grazing. Then the animals are brought back from the mountains to their pastures here. If the stock has the cysts in its lungs, they won’t gain weight.

Or, if the stock dies, predators or dogs eat the carcass and spread the disease. If numerous stock are infected it could have a significant financial impact on producers, Acker said.

Hunters should beware In January a friend of Acker’s killed an elk in a Meeteetse hunt area. When the hunter fielddressed the elk, the lungs were loaded with cysts. Something attracted the dogs to the elk’s lungs, perhaps an odor from the cysts, and the dogs consumed the elk’s organs. He has wormed the dogs twice with praziquantel that kills E. granulosus in canines, Acker said.

Game & Fish sent the elk lung tissue samples to the Game & Fish lab in Laramie and the lab verified it as E. granulosus, Acker said.

“Do not feed uncooked meat or organs of deer, elk, moose or sheep to dogs,” said the fact sheet.

If a hunter notes hydatid cysts in their elk, they should not panic because the tapeworms must pass through a primary host like a dog first, Acker said.

Wolf hunters should be cautious handling their kill. Wear rubber gloves and take care handling feces and intestines, Acker

said.

“Those hunting or trapping canids (mammals of the dog family) in Wyoming are encouraged to wear latex or rubber gloves when field dressing and skinning their animals. Additionally, wild game meat should always be cooked thoroughly,” said the fact sheet.

Taking the wolf pelt to a car wash and using the high-pressure hose to blow eggs off the fur is a handy precaution. Taxidermists should also use care, Acker said.

Watch for white segments around the rectums and in the dog’s stool. Initially the onequarter by one-eighth inch segments will move slightly. Worm your dogs, Acker said.

Eggs can survive in excrement for up to one year. “I think they do well in the cold,” Acker said.

Dogs, with a propensity to roll in feces can collect the eggs on their coat and pass it on to their masters, Acker said.

Deworm dogs regularly. The best methods to prevent infection in humans are practicing good hygiene like wearing rubber or latex gloves and washing hands after handling dog excrement, said the fact sheet.

People should take precautions handling any wildlife. For example, people can contract bubonic plague from handling prairie dogs, Logan said.

Acker believes the disease has just reared its head among wildlife in this area. “We didn’t have it down here until they introduced these wolves,” he said.

In 1995/96 wolves from Alberta and British Columbia were re-introduced with 31 wolves in Yellowstone National Park and 35 in central Idaho.

They were treated for parasites including, E. granulosus and it was well documented, Jimenez said.

“All wolves captured in Canada for relocation to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho were treated for lice, roundworms and tapeworms before being released in Wyoming,” said the fact sheet.

Some people who dislike wolves returning to the region cite E. granulosus as another factor for their disdain for the canines. Acker admits to being anti-wolf, but he said if there are a lot of rabid skunks in the area they are eliminated in the interest of public safety.

“I’m anti-wolf here,” Acker said. “I think they belong where they came from.”

“People who are not real crazy about wolves see it as another reason to not be crazy about wolves,” said Mike Jimenez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gray wolf recovery coordinator in Jackson.

When Acker was a graduate student at Kansas State in Manhattan, he dissected two human livers from cadavers brimming with cysts. Action should be taken now, he said.

“Are we going to wait till somebody dies or try to keep somebody from dying?” Acker said.

April 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Page 13

Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council Unveils Innovative Strategic Plan he Mexican Wolf/Livestock Coexistence Council (Coexistence Council), an 11-member volunteer group of livestock producers, tribes, environmental groups, and county coalitions, has developed an innovative Strategic Coexistence Plan (Coexistence Plan), to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts and the need for management removals of depredating or nuisance wolves. The goals of the Coexistence Plan are to sustain viable ranching, protect healthy western landscapes, and advance a wild, self-sustaining Mexican gray wolf population.

