The Progressive Rancher April 2016

NCA 2009 President’s Award Recipient

IN THIS ISSUE

22

American Lands Council

3

Riding for the NCA

25

Nevada Farm Bureau

4

Nevada Cattlemen Assn.

26

Horizons

6

Eye on the Outside

27

Look Up

8

Birds of Prey

28

House of Rep. Bill

12

Talking about NCBA

30

USDA

13

Ranch for Sale

32

Generations of Hunters

14

Fumes from the Farm

34

Water in Nevada

16

BLM

41

Nevada Department of Ag

17

Mind of a Millennial

42

Unfinished Promise

18

NRRC

46

Ramblings of a Ranch Wife

20

Beef Checkoff

47

EJ Financial Focus

Nevada Cattlewomen will return in May.

The Progressive Rancher Owner/Editor/Publisher – Leana Litten Carey progressiverancher@elko.net

Graphic Design/Layout/Production – Joshua Rinard

ELKO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION • Share Draft Accounts • Timeshare Certificates • ATM Cards/Debit Cards • IRAs • Visas

• Consumer Loans • Money Orders • Share Savings Accounts • Free Notary

Josh@LifeSpringDesign.com

Photo by Amie Morrison - “our camp “

Published 9 times each year, The Progressive Rancher is mailed to more than 7,000 approved addresses, and has digital and print readership reaching more than 30,000.

The Progressive Rancher is published monthly. The views and opinions expressed by writers of articles appearing in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor.

Letters of opinion are welcomed by The Progressive Rancher.

Rates for advertising are available upon request. Advertising in The Progressive Rancher does not necessarily imply editorial endorsement. Liability for any errors or omissions in advertisements shall not exceed the cost of the space occupied by the error or omission.

Spring is on the way ELKO

2397 Mountain City Hwy. Elko Junction Shopping Center Elko, Nevada 89801-1496

Phone: (775) 738-4083 Fax: (775) 738-2582

2 April 2016

SPRING CREEK

559 W. Spring Valley Ct., Ste. 7 Spring Creek, Nevada 898015-6811

www.elkofcu.org

Phone: (775) 753-6272 Fax: (775) 753-6280

The Progressive Rancher is free to people working and active in the livestock industry. The Progressive Rancher is donated to the agricultural industry. If you are not currently receiving this magazine on a regular basis, and would like to be a part of The Progressive Rancher family, contact us by e-mail at progressiverancher@elko. net, today, so we can include you on our mailing list. If you have moved or changed addresses, please notify us, by e-mail, so we can keep you informed. All requests for the magazine must be made by e-mail. © The Progressive Rancher Magazine. All rights reserved.

Leana Litten Carey, Owner/Editor

1188 Court St., #81, Elko, NV 89801 (208) 733-1828 • (208) 358-2487 • progressiverancher@elko.net

WWW.PROGRESSIVERANCHER.COM

The Progressive Rancher

Ads sent to or built by The Progressive Rancher become property of this magazine. www.progressiverancher.com

Springtime is Here!

H

By David Stix Jr. NCA President

appy Spring Cattlemen and Cattlewomen, March is over and it’s that time again! What a great start we have had!

Spring is here and many areas are reporting good water conditions, especially for the surface users. However, our ground water users need patience as the underground storage continues to replenish.

The cattle market is no worse. However, at the two special feeder sales in Fallon, NV the theme was “low numbers brisk prices”. Five and six weight cattle were very high in price due to the California grass demand and were worth the same money. But wait, if you had seven weight cattle and up… look out!! Sad. On another interesting note, this region has seen a lot of cattle shipped to California recently for marketing purposes. Also, fair amounts have been coming from California to this area as producers scurry to find the highest market value. I don’t know, maybe because the fuel is cheap!!

We are all standing by ready to find out where and how the Land Use Plans on the Sage Grouse are going to affect spring turn out. Once again, no one has any idea. I think it is safe to say the enforcing agencies don’t

www.progressiverancher.com

David Stix Jr.

know either. As soon as Nevada Cattlemen’s Association has something substantive to tell you, we will be yelling it as loud as we can! If anyone has an experience that changes your summer permits that involves Sage Grouse and the plan, please contact the NCA or JJ Goicoechea. We need to know!

