LMD May 2015

Riding Herd

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

by LEE PITTS

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

Snitches, Witches And ...

May 15, 2016 • www.aaalivestock.com

A Dark

By Lee Pitts

Lawyers, bankers, and hoot owls sleep with one eye open.

H

ere we go again.

Some people in Washington DC must think consumers have the brains of a Southdown sheep.

And sometimes I wonder too.

The last time I heard the words “mandatory” and “voluntary” in the same sentence was when Congress was killing COOL and the American public was oblivious to it all. Now Congress is trying to make the non-labeling of genetically modified foods mandatory too, voluntarily of course.

Confused? See if this helps.

To make something mandatory on a voluntary basis means it is not made mandatory at all. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. But after Congress got away with it with COOL, they are now trying to pull the same “mandatory voluntary” BS with the labeling of genetically modified organisms. Or is it voluntary mandatory? Either way, it’s what passes for transparency in Washington DC these days.

The Meat Of The Matter

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

The Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, has proposed a bill that would create national, voluntary labeling rules to be developed by the USDA within two years of the bill’s enactment. Robert’s bill would amend

“W Act Volume 58 • No. 5

the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered food, while at the same time it would prohibit individual states from enacting their own labeling laws.

Ah... and finally we get to the meat of the matter.

Three states, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont, have passed food labeling laws stating that genetically modified

food has to be labeled as such.

It doesn’t mean you can’t sell GMO foods in those states, it just means that if you do, you have to let consumers know it.

In the absence of any such labels being made mandatory at the federal level, at least 20 other states are considering following the three New England states in writing their own GMO rules. The multi-national behemoths that control the food industry don’t want you to know where, or how, your food

was made so they got Pat Roberts to carry their water for them in DC by attempting to make it illegal for states to have the gall to let their citizens know that their food was produced in part by scientists clipping, snipping, adding and subtracting a few genes here and there. These are the same companies who don’t want you to know where your beef came from. Same song, second Verse.

Only In Washington Because Robert’s bill is seen as stepping over the line between state and federal rights, it earned the moniker, “A Dark Act.” And it certainly is that. Rebecca Spector from the Center for Food Safety explains, “The Vermont law goes into effect on July 1 this year. There has been a lot of pressure on lawmakers continued on page two

Negative Impacts of Draft BLM Planning 2.0 on Local Government Involvement in BLM Decisions

BY KAREN BUDD-FALEN, CHEYENNE, WYOMING

O

n February 11, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) introduced new draft planning regulations (“draft Planning 2.0”) to “enable the BLM to more readily address landscape-scale issues . . . and to respond more effectively to environmental and social change.” The statutory authority for the BLM to adopt these new planning regulations is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”). FLPMA was adopted in 1976; that Act (1) changed the BLM’s mission from the disposal of public land to retention of these lands, (2) required the BLM to prepare land and resource management plans (“RMP”) which govern all activities on the BLM-managed lands, and (3) required that BLM lands be managed for “multiple use and sustained yield.”

FLPMA itself, as well as the current BLM regulations, mandate the involvement of State and local governments and Indian Tribes (collectively “local governments”) in the BLM’s decision making process. However, although the BLM claims that the draft Planning 2.0 regulations do not change the BLM’s “practice” in developing RMPs, some areas in the

draft rules are a significant departure or the language of the agency’s previous planning rules and in some cases a significant departure for the agency’s interpretation of FLPMA. In my view, these changes are detrimental and severely limit local governments’ involvement in the BLM planning process. The BLM’s rationale for these changes makes no sense. Words mean something; thus, if there is no change “in practice” as the BLM claims, why is there a change in the language being used to support that practice?

The comment period on the draft Planning 2.0 rules ends May 24, 2016. I recommend that you review the following sections as you prepare your comments to this draft. Note that this analysis ONLY pertains to the significant changes in local government influence in the BLM planning process. The BLM draft Planning 2.0 regulations cover many other issues as well that are not the subject of this opinion.

A. General Comments: 1. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate the mandatory notification requirements from the BLM to impacted local governments and replace them with a requirement that the BLM only notify those local governcontinued on page four

ho are you and what are you doing?

I didn’t give you permission to come on my property.”

“I don’t need your permission. I’m an enviromeddler from the Enviromeddle Protection Agency and we got a heads-up from the environmedlle group called the Snitches, Witches, and B...”

“Whoa right there.

There’s no need to use that kind of language in front of the children. And I still don’t know why you’re here.”

“The Snitches and Witches have a drone in the area and they reported to us that you had created waters belonging to the United States of America.”

“I WHAT?” “By filling up that child’s wading pool you created waters that belong to the United States. That’s according to a recent EPA rule lovingly known down at headquarters as WOTUS.” “WHATUS?” “No WOTUS. It says that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have complete authority over all waters of the United States, which generally include everything from puddles to stock ponds to lakes. By misusing U.S. water you could be subject to fines of $37,000 per day.”

“But it’s my water. Out of my well.”

“At the EPA we’ve been trained to identify U.S. waters. I can smell it 50 miles away. I can assure you that is U.S. water.”

“What if I just drain the pool and squirt the kids off instead?”

“By draining the pool you would be creating a wetland which would also be U.S. property.”

“YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING?” “I assure you I am not.

And please, there’s no need to yell, after all, you are the one who created this problem in the first place by creating waters of the United States. Boy, it sure is hot today, could I possibly get a drink of water?”

“I’d like to help but it sounds like I might be creating waters of the United continued on page fifteen

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

May 15, 2016

A DARK ACT from companies to delay that law so the companies don’t have to label. Meanwhile, they are trying to come up with a federal solution that is weaker than the state laws.”

You could say that Robert’s bill is a clone to House version of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which is neither safe or accurate. Letters from than 650 folks in support of Robert’s bill started arriving soon after it was proposed, many of them with the exact same wording. As if they’d been part of an organized letter writing campaign, or something!

The letters all urged the Senate to “act quickly to avoid the economic costs of a patchwork of state laws that will directly impact consumers, farmers, and

continued from page one

the entire food value chain.”

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley also joined the chorus in stating that “laws like Vermont’s are intended to hurt biotech products. The patchwork of laws discouraging innovative technology and investments won’t help the United States feed and fuel a growing world population.”

The President of the American Soybean Association, Richard Wilkins, a farmer from Delaware, was understandably quick to support Robert’s bill, after all, a whopping 93% of soybeans produced in the United States are genetically modified.

That’s something they evidently DON’T want their consumers to know. Wilkin’s said, “We’ve heard repeatedly that Americans want more information on

what’s in their food, and we are invested in providing that information to them. Chairman Roberts’ bill is one that moves the food production industry in a direction of greater transparency, while at the same time protecting farmers’ ability to use what science has repeatedly proven to be a safe and sustainable technology.”

Only in Washington would a bill that makes labeling voluntary, instead of mandatory, be perceived as “more transparent.”

Their Dirty Little Secret Because 70% of the processed food found in the grocery store is made with some component of GMO’s, the big food processors are desperate

for a federal bill that would allow them to keep that their dirty little secret. The multi-nationals say it will be impossible to contend with different regulations in different states, so they want one bill giving them a free pass.

They point to university studies that say abiding by all the state’s differing laws would cost American families up to $500 more in groceries per year, hitting low-income families hardest.

But you should know by now that with a little cash you can get a college somewhere to arrive at your conclusion.

Rebecca Spector says the federal action as, “A sneaky way to make Americans, and possibly legislators, think that this is a way to streamline genetic engineering labeling laws. The truth is there is no patchwork of state labeling laws. The state laws that passed were all consistent, they all say the same thing, and legislation that has been introduced in other states is consistent as well. So there will not be any patchwork.”

To back her claim that labeling is not all that difficult she pointed out, “Campbell’s recently came out and said they would put labels on their foods that do contain genetically engineered ingredients. This shows that this can be done. Campbell’s also said this can be done without increased costs to the consumer.”

On A Collision Course A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the lack of labeling laws could make it easier for food companies to sneak GMO’s into the mainstream food supply, just as the lack of COOL now allows the Big Three to bring in their mystery meat from around the world without having to admit it. And they are getting away with it despite polls showing that 90% of consumers want to know where their food comes from.

Speaking of polls, the latest one by the Mellman Group found heavy support for GMO labeling amongst large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as well as people with favorable or unfavorable views of GMOs. “Americans have yet again expressed an overwhelming desire to know what’s in their food,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumer Reports. “Shoppers want to see clear labels on food packaging that tell them if products are made with genetically engineered ingredients without having to use confusing codes or smartphone apps. We hope lawmakers hear consumers’ call for meaningful, mandatory national GMO labeling.”

Halloran mentions smartphone apps because that’s been suggested as one way to give consumers the info they want.

But according to Mellman, “Nearly nine in 10 (88%) would prefer a printed GMO label on the food package rather than use a smartphone app to scan a bar code. Just 17% say they have

ever scanned a bar code to get information, and only 16% say they have ever scanned a “QR” code.” (That’s those funny looking square blobs of ink you see on more and more packages.)

A flood of environmental groups have all chimed in, aghast that the feds, hand in hand with corporate America, would be so devious. Lisa Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth said, “GMO labeling via QR code technology is unworkable, threatens privacy and is discriminatory since more than a third of Americans, many of which are low-income or live in rural areas with poor internet access, don’t own smartphones.”

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, says, “Everyone needs information to make informed food choices, not just those who have smart phones. There is no acceptable substitute for mandatory on-package labeling of GMO food.”

Well Done Recently I was looking at bull sale averages for the Spring run: Jorgensen sold 140 bulls and averaged $8,176; Connealy Angus Ranch, in Witman, Nebraska averaged $9,076 on the 526 bulls they sold; 44 Farms in Texas sold 397 bulls for $7,355 each; Sitz Angus in Montana averaged $8,194 on 315 bulls; Vermillion $7,240 on 497. And listen to this one: Schaff Angus Valley averaged $16,245 on 454 bulls. That is no misprint. And it wasn’t just Angus bulls that brought big bucks. DeBruckyer sold 601 Charolais bulls for an average of $5,262 and Beckton sold 241 Red Angus bulls for a $6,700 average.

These averages don’t even begin to show the commitment that commercial ranchers have made to improve their cattle.

Thus it has always been. Most haven’t taken any shortcuts but once the calves leave the ranch gate, all bets are off. Feedlots use hormones and beta agonists and packers created pink slime.

It’s a low margin business and they’ve been willing to go to any lengths to find some profitability, and I can’t say as I blame them.

Consider Certified Angus Beef, an “overnight sensation” that only took ten years to get off the ground. Going back to 1978 when the first pound of CAB was purchased at Renzetti’s IGA in Columbus, Ohio, it has been a hard slog to create the world’s first branded fresh beef program. Decades later, the brand sells over 60 million pounds of product per month through foodservice and grocery stores worldwide. It is the largest, most successful brand of beef and a symbol of excellence to consumers at nearly 16,000 restaurants and grocery stores all over the world.

But what if you could create the same results in just one year?

What if a breed association repcontinued on page three

May 15, 2016

A DARK ACT resenting a breed of cattle that doesn’t marble well could take a gene snip here, add a snip there, and short circuit the entire process? Some might call it a shortcut while others might call it cheating. I wonder what those ranchers spending over $16,000 per bull at Schaff Angus Valley to improve their own herds would think of a rancher skipping all that commitment and cash and just using a generic crossbred bull that had a good dose of gene splicing in its pedigree?

One man’s cheating is another man’s progress, I suppose.

An Enticing Prospect This isn’t some far off dream I’m talking about. Five years ago Chinese scientists created genetically modified cattle that were given an extra gene which had been found to increase the amount of fat in their muscles.

Chinese scientists also successfully introduced human genes into 200 dairy cows to produce milk with similar properties to human breast milk. Then consider that the FDA has already approved the sale of genetically engineered salmon which grows to maturity twice as fast as normal salmon and that is cobbled together from the genes of different species. Add in the fact that the FDA isn’t requiring the salmon to be labeled as a GMO food and one could easily envision GMO beef in the near future.

So, you see, we could sell our collective soul and have better beef quickly just by cheating the system. It is an enticing prospect when you consider how slow our

Livestock Market Digest continued from page two

progress has been. According to BEEF magazine, Dan Moser of Kansas State has found, “In many cases, genetic improvement for marbling has been overstated. Moser analyzed the genetic progress in carcass quality traits and found the genetic trend for average marbling score is increasing — about 0.015 units of marbling score/year in Angus and 0.0075/year in other major breeds. At that rate,” Moser said, “it would take about 60 years to achieve enough improvement to move cattle from low Choice to mid Choice, say, or from Select to low Choice.”

But what if you could do it an easier way? Bruce Whitelaw of the Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh says, “Powerful new genome-editing tools mean researchers can make very precise changes to DNA, altering specific genes without changing other parts of an animal’s genome. Now, instead of inserting genes from distantly related species, researchers can improve livestock by replicating small genetic variations found naturally in different breeds of the same species. We’re not slapping in genes from other species, we’re making changes in the exact places we want them to create mutations that exist in animals we already eat.”

You could call it petri dish selective breeding in turbo drive.

It would surely make it easier to feed the nine billion people expected to be here by mid-century. Some might argue that’s enough justification right there to not regulate or label GMO’s at all.

“We need to use all the tools we have available, and genet-

Page 3

Colorado Lawmakers Unanimously Thwart Federal Water Grab

BY RANDY WYRICK / WWW.VAILDAILY.COM/

C

olorado lawmakers unanimously made federal water grabs almost impossible.

The Colorado Water Rights Protection Act passed both the Colorado House and Senate without a single dissenting vote. The bill thwarts federal efforts to control or own water that begins on or passes through federal land, and to do so without paying for it.

That’s important in our region because about 80 percent of Eagle and Summit counties are federal land, said Glenn Porzak, one of the world’s leading water attorneys.