In April 2011, the Southwest Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appointed the Coexistence Council to direct disbursement of the Mexican Wolf/Livestock Interdiction Trust Fund (Trust Fund) to qualified applicants. The Trust Fund is administered by the nonprofit National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

The Coexistence Council has now completed the Coexistence Plan, which provides the basis for the disbursement of

T

these funds. The Coexistence Plan is comprised of three core strategies: payments for wolf presence, funding for conflict avoidance measures, and funding for depredation compensation.

Payments to livestock producers for wolf presence will be based on a formula that considers a variety of factors to determine allocation of the annual funding for each applicant, including whether the applicant’s land or grazing lease overlaps a wolf territory or core area (e.g., den or rendezvous area) and the number of wolf pups annually surviving to December 31 in the territory, recognizing that survival of wolf pups is not dependent upon the livestock producer. The formula also considers the number of livestock exposed to wolves and the applicant’s participation in proactive conflict avoidance measures.

Up to 50 percent of the yearly budgeted funds will be available to support the voluntary implementation of wolf/livestock proactive conflict avoidance measures by livestock producers. Adaptive management techniques are available to

Agribusiness-friendly States Colorado State University study announces top agribusiness-friendly states in the nation

BY JENNIFER DIMAS, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

outh Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Hampshire and North Dakota are the top five agribusiness-friendly states in America, according to a new report issued by Colorado State University (CSU) agricultural economists.

CSU professors Greg Perry and James Pritchett developed the Agribusiness Friendliness Index to describe the economic climate for agriculture, which is impacted by climate, local and state government policies, geography and other factors more than other business sectors.

The index is based on 38 variables, representing regulatory policy, tax policy, government efficiency, impact of key government services, and the overall state business climate. It follows the methodology of other key indexes like the State Business Tax Climate Index.

Perry and Pritchett believe this is the first study of its kind focusing exclusively on the agricultural sector.

“The Agribusiness Friendliness Index illustrates the different ways government influences the economic climate of agriculture and its allied businesses,” Perry said.

“State governments play a particu-

S

lar role in fostering agribusiness opportunities and influencing cost structures with policies that include regulation, taxes and government services.”

Pritchett agreed.

“Businesses are acutely aware of the role that state government plays in their success — a business-friendly environment will encourage these enterprises to locate or expand operations while unfriendly polices shrink business and may even cause relocation,” he said.

Perry and Pritchett divided agricultural activities into four separate categories and then examined specific variables in each of those areas. The team evaluated how each state fared in those categories and used that information to calculate an overall score.

The four categories are: n Agricultural inputs (e.g., fertilizer, chemical, equipment, seed dealers) n Crop, fruit and vegetable production n Meat and livestock products n First-level agricultural processing States fared differently across all four categories depending on their base agricultural industry. For example, states in the upper Great Plains scored higher in the meats and livestock products category. States with the highest scores for agricultural processing were split between the Great Plains and New England.

Water right battle EDITORIAL BY U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT TIPTON, PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

he U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important and reasonable bill that prohibits the transfer of private water rights to the federal government as a condition of per-

T

mits it issues.

But the bill’s future is in doubt, according to sponsor U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., because a majority in the U.S. Senate and President Barack Obama appear opposed to the legislation.

The Water Rights Protection Act (HR3189) is designed to protect Colcontinued on page sixteen

reduce wolf/livestock conflicts, at the discretion of the livestock producer.

Direct compensation will continue for confirmed livestock deaths or injuries caused by Mexican wolves to livestock producers who are not otherwise receiving payments for wolf presence funding under the Coexistence Plan, unless they require immediate reimbursement. In such cases, the reimbursement amount will be subtracted from the payment for wolf presence allocation to that livestock producer.

The intent of the Coexistence Plan is to recognize that there are real economic consequences to livestock producers coexisting with wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. In addition to losses from livestock depredations, livestock producers incur costs from undetected depredations and changes in livestock behavior in response to wolf presence, which result in a reduction of livestock weight gain, reproductive rates, and meat quality, as well as increased costs tied to managing wolf/livestock interactions. The Coexistence Plan creates incentives for ranching in ways that promote self-sustaining Mexican wolf populations, viable ranching operations, and healthy western landscapes.