On that, let me take a minute on behalf of the industry to thank JJ and Steve Boies for all that they do for cattlemen all across the West. My hand is out to you both and everyone that is working on the Sage Grouse issue.

A little prayer wouldn’t hurt either, not so much for JJ and Steve, but for our Federal Agency leaders that they find a little wisdom.

April will be a busy month, Kaley, Ron Cerri, myself, and Amber Miller will be heading to D.C. Ron, Kaley and I will be attending the PLC and NCBA meetings to try and figure out a way to deal with the inequity in how the PLC dues are collected. And of course, we won’t forget to address the Sage Grouse and the Wild Horses. This time in D.C. is also set aside to visit with our Congressional Representatives, and visit we will.

Well everyone, have a wonderful April and I will see you soon.

With respect, Davy Stix

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 3

By Kaley Sproul, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association Executive Director

Nevada Ranch Honored for Commitment to Environmental Stewardship

M

aggie Creek Ranch and the Searle family of Elko, Nev. were named national winners of the 2015 Environmental Stewardship Award. The award recognizes ranchers for their commitment to outstanding land management practices which create healthy, balanced ecosystems.

“Maggie Creek Ranch exemplifies environmental stewardship in the beef community, illustrating how ranching families work every day with the land, natural resources and cattle to better the environment,” said Philip Ellis, President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “When cattlemen and women, like the Searle family, dedicate themselves to conservation efforts the entire industry benefits.”

Raising cattle in sage brush country since 1975, Maggie Creek Ranch operates on two-thirds owned land and one-third permitted federal land. Ranch manager Jon Griggs has worked for many years to build trust with various partners and collaborate on conservation projects. One of those key partners is the Bureau of Land Management.

“We have had a common vision of the watershed and what the land should look like,” said Carol Evans, Fisheries Biologist, BLM. “Never mind the land boundaries, we just get to work.”

The ranch works to improve habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. One project of particular success was the installation of irrigation diversions and a fish passage to protect the Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Protective structures in the stream ensure the fish can move up and down the creek, spawn and access food sources. A healthy habitat at Maggie Creek Ranch is an ecosystem to support fish, wildlife and cattle in a sustainable manner which is part of a family tradition that started nearly 40 years ago with Sally Searle and her late husband, Bill.

“This award is such a personal thing for us with my grandfather being gone,” said Bekah Klarr, granddaughter of the Searles. “He really lives on through environmental stewardship and that heritage that he passed to us, which means a lot.”

Celebrating its 25th anniversary, the Environmental Stewardship Award Program was created to recognize beef producers who make environmental stewardship a priority on their farms and ranches while improving production and profitability. The award is presented by the National Cattlemen’s Foundation and NCBA, and is sponsored by Dow AgroSciences, NRCS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“The Searle family and each of our 2015 regional winners are examples of the best in American agriculture,” said Dave Owens, U.S. Range and Kaley Sproul, Pasture Marketing manager for Dow AgroSciences.

“These winners make a living from the land and leave NCA Executive Director it better than when they started. We are proud to honor these outstanding environmental stewards.”

4 April 2016

Nevada Cattlemen's Association Springtime Schedule

I

t has been a very busy month at the Nevada Cattlemen’s office! The Fallon Bull Sale that was in February was a great success this year. We have just finished closing up everything from the sale. A thank you, once again to all of our consignors, buyers, sponsors and volunteers for your support this year. In March the Fallon Bull Sale Committee held a follow up meeting from the sale. Along with some changes in rules, there was a change in committee leadership. Chris Gansberg resigned from being committee chair after having served on the committee for 40 years. NCA would like to thank him for his many years of dedication to the sale. The newly appointed chairs are Tom Armstrong, committee chair, and Monte Bruck, committee vice-chair. NCA welcomes the new leadership and requests that if anyone is interested in becoming a member of this committee to please contact us for more information. Also, don’t forget to mark your calendars for next year’s sale which will be held February 18th, 2017.