In fact, the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority both have water infrastructure on federal lands.

Rick Sackbauer, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District board chair, called the bill “a great victory for water right holders in the Eagle River valley and throughout Colorado.”

“The authority and other water providers have made enormous financial investments in water rights and water infrastructure in reliance on state laws,” said George Gregory, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority board chair.

From our partners: Colorado’s delegates were decided, 10 seconds at a time Water rights trifecta Porzak with Porzak, Browning & Bushong, is water counsel for Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and many others. He worked on the bill for three years.

Porzak said the legislation does three things:

ic engineering is one of them.

We need to produce more food with less land and water while not degrading the environment for future generations,” says James Murray of the University of California, Davis, who has developed GM goats that pro-

1. Forces the feds to buy water rights, instead of taking them by manipulating policy.

2. Forces the feds to go through state water court, in compliance with federal law.

3. Orders Colorado’s state engineer not to enforce any water rights restriction by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, and provides tools for water right holders to fight these agencies in court if necessary.

In other words, if the feds want water rights, then they have to buy them, like everyone else does.

“Water rights are a saleable commodity,” Porzak said. “They’re trying to get the water for free. This bill creates a financial disincentive.

They (the feds) can issue a directive, but they do so at their peril.”

Why it began The impetus for the bill began in 2012, when the Forest Service demanded that ski areas, in exchange for renewing their leases on public land, turn over their private state issued water rights to the federal government.

The ski areas sued and the U.S. Forest Service lost on procedural grounds. The Court ordered the Forest Service to go back to the drawing board, and while improvements have been made in the context of ski area policy, the Forest Service has subsequently issued other policy directives that raise additional concerns for private water right holders throughout Colorado.

The Forest Service said it was trying to make sure water rights stay with the ski areas, and aren’t sold separately if the ski area is sold.

“This legislation is not pie in the sky. It has real substance to it,” Porzak said.

duce milk containing antibacterial proteins that can prevent diarrhea in infants. “Genetic modification can enrich animal products and boost production efficiency, whilst simultaneously improving animal welfare,” says Murray.

Sounds a lot easier than by continuing to buy better bulls year after year after year, doesn’t it. And big deal if the consumer has no idea where her food came from or how it was produced. What do they know anyway?

Page 4

Livestock Market Digest

May 15, 2016

NEGATIVE IMPACTS ments “that have requested to be notified or that the [BLM] responsible official has reason to believe would be interested in the resource management plan or plan amendment.” In other places, the new regulation replaces the required notification requirements with the requirement for notification to only those local governments the BLM believes would be “concerned with” or “interested in” the federal land use plan.

2. Throughout the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, the BLM proposes to replace the word “shall” and replace it with the word “will.” Although some courts have determined that the word “will” denotes a mandatory action, others have held that the word “will” must be read in context to determine its meaning. On the other hand, I found no court cases that held that the word “shall” can have any other meaning except a mandatory command. If this BLM change denotes “no change in practice,” it is hard to understand why this change is necessary.

3. FLPMA requires management of BLM lands for multiple use and sustained yield.

Nowhere in FLPMA does Congress allow the management of BLM lands for “social changes.”

However, according to BLM draft Planning 2.0, “Goal 1” is to “improve the BLM’s ability to respond to social and environmental change in a timely manner.”

4. It is not clear how the draft Planning 2.0 rules intersect with the requirements for environmental, economic and “custom and culture” analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. For example, the draft Planning 2.0 rules describe BLM’s planning as a two-step process with the first step being for the BLM and public to understand the current “baseline in regards to resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions in the planning area.” NEPA also requires that baseline information be gathered and additionally, that the status quo management be the “no action alternative.” I believe it is critical to ensure that the “status quo” or “no action alternative” accurately reflect the current baseline and not be some departure from analysis that accurately describes exactly the conditions as they exist.

5. The comment period for review of draft land use plans is shortened from 90 days to 60 days and the comment period for review of land use plan amendments is shortened from 90 days to 45 days.

B. Local Government Involvement in BLM Land Management Plan Decisions.

The BLM draft Planning 2.0 regulations represent a significant departure in the way that local governments can become involved in the BLM decision making process. Specifically the draft regulations provide less opportunity for local governments to have meaningful and significant input in violation of

FLPMA.

1. Consistency Review With Local Land Use Plans, Policies and Programs

a. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations strictly limits the types of local government plans that the BLM will consider as part of its consistency review.

Existing BLM regulations state that: The BLM is obligated to take all practical measures to resolve conflicts between federal and local government land use plans. Additionally, the BLM must identify areas where the proposed [BLM] plan is inconsistent with local land use policies, plans or programs and provide reasons why inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied.

43 C.F.R. §§ 1610.3-1(d)(1), (2), (3) (Emphasis added).

In contrast, the draft Planning 2.0 regulations would eliminate any consistency review for local land use “policies, programs and processes” and only consider inconsistencies with “an officially adopted land use plan.” This change would require a local government to have a “land use plan,” and not just a land use policy or program for consistency review. This type of language will limit many local governments’ ability to take advantage of the consistency review requirements if they do not have an “officially approved or adopted land use plan.”

b. The draft Planning 2.0 regulations eliminates this entire section from the existing regulations: (d) In developing guidance to Field Manager, in compliance with section 1611 of this title, the State Director shall: (1) Ensure that it is as consistent as possible with existing officially adopted and approved resource related plans, policies or programs of other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes and local governments that may be affected, as prescribed by §1610.3–2 of this title; (2) Identify areas where the proposed guidance is inconsistent with such policies, plans or programs and provide reasons why the inconsistencies exist and cannot be remedied; and (3) Notify the other Federal agencies, State agencies, Indian tribes or local governments with whom consistency is not achieved and indicate any appropriate methods, procedures, actions and/or programs which the State Director believes may lead to resolution of such inconsistencies.

43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-1(d).

In other words, local government involvement would be limited to ONLY BLM land use plans and not the guidance provided from the BLM State Director to develop such land use plans.

c. BLM is also proposing to weaken its consistency review requirements by adding that consistency with local land use plan will only be “to the maximum extent the BLM finds practical and consistent with the purposes of FLPMA and other

continued from page one

Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands, and the purposes policies and programs of such laws and regulations.”

In contrast, the existing regulations require that:

(a) Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans.

(b) In the absence of officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and adopted resource related policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. Such consistency will be accomplished so long as the guidance and resource management plans are consistent with the policies, programs and provisions of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including, but not limited to, Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise and other pollution standards or implementation plans.

43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2(a), (b).

In other words, under the existing regulations, so long as a local land use plan, policy or program was consistent with Federal statute, the local land use plan, policy or program would be included in the consistency review analysis by the BLM. Under draft Planning 2.0, the local land use plan is required to be (at least in the opinion of the BLM) consistent with Federal law, and “the purposes, policies and programs of such laws and regulations.”

Requiring that local land use plans be consistent with BLM policies and programs significantly diminishes the ability of local governments to influence these same BLM policies and programs. For example, FLPMA mandates “multiple use and sustained yield.” Describing the policy for how such multiple use is to be achieved is exactly the type of information that can and should be included in a local land use plan. Under the draft Planning 2.0 regulations however, the local government would be prohibited from including a policy to achieve multiple use in a local land use plan that is different from the BLM’s policy for achieving multiple use. This draft rule significantly limits the scope of what can be included in a local land use plan.

d. There is also a shift in the burden of showing that an inconsistency exists from the BLM to the local governments.

Specifically, under the draft 2.0 Planning regulations, the BLM will only consider inconsistencies with a local land use plan if the BLM is specifically notified, in writing, about a specific inconsistency.

e. The BLM is proposing to change the phrase “assist in resolving, to the extent practical and consistent with Federal law, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal government plans.” (Emphasis added). The original word used on this section was “practicable” rather than “practical.”

Although the BLM claims that the change in wording is simply for readability, these two words have different meanings.

Practicable is a more narrowly defined term meaning “capable of being put into practice.” In contrast, “practical,” in this context, means capable of being put to use.” To understand the distinction, synonyms of “practicable” are possible, doable, and feasible; a synonym of “practical” is useful or sensible. In terms of the consistency review, the BLM then would propose to change the meaning of the requirements from, the agency must assist in resolving inconsistencies to the extent possible (practicable) to resolving inconsistences to the extent sensible or useful (practical).

2. Local Governments as Cooperating Agencies

a. Although the BLM claims it is only trying to be consistent with existing practices and current BLM terminology, the BLM is eliminating the term “cooperating agency” as used in NEPA and replacing it with the term “eligible governmental entity” as described in the Department of the Interior regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 46.225(a).

According to the BLM regulations, an “eligible governmental entity” can be considered as a “cooperating agency.” Although it appears that the definition of an “eligible governmental entity” is similar to a “cooperating agency,” I think this change in language is going to cause great confusion and may certainly exclude some local government participation if the local government does not understand that an “eligible governmental entity” is the same as the more familiar “cooperating agency.”

b. Of greater concern is the BLM’s addition of the term “as feasible and appropriate” given the eligible governmental entities’ “scope of their expertise.”

Although BLM states that it intends no change from current practice or policy, this language could certainly be used by the BLM to strictly define a local government’s special expertise or to determine that local government participation is not “feasible or appropriate” if adopted by the draft Planning 2.0 regulations.

c. Additionally, the BLM authorized officer would

no longer be required to notify the BLM State Director if a request for “cooperating agency” is denied. Under the existing regulations, if a BLM authorized officer denies a request for cooperating agency, he shall notify the State Director who shall conduct an independent review to determine if the denial was appropriate. That State Director’s review would be eliminated under the draft planning 2.0 regulations.

3. Coordination FLPMA requires that the BLM “coordinate” its plans and programs with those of State and local governments, although the statute is silent on how such “coordination” is to occur. Under any definition however, “coordination” implies some measure of input and trying to work together. In contrast, under the draft Planning 2.0 regulations, “coordination” would only include the BLM providing to local governments “the opportunity for review, advice and suggestions on issues and topics which may affect or influence other agency or governmental programs.”

Additionally, while currently “coordination” is to occur “consistent with Federal laws,” the draft Planning 2.0 regulations would also add that “Coordination” would occur consistent with “the purposes, policies and programs of use [Federal] laws and regulations.” The policies under the Federal statutes can change with the President, Secretary of the Interior and BLM Director in control at the time. That may limit the ability of local governments to coordinate in some circumstances.

4. Governor’s Consistency Review The new draft Planning 2.0 rules place more work on the Governor during the “Governor’s Consistency Review.”

a. The Governor is required to identify inconsistencies between State and local government plans to bring to the attention of the Director of the BLM. The BLM will only consider “identified” inconsistencies between State and local plans and the proposed resource management plan if such inconsistencies are noted by the Governor.

b. BLM will only accept the Governor’s recommendation if the BLM Director determines that the Governor’s recommendations “provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State’s interest.”

In sum, I believe that these draft Planning 2.0 regulations detrimentally deprive local governments of the ability to influence BLM land use plans. By placing such significant constraints on local governments, the entire premise behind the “government-to-government” interaction is weakened.

I strongly urge your participation in this rulemaking effort by providing comments to the BLM on draft Planning 2.0 regulations.

May 15, 2016

Livestock Market Digest

Page 5

USDA Unveils Three-Year Conservation Strategy for Lesser Prairie-Chicken nouncement recently at Hashknife Ranch in Kansas where the Koger family has worked to conserve habitat on their property through theLesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative (LPCI), part of the agency’s Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) partnership. Since 2010, LPCI has helped conserved more than 1 million acres of high-quality habitat in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado.

By the end of 2018, this science-based strategy will guide the restoration of another half-million acres by focusing on five key threats to the bird—degraded rangeland health, invasive redcedar trees and mesquite, cultivation of grazing lands and lack of fire in grassland habitats. Learn more on the LPCI webpage at www.

NRCS.USDA.gov.

This strategy also aligns with the ongoing work of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and other conservation partners throughout the lesser prairie-chicken range.

Research and the experience gained through ongo-

How ‘Public Lands’ Hurt the West

BY RYAN M. YONK, CONTRIBUTOR / THEHILL.COM

F

or the last century, my family’s home has been nestled at the base of the majestic Wellsville Mountains in Cache County, Utah. Every morning from my bedroom window, the first thing I see are those mountains. I love them, and make my home there in large part because of their beauty and serenity.

If I were to draw a vertical line along the Colorado-Wyoming-New Mexico borders, you would see a stark contrast in the pattern of land ownership and in how communities interact with the federal government. West of that line, the majority of lands are controlled by federal agencies, often far removed from the people who are closest to the land. East of that line, the majority of land is privately held and managed by the folks who live there. For example, 85 percent of Nevada and 65 percent of Utah are owned by the federal government and controlled by Washington, D.C.-based federal agencies. In comparison, the 38 states east of that line have an average of less than two percent.

The reality of this disparity puts communities and states like Utah, as well as Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska in a fundamentally different situation than Eastern states like New York, Connecticut or Maryland that face little federal land management. This disparate approach to federalism — where some states have heavy federal intervention, and others relatively little — evokes the issue of fundamental fairness that the shared power of a federal system was meant to address.

These federally owned lands are often referred to as “public land,” although that term is misleading. Public lands in the West are a patchwork of lands controlled by different federal agencies — the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest

Service and others — who often work at cross-purposes and have different approaches to land management and where public access and use is not necessarily a priority.

This reality makes providing basic services like education, public safety and infrastructure far more difficult in Western counties with high levels of federal land ownership. Unlike their Eastern counterparts, these communities face a version of federalism where generating sufficient economic activity to employ, educate and protect their own citizens is limited by the decisions of federal land bureaucrats. In fact, use of the majority of lands in these communities is allowed only once explicitly approved by federal agencies based in Washington.