“Recovering the Mexican wolf must be accomplished on a working landscape,”

said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director. “Working collaboratively with stakeholders, we can achieve a balance of activities that sustain economically viable ranching operations and a self-sustaining population of wild wolves. This plan is a significant step in that direction.”

The Coexistence Council will work with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to disburse available funds to affected livestock producers based on the plan’s funding formula and a yearly application process. Livestock producers with private lands, Tribal lands, or grazing allot¬ments in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, or the San Carlos Apache Reservation, and private lands adjacent to the BRWRA are eligible to apply for funding. The Coexistence Plan budget projection for year 1 is $634,000.

The amount of money available each year through the Coexistence Council’s plan will depend on private and public funding directed to support the Trust Fund, with available Fund balances being divided among eligible livestock producers who have applied to participate in the program. Applications to participate are due by May 1 of each year.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 14

April 15, 2014

Wolf Activities Affect Cattle Behavior

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

he increasing wolf population in the West is having a significant impact on ranchers and livestock, but the extent of this impact has not been very well documented until recently.

Cattlemen in Oregon a few years ago decided to try to determine what affect the wolves are actually having in areas where wolf packs roam the same pastures with cattle.

Casey Anderson, manager of the OX Ranch near Council, Idaho says the study was started with money put up by the Oregon Beef Council. Dr. Doug Johnson, in the Ag Research department at Oregon State University became involved, as well as Neil Rimbey (Range Economist) from the University of Idaho and Pat Clark with the Agriculture Research Service (USDA/APHIS) in Boise, Idaho.

“Pat Clark is the one who designed the GPS collars for the cows and the wolves. He’s

T

had experience in Africa and other countries with various animals including reindeer. He did a pilot study with wolves up in Copper Basin (near Mackey) in eastern Idaho. This is where he first collared wolves and cows with this GPS system. USDA’s APHIS partnered with us because they are the ones doing depredation reports. Any wolf sightings or control measure are recorded and put into this study as well,” says Anderson.

The initial goal of this study was to try to get an idea about what to expect would happen in Oregon, judging by what had already happened in Idaho. “The Oregon Beef Council wanted to collect data in a high wolf population area in Idaho and compare it with data from an Oregon area with the same type of terrain. They paired several ranch sites in Idaho with similar ranch sites in Oregon that did not have wolves yet,” explains Anderson.

The study started in 2008.

“Not long after that, however,

Reserve Your Advertising Space Now! For the 2014 Edition of

Livestock Market Digest’s

FALL MARKETING EDITION Please contact me to discuss your advertising plans

Featuring the

RON ARCHER 505-865-6011 ron@aaalivestock.com Livestock Market Digest PO Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194

The best read annual publication in the livestock industry!

a wolf pack in the Wallowa area (near Enterprise, Oregon) showed up and that region was impacted by wolves. So the program took a shift from comparing high wolf pressure with no wolf pressure to comparing high wolf pressure with low wolf pressure. There was no longer an area with no wolf pressure,” he says.

“They collared 10 cows on each paired ranch—one in Idaho and one in Oregon.

There are a number of ranches involved, and ours was one that started collecting data in 2008. We wanted to get a baseline on how the cattle use the country and terrain, and if they use it differently or change their behavior patterns when there are wolves,” he says.

Anderson is sure the OX Ranch was experiencing wolf depredation before the study started, but didn’t have documentation of those kills, or the knowledge needed to interpret the losses. “We saw some losses, but assumed they are due to things we’ve already had experience with, such as cougars, coyotes, bears, etc.

But we did start having some confirmed wolf depredations in 2008,” he says.

Then in 2009 the government trapper from APHIS saw a pack of 12 wolves on their range.

“There were other packs that also worked this area. In 2009 we had a lot more confirmed depredations, with 18 animals killed,” says Anderson. There are always some additional losses that are never confirmed.

“We were also missing 5 cows, 2 yearlings and a bull, and between 65 and 70 calves that were unaccounted for.