Coming up this month David Stix Jr., Ron Cerri, Joe Guild, Amber Miller and I will be attending the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council Legislative Conference in Washington D.C. on April 12-14. This is an opportunity to represent members of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association by meeting with key congressional and agency influencers to talk about certain industry policies that affect the state. I will provide a follow up of this event within the next issue of this publication.

NCA is seeking graduating seniors interested in pur-

suing an education in an agricultural related field to apply for the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association Annual Scholarship. The NCA will be giving this year’s outstanding graduating senior a $1,000 scholarship to attend any junior college or four-year University to study in any agriculture related field. The deadline for all applications is May 10th 2016 For requirements and a scholarship application, please visit www.nevadacattlemen.org.

If you are interested in becoming a member of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association please call the NCA office at 1-775-738-9214 or visit www.nevadacattlemen.org for more information. We welcome new members and voices for Nevada ranchers.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

2016 Sale Report March 12 & 13th 2016 Yerington Nevada

S

nyder’s bull test and annual workshop was a great success on March 12 and 13.

After the Tending to Business seminar featuring Jolene Brown and many of Snyder’s key business advisors, many producers went home ready to implement business strategies that will ensure future generations have the opportunity to continue the family business.

The Sunday sale averaged $5038 on 132 bulls. Nobmann Cattle Company purchased the high point bull and highest selling bull for $17000. The Champion, RJR Hoover All in 408, is a calving ease Angus sired by Deer Valley All In consigned by Rick and Jerrie Libby. Chris Gansberg purchased the next high selling Angus, a Diablo Valley Connealy Black Granite son for $10250. The third high selling Angus, a Westwind Angus bull also sired by Black Granite, sold for $10,000 to Fred Wilkinson, owner of GJ Livestock LLC. The Angus bulls averaged $5044.

The Gelbvieh/Balancer/Limflex division was topped by a calving ease Limflex sired by PA Safeguard 021, consigned by Tom Easterly and purchased by John Bunyard. The Gelbvieh closely following was a DDCC Mr Cardey 193Z son consigned by Cardey Ranches and purchased by JD Lee Cattle for $6000. This division averaged $4930 on 5 bulls.

Charolais breeders had a great day; $6472 was the highest breed average of the sale. The high selling and High Point Charolais was a LT Blue Value 7903 ET son consigned by Fred Jorgensen and purchased by Select Sires Inc. The high selling Hereford, from the outstanding Bell Ranch consignment, sired by CR 719 Tulo 928, was purchased by NIX Angus for $7250. 9 Hereford bulls averaged $4872.

Trotter Red Angus consigned the high selling Red Angus, a calving ease son of AHL About Time 411 which was purchased by Jones Ranch for $7750. Red Angus averaged $4273.

Charlie Hone won the Best Consignment award with his consignment of 14 Angus Bulls.

One of the more notable traits of the Hone consignment is that 10 of the 14 bulls had negative RFI numbers, with 7 bulls exceeding a -3 RFI. The Lucy’s award, a gift for the consignor with whom Snyder staff loved to work, went to Steve Smith. This award recognizes prompt and accurate paperwork submission, sale promotion efforts, and dedication to the sale effort.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 5

By Joseph Guild

T

he founders of our country struggled to figure out just what kind of government they wanted to create. I guess a modern question is what kind of government are the American people willing to accept. The Declaration of Independence clearly outlined the grievances the colonists had against an absolute monarchy system. The theme of “taxation without representation” is known to almost all of us as a precept by which any free people should start an argument against an out of control top down government. This was one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. What strikes one in re-reading the declaration is how logical are the arguments for self-determination and a limited government.