This reality has made the young people of these communities their greatest export.

Where families once were connected to the lands that they and their ancestors developed, planted, improved and helped settle to build the West, they are now disconnected from that heritage by regulatory growth and the resulting economic impacts. Facing limited opportunities, they move where better economic opportunities exist.

So while I get to see the mountains I love every morning, many who have similar feelings about the landscapes that are part of their history have found that they must leave them behind in search of better economic opportunities.

The system of federalism that allowed self-determination, growth and, ultimately, success in the Eastern United States should be allowed to work in the West. Communities west of some imaginary line shouldn’t be treated differently than those east of it simply because federal lands are present.

Yonk, Ph.D., an assistant professor of research at Utah State University, is vice president and executive director of research at Strata, a policy center in Logan, Utah.

ing conservation efforts guide the focus for restoring and protecting lesser prairie-chicken habitat.

For example, a recent study found the birds avoid red cedar trees by placing their nests at least 1,000 feet from the nearest tree, and that they stop using grasslands altogether when tree density reaches three trees per acre. The prairie and grassland ecosystems of the southern Great Plains evolved through the interaction of fire and grazing large animals such as bison. By introducing fire and sustainable ranching practices and removing invasive woody species, ranchers are mimicking historic conditions on Great Plains ecosystems and improving habitat for lesser prairie-chickens while at the same time minimizing risks of catastrophic wildfires.

“NRCS remains firmly committed to promoting and delivering long-term conservation of the working grassland ecosystems that the species requires,” Weller said.

“In this report, we lay out our renewed commitment to continued on page ten

Legal Brief Filed In Red River Landowners’ Lawsuit U.S. Congressman Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, along with Texas Republican Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and 19 representatives filed an amicus brief on March 30 in the case of Aderholt et al. v. Bureau of Land Management et al. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of landowners along the Red River by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, seeks to protect the landowners’ property rights from claims by the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“There are two fronts in this fight against the federal government’s land grab along the Red River: one is the legislation that Sen. Cornyn and I have introduced, which passed the House in December, and the other is through the courts with this lawsuit,”Thornberry said. “Until there is a fair resolution in this matter, we will not let up in our efforts to assure landowners that their private property rights will be protected. This legal brief makes it clear that BLM has exceeded its authority under the law.”

The dispute began in December 2013 when BLM announced it was beginning the process to revise its Resource Management Plan for lands it manages. The agency says there are thousands of acres along the Red River that may be considered public domain. The 116-

mile stretch of land spans Wilbarger, Wichita, and Clay counties. Because of the uncertainty and questions about BLM’s claim, landowners are unable to sell, borrow against, or improve their land.

Thornberry’s office has held multiple meetings, phone calls, and other correspondence with landowners, as well as local and state officials, to coordinate action. Last year, Thornberry introduced the Red River Private Property Protection Act H.R. 2130, which passed the House in December by a vote of 253-177.

Cornyn has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Clay, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties and Clay County Sheriff Kenny Lemons. The State of Texas and the Texas General Land Office have each been granted motions to intervene in the lawsuit by a federal judge.

Thornberry filed the amicus brief with the support of Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and Reps. Kevin Brady, Michael Burgess, John Carter, Mike Conaway, John Culberson, Blake Farenthold, Bill Flores, Louie Gohmert, Kay Granger, Jeb Hensarling, Sam Johnson, Kenny Marchant, Michael McCaul, Randy Neugebauer, Ted Poe, John Ratcliffe, Pete Sessions, Randy Weber, and Roger Williams.

ELM

FARMINGTON

T

he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in late April the release of a three-year conservation strategy that will guide the voluntary restoration of 500,000 acres of habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken, an iconic grassland bird of the southern Great Plains. The bird has historically suffered from population declines and this strategy is part of an ongoing science-based strategic effort by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to restore grassland and prairie ecosystems while enhancing grazing lands in five states.

“Across the country, we’re seeing firsthand how farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are voluntarily stepping forward to aid wildlife species,” NRCS Chief Jason Weller said. “By adopting conservation systems, agricultural producers in the southern Great Plains can restore top-notch lesser prairie-chicken habitat while also making working lands more productive and resilient to wildfire and climatic extremes.”

NRCS Assistant Chief Kirk Hanlin made the an-

TO SACRAMENTO

STOCKTON

HWY 4

J17 M AR

IPOSA

SALE SITE

RD

VALLEY HOME

HWY 99 OAKDALE

HWY 120 ESCALON

SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS

MODESTO

#N

TO FRESNO

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

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

LIVESTOCK SALES

3 days per week on Monday, Wednesday, & Friday

SPECIAL FEEDER CATTLE SALES May 16 • May 23 • June 6 • June 20 • July 11

MONDAY: Beef Cattle WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle S

NT IGNME CONS OME! WELC ore

rm Call fo ation inform ning sig on con stock. your

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

FRIDAY: Small Animals Poultry – Butcher Cows JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

Page 6

Livestock Market Digest

May 15, 2016

Nevada Lands Council Responds to Jewell Speech

I

nterior Secretary Sally Jewell’s call for a “course correction” in the management of public lands was a blatant example of how politicized our federal government has become and how endangered we are by its management, according to Rex Steninger of the Nevada Lands Council.

The announcement, carried on the front page of the Elko Daily Free Press recently, referred to “extreme elements” trying to seize public lands, politicians pushing to sell the lands to the “highest bidder,” natural areas “disappearing at the rate of a football field every twoand-a-half minutes” and “dangerous voices that reject the rule of law.” “Such outrageous exaggerations should never have appeared in a front-page news article,” Steninger charged. “At best, her propaganda should have been relegated to the editorial page.”

Jewell’s references to “extreme elements” and “dangerous voices that reject the rule of law” are evidently aimed at the recent standoffs in Oregon and Bunkerville, Nev., Steninger speculated.” But, neither of those confrontations were attempts to seize public lands as the secretary contends.”

The Bunkerville conflict erupted when federal agents outfitted in full SWAT gear and automatic weapons showed up to confiscate Cliven Bundy’s cattle. “The invasion was such over-kill that militia groups across the country came running to Bundy’s defense. Fortunately, for everyone involved, the federal agents wisely retreated and avoided a serious bloodbath,” Steninger said.

The battle in Oregon was a protest over the unjust treatment of father and son ranchers who allowed fires on their private land to spread onto 150 acres of public land. The practice of setting back-fires is commonly used, even by federal agents, to battle brush fires, yet the ranchers were tried as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 that was passed in the wake of the terrorist bombing of the federal offices in Oklahoma City.

In the face of the daunting federal charges and possible death sentences, Steve and Dwight Hammond pled guilty, accepting a $400,000 fine and sentences of less than a year in jail. Judge Michael Hogan rejected the five-year minimum sentences called for in the anti-terrorism law as “grossly disproportionate” to the crimes and added anything more than the sentences he handed down would “shock his conscience.”

The Hammonds paid the fine and served their sentences, “but the federal agents had no such consciences,” Steninger charged, and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court , which imposed the five-year sentences and ordered the Hammonds

back to prison. “So the only ones ‘rejecting the rule of law’,” Steninger stated, “are the Department of Justice attorneys who appealed Judge Hogan’s ruling and the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who overruled him.”

“Trying Steve and Dwight Hammond as terrorists and subjecting them to possible death sentences for a fire that accidentally burned across 150 acres of public land should shock everyone’s conscience,” Steninger charged.

Additionally, Steninger explained, neither the Bundy case nor the Oregon case had anything to do with trying to seize control over public lands. The armed group that seized the wildlife refuge in Oregon in a misguided attempt to call attention to the Hammonds’ plight did call for the transfer of public lands to the states, he added, but its tactics were quickly denounced by groups like the American Lands Council (ALC) that have been pursuing the orderly transfer for years in the courts and Congress.

Jewell’s allegation of “a push by some politicians to sell them (public lands) to the highest bidder” was more environmental propaganda, according to Steninger, and an obvious reference to the transfer of public lands movement. The ALC has in its mission statement that none of the public lands transferred to the states should be sold. Steninger said Nevada is a little different than the other western states in the fact that it is almost completely (87 percent) controlled by federal agents and does plan to sell a small portion of the transferred land, mainly around Las Vegas and Reno and along the railroad corridor.

Steninger continued that Secretary Jewell’s contention that “natural areas in the West are disappearing at the rate of a football field every two-anda-half minutes,” because of climate change is equally as ludicrous as her other allegations.

First of all, he said, “all the gloom and doom associated with global warming is hogwash.”

The Heritage Foundation in February published a report titled “The Inconvenient Facts the Media Ignore about Climate Change.” Those facts include that the claim that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change was based on a discredited report; real scientists do not try to silence debate, they encourage it to test their theories; the NASA claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record included a footnote that the agency was only 38 percent sure of its finding; and that atmospheric satellite data has shown no global warming over the past two decades.

But even attributing the disappearing “natural areas” cited

by Jewell to some other mysterious source, Steninger pointed

out, her allegations are laughable.

Ralph Sacrison of Sacrison Engineering and a member of Elko County’s Natural Resource Management Advisory Council calculated that at that rate, 326 square miles of natural areas would disappear every year.

“As one of the largest counties in the union, Elko County encompasses 17,181 square miles and all its natural areas could completely disappear in a little over 52 years, if the secretary’s allegation were true. That

is preposterous,” Steninger said.

Steninger concluded, “If all that wasn’t enough to convince everyone that the federal government has been completely taken over by the environmental extremists and political correctness, how about Jewell’s dream that all visitors to our national parks need to see signs ‘in their first language.’ Or her statement that our parks ‘have ignored important parts of our nation’s story’ like lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.”

“Wow! That came from the

mouth of Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States,” Steninger lamented.

“We may already be doomed.”

Steninger explained the Nevada Lands Council was formed earlier this year to help promote U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei’s bill H.R. 1484 that calls on Congress to transfer the public lands in Nevada to state control. He added the NLC is planning to conduct public meetings in the near future. More on the group is available on its website: NevadaLandsCouncil.org.

The View FROM THE BACK SIDE

Rancho Satire

BY BARRY DENTON

I

have been waiting for my big bosses to send me out on assignment to cover a big event for them, but I realized it’s just not going to happen, as they are afraid of what I might come back with. Being a well traveled horseshoer I know how to get around to places pretty well, so I recently took off to visit with the presidential candidates about ranches. I was trying to get a perspective on how each one might help the ranching families of the West if they became President.

The first thing I asked them was to define: HORSE. Hillary C: “That’s what Bill and I used to do back in the 1970s, in Arkansas.”

Bernie S: “A horse is what my ancestor’s used to plow Vermont. Oh, maybe that was Brooklyn.”

Donald T: “I employ thousands of horses.

We use them on our track, at our casino.”

Ted C: “Let me tell you about Donald…………..”

John K: “For 18 years I was a work horse in Congress and we balanced the budget and God said it was good.”

The next question was to define: COW. Hillary C: “Let’s see, I’m trying to remember her name, I think it was Monica something?”

Bernie S: “I think everyone in America is entitled to own one. If there was a cow at every home those families would always have milk, butter, and leather to make shoes.”

Donald T: “No, I will not let them graze on my golf courses! We do great work on those courses, great, great, work!”

Ted C: “I think cows are sacred, at our home in Canada, I mean Texas, we like cows.

It’s Donald that doesn’t like cows.”

John K: “As Governor, I proposed that we let all cows vote for me in the primary. I love cows.”

Finally, I asked them to define: COWBOY. Hillary C: “Oh my Bill, he’s a cowboy.

He can round’em up! I don’t know if that is good.”

Bernie S: “I do not like cowboys, because they always killed all the Indians on TV when I was growing up.”

Donald T: “I have a proposal on my desk right now, to buy the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.”

Ted C: “I am a Senator from Texas and I have seen a cowboy. Yes, now I remember, it was the naked cowboy playing the guitar in Times Square when I was on my way to

Goldman Sachs.”

John K: “I think that the people see me as a cowboy. I am the only one with experience. A cowboy to help those in need such as, seniors and distressed widows, just like my cowboy hero Gene Rogers.”

Then I got down to the real questions: “Candidates, what would you do to help Arizona and New Mexico?”

Hillary C: “I would petition the Congress to let them put some indigenous people there.”

Bernie S: “I would petition the Congress to grant both of them statehood and welfare.”

Donald T: “Arizona and New Mexico, I wouldn’t hesitate. I would buy them as a package deal and get Mexico to pay for it.”

Ted C: “If they are west of the Mississippi, I would put Donald there so he doesn’t attack my wife.”

John K: “I know how people in Arizona and New Mexico feel about issues and I want to help them. I would put all of our military forces into capturing Geronimo and Billy The Kid. I don’t expect Wyatt Earp to work both states by himself.”

As you can see my interview with the presidential candidates did reveal how much they will contribute to the plight of the rancher if elected. However, we still have to pick one of them to vote for or we can stay home.

I have a solution to the problem for upcoming elections. On your slate of candidates down at the bottom you could have a box to check entitled “None Of The Above”.

If “None Of The Above” got the most votes then you bring out a second slate of candidates and see how that goes. It just might improve upon the quality of candidates that we get because, no candidate would want to suffer the embarrassment of getting beaten by “None Of The Above”!

I always figure that you have to vote, just so you don’t insult the soldiers that died or sacrificed to give you that vote. The big chore is to live with whoever wins the election. I do not see any candidate that knows anything about a ranch or is even interested in one.

However, if whoever gets elected reels in some of the hoops we have to jump through and the agencies we have to put up with, then we will have had a successful election.

Now, I don’t give a care about who you vote for, but there is only one candidate that pays more taxes than the rest put together, and doesn’t live off the backs of the other taxpayers by being a government official. I just cannot see voting for people that are already part of the problem. Choose wisely!