We were also weighing and assessing the cows when we collared them and again when they came off the range and we removed the collars and transported the cattle down to our winter country. What we were seeing across the board in our herd was that the cows were coming home a full body score less than they had been in the past. With a mature cow, each score is 100 pounds, as a general rule of thumb,” he explains.

“We were also seeing our conception rate plummet.

With our herd health program, mineral and protein supplement, there was no real reason for this other than the wolves.

What normally would be 90 to 95% conception rate in our herd went down to as low as 82%,” says Anderson.

Some of the wolf impact wasn’t actual kills; additional animals were severely maimed.

“You spend a lot of time doctoring these and trying to save them, and end up with a bunch you can’t sell because

they are crippled,” he says.

Anderson spoke at a symposium in 2009 and was asked how many wolves he thought were in his area. “We figured there were at least 28 wolves that we knew of that ran in our allotment that year,” he says.

“In 2009 we were able to collar a young male wolf the end of May. He wore that GPS collar all summer and we retrieved it the end of November or early December. The data we collected from his collar was unbelievable. The cow collars collected data on 5 minute intervals and the wolf collar was collecting data on 15 minute intervals. Critics who look at the study don’t think we can show the actual distribution of the cattle because we are only collaring 10 cows; they thought those cows would probably all be in one group. But the data we gathered, showing the spread on the cattle, was phenomenal,” says Anderson.

“That one wolf came into contact with all 10 of those cows and we didn’t have a clue that this would happen until we retrieved the data from his collar. He came into close contact 783 times—within 500 yards. If the cow is being tracked on 5 minute intervals and the wolf is tracked on 15 minute intervals, there could be a spread of 20 minutes; the wolf could move a long ways in that period of time. This is just one wolf, and he was just one member of a 12-wolf pack. The 10 collared cows were in a herd of 450 head.”

You can envision a herd of 450 cows with 12 wolves moving amongst them (just that one pack) and multiply 783 by 12 wolves and multiply that by 450—and that’s how many encounters those cattle had with the wolves that summer.

Those cows were constantly being affected by the presence of wolves.

“This was very interesting to see. And because of the GPS tracking we can identify each point where that wolf or cow was. It becomes a spot on the map where the wolf came into direct contact with the cow.

We were trying to go through all of this the next spring, and ground-prove the information we collected. We went to all of those spots, and at the third spot we found cow bones from the year before—a cow we’d lost but didn’t confirm as a wolf kill.

There’s a good chance that the pack killed that cow,” says Anderson.

“Of the 10 collared cows that year, 2 of them lost their calves to wolves. When people argue that wolf kills are no big deal because ranchers can get compensated for their losses, this is just a small part of the picture. At the very best, the

wolf authorities tell us that maybe 7% of our actual losses will be confirmed. Even if it were 10%, this wouldn’t help us very much,” he explains.

“I spoke at the Washington Cattlemen’s Association in 2009 and they were working on a reimbursement program that would pay twice the value of the killed animal, and were happy about that, for compensation. I told them that they’d be lucky to get 10% of those losses confirmed, and even though they’d get paid twice for those, they would still be giving away 80% of their losses with no compensation,” says Anderson. And this doesn’t take into consideration other negatives like lower conception rates and lost weight on the animals.

“My point is that the smallest loss to producers is the actual kill loss. When you figure in conception rate, the loss of body score condition and having to add extra feed to those cows to get them back up to an acceptable condition to go through winter, and lower calf weights in the fall, these losses are much more extensive,” he explains.

“We removed 15 wolves from the ranch in 2009 and in 2010 we had fewer depredations—even though we still had some confirmed kills and cattle harassed. Then in 2011 the kill numbers were right back up again. If the state management plan could have stayed with the original numbers, to get up to 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in Idaho and then start controlling their numbers, we wouldn’t be having so many problems. But when you let wolves increase to 150 breeding pairs and an expanding wolf population, they are harder to control,” says Anderson.