A review of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights leads to the same conclusion. This document is first and foremost a limitation on the powers of the government that was established, as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution, by the “People”. In other words, a king did not form this government, nor did a dictator, despot or demagogue. For further proof of the origins and foundation of our government, we only need look to the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

These are sometimes forgotten because of the focus on freedom of the press, gun rights and concerns about illegal searches and seizures, but they are nonetheless instructive and meaningful. The ninth states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The tenth says:” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The founders contemplated a ground up approach to a limited government that would not infringe excessively on the citizens natural rights to engage in commerce, meet with each other, exercise whatever religion they chose, to let their representatives pass the laws needed to “form a more perfect union” and to have the executive and judicial branches stay out of their way except when crimes were committed or government actions were needed in a limited and useful way.

The founding documents are pretty clear about how little government the early citizens of this country wanted. There is, however, no question that some government is needed and the United States has benefited throughout its history from sound policies created with our consent by our elected representatives. I like our transportation system for instance. It helps get my products to markets and me to see my kids and grandkids. I believe we need a strong defense system and I am proud to have been a part of that at one time in my life. We all want clean air and water and safe food.

We all want special places preserved for the benefit of future generations. And, yes, I admit I think we should make reasonable efforts to protect species from the threat of extinction. This is a small list to be sure, but the point is, I think we can all admit some reasonable governmental involvement in our lives has improved the quality of our lives in the more than two centuries of our national existence.

So what is reasonable? That, of course, is the question we have struggled with through our political and social discourse and in our courts since almost the very beginning of our nation. I can tell you what is not reasonable. I do not think it is reasonable for bureaucrats to stray very far from the enabling legislation that directs them to create rules of commerce, labor, interaction with the environment, health care and any number of other important functions of a civilized society without serious consultation and involvement of the entities and people to be regulated. I am not arguing the ideas of the regulated community should be rubber stamped but the regulators should be cognizant of what will be effective and what makes sense for the largest number of people but which also is accepted as reasonable by the regulated community. As has been said in many different ways, the reasonable should not fall prey to the attempt at the perfect.

6 April 2016

A classic ranching example is the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in the early 1930s. The reasonable ranching community recognized there needed to be some control over livestock grazing in the western United States because there had been a free for all atmosphere for most of fifty years. Tramp livestock operators would invade ranges that had been used by customary grazers with fixed base property for generations. Conflicts, that sometimes became violent, were the inevitable result. Thus, it was ranchers who asked for a system of regulated grazing with their input who helped create the public lands grazing regime we currently use n BLM administered lands.

The above is an example of a government regulatory system that, while not perfect, does have a basis in common sense and rationality. I leave for another day a discussion of what it has turned into.

Let me now turn to another more contemporary example of nonsensical government action and overreach that arguably hasn’t protected the citizens but made them less safe. As many of you who have read this column and kept up with other news over the last couple of years know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the subterfuge to clarify what constitutes a “water of the United States” subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction and control by the EPA, wrote a rule they formalized last year to greatly expand their jurisdiction This expansion of the EPA authority would give this agency control over much of the land in the United States.

This control would far exceed the original authority of the agency.

The rule is on hold pending judicial review but the example of an out of control agency is certainly embodied in this rule. While the EPA was vigorously defending its action promulgating the rule and illegally lobbying for support of its action, the Flint Michigan lead in the water crises burst into the news last summer. It is clear under an EPA rule known as the Lead and Copper Rule the EPA can control and monitor safe drinking water levels and issue orders to correct situations where, as in the Flint case, lead levels in the water are very unsafe and harmful to humans, particularly children.

The day I write this, USA Today reported on a Congressional hearing which made it very apparent the EPA ignored its own lead expert in February of 2015 and failed to release a report that could have caused that agency and other officials to intervene earlier in Flint to stop people from drinking the unsafe, harmful water there. Therefore, could the question be asked: In violating the original dictates of limiting government to reasonable and necessary action to protect the health, safety and welfare of the governed by engaging in unreasonable, unnecessary and agenda driven efforts to gain more control of its citizens did an agency of this government act unconstitutionally? I’m just asking. I’ll see you soon.

Rose Feed and Supply Under New Ownership/Management Custom gates and fencing Specialized feeds for 4-H show season All your calving, branding and weaning supplies Heating and bbq pellets Chicks, ducks, geese and turkeys ask us about our delivery options

Monday-Friday 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.

Saturday 10 a.m. - 4 p.m.