May 15, 2016

Livestock Market Digest

Settlement Reached Between Wyoming Rancher and EPA

BY DTN, PROGRESSIVE FARMER

A

Wyoming family has gone from facing more than $20 million in fines for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act when they built a stock pond, to now having to plant trees and install livestock fencing, according to a proposed settlement filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming recently.

Andrew Johnson, a welder who owned a small group of cattle and horses near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, saw his case draw national attention when EPA alleged violations of the law were committed when he built a stock pond although stock ponds are exempt from the Clean Water Act. The proposed settlement will be subject to a public comment period.

When contacted by DTN, Johnson declined comment on the settlement until he was legally able to speak.

Johnson had retained the services of the Pacific Legal Foundation and sued EPA claiming the agency had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not allowing him to appeal the allegations.

The PLF has had success against EPA in the United States Supreme Court, on a variety of Clean Water Act cases.

The Johnson case had drawn concern from the farming and ranching communities, because they feared stock ponds are actually considered to be jurisdictional waters although exempt even from the new waters of the United States rule held up in federal court.

As part of the settlement, Johnson would agree not to sue the federal government, while the federal government would agree not to sue Johnson on any matter related to the petition.

As part of a settlement, Johnson would be required to plant dormant live willow cuttings in areas adjacent to his stock pond.

Those plantings would be required to be completed sometime this spring.

“If any soil is removed during the planting of willow cuttings below the ordinary high water mark of the pond or in adjacent wetlands, it shall not be redeposited below the ordinary high water mark or in adjacent wetlands,” according to court documents.

“No additional soil shall be deposited below the ordinary high water mark of the pond or in adjacent wetlands.”

In addition, Johnson would be required to monitor “for the presence of invasive

and noxious weeds through Sept. 30, 2017,” according to the proposed settlement.

“By Sept. 30, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2017, Mr. Johnson shall submit to EPA sufficiently detailed videos taken during the 2016 and 2017 summer growing seasons, respectively, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this mitigation plan,” according to court documents.

In addition, Johnson would be required to install livestock control fencing on the north side of his pond. According to court documents, he would be required to maintain the fencing through Sept. 30, 2017.

“No livestock shall be allowed access to the land on the south side of the pond through Sept. 30, 2017,” the proposed settlement reads.

Johnson faced fines as high as $37,500 a day for building a stock pond on his 8-acre tract in 2012. He constructed the pond after obtaining all of the necessary permits from the state of Wyoming. EPA ordered Johnson to remove the pond. Johnson countered by asking a federal court in Wyoming to nullify the order.

EPA had alleged Johnson needed a federal permit because he altered waters of the United States — a claim that was later disputed by a former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers engineer whose analysis of Johnson’s property found no waters of the United States were disturbed.

Even the new waters of the United States rule tied up in federal court exempts stock ponds from the Clean Water Act, though it offers no definition of “stock ponds” or “dams.”

With a state engineer’s permit in hand, Johnson constructed what has become a wildlife oasis along 2-foot-wide by inches-deep Six Mile Creek on his small cattle operation in the southwestern part of the state. An engineer’s analysis found the creek is not connected to waters of the United States.

Once EPA caught wind of the project built without a Clean Water Act permit, the agency ordered Johnson to remove what it says is a dam and to restore the creek — or face potential penalties of some $75,000 a day until the work is completed. EPA contends Johnson’s pond doesn’t qualify for an agriculture exemption.

The state of Wyoming issues stock pond permits for structures with dams of up to 20 feet high and ponds that contain no more than 20 acre feet of water. State officials told DTN there are thousands of stock ponds in Wyoming similar to Johnson’s.

Page 7

Scrapie Confirmed in a Hartley County Texas Sheep, Officials Say

T

exas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) officials have confirmed scrapie in a Hartley County ewe.

The ewe was tested by TAHC after the owner reported signs of weight loss and lack of coordination to their local veterinarian. The premises was quarantined and a flock plan for monitoring is being developed by the TAHC and USDA. “The TAHC is working closely with the flock owner, sharing all of the options for disease eradication,” said Dr. David Finch, TAHC Region 1 Director. “We are thankful the producer was proactive in identifying a problem and seeking veterinary help immediately.”

Texas leads the nation in sheep and goat production.

Since 2008, there have been no confirmed cases of scrapie in Texas. The last big spike in Texas scrapie cases was in 2006

when nine infected herds were identified and the last herd was released from restrictions in 2013.

According to USDA regulations, Texas must conduct adequate scrapie surveillance by collecting a minimum of 598 sheep samples annually. Since USDA slaughter surveillance started in FY 2003, the percent of cull sheep found positive for scrapie at slaughter (once adjusted for face color) has decreased 90 percent.

Scrapie is the oldest known transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and under natural conditions only sheep and goats are known to be affected by scrapie. It is a fatal disease that affects the central nervous system of sheep and goats. It is not completely understood how scrapie is passed from one animal to the next and apparently healthy sheep infected with

scrapie can spread the disease.

Sheep and goats are typically infected as young lambs or kids, though adult sheep and goats can become infected.

The most effective method of scrapie prevention is to maintain a closed flock. Raising replacement ewes, purchasing genetically resistant rams and ewes, or buying from a certified-free scrapie flock are other options to reduce the risk of scrapie. At this time the resistant genetic markers in goats have not been identified, therefore it is important to maintain your sheep and goat herds separately.

The incubation period for Scrapie is typically two to five years. Producers should record individual identification numbers and the seller’s premise identification number on purchase and sales records. These records must be maintained for a minimum of five years.

Court Rejects ESA Challenge to County’s Local Land Use Planning

BY BEN RUBIN, ENDANGERED SPECIES LAW & POLICY

O

n April 8, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that Collier County’s (County) land use planning regulations were complimentary, not contrary to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The court also held that the County’s planned future roadway extension did not violate the ESA, because the roadway project was only in the initial planning stages and the County acknowledged that compliance with the ESA was required before any construction activities could take place. Florida Panthers v. Collier County, Case No. 2:13-cv- 612 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2016).

Under Florida law, a county is required to develop a comprehensive land use plan to guide and control use and future development within the county.

This land use plan must be updated every decade. In addition to a land use plan, a county must adopt local regulations to implement the comprehensive plan. Pursuant to Florida law, Collier County adopted a comprehensive land use plan and land use regulations.

Collier County is home to two endangered species, the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).

In 2013, the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society filed a lawsuit alleging that the County’s written policies and regulations relating to the clearing of agricultural land and issuance of building permits for single family residences in certain designated areas, and planned future extension of a roadway violated section 6(f) and section 9 of the ESA. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the County’s pol-

icies and regulations were less protective than the ESA in violation of section 6(f), and that the policies, regulations, and roadway extension did or would result in a “take” in violation of section 9.

Section 6(f) of the ESA states that “[a]ny State law or regulation respecting the taking of an endangered species or threatened species may be more restrictive than the exemptions or permits provided for in [the ESA] or in any regulations which implements [the ESA] but not less restrictive than the prohibitions so defined.” 16 U.S.C. § 1535(f). The district court found that the County’s policies and regulations did not run afoul of section 6(f), because they required a landowner to obtain all other federal and state agency permits prior to clearing agricultural land or constructing a single family residence, and therefore the policies and regulations were complimentary to and not less protective than the ESA. The district court also found that the policies and regulations did not result in a “take” in violation of section 9, stating: “Collier County’s land clearing authorization and single family home building permits simply authorize the clearing and building if the landowner otherwise complies with federal law.

In order for a take to occur, a third party must violate Collier County’s regulations and the ESA. Defendants cannot he held liable for such conduct.”

Finally, with respect to the planned road extension, the district court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the preliminary planning actions resulted in a “take” in violation of the ESA. In reaching this conclusion the court noted that the County acknowledged that before any construction activities could take place, the

County would need to obtain all necessary federal permits and approvals, including those required under the ESA.

Page 8

Livestock Market Digest

May 15, 2016

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

When the National Park Service Overreaches

The federal government is a terrible neighbor and a worse landlord

BY WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION EXCLUSIVE WASHINGTON TIMES DAILY BRIEFING

R

ecent news stories from across the country have revealed the federal government as the worse possible neighbor for Americans who value property rights: the rule of law, the power to exclude others from their land, and the ability to use land on which they pay taxes. A tale out of Washington State, however, involving a private concessionaire within a unit of the National Park Service (NPS), reveals that the federal government is a worse landlord, one that holds the rights of its tenants in the lowest regard, believes itself unconstrained by the law of the land, and uses its power and its hundreds of lawyers to beat American citizens into submission. Whether it will get away with such tactics this time remains to be seen.

Since 1988, Ed and Carol Wimberly have owned and run Lake Roosevelt Vacations, Inc., a private concession in Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, a unit of the NPS on Lake Franklin D. Roosevelt near Kettle Falls, Washington. Lake Roosevelt is in reality, the Columbia River, tamed by Grand Coulee Dam, which once was immortalized by singer Woody Guthrie as the “Biggest Thing That Man Has Ever Done.” Not as tall as Nevada and Arizona’s Hoover Dam (550 to 726 feet), but twice as wide (5,223 to 1,244 feet), it is the country’s largest hydropower producer supplying electricity to all eleven western States.

The lake, and hence NPS jurisdiction, encompasses 83,000 acres, runs 151 miles, and covers 600 miles of shore line; the Wimberlys’ marina lies 100 miles upriver from the dam, 85 miles northwest of Spokane, and fewer than 30 miles from the Canadian border.

The Wimberlys open their marina from the first of June through the end of October, at which time they rent out big houseboats that sleep thirteen, along with runabouts, kayaks, paddleboards, and skis to tour and enjoy “some of the finest beaches and coves to be found anywhere on the Columbia River.” The Wimberlys are committed to keeping

it that way by doing their part to “eliminat[e] environmentally unfriendly [outboard] engines” and “to prevent any contaminated water from [entering] Lake Roosevelt.” Moreover, as “an authorized concessionaire” of the NPS, their prices are approved by the agency; in fact, all of their activities, including when they start up and when they close down, what buildings they use, and when, where, and how those buildings may be built are heavily regulated.

To ensure that concessionaires — key to enjoyment of the “pleasuring grounds” that are the national parks — are treated fairly, Congress enacted the Concession Policy Act of 1965 to assure: 1) a possessory interest in their property, 2) the sound valuation of that property and 3) a guaranteed right of renewal. Thus, concessionaires know investments in their facilities are protected, not just financially and as a matter of law, but also in terms of NPS goodwill. In 1998, Congress enacted the Concession Management Improvement Act to enhance efficiency and to expand competition, but still protected the property rights of concessionaires.

Thus, in 1999, when the NPS asked the Wimberlys, as part of their contract renewal, to construct a floating fuel dock and to use that dock to fuel their watercraft and those using the marina, they agreed. Environmentally it made sense, but cost a bundle — over $200,000. In addition, the NPS spent taxpayer funds to dig up the buried fuel storage tank. Therefore, the Wimberlys were stunned that the NPS, in its prospectus for a new contract in 2017, did not designate the fuel dock as a “Leasehold Surrender Interest,” a term of art from the 1998 act for “capital improvement[s].”

Although the Wimberlys’ lawyer fired a shot across the agency’s bow, it is holding firm. The NPS does not want the fuel dock; in fact and incredibly it apparently will order the next concessionaire to buy a fuel tank and bury it. The Wimberlys do not plan on letting that happen.

HeAdquArters West Ltd. ST. JOHN’S OFFICE: TRAEGEN KNIGHT

P.O. Box 1980 St. John’s, AZ 85936 www.headquarterswest.com 928/524-3740 Fax 928/563-7004 Cell 602/228-3494 info@headquarterswest.com

Filling your real estate needs in Arizona

Filling Your Real Estate Needs in Oregon Andrew Bryan, Principal/Broker Office 541-523-5871 Cell 208-484-5835 andrew@bakercityrealty.com www.bakercityrealty.com

Socorro Plaza Realty On the Plaza

Donald Brown

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista Realty

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

Qualifying Broker

505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax

#5 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

Terrell Land and Livestock Co. 575-447-6041

Tye Terrell, selling ranches since 1972

We know New Mexico and New Mexico needs.

tyecterrell@yahoo.com Los Lunas, NM

William Perry Pendley, a lawyer, is president of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Denver and author of “Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why it Matters Today” (Regnery, 2013).

Oregon Counties Will Sue BLM Over New Management Plan

BY IN THE NEWS ASSOCIATION OF O&C COUNTIES

T

he Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has released its latest proposed management plan for 2.5 million acres of timberland in western Oregon.

17 Counties in western Oregon announced they would challenge the plan in federal court.

“We have no choice but to litigate, and we are on firm legal ground in doing so,” said Commissioner Tony Hyde of Columbia County. Commissioner Hyde is the President of the Association of O&C Counties (AOCC), which will lead the lawsuit. “The BLM refused to even consider revenues for Counties as an objective in developing its plan. There are many ways the BLM could have balanced jobs and revenues for vital County services while creating habitat for endangered species, providing clean

water, recreational opportunities, and improving fire resiliency,” said Commissioner Hyde. “Once again, the federal government has failed the communities where these lands are located.”

The law governing management of the BLM lands states that all timberlands shall be managed for sustained yield production, with the revenues shared with Counties to help pay for public services.

The law also mandates a minimum harvest each year of 500 million board feet. The BLM’s final plan violates both requirements, with more than 75% of the lands locked up in permanent reserves, and a projected harvest little more than half the required minimum.

The O&C lands were once in private ownership. After the lands were taken back by the federal government, they were set aside by congress to provide permanent sustainability of the communi-

ties they border. By law, the Counties receive 50 percent of the revenues generated from the sale of timber, and the revenue pays for all kinds of public services: mental and public health, sheriff patrols, jails, libraries, social and many other services. County budgets have been decimated in recent years and several counties are on a path to insolvency, increasing crime and poverty. The BLM lands are also intended to supply timber to support employment in local mills and manufacturing. Federal mismanagement has contributed to unemployment rates in some rural counties that are nearly double the unemployment rate in the Portland area.