“We moved a group of cattle through the ranch this past summer and within one week we had 9 calves with wolf bites. They may live, but you have to doctor them. The alpha females are using the calves to teach their pups how to hunt,” he says.

In addition, 4 young cows in the first-calf heifer had big abscesses behind the shoulder and/or above the flank area, due to infected wolf bites. “We had a neighbor’s cow here the other day that had an abscess in the same place. The wolves are just playing with these animals,” he says.

“Several things came out of the study. In our area there was a grad student from Le Grande who looked at the data from the cows. His field was fishery and water issues but he did his masters thesis on this study. The data he processed showed that on our continued on page fifteen

April 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Behavior ranch those 10 collared cows were only using the riparian areas less than 1% of their time. In a 24-hour period that’s basically 14.4 minutes.

The cows were only coming in long enough to get a drink and leave. The interesting thing is that for many years the land management agencies have been forcing us to manage these riparian areas, but the data shows the cattle are not spending time there,” says Anderson.

“We are also seeing changes in the way cattle are using the range. They are bunching up more against fences, and the wolves are using the fences to corner them. We’ve also been able to put together a video showing what happens when a cow comes into contact with the collared wolf, and their interaction and the velocity of the cow leaving,” he says.

The collared wolf’s area was 210 square miles with a 55 mile perimeter. The least distance he traveled was just a little over 6 miles per day and the most he traveled was close to 29 miles per day. “We were able to break down each day individually and see the direction the wolf was going and track him. Then when we were having depredation, the day of the confirmed depredation we could look back to the data and see that the wolf was in the immediate area at that same time,” he says.

This shows a vivid picture, especially when you keep in mind that this wolf is just one member of a pack of 12. There may be as many as 3 different packs in that area whose boundaries bump up against the OX Ranch. The amount of wolf interaction with the cattle is tremendous.

The cattle are being upset and harassed most of the time.

“Earlier, these cattle were all dog-broke and easy to work with dogs. The cow boss, who has been here for more than 25 years, has had extremely good dogs and the cattle respected them. Now the cattle chase the dogs and you can’t use dogs anymore to herd them. In this steep, rugged country, dogs have always been a good tool. Now it is extremely difficult to move cattle,” explains Anderson.

The OX Ranch herd calves in late May through June. The calves are branded when the cattle are gathered in the fall.

“By that time the calves are 350 to 400 pounds, and when they come into the corral they will look at a person and size you up, and then take you,” he says. They are totally focused on defending themselves, attacking a dog or a person.

“This is not normal behavior. These cattle were all nice to handle before the wolves came in. Now they attack anything that comes close to

Page 15

continued from page fourteen

them. Another interesting thing we’ve noticed, with the wolves we’ve trapped, collared or removed, is that at least 4 of them had broken hind legs in which the bones have grown back together—not end-to-end but side-to-side. That hind leg is short, and won’t touch the ground; they travel on 3 legs.

If you watch raunchy cows working on dogs, they can hurt a dog. So this may be what happened to those wolves,” says Anderson.

“It’s hard to blame the wolves for all this; they are just doing what wolves do. The environmental groups and wolf advocates have pushed this wolf program to where the balance is out of whack and there are too many wolves and they are no longer just killing wildlife but working on livestock,” he says.

“It’s easy to say we don’t need any wolves, but the truth is we don’t need this many. If they are kept at bay and are controlled, they have a tendency to stay more out of the way and farther back in the high country. But when they are protected they lose their fear of humans and keep infringing on our lives.”

Anderson’s wife was home alone one day when there was snow on the ground, and found wolf tracks just past the wood pile, less than 50 feet from the house. “We’ve had wolves lie on the county road in the snow, watching cattle that were under a light at the end of the barn. You could see where the wolves had come down next to the corrals, in by the gas pump, and were lying in the snow watching the cattle,” he says.

A woman who raises and trains border collies rides for some of their neighbors, and lost one of her dogs to wolves when she was gathering cattle.

“It was suddenly gone, and when they found it the dog was all chewed up,” he says.