775-625-1515 • 775-421-6816

4320 W. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Carey Hawkins

Jack Payne

Cell: 208-724-6712

Cell:775-217-9273 Alt: 775-225-8889

OFFICE: 775-423-7760

Full-Service Cattle Sales & Marketing serving the Fallon, Nevada and Outlying Areas.

Seller

City

#

Desc

Type

Weight

Price CWT

W & Linda Cunrod

Reno

1

Bred

A Cal

1255

1570 HD

Troy Adams

Fallon

1

BLK

PAIR

1280

1400 HD

El Torito Cattle LLC

Fallon

5

MIX

B/C

85

395 HD

Thompson Livestock

Win

14

BLK

STR

413

$241.00

H & Joi Brackenbury

Yerington

7

BLK

STR

474

$230.00

H & Joi Brackenbury

Yerington

4

BLK

STR

489

$229.00

H B Family Trust

Austin

25

MIX

STR

483

$228.00

Tammy Lee

Fallon

7

MIX

STR

406

$227.00

Tammy Lee

Fallon

6

MIX

STR

512

$195.00

Jess Gantt

Fallon

1

BBF

STR

445

$226.00

Timothy Lawson

Fallon

1

BLK

STR

440

$224.00

John Mincer

Fallon

2

BLK

STR

460

$223.00

Hendrix Ranch

Fallon

6

BLK

STR

509

$222.00

Tom Weddell

Fallon

3

BLK

STR

555

$222.00

Tom Weddell

Fallon

3

BLK

STR

373

$219.00

Frank Mcguire

Doyle

3

BLK

STR

482

$221.00

Frank Mcguire

Doyle

3

BLK

STR

688

$168.50

Derek Sammaripa

Fallon

1

BLK

STR

445

$218.00

Lazy D Livestock

Pioche

11

MIX

STR

535

$214.00

Todd Chambers

R Mountain

1

MIX

STR

332

$210.00

Todd Chambers

R Mountain

1

MIX

STR

333

$200.00

Seven Dot Cattle

Golconda

10

MIX

STR

538

$208.00

Seven Dot Cattle

Golconda

6

MIX

STR

622

$194.00

Grace Iratcabal

Sparks

3

MIX

STR

430

$203.00

Sunrise Ranch

Yerington

4

BLK

STR

515

$200.00

Harold Rother Farms

S Creek

2

BLK

STR

305

$200.00

Pinson Ranch

Golconda

2

MIX

STR

483

$200.00

Clay Pennington

Yerington

2

MIX

STR

393

$200.00

R & Debra Depaoli

Lovelock

15

BLK

STR

614

$189.00

Trever & Jake Wade

Alamo

12

MIX

STR

564

$188.00

Bell Ranch

P Valley

7

MIX

STR

565

$186.00

J & M Assuras

McGill

4

BLK

STR

598

$182.00

Ira & Montira Renner

S Creek

4

MIX

STR

448

$181.00

Five Fingers Grazing

P Valley

19

MIX

STR

915

$180.50

Bill Card

Fallon

2

MIX

B/C

393

$180.00

Tom Inglis

Fallon

3

BLK

STR

473

$180.00

Sales Results from March 17, 2016 Feeder Sale

We had another great sale in March!

The market is up!

NEXT Feeder SALE April 20th

Starting at 11:30am in conjunction with our regular Wednesday sale

Opening Soon NEVADA LIVESTOCK VET SUPPLY, LLC 131 INDUSTRIAL WAY, FALLON, NV

(AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE SALE BARN)

Shop in store or we’ll ship/deliver to you!