The BLM has been planning almost continuously since 2003, at an expense of tens of millions of dollars. A plan proposed by the BLM in 2009 was shelved by the continued on page twelve

Paul Stout Qualifying Broker

FEATURED PROPERTY 300 Marshall, Grady

Enjoy small town living with room for a few horses. Three bedroom, two bath home with covered horse stalls and pens, village water. $65,000

3879 State Road 209, Broadview, NM 88112

Office 575 456-2000 • Cell 575 760-5461

www.bigmesarealty.com

Bottari Realty Paul Bottari, Broker

775/752-3040 • www.bottarirealty.com Ranch Properties now available through Bottari & Associates Realty, Inc

RUBY VALLEY, NEVADA RANCH - 660 deeded acres with over 160 acres of surface water rights and 125 acres of underground water rights. Home and several outbuildings. Borders USFS. Approx. 55 miles out of Elko,NV Price: $950,000

May 15, 2016

Bottari Realty Paul Bottari, Broker

775/752-3040 Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY www.bottarirealty.com

Bar M Real Estate

SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237

Livestock Market Digest

Page 9

Missouri Land Sales 521 West Second St. Portales, NM 88130 575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

ACT R T N O C R E UND

160 acres grass - Great 2 bdrm 2 bth home - new shed bldg.- everything is A-1 excellent cond. Near Causey, NM. 10 acres w/ 5 bdrm 4 bth home, approx 40 x 100 metal barn - concrete floor & wired, electric motor on 14 ft large door. 4 car detached garage, private well , septic system East of Portales, NM on pavement NM 88, nice view.

139 Acres - 7 AC stocked lake; hunting retreat. Beautiful 2 BR, 1 BA log cabin. Only 35+ miles northeast of Springfield. MLS# 60031816.

82.4 Acres M/L - Horse Lover’s Dream (joins Mark Twain National Forest). Spring fed pond stocked with bass. 4 BR, 1 BA, older home (rented), pasture (rented). 24 miles north of Mt. Grove. MLS# 60034710.

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARD

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

174 acres M/L. Cattle, horses, hunting retreat. Live water year round spring-crawdad creek. 30+ ac open, more land could be opened with brush hogging. Good fencing, 2 miles from S&H fish pay fishing ponds. 8 miles east of Ava on Hwy. 76. MLS# 60029427 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!!!

80 acre irrig farm uses 2 small pivots, 1 parcel Alfalfa, 1 parcel in wheat, has a decent home and workshop barn, on pavement east of Portales, NM. 2.8 ac west of Portales, NM with 3 bdrm 2 bth home has been home to small animals, chickens and room to raise the kids. This home has just had kitchen and den - living area nicely remodeled and is on Co-op water, vacant and ready for new owner.

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Fallon-Cortese Land

NEW MEXICO P.O. Box 447 Fort Sumner, NM 88119 575.355.2855 office 575.355.7611 fax 575.760.3818 cell nick@ranchseller.com www.ranchseller.com

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY 116 PLAZA 101 Bosquecito Road

Peaceful and panoramic view describes this location. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath home on 3.1 acres of upland near the Rio Grande River. Close to Bosque del Apache Refuge with birds landing in the hayfields and deer and elk frequent the neighboring fields.

SWMLS #839689 $224,000

Call 505/507-2915 • Fax: 575/838-0095 P.O. Box 1903, Socorro, NM 87801 Don Brown, Qualifying Broker dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com Arizona Ranch For Sale Seven Lazy E Ranch 30 miles SE of Willcox. Elevation 4300 ‘ MSL. 1335 Acres Deeded, 2197 State Lease 80 Acres BLM Lease.

3 wells, electric, gas. 8 pastures have water Includes nearby custom Sante Fe Style house $1,995,885.00 MLS 21608523 Arizona Life Real Estate

520-403-3903

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 37 acres, Dallas Co, horse barn with apartment inside.

Just off I20 & Mesquite, air port. $399,000.

• 240 acres, Recreation, hunting and fishing. Nice apartment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3250 Per acre.

• 270 acre, Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow.

Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20.

Price reduced to $1.6 Million.

• 40 acre, 2 homes, nice barn, corral, 30 miles out of Dallas. $415,000.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

GATO MOUNTAIN RANCH – High desert recreation hunting ranch with excellent improvements. Wildlife includes elk, mule deer, bear and lion.

Well suited as a corporate retreat with accommodations for at least 34 people. 389 deeded acres along with 2,602 BLM lease acres with a grazing permit for 33 AU’s. Numerous horseback and ATV trails. Owners willing to split the deeded acreage. This is one of kind. Presented in cooperation with Schrimsher Ranch Real Estate, LLC. View video at www.nm-ranches.com Price: $2,800,000.00 TOLAND RANCH – Hobby Ranch comprised of 1,440 deeded acres located at Cedarvale, NM in Torrance County. Divided into two tracts divided by State Highway 42. North tract is fenced with one well. South tract needs approximately 2.5 miles of boundary fenced. View additional information at www.ranchesnm.com. Priced accordingly @ $300.00 per deeded acre.

FUSON RANCH – 280 acres located under the face of the Capitan Mountains southwest of Arabela, NM in historic Lincoln County. Access is gated and locked. Improved with one residence, maintenance shop and small barn. Water is provided by one well. View additional information at www.ranchesnm.com. Price: $400,000,00.

BILLY THE KID RANCH – 3,290 acres located in the foothills of the Sacramento Mountains just 30 minutes from Ruidoso, NM. Access is gated and locked from U.S. Highway 70. Improvements include a sprawling 3 bedroom residence with an enclosed metal shop and equipment shed. Fantastic views of Sierra Blanca and the Capitan Mountain range.

Sale to include cattle and equipment. Presented in cooperation with Schrimsher Ranch Real Estate, LLC. View a color brochure and video at www.nm-ranches.com. Price: $4,000,000.00 Scott McNally Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate www.ranchesnm.com Office: 575-622-5867 • Cell: 575-420-1237

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

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

SCOTT LAND COMPANY, LLC in cooperation with Hall & Hall Auction Co. will offer the Cucharas Ranch North – Huerfano Colorado at auction at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 28, 2016. Check our website for info on the property and a link to the auction info.

OCATE MESA – 100 pristine ac. +/-, located near Black Lake on state road 120 between the villages of Ocate & Angel Fire, New Mexico, great hunting/recreation!

30,000 HD. FEED YARD – Southeast Texas Panhandle, close to Texas & Kansas packers. Call or email for details!!!!

JUST LISTED! 37.65 sections +/- Central NM ranch w/good, useable improvements & water, some irrigation w/2 pivot sprinklers, on pvmt. w/ all-weather road, 13,322 ac.+/- Deeded, 8,457 ac. +/- BLM Lease, 2,320 ac. +/- State Lease.

ARGENTINA….PLEASE CALL FOR DETAILS on 176,000 ac. +/- (WE CAN DIVIDE into much smaller tracts) of choice land (beautiful land can be cleared for soybeans & corn, some cleared & seeded to improved grasses for grazing of thousands of mother cows, some still in the brush waiting to be cleared).

JUST LISTED! 11.2 choice sections +/-, in the heart of Central New Mexico’s open, rolling grama grass country, good improvements & water, cow/calf country w/summer grazing of yearlings certainly an option, two mi. of hwy. frontage.

JUST OUT OF CLAYTON, NM - 2,685 ac. +/-, 2 homes, bunk house & roping arena, other improvements, well managed, excellent grass.

CLOUDCROFT, NM - Otero Co. – ¾ miles of the Rio Penasco – 139 ac. +/- deeded, 160 ac. +/- State Lease, 290.27 acre feet of water rights, 2 cabins, excellent grazing, elevation from 7-7500 ft., good access off of paved road.

QUAY CO., NM – Box Canyon Ranch – well improved & watered, 2,400 ac. deeded, 80 ac. State Lease, excellent access from I40.

TUCUMCARI, NM AREA – 4 irr. farms totaling 1,022.22 deeded ac. +/- with 887.21 ac. +/- of Arch Hurley Water Rights (one farm w/a modern 2 bdrm. – 1 bath home, w/a metal roof, barn & shop) together with 1,063 addtl. deeded ac. +/- of native grass (good set of livestock pens & well-watered). All one-owner, all on pvmt., can be bought together or separately.

SUPER GRAIN & CATTLE COMBINATION – Union Co., NM - well improved w/15 circles, state-of-the-art working pens, homes, barns, hwy. & all-weather road frontage, divided into 3 different farms in close proximity of each other – can divide.

DANCES WITH WOLVES COUNTRY - Union Co., NM – Pinabetes/ Tramperos Creeks Ranch – super country w/super improvements & livestock watering facilities, 4,650 deeded, 3,357 State Lease, one irr. well with ¼ mi. pivot sprinkler for supplemental feed, excellent access via pvmt. & all weather roads.

SOUTH CONCHOS RANCH – San Miguel Co., NM – 9,135 total ac.+/-, 2,106 ac. +/- “FREE USE”, 6,670 ac. +- deeded, 320 ac. +/- BLM, 40 ac. +/- State, well improved, homes, barns, pens, watered by subs & mills at shallow depth just off pvmt., on co. road.

STATE OF THE ART – Clayton, NM area, 1,600 deeded ac. +/-, plus 80 ac. +/- State lease, home, barn & pens in excellent condition, all weather county road.

FT. SUMNER VALLEY – beautiful home on 20 irr. ac., 3 bdrm/2 bath country home, nice combination apartment/horse barn w/2 bdrms., one bathroom/washroom & three enclosed stalls w/breezeway, currently in alfalfa, ditch irrigated.

PONTOCTOC/COAL CO., OK – three good, solid ranches just out of Ada in close proximity, one to the other (one owner -779 ac. +/-, 1,370 ac. +/-, 974 ac. +/-), good, useable improvements, on pvmt. or good all-weather roads. Seller very motivated to buy or trade for ranch or farmland properties between Dallas & Houston, TX. Area!

Please view our websites for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rainfall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX., NM, OK & CO.

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

May 15, 2016

USDA Sued for Corporate Hijack of Organic Industry Governing Board

T

he Cornucopia Institute has filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s appointment of non-farmers to positions reserved by Congress for organic farmers on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB is a 15-member citizens’ board established by Congress to determine what synthetic materials are safe and appropriate for use in organic food and agriculture, and to provide advice to the USDA Secretary of Agriculture on organic policy.

Congress, in passing the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), reserved four positions on the NOSB for individuals who “own or operate” an organic farm. Other stakeholder interests, such as consumer, environmentalist and food processor, are also represented on the board. Cornucopia’s lawsuit alleges that two of the board’s four farmer positions are occupied by full-time agribusiness executives, rather than farmers.

The Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center has filed the lawsuit on Cornucopia’s behalf.

Two certified organic farmers joined Cornucopia in the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Both farmers applied for NOSB appointments and were passed over by the USDA in favor of the agribusiness executives.

As the organic industry has grown into an almost $40 billion a year market, major agribusinesses such as Smuckers, Kellogg’s, General Mills and Dean Foods (WhiteWave) have purchased many of the leading national organic brands and, through their trade-lobby group, the Organic Trade Association,

are wielding, according to Cornucopia, undue influence at the USDA. “This type of appointment is part of a pattern of actions taken by the USDA to make the NOSB and the National Organic Program friendlier to the needs of big business interests,” said Will Fantle, Cornucopia’s Codirector. “Not only are farmers being denied their voice and right to participate in organic decision-making, but statistics illustrate the corporate representatives sitting in farmer seats have been decisively more willing to vote for the use of questionable and controversial materials in organics, weakening the organic standards.”

Cornucopia, an organic industry watchdog, has been tracking votes taken by the NOSB for several years and has documented a clear and systematic difference in voting between the real farmers on the board and the agribusiness executives.

“I have applied three times over the years for one of the four seats reserved by Congress for organic farmers on the NOSB,” said Dominic Marchese, a certified organic grass-based beef farmer from Ferndale, Ohio and one of the farmer-plaintiffs on the lawsuit. “I am angry at how anyone at the USDA thinks that an agribusiness executive can represent my decades of experience working with the land and animals,” Marchese, one of the farmer plaintiffs, added.

Marchese last applied for the NOSB in 2011, the year that Carmela Beck was appointed to a farmer seat. Ms. Beck works for the giant berry producer Driscoll’s as a “grower liaison”

coordinating relations with Driscoll’s contract berry growers. The company itself does not grow any of its organic fruit.

Rebecca Goodman, a certified organic dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin applied for the NOSB in 2014. That year the USDA appointed Ashley Swaffar to the board. At the time, Ms. Swaffar was a corporate compliance officer at the Arkansas Egg Company (she is now a staff member of another agribusiness, Vital Farms). Ms. Goodman is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Cornucopia has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the USDA to obtain a full record of applicants to the NOSB during the years that these appointments were made.

“We know from our FOIA requests that there were many other certified organic farmers who had applied and were also rejected by the USDA in favor of agribusiness interests,” said Fantle.

According to Cornucopia the FOIA documents the organization secured, which included the applications for Driscoll’s Beck and Vital Farms’ Swaffar, did not contain any reference or documentation indicating that either individual owned or managed an organic farming operation.

Fantle also noted that Cornucopia has, for years, requested that the USDA open up the NOSB application process and reveal the names of all applicants prior to making appointment decisions. This would allow for input from the full organic community to help the Secretary select the best and brightest before appointments are made.

“Instead,” Fantle observed, “they have chosen to conduct this process in secret. These apparently illegal appointments might not have occurred had the USDA elected to conduct a more transparent process.”