Last winter the OX Ranch had 20-plus horses in a 600acre pasture. “One day 5 wolves came down when there was a little bit of snow on the ground and got those horses up against the fence. They chased my wife’s horse through the fence. We gathered the horses that day and took them to the lower ranch.

One of them had fang marks through his shoulder and lower forearm. It is so frustrating because we had a pretty open winter last year and some extra grass—and a good place to winter those horses—and couldn’t even use our own property because of the wolves,” says Anderson.

“We had another horse that was run through the fence and back into the fence by wolves.

Even though he healed up, we ended up having to sell the horse. He was fine with dogs before that, but afterward you

could not have a dog near him.

He’d be striking and kicking.

This literally ruined the horse.”

Some of the information from the wolf study hasn’t been processed or publicized yet. “We haven’t had any cooperation from Idaho Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The only government agency that helped us is APHIS, and their trapper,” he says.

The study group has only been able to collar 3 wolves.

“The first one in 2009 is the one we collected data on. The one we did last year, 2011, we have not yet been able to retrieve that collar. The information is stored on it and we are hoping to get it back,” says Anderson.

The data collection and publication has been slow because of lack of cooperation from the agencies, and it also has to be approved by the advisory board. “We are just scratching the surface on this

whole issue. We have the paper published on the riparian area usage, and are coming out with another document soon. Hopefully we will also get more data on the wolf movements. This is what we are short on. Right now if we were to release these findings using data from just one wolf, it wouldn’t be enough to confirm what’s happening,” he says.

“We were also trying to show how close these wolves are coming to houses and human activity. We have several houses here on the ranch and used one of them as a central point. The one collared wolf came within 500 yards of that house 307 times. The people living there actually saw him a few times,” says Anderson.

The pack of 12 came within 300 yards of the ranch lodge and spent all day there. “The people that take care of the lodge have 3 little boys. The

DigestClassifieds

wolves were there all day, right above the county road in a little clump of timber, and watched the lodge. We had proof because the collared wolf was there with them, in what we call a rendezvous site.

This is what’s helpful about the data collected; the wolf movements can be tracked, the rendezvous sites can be identified, along with the pack’s boundary in their particular territory they travel, etc. The data and observations from this study also help dispel some of the myths about wolves.

“We’ve had 2 different females within this pack that raised pups, contrary to the belief that only the Alpha female breeds in any given pack,” he says. How close the wolves are coming to houses and people is another eyeopener because many people think wolves won’t come that continued on page sixteen

KADDATZ Auctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales New and used tractors, equipment, and parts. Salvage yard, combines, tractors, hay equipment and all types of equipment parts.

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

Livestock Market Digest

Page 16

April 15, 2014

Behavior close to human activity or become a danger to people.

“They always think wolves stay in the wilderness area. We live in a remote area, but we are raising cattle and children and the wolves have moved in here. In the late 1800s when people moved in, the wolves retreated. But when these wolves were introduced 16 years ago, with all the rules and regulations that protected them, these wolves had no fear. If we don’t control them and get them pushed back, they will push us out. We can not financially support them,” explains Anderson. The wolves have already decimated game herds in some areas and are now working on livestock.

Ranchers are supplying an easy, artificial food supply for them, and they aren’t going to stop killing our animals. Even though ranchers have many photos showing the gory wounds inflicted on cattle, and animals being eaten alive, this doesn’t have much impact on the average American when we try to tell people about what the wolves are doing to our livelihood.

“From an animal husbandry standpoint, we try our very best to take care of our cattle and it’s devastating and heartbreaking when we find them

continued from page fifteen

mauled, injured and dying.

But what we really need are more photos of killed horses and dogs—the animals that most people feel more emotionally attached to,” he says.

ANALYZING THE DATA – Some of the data collected was discussed at the Oregon Beef Council’s Board of Directors’ meeting on November 2, 2012. “It was interesting looking at the patterns of cattle when there was moderate wolf pressure, for instance, compared with high wolf pressure,” says Anderson.