For personal service call Julie Ikonen 775-624-4996 Carey Hawkins 208-724-6712 Jack Payne 775-225-8889

Seller

City

#

Desc

Type

Weight

Price CWT

Chance Guerrero

Wadsworth

1

MIX

STR

563

$177.00

John Guerrero

Wadsworth

1

MIX

STR

563

$177.00

Glorene Guerrero

Wadsworth

3

MIX

STR

563

$177.00

Leroy Hicks

Schurz

1

BLK

STR

530

$170.00

R & Daniel Gordon

Win

7

BLK

STR

659

$169.00

Jeff Whitaker

Fallon

6

BLK

STR

420

$168.00

Sheryl Hicks

Schurz

1

BLK

STR

630

$165.00

Alfonso Tenente

Lovelock

2

MIX

STR

698

$164.00

Alfonso Tenente

Lovelock

5

MIX

STR

786

$149.00

Judith Byler

Eureka

1

RED

STR

500

$162.50

Moura Ranch

Lovelock

16

MIX

STR

824

$147.50

Wilson Ranch

Win

6

MIX

STR

846

$144.50

Heart J Ranch

Reno

4

RED

STR

845

$140.50

Irvin Plank

Eureka

2

CHAR

STR

720

$140.00

L-M Ranches

Yerington

5

MIX

STR

709

$140.00

Jersey Valley Cattle

Win

1

BLK

STR

580

$130.00

R& Janice Olson

Reno

1

BLK

STR

905

$116.00

T Lee Livestock

Fallon

4

LHNX

STR

626

$92.00

Timothy Lawson

Fallon

6

BLK

HFR

438

$204.00

H B Family Trust

Austin

15

MIX

HFR

446

$200.00

Thompson Livestock

Winn

16

MIX

HFR

434

$200.00

J & Maureen Assuras

McGill

5

BLK

HFR

440

$198.00

H& Joi Brackenbury

Yerington

8

BLK

HFR

459

$190.00

Lazy D Livestock

Pioche

13

MIX

HFR

492

$190.00

Lazy D Livestock

Pioche

17

CHAR

HFR

640

$169.00

Masini Ranch

Yerington

9

BLK

HFR

444

$180.00

R& Daniel Gordon

Winn

27

BLK

HFR

517

$179.00

R & Daniel Gordon

Winn

12

MIX

HFR

634

$168.50

Bruce Wise

Minden

2

RED

HFR

485

$176.00

ML Sweetwater R

Yerington

3

RED

HFR

387

$172.00

Trever & Jake Wade

Alamo

4

BLK

HFR

569

$170.00

Gene Heckman

Winn

17

MIX

HFR

576

$170.00

R & Debra Depaoli

Lovelock

15

BLK

HFR

595

$169.00

Seven Dot Cattle

Golconda

6

MIX

HFR

554

$168.00

Five Fingers Grazing

PValley

30

MIX

HFR

625

$164.50

Stix Cattle Co

Fernley

12

MIX

HFR

557

$161.00

Todd Weagant

Orovada

3

MIX

HFR

517

$158.00

Susan & David Kern

PValley

5

MIX

HFR

468

$158.00

Larry Crutcher

Owyhee

2

BLK

B/C

488

$152.50

W & Linda Cunrod

Reno

3

BLK

HFR

673

$145.00

Moura Ranch

Lovelock

33

MIX

HFR

803

$138.00

Star Bar Cattle

Yerington Lovelock

3 1

BLK WF

HFR HFR

700 755

$130.00 $112.50

Gerardo Ramirez

For transportation needs and marketing or consignment information call Jack or Carey.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 7

Birds of Prey A Western Photographic Collection

S

US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service

bob.blank@ars.usda.gov

By Dr. Robert R. Blank and Fay Allen

ince 1987, Dr. Robert Blank has been the Research Soil Scientist at the Great Basin Rangelands Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, located in Reno, Nevada. Throughout his career, he has been involved with soil studies examining a variety of natural landscapes and environments mostly located within the Great Basin.

His research includes; invasive weeds, effects of wildfires on soil chemistry, pedology of landforms, soil mineralogy, seedbed ecology, biogeochemical cycling, and rangeland rehabilitation projects.

During this time, Dr. Blank has become more interested in photography. His artistic talent and ability to photograph flora, fauna, and landscapes within the Great Basin and eastern Sierra Nevada’s provides a unique visual collection of the environment. He carries his camera with him in the field, but mostly spends the weekends exploring the countryside for his next photo opportunity. This article showcases Dr. Blank’s birds of