Using the Cornucopia Institute’s NOSB voting scorecard, when compared to the policy positions of most nonprofit public interest groups monitoring the organic program, Ms. Swaffar and Ms. Beck had scores, respectively, of 31percent and 10 percent. Their ratings are in stark comparison to outgoing NOSB member Colehour Bondera, a legitimate certified organic farmer from Hawaii, whose lifetime voting score was 92 percent.

Former NOSB member Goldie Caughlan, of Seattle, Washington, recalls how important it was to have a board that accurately represented organic stakeholders. “When I served on the NOSB from 2001 to 2006 in a consumer seat, I needed to hear what the board’s organic farmers were saying to help me make the best decisions, Caughlan said.”Depriving the board of the voice of real farmers damages organics and cheats organic stakeholders.”

Management of the USDA’s National Organic Program is embroiled in a number of other current lawsuits. One court challenge involves the agency’s unilateral changes to the congressionally mandated “Sunset” process easing reapproval, every five years, for synthetic and non-organic materials currently used in organics. Another lawsuit concerns the USDA’s lax oversight of potential contami-

LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN this partnership through 2018, or the life of the Farm Bill, and demonstrate the effectiveness these investments can have in bringing back lesser prairie-chicken populations while improving agricultural opera-

tions.”

With about 95 percent of the lesser prairie-chicken’s range under private ownership, voluntary conservation is key. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to

nants in compost from non-organic operations.

The new lawsuit also covers a number of other issues pertaining to OFPA and the Federal Advisory Committee Act where Cornucopia alleges the USDA has illegally hijacked the public-private partnership that Congress designed to govern the organic industry.

These additional allegations in the lawsuit include disbanding the Board’s Policy Development Subcommittee, thus stripping the body of the ability to develop its own governance.

“The NOSB was designed

by Congress to placate the concerns of the organic community, to act as a buffer between organic industry regulation and the power of corporate agribusiness lobbyists,” said Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst, Mark A. Kastel. “Stripping the board of the ability to set its own work plans and agenda shuts out the public that has historically petitioned for the attention of the NOSB to focus on industry-wide problems.”

“We have grown disillusioned with the operation of the National Organic Program,” says Cornucopia’s Fantle. “We had high hopes when Miles McEvoy was originally appointed to this role in 2009, and praised his selection. But the corporate friendly approach and lax enforcement activities have led us to call for new management.”

Cornucopia continues to gather individually signed letters from organic stakeholders calling for new management at the USDA’s National Organic Program. Fantle said the organic industry watchdog group has already collected more than 4,000 letters and will be sending an additional batch to USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack soon.

continued from page five ranchers who want to adopt conservation systems that address threats to and conserve lesser prairie-chicken habitat.

To learn more about assistance opportunities, ranchers should contact their local USDA service center.

Habitat restoration efforts on private lands are helping species recover across the country.

Earlier this year, the FWS del-

isted the Louisiana black bear because of the species’ recovery on bottomland hardwood forests restored by Louisiana landowners. In 2015, the FWS determined listings were not needed for the greater sagegrouse, Bi-State sage-grouse and New England cottontail largely because of large-scale collaborative conservation efforts on private lands.

Baxter BLACK O N T H E E D G E O F C O M M O N S E N S E www.baxterblack.com

First Dance I danced with another woman tonight My wife didn’t seem to mind.

We took to the floor like a pair of swans That fate forever entwined.

Leaving our wake through the dancers who flowed Like notes in search of a song We tested our two step, tried out a waltz

Advertise to Cattleman in the Livestock Market Digest

and laughed when something went wrong!

I led and she followed, trusting each step, Spurred by the beat of the band Like birds taking wing the very first time, It helps...to hold someone’s hand.

Although I had known this woman before I’d thought of her as a child But there on the dance floor, arm ‘round her waist, I found my heart was beguiled.

For her a window had opened. I was there, I’m eternally glad.

The rest of my life I’ll remember The first night she danced with her dad. www.baxterblack.com

May 15, 2016

Livestock Market Digest

Page 11

How corrupt is government climate science?

BY RON ARNOLD, CFACT.ORG

M

any have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome. The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.

It’s troubling that a FOIA lawsuit came up empty – “no such correspondence in our files” – when the old 1995 document was requested from the U.S. State Department late last year. This raises a certain ironic question: If I have a copy of your document, how come you don’t?”

State’s response is also somewhat unbelievable because the document that fell into my hands showed State’s date-stamp, the signature of a State Department

official and the names of persons still living – along with 30 pages of detailed instructions on how to change the IPCC’s science document and the summary for policymakers.

The document itself consists of a three-page cover letter to Sir John Houghton, head of IPCC Working Group I (Science), from Day Mount, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Environment and Development, United States Department of State, along with the thirty-page instruction set with line-by-line “suggestions,” written by scientist Robert Watson and others.

Among the more revealing tidbits is a remark scolding a scientist for being honest about the weakness of aerosol forcing data: “We clearly cannot use aerosol forcing as the trigger of our smoking gun, and then make a generalized appeal to uncertainty to exclude these effects from the forward-looking modeling analysis.”

One instruction was to

change a correct statement about warming rates into a flat lie: “Change ‘continue to rise’ to ‘rise by even greater amounts’ to provide a sense of magnitude of the extended change.”

The entire document is too convoluted and technical to summarize here, so it is posted on cfact.org in PDF form for your detailed examination. The document posted there is unchanged and unaltered in any way from exactly what I received from a well known and credible source that must remain anonymous to avoid harm or retribution.

There is evidence that the document is authentic based on a specific mention in the 2000 Hoover Institution report by S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, “Climate Policy—From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond.”

The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC

Government Regulation: A Growing Threat to the Environment

BY BRIAN SEASHOLES, DIRECTOR, REASON FOUNDATION ENDANGERED SPECIES PROJECT

A

merica’s environmental health is increasingly jeopardized by a little-known threat: a wide range laws and regulations, some of which are even supposed to protect the environment. For a sense of how this works on the ground, consider the Hopkins family of Georgia.

The Hopkins family started acquiring timberland, mostly in southeast Georgia but some in northeast Florida, over 100 years ago. The family’s outstanding stewardship has created a haven for wildlife, including deer, turkey, gopher tortoise and the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Among the Hopkins’ landholdings are 3,500 acres that are part of the fabled Okefenokee Swamp, most of which is a federal wildlife refuge, seven miles of forest and swamp along the St. Marys River that creates a border between Georgia and Florida, and 500 acres occupied by the woodpeckers.

The Hopkins family leases most of its land for hunting, and, in the spirit of civic-mindedness and generosity that characterizes many landowners, allows Boy Scouts to camp and launch canoes along the St. Mary’s River, hosts educational forestry tours, and provides hunting opportunities free of charge for wounded military veterans.

As thanks for their exceptional environmental stewardship and generosity, the Hopkins family has been or may be punished by laws and regulations that have negative environmental consequences. The “big three” are all federal: the estate tax, Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.

Most people are unaware of the estate tax’s effect on the environment, but the tax is “highly regressive in the sense that it encourages the destruction of ecologically important land in private ownership,” according to Michael Bean, senior Interior Department official. “In order to pay estate taxes, cash-poor inheritors of ranches, farms, and forests must often liquidate timber assets, subdivide the property, or otherwise destroy ecologically valuable land that had been cared for by owners who had truly loved it.” Land is generally of less environmental value if it is subdivided.

In the 1960s and 70s the Hopkins family was hit by the estate tax four times, and each time the family had to pay significant taxes on the same pieces of land — all of which led to thousands of acres of forest harvested prematurely to raise funds to pay the tax. This “destroyed our forest management plan because we had to cut stands we didn’t want to cut” according to Joe Hopkins, managing partner of the family partnership lands. The family is anticipating another massive estate tax bill when the last member of Joe’s father’s generation passes away. An agreement called a conservation easement could lower the family’s estate tax liability, but “we are not interested in easements because we’ve given enough,” states Joe, such as when his father died in 1961 while reforesting the land, and easements can complicate management.

The Endangered Species Act is generally thought of as protecting magnificent species like the bald eagle, but the sad reality is the Act’s penalty-based approach creates strong incentives for landowners to make

their property inhospitable to species. The Hopkins family receives no compensation for its 500 acres, worth more than $1,000,000, locked-up due to the Act’s protection of an endangered species — which is often regarded as a public good.

The Hopkins family has little incentive to allow other trees to mature to the point where they will attract red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the gopher tortoise may be listed under the Act, despite that it is thriving on the family’s lands. Georgia’s recommended tortoise habitat management practices, which look a lot like federal guidelines, if made mandatory would make commercial forestry less viable.

But these two species are only the tip of the iceberg.

There are hundreds more species across the Southern forests that could be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Punishing landowners for conserving wildlife, such as through the estate tax and Endangered Species Act, is the best way to harm this country’s biodiversity because endangered species depend most heavily on private land for their habitat.

While the estate tax and Endangered Species are bad enough, the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent massive expansion of federally regulated water under the Clean Water Act, known as “Waters of the United States,” is a huge threat to the Hopkins family because much of their land, which is in flat or in low-lying areas, would likely be subject to federal regulation. If “Waters of the United States” survives court challenge, forest management will become increasingly difficult and financially unviable. continued on page twelve

Assessment Reports. What did they do? Where are the correspondence and instructions to change the science in all the IPCC Assessments? What is the Obama State Department doing to corrupt climate science to its forward its radical social and

political agenda? Some of that is obvious. It’s the clandestine part we need to know.

I don’t expect our government to answer truthfully. If they did, they might have to start a RICO investigation of themselves.

Cash Rents Dip 7 Percent to Average $211 per Acre

BY BEN POTTER CATTLENETWORK.COM

T

he RMI index, which ranges between 0 and 100, settled in at 38.2 for April 2016, down from March’s 40.2. Creighton University released its Rural Mainstreet Index (RMI) for April 2016, and the monthly survey of bank CEOs in a 10-state Midwest region showed a downward trend of several things, including cash rents, equipment sales and farmland prices. The index, which ranges between 0 and 100, settled in at 38.2 for April 2016, down from March’s 40.2.

“This is the eight straight months the overall index has moved below growth neutral,” says Ernie Goss, who chairs Creighton’s Heider College of Business. “Compared to 12 months earlier, prices for farm products are down by 16 percent, and energy products are 8 percent lower.”

Bankers participating in the survey reported an average cash rent per acre of $211 in 2016. That’s down 7 percent from the same time a year ago.

“Cash flow is king and will continue to be the difference-maker for producers,” says Jeffery Gerhart, chairman of Bank of Newman Grove in Nebraska.

“Those who manage it well will benefit, [and] those who don’t manage it well will not.”

RMI’s farm equipment sales index rose to 11.1, but that rises from a record-low 6.7 in March. Goss says farm income weaknesses, low commodity prices and reduction in farm prices have negatively affected this sector of agriculture.

Bankers also reported the following as the “biggest economic threats” to their operations in the next five years.

1.

Rising regulatory costs – 43.5 percent 2.

Slow to negative economic growth – 23.9 percent 3.

Farm foreclosures – 8.8 percent 4.

Increasing competition from credit unions and Farm Credit – 8.7 percent For more information, including RMI historical data and forecasts, visitwww.creighton.edu/economicoutlook.

Page 12

Livestock Market Digest

It’s all about how wolves, mice, bear ears, and goats affect public policy

Wolf tales

I

n June of 2011, the NM Game Commission withdrew from the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

Jerry Maracchini, former state director of the New Mexico Game & Fish Dept. (NMGFD) and at the time a member of the Game Commission, said that he and the department had long opposed the recovery program because 1) the areas selected for reintroduction were not “traditional home range” for the Mexican Grey Wolf. “The Mexican wolf’s primary habitat was and still is in Mexico…” said Maracchini. 2) there was an inadequate prey base for the wolf in those areas selected, 3) the States impacted were not brought in early on for plan development, and 4) “the major criteria for high probability of success, local public support, was not acquired.”

More recently, the Game Commission has declined to renew a permit for a captive wolf facility on Ted Turner’s ranch and declined a permit to the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to introduce wolves in New Mexico.

“We don’t need a stinking permit” apparently is the USFWS’s definition of collaboration. The service has announced it will embark on an “aggressive” wolf introduction program in an expanded area of New Mexico. In response, NMGF has called any introduction “unpermitted and illegal” and has served a notice of intent to sue. “The department cannot stand idle and allow the USFWS to ignore the laws and regulations of New Mexico, just as the department does not allow others to do so” says a NMDGF official.

REGULATION All of these pressures facing the Hopkins family result in a growing threat to the environment. “We don’t plan to sell our land, but if things get too difficult and expensive because of regulations, we will have no choice but to sell,” states Joe

May 15, 2016

Kudos and a great big thank you goes out to the NM Game Commissioners.

Of mice and water I wrote last month of the designation of 22 square miles of critical habitat for the NM meadow jumping mouse, which includes 170 miles of streams and the adjoining land area, and how the Forest Service is installing structures to fence cattle off of water.

Now comes a letter to NM State Engineer Tom Blaine signed by 50 legislators claiming the federal government has overstepped its authority and is trampling water rights and asking for his involvement.

“The New Mexico State Engineer’s Office has historically worked diligently to protect private water rights throughout our state” says Representative James Townsend.

In response, Blaine has ordered his staff to investigate, saying NM continues to be concerned about federal mismanagement of land and saying he is committed to ensuring access to needed water.

“We are optimistic that Mr. Blaine and his office will work to immediately terminate the actions of the USFS, but absent this required action, legislation will need to be approved in the next Legislature to protect New Mexicans private property rights” says Townsend.

Emphasizing the importance and urgency of the issue, NM Rep. Yvette Herrell says, “It is imperative that we resolve this as quickly as possible.”

Kudos to Townsend, Herrell and the other signers of the letter.

Let’s hope we will offering similar praise to Blaine in the near future.

Bears Ears Bears Ears is a proposed 1.9 million acre National Monument for southeastern Utah being pushed by the enviros and various Native American groups.

The proponents argue the area needs protection from off-road vehicles and looters. Opponents, which includes most of the state legislators, say such a designation will hurt the local economy. “I’m here to tell you that a national monument will be devastating for my grassroots Navajo people,” said Rebecca Benally, a county commissioner in southern Utah.

The whole issue has taken on a new urgency as

continued from page eleven Hopkins. “There are a lot of doctors and lawyers in Jacksonville [Florida] who would like to buy a few hundred acres and build a weekend house.” Subdividing, selling and developing land is the sad result forced on many landowners by this country’s laws and regulations that have unintended adverse environmental consequences.

“My life as well as that of my ancestors has been spent working to protect and sustainably manage our lands,” Hopkins notes. “This isn’t just any piece of property; it is our property that we have fought to maintain through two world wars and numerous conflicts, the Great Depression and numerous recessions, multiple massive wildfires, damage from beetles, drought, flooding, and wind damage. Having survived all of this, I can’t imagine what could be worse than to have to fragment and sell portions of our property because of the federal estate tax and other regulations.”

The solution to the problems facing the Hopkins family and many other of this nation’s landowners is to substantially reform or even eliminate the laws and regulations that are causing environmental harm.

Whether legislators will see the wisdom and environmental benefits of doing so remains to be seen.

Secretary Jewell has just announced she will be coming to Utah this summer to hear about land conservation proposals.

In a counter-move, Utah Governor Gary Hebert is calling for a special session of the state legislature to address the issue. “It is absolutely irresponsible for the Obama Administration to consider a new national monument that is over two and a half times the size of Rhode Island without input from Utahns from across the state who will be significantly impacted by this decision,” Gov. Herbert said. “As governor of the State of Utah, I have stated repeatedly that I oppose such a declaration. Today, I am asking every member of the Utah State Legislature to go on record and join me in expressing our opposition to another unilateral national monument within the state.”

We are looking at a situation where the Governor is opposed, no doubt the legislature will express their opposition, and many locals have publicly proclaimed they are against such a designation. Will that be enough to carry the day? Or will Secretary Jewell visit for a day or two, call that sufficient, and then Obama will designate the monument as a payoff to the enviros while adding acreage to his “legacy”? We’ll be watching. $6 million goats The Pentagon spent $6.1 million shipping Italian male goats to Afghanistan to mate with female Afghan goats to make cashmere in an effort to boost the Afghan economy after the war. John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said the project was a “failure” and the personnel on the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations “had no idea what they were doing.”

I’ve been around a long time and witnessed many instances of government incompetence. But they can’t get goats to mate? Talk about wasting bucks on bucks.

They would probably fail with rabbits too.

We need to put these folks in charge of the wolf recovery program.

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

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation.

Senate Effort Again Fails to Block Water Rule WWW.MSN.COM

T

he U.S. Senate has again blocked a Republican proposal that would have forced the Obama administration to withdraw a federal rule to protect small streams and wetlands from development and pollution.

An amendment sponsored

by North Dakota Senator John Hoeven did not get the 60 votes needed to stop the provocative rule. There were votes for and against from both sides of the isle.

Mid April’s vote was the latest effort to check the water rule, which they call an example of President Barack Obama’s overreach. Most

Democrats support the Environmental Protection Agency rule, saying it will safeguard drinking water for 117 million Americans.

The Senate has voted multiple times in the last year on GOP measures to thwart the rule, which has been put on hold as federal judges review a series of lawsuits by states and groups representing farmers and other businesses.

Republicans and some Democrats representing rural areas say the water regulation is costly, confusing and amounts to a government power grab, giving federal regulators unprecedented control of small bodies of water on private land.

OREGON COUNTIES Obama administration, which opted to begin a whole new planning process that is just now concluding.

“The Counties have been involved with the BLM from the beginning as formal “cooperating agencies.” As elected officials we did a lot of cooperating with the BLM, but unfortunately, the BLM did almost no cooperating with us,” said Commissioner Tim Freeman of Douglas County, Treasurer of AOCC. Multiple failings of the draft plan were the subject of extensive comments and positive suggestions the counties provided to the BLM on August 20, 2015.

“There is no indication the BLM took seriously any of our suggestions,” said Commissioner Freeman.

The clean water rule, sometimes called the Waters of the U.S. rule, clarifies which smaller waterways fall under federal protection after two Supreme Court rulings left the reach of the Clean Water Act uncertain.

The government should be doing everything it can to help farmers and ranchers, but instead is “stifling growth with burdensome regulations that generate cost and uncertainty,” Hoeven said.

GOP efforts to thwart the rule have moved forward when a simple majority was required, but failed when 60 votes were needed. Fifty-six senators, including four Democrats, supported Hoeven’s amendment.

continued from page eight “Getting mired down in litigation is the last thing any of us wants to do,” said Simon Hare, Commissioner from Josephine County and Vice-President of AOCC. “The only alternative to litigation is for Congress to act. We have diligently sought a legislative solution, but our Congressional Delegation has not been able to agree on a solution,” said Commissioner Hare. “Now, it will be up to the courts to decide.”

“The last two decades of ineffective management by the BLM has to stop,” said Commissioner Hyde, President of AOCC. “To that end, the AOCC has retained the Stoel Rives law firm of Portland to carry out litigation on behalf of the Counties.”

May 15, 2016

Livestock Market Digest

Big Science is Broken

BY PASCAL-EMMANUEL GOBRY / THEWEEK.COM

S

cience is broken.

That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has “self-correcting mechanisms” that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

For starters, there’s a “replication crisis” in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can’t be reliably replicated. But it’s not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced.

Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that “two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.”

What explains this? In some cases, human error. Much of the research world exploded in rage and mockery when it was found out that a highly popularized finding by the economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt linking higher public debt to lower growth was due to an Excel error. Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, largely built his career on a paper arguing that abortion led to lower crime rates 20 years later because the aborted babies were disproportionately future criminals. Two economists went through the painstaking work of recoding Levitt’s statistical analysis — and found a basic arithmetic error.

Then there is outright fraud.

In a 2011 survey of 2,000 research psychologists, over half admitted to selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after.

The survey also concluded that around 10 percent of research psychologists have engaged in outright falsification of data, and more than half have engaged in “less brazen but still

fraudulent behavior such as reporting that a result was statistically significant when it was not, or deciding between two different data analysis techniques after looking at the results of each and choosing the more favorable.”

Then there’s everything in between human error and outright fraud: rounding out numbers the way that looks better,

In a 2011 survey of 2000 research psychologists, over half admitted to selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after. checking a result less thoroughly when it comes out the way you like, and so forth.

Still, shouldn’t the mechanism of independent checking and peer review mean the wheat, eventually, will be sorted from the chaff?

Well, maybe not. There’s actually good reason to believe the exact opposite is happening.

The peer review process doesn’t work. Most observers of science guffaw at the socalled “Sokal affair,” where a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a gibberish paper to an obscure social studies journal, which accepted it. Less famous is a similar hoodwinking of the very prestigious British Medical Journal, to which a paper with eight major errors was submitted. Not a single one of the 221 scientists who reviewed the paper caught all the errors in it, and only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected. Amazingly, the reviewers who were warned that they were in a study and that the paper might have problems with it found no more flaws than the ones who were in the dark.

This is serious. In the preclinical cancer study mentioned above, the authors note that “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.”

This gets into the question of the sociology of science. It’s a familiar bromide that “science advances one funeral at a time.”

The greatest scientific pioneers were mavericks and weirdos.

Most valuable scientific work is done by youngsters. Older scientists are more likely to be invested, both emotionally and from a career and prestige perspective, in the regnant paradigm, even though the spirit of science is the challenge of regnant paradigms.

Why, then, is our scientific process so structured as to reward the old and the prestigious? Government funding bodies and peer review bodies are inevitably staffed by the most hallowed (read: out of touch) practitioners in the field.

The tenure process ensures that in order to further their careers, the youngest scientists in a given department must kowtow to their elders’ theories or run a significant professional risk.

Peer review isn’t any good at keeping flawed studies out of major papers, but it can be deadly efficient at silencing heretical views.

All of this suggests that the current system isn’t just showing cracks, but is actually broken, and in need of major reform. There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case.

As Wilson writes: Even if self-correction does occur and theories move strictly along a lifecycle from less to more accurate, what if the unremitting flood of new, mostly false, results pours in faster? Too fast for the sclerotic, compromised truth-discerning mechanisms of science to operate? The result could be a growing body of true theories completely overwhelmed by an ever-larger thicket of baseless theories, such that the proportion of true scientific beliefs shrinks even while the absolute number of them continues to rise. Borges’ Library of Babel contained every true book that could ever be written, but it was useless because it also contained every false book, and both true and false were lost within an ocean of nonsense. [First Things] This is a big problem, one that can’t be solved with a column. But the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Science, at heart an enterprise for mavericks, has become an enterprise for careerists. It’s time to flip the career track for science on its head. Instead of waiting until someone’s best years are behind her to award her academic freedom and prestige, abolish the PhD and grant fellowships to the best 22-year-olds, giving them the biggest budgets and the most freedoms for the first five or 10 years of their careers. Then, with only few exceptions, shift them away from research to teaching or some other harmless activity. Only then can we begin to fix Big Science.

Page 13

Groups File New Challenge to Wyoming Data Trespassing Laws

BY HOLLY MICHELS, BILLINGSGAZETTE.COM

A

coalition of environmental, animal rights and other groups has filed a new legal challenge to revised Wyoming laws that prohibit trespassing on private land to collect data.

The groups opposing the laws are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Center for Food Safety, National Press Photographers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and Western Watersheds Project.

The coalition filed an amended complaint in mid April. It says that even though the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year revised the civil and criminal laws to specify that they only applied to trespassing to collect data on private lands, they remain unconstitutional.

“The data censorship laws make criminals and scofflaws of those who collect information necessary to speak out about what they see and find on lands within Wyoming,” the revised complaint states.

The coalition says the revised laws are unconstitutional because they still seek to block members from communicating with the government based on the content of information they want to convey.

“The reason this case is so important to us is that we believe it’s essential that members of the public be able to access open land in order to enforce the environmental laws of the state and the federal government,” said lawyer Leslie A.

Brueckner of Oakland, Calif., who represents Western Watersheds Project.

The coalition first sued over the original laws Wyoming enacted last year. The coalition said the original laws prohibiting collection of data on “open lands” could be construed to prohibit gathering information used to question resource management decisions and expose animal cruelty even on public lands.

The groups also argued that their members had a constitutional right to turn over information they collected to government regulators.

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl, Casper, in December denied the state’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, stating he had concerns about the constitutionality of the original state laws.

Wyoming State Senator Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, sponsored the measures that were adopted as state law last year. He also sponsored amendments to those laws this year that removed the “open lands” language and specified the prohibitions only apply to private land.

In a recent interview, Hicks said he sponsored the measures because many landowners in his district have experienced state and federal officials coming onto their property without permission to taking water quality samples and conduct wildlife surveys.

An attempt to reach Hicks for comment on the revised lawsuit was unsuccessful.

Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael, whose office is defending the state laws, declined comment.

Page 14

Livestock Market Digest

Four New Wolf Packs Recorded in Washington

angus

Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. www.bradley3ranch.com

g•u•i•d•e BEEFMASTER

BY LYNDA V. MAPES, SEATTLE TIMES ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

Annual Bull Sale: February 11, 2017

at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

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

SANTA GERTRUDIS

Dan Wendt S

BRANGUS

S

S

Santa Gertrudis Cattle Polled and Horned HERD ESTABLISHED 1953

S

Call: 979/245-5100 • Fax 979/244-4383 5473 FM 457, Bay City, Texas 77414 dwendt@1skyconnect.net

RED ANGUS

R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

Phone: 575/638-5434 HEREFORD

209/727-3335

Phillips Registered Polled Herefords Bulls & Heifers

FOR SALE AT THE FARM

Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 MANUEL SALAZAR P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532

575/638-5434

CLASSIFIEDS BULLS ANGUS CHAROLAIS SIM ANGUS HEREFORD

A large selection of two-year-olds, performance records, range-raised and range ready, fertility tested, all virgin. Quality to compare anywhere!

PAT GRISWOLD CATTLE CO Goldthwaite, Texas

817/946-8320 mobile

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

May 15, 2016

RED ANGUS

Spring & Yearlings For Sale CECIL FELKINS • 209/274-4338 Email: CWCOWBOY@ATT.NET 5500 BUENA VISTA RD. IONE, CA 95640

W

olves are thriving in Washington.

The state’s most recent population survey, completed this month, shows at least four new packs in the state: the Beaver Creek, Loup Loup, Skookum and Stranger packs in Ferry, Okanogan, Pend Oreille and Stevens counties, respectively.

By the end of 2015, the state was home to at least 90 wolves, in 18 packs and eight breeding pairs, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife survey released recently.

The number of wolves grew by 32 percent last year, despite the deaths of seven wolves from various human causes, including legal hunting on the Spokane Indian Reservation, where the tribe authorizes the hunting of up to six wolves per year by its members. Three wolves in all were killed by tribal hunters last year.

The four other deaths included one wolf hit by a car that had been recovering from gunshot wounds to the leg; and a wolf shot by a Columbia County property owner from his porch because he was concerned for his dogs and family. That wolf had been collared in Oregon and was found to be undernourished and suffering from infected birdshot wounds to the head. A third wolf died during an attempt to capture it.

The fourth wolf’s cause of death is unknown.

Despite the deaths, since 2008, when the department documented just one pack and five wolves in Washington, the population has increased by an average 36 percent per year.

However, two other packs disappeared from the state last year: the Wenatchee pack, which could not be located; and the Diamond Pack, which moved to Idaho and is no longer counted in Washington totals.

Even though the number of wolves is growing in the state, there were fewer conflicts with livestock in 2015 than in the previous year. The department counted seven cattle and one guard dog injured by wolves from four packs in 2015.

Preventive measures, including a program that provides horseback riders to create an increased human presence in grazing areas, seem to be helping.

Others include using shepherds and guard dogs with sheep, to keeping watch over lambing and calving pens. Human presence with livestock animals makes the difference.

“It’s encouraging to see continuation toward our objective of increasing populations along with reductions in wolf-livestock conflict,” said Donny Martorello, carnivore specialist with the department.

He noted that last year the department stepped up its efforts with livestock producers to

provide radio-collar data to help range riders run interference between cattle and wolves; train range riders to recognize wolf activity; and urge producers to keep ahead of problems by not allowing animal carcasses to remain on rangelands, possibly attracting wolves.

Gray wolves were all but eliminated throughout the Western states in the last century by shooting, trapping and poisoning. Today, wolves are protected under Washington law throughout the state, and under the federal Endangered Species Act west of Highway 97.

“It’s definitely good news that the population is going up,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer for the Center for Biological Diversity. “But the fact is this much of an increase shows the population is still in early stages of recovery. It’s thumbs up, but we obviously still need protection.”

Survey results are approximate because the wolves are hard to track. The state did the research for this survey using planes, remote cameras, following wolf tracks and signals from 22 radio-collared wolves from 13 packs. A total of 12 more wolves were fitted with radio collars during the year.

A pack is defined as two or more wolves traveling together in winter. A successful breeding pair is an adult male and female with at least two pups that survive to the end of the calendar year.

Junior Leaders: Apply to Become the Angus Ambassador Submit an application by June 15 to be considered for the NJAA ambassador position.

T

he National Junior Angus Association (NJAA) is beginning its search for the next Angus Ambassador. It’s an elite position that provides an opportunity for a one-year term as spokesperson for the NJAA’s nearly 6,000 members, and connects with cattle producers, consumers and industry professionals nationwide. Applications are available online and must be submitted by June 15.

“As the Angus Ambassador, one junior member is given the opportunity to take his or her passion for Angus cattle to the next level by networking with other Angus producers and beef industry professionals, and by traveling to and attending a variety of engaging events over the course of the year,” says Jaclyn Clark, American Angus Association director of events and education.

Currently serving as the 20152016 Angus Ambassador is Will Pohlman of Prairie Grove, Ark. Pohlman is a junior at the University of Arkansas studying bio-

chemistry and animal science.

He will apply to medical school in the fall.

“It’s a really beneficial way to make new connections, travel to new places and push the limits of what a junior in the Angus Association can do,” Pohlman says.

“It’s a great opportunity to make connections with older Angus breeders as you transition out of the junior program.”

The chosen Angus Ambassador will travel to the following events: • American Angus Association Orientation in Saint Joseph, Mo.; • Angus Convention in Indianapolis, Ind.; • Certified Angus Beef® Building Blocks Seminar in Wooster, Ohio; • Cattle Industry Annual Convention in Nashville, Tenn.; • Beef Improvement Federation Annual Research Symposium and Convention in Athens, Ga.; and • Guiding Outstanding Angus Leaders (GOAL) Conference in Canada.

Additonal and existing travel may vary based on the selected ambassador’s location, schedule

and availability.

To be eligible for the Angus Ambassador competition, applicants must be Association members in good standing, between the ages 17-20 as of Jan. 1, who own purebred Angus cattle. They must submit a cover letter, résumé and two essay responses.

Applications can be found online.

Pohlman encourages all junior members to apply for the position: “If you’re on the fence about it, go ahead and apply. Definitely get your application together and submit it. It’ll be worth it in the long haul.”

All applications must be postmarked by June 15 and sent to the Association’s Events and Education Department, 3201 Frederick Ave., Saint Joseph, MO 64506. Once the applications are reviewed, five finalists will be invited to the Association headquarters on July 21 to participate in the final round of competition, which includes an interview and formal presentation with a panel of judges. The new Angus Ambassador will be chosen at the conclusion of the day.

For more information, please visit the NJAA website at www. angus.org/njaa.

May 15, 2016

Livestock Market Digest

Winters Rancher to Serve as TSCRA President New Leaders Elected

T

he Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) announced Richard Thorpe, Winters, as their new president on Sunday during the closing session of the 139th annual Cattle Raisers Convention.

Thorpe was elected a TSCRA director in March 2006. He most recently served as the first vice president alongside Pete Bonds, Saginaw, who served as president from September 2013 to April 2016.

“TSCRA has been critical to the strength and stability of the cattle industry for well over a century,” said Thorpe. “It is truly an honor to serve and lead this organization in my new role as president. Also, I appreciate Pete for his leadership and commitment to TSCRA. Most importantly, I thank my family for always supporting me. I look forward to all that’s ahead for this incredible association.”

Thorpe, his wife Karen and their family, own and operate Mesa T Ranch headquartered in Winters. The Thorpe’s operate a cow/calf operation as well as stockers and quarter horses. Thorpe also earned his medical degree from Texas Tech University.

Bobby McKnight, Fort Davis, will serve as first vice president.

Hughes Abell, Austin, was elected as a new officer in the role of second vice president.

New directors include: Donnell Brown, Throckmorton; Seth Denbow, Weatherford; Heath Hemphill, Coleman; Ty Keeling, Boerne; Leslie Kinsel, Cotulla; Carl Ray Polk Jr., Lufkin; and Gary Price, Blooming Grove.

Leslie Kinsel, Cotulla; Brian McLaughlin, Midland; and Clay Jones, Brady, were elected as executive committee members.

The Cattle Raisers Convention ended with over 4,500 cattlemen and women across Texas, Oklahoma and the Southwest in attendance.

TSCRA is a 139-yearold trade association and is the largest and oldest livestock organization based in Texas. TSCRA has more than 17,000 beef cattle operations,

ranching families and businesses as members.

These members represent approximately 50,000 individuals directly involved in ranching and beef production who manage 4 million head of cattle on 76 million acres of range and pasture land primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, but throughout the Southwest.

Page 15

RIDING HERD States if I gave you a drink. Tell me, If I can’t just dump it, can I put it in the creek that flows through our property?”

“I wouldn’t do that if I were you because you can’t discharge water into a body of water that has been deemed “waters of the United States”. According to the Administrative Procedures Act that would require an Approved Jurisdictional Determination, or what those of us around the water cooler down at the office call a Gotchya.”

“Can I get one of those Approved Jurisdictional Determinations?”

“It’s not very likely. The last guy who tried was back in 2012 and his case is just now going through the

continued from page one Supreme Court.”

“If I can’t drain it, dump it or discharge it how about if I just let it evaporate?”

“You can’t legally do that either because you’d be destroying waters of the United States.”

“According to your rules, does all the water on my place belong to the United States?”

“Pretty much.”

“Am I creating waters of the United States when I pee or take a bath?”

“You take a bath? I’ll pretend I didn’t hear that.”

“Getting back to the wading pool, what are my options.”

“At the Enviromeddle Protec-

tion Agency we don’t provide answers, heavens no!. We just create problems. If I were you I’d get myself a criminal lawyer.”

Aren’t they all?”

“I can give you my brother-inlaw’s business card. He works for the law firm of Steele, Robb Cheatum and Moore, but I’ll warn you, he charges five hundred bucks per hour and it will cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees. Even then we’ll probably end up owning your place anyway. That’s why our motto at the Enviromeddle Protection Agency is, “Even when we lose, we win.” wwwLeePittsbooks.com

G N I S I T R E V D A T S E B N E R E TH T S E W N I E VALU CK INDUSTRY! O T S E V I L

Call Ron Archer today at 505/865-6011 or email archerron@aol.com

Reser ve you r

Livestock M space now in arket Digest ’s

Annual Fall Marketing E ditio

n

ADVERTISING DEADLINE: August 1

Page 16

Livestock Market Digest

Feral Hogs Still Doing a Lot of Damage

BY JERRY LACKEY, GOSANANGELO.COM

E

stimated populations from two million to six million wild hogs are wreaking havoc in at least 39 states and four Canadian provinces with half of them in Texas, where they do some $400 million in damages annually.

For years, the feral hogs were discounted by the public as problems for farmers and ranchers. In recent years the destructive invasive species have come to town and proceeded to tear up golf courses, city parks and other recreational areas even terrorizing tourists in state and national parks.

“Today’s feral hogs are descended from domestic breeds, Eurasian wild boars and, of course, hybrids of the two,” said Billy Higginbotham, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension wildlife specialist.

“But despite claims to the contrary, simply observing the color patterns, hair characteristics and size cannot let you definitively identify which of the three types and individual hog falls into.”

However, feral pigs generally vary in color and size.

Their hair is coarse with long bristles, and the color ranges from black, gray, brown, blonde, or red to spotted combinations.

However, they are mostly black.

Despite some experts saying the feral hogs being born pregnant, sows begin breeding at 6 to 8 months of age

and have two litters of four to eight piglets — a dozen is not unheard of — every 12 to 15 months during a life span of 4 to 8 years.

The average female weighs between 77-330 pounds. The average wild boar weighs from 130-440 pounds. The males have four tusks that grow continually and can be extremely sharp. The upper tusks are as much as 3-5 inches long, and usually are worn or broken from use.

According to researchers, the wild hogs are surprisingly intelligent mammals and evade the best efforts to trap or kill them. They have no natural predators, and there are no legal poisons to use against them.

“For those landowners actively engaged in deer management, their tolerance of feral hogs should be very, very low,” Higginbotham said.

Hogs erode the soil and muddy streams and other water sources, possibly causing fish kills. They disrupt native vegetation and make it easier for invasive plants to take hold.

The hogs will even eat livestock, especially lambs, goat kids and calves. They also eat wildlife such as deer and quail and feast on the eggs of endangered sea turtles.

Feral swine can also transmit diseases and parasites, such as pseudorabies, brucellosis, and tuberculosis, to livestock and people.

“Early spring can be the best time of the year for con-

trolling expanding populations of wild pigs,” said Josh Helcel, Extension associate with Texas A&M AgriLife.

“Reducing populations of this exotic invasive species can directly translate into improved water quality, agricultural production, native species and habitat.”

Helcel is a member of the newly formed “Wild Pig Team” to study management strategies of the feral swine.

Other team members are Mark Tyson, associate with the Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences unit at Texas A&M; Kimberly Aston, assistant with the Texas A&M Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences; and Jim Cathey, associate department head, professor and wildlife specialist.

Texas law allows hunters to kill wild hogs year-round without limits or capture them alive to take to slaughterhouses to be processed and sold to restaurants as exotic meat. Thousands more are shot from helicopters.

The goal is not eradication, which few believe possible, but control.

Since 2007, subsequent studies done by AgriLife Extension and funded by the state’s department of agriculture confirmed that control measures such as trapping and shooting “prevented millions of dollars in damage by reducing feral hog populations,” Higginbotham said.

“Landowners remain the first line of defense since Texas is 95 percent privately owned land,” he said.

May 15, 2016

Wildlife & Sport Fish Restoration to Distribute $123 Million in the Southwest

T

he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) recently announced the nationwide distribution of more than $1.1 billion in revenues generated by Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Acts. All four states in the Service’s Southwest Region have the opportunity to share in this distribution of conservation funding.

In 2016, $123,356,617 will be available to the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The money supports essential conservation endeavors performed by state fish and game agencies and is derived by excise taxes, a user-pay user-benefit system, paid on gear for fishing, boating, shooting and hunting.

“Hunters, shooters, anglers and boaters have done more to fund essential conservation work than any other group,” said Cliff Schleusner, Chief of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program in the Service’s Southwest Region.

“The Service delivers the money to on-the-ground projects that prove beneficial to fish and wildlife and access to outdoor recreation. The WSFR Program has a profound influence on conservation and the economy and our heritage of outdoor pursuits.”

The WSFR Program has facilitated impressive conservation partnerships since 1937.

Over these intervening 79 years, more than $18 billion has been generated for the betterment of wildlife, fisheries and boating access. Fishing and hunting license revenues paid to state fish and game agencies by hunters and anglers are used in part to match the conservation funding coming from WSFR, approximately $5 billion to date.

This conservation funding goes to where it is needed—on the ground or in the water—for projects that directly benefit fish and wildlife or improve access to outdoor endeavors. The four states are eligible to use

the following amount of funds in 2016: Arizona $25,896,359; New Mexico $20,830,305; Oklahoma $23,945,446; Texas $52,684,507.

Some recently completed projects exemplify the use of WSFR funding.

Arizona: The world-class Ben Avery Shooting Facility, owned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in north Phoenix, hosts more than 120,000 shooters of all ages each year, including regional- and national-class shooting competitions. Hunters hone their skills and young shooters might pull their first trigger on the firing line with trained safety officers nearby.

New Mexico: The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish trapped 47 wild turkeys near Cimarron, New Mexico, and released them in the Guadalupe Mountains inside the Lincoln National Forest, following prescribed burns and forest thinning designed to improve wildlife habitat.

Oklahoma: The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation improved boat ramps, docks, lighting and fish cleaning stations at Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees near Tulsa, Oklahoma. The lake was the site of the recent Bassmaster Classic.

Texas: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recently used WSFR dollars at the Sea Center Texas, at Lake Jackson; CCA Marine Development Center, Corpus Christi; and the Perry R. Bass Marine Fisheries Research Station in Palacios, Texas, where scientists research and raise red drum, spotted seatrout and southern flounder— sport fish species important to the economy and coastal ecology. The red drum population in Texas bays has rebounded to near-record highs. Red drum are stocked in nine bays along the Texas coast.

To learn more about the WSFR Program in the Southwest Region, visit: www.fws.gov/ southwest/federal_assistance