“We just had a draft paper written that will be submitted to the Oregon Beef Council, since they put in the seed money for much of the study.

This paper summarizes a lot of the progress in the study.

After that we may be able to release more information from this study,” he says.

Another paper is being published, put together by Doug Johnson and Pat Clark. “There will be a couple more papers released by the first of the year, on different aspects of the study. One of the student interns working with Pat Clark wrote a masters thesis that will also be published. It discusses the model that a researcher did in Montana, for potential wolf rendezvous sites, showing

"

"

how a person can take this model and use it for about any area—to show where the wolves might congregate, if they were there. He’s been analyzing our data and using that researcher’s model to show these correlations,” says Anderson.

“If they can show how predictable this might be, with our cow data, using the potential from that model on this area, we can use our cow data to verify how accurate it might be. Then we could use this in a region like central Oregon where there aren’t many wolves yet, and show the potential impact they could have,” he explains.

“We are also trying to see some actual range management uses, utilizing a lot of the data we got back from the cow collaring. This could benefit resource management, which should be important to anyone, to see if good range management practices are being done. This can be a positive for wildlife, the ecosystem, etc. The potential is great, with the development of these collars, if we get them to a point where they are relatively inexpensive. We are now working through different generations of the tracking devices and fine-tuning the

technology,” he says. The collars could eventually become a standard range management tool, to know the cattle movements for resource management.

Originally the goal was to see the interaction between wolves and cattle to see if there was any way to mitigate depredation, but many additional benefits are coming out of this study—looking at range management and cattle distribution, how much time the cattle are actually spending in the riparian areas, and where they actually graze.

“There are many misconceptions that this data has dispelled, which could change the way people look at some of these issues. There are many spin-off benefits from the study, but the fact remains that we are looking at a large

Water Right orado water rights from federal encroachment. The proposal was developed in response to U.S. Forest Service contracts with Colorado ski areas that require the transfer of water rights as a condition of permit approval.

Most ski areas in the state operate on federally owned land, which requires them to secure permits and pay an annual fee. To make snow, however, the ski areas must secure water leases or rights through the state.

Federal authorities claim the management of water resources used by ski areas is important so that rivers and lakes can be protected for their recreational and environmental value. Bill backers suggest that the federal government’s attempt to collect water rights is a serious threat to long-standing water law that puts states in charge of regulating their own available resources.

The concern about making water right transfers a condi-

predator that kills to survive, and does not kill selectively.

It gives us a better idea about the number of wolves that we can actually tolerate in these areas where they have conflict with cattle operations. People have their own agendas, but if our country still wants to have a protein source they need to realize we have to manage these factors,” says Anderson.

“We are now discussing some of the spin-off from this research and trying to address the various questions that have come up. A lot of it comes down to funding and logistics to try to keep this study alive, but some amazing data has come out of this.

Once you start scratching the surface, it is impressive, with more data and potential than we envisioned in the beginning.”

continued from page thirteen

tion of federal permits goes well beyond ski areas. Grazers and other agricultural producers who lease federal land are worried that the surrender of water rights might apply to them as well.

That’s why passage of HR3189 makes sense. Colorado water law has worked well for more than a century and we don’t need the federal government to get involved.

We urge our U.S. senators — Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Mike Bennet, D-Colo. — to jump on board and help guide the bill through the Senate. It will take a bit of work to educate congressional members from other parts of the country about the importance of state water laws and about the impact of having large tracts of federal land in your state.

But if given the opportunity to debate the matter on the floor of the Senate, we’re confident that a majority of those elected officials will recognize the need to approve this simple measure.

" P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194 505/243-9515 • Fax 505/998-6236 caren@aaalivestock.com www.aaalivestock.com

"

Have that “hard to buy for” friend or relative?

Why not gift them with a subscription to the Livestock Market Digest? They will get a reminder of you every month AND stay up with the news and views of the livestock and ranching business!

~Gift Certificate ~ To:_________________________________ From:_______________________________ You have received a ____ year subscription to the Livestock Market Digest.

!!! !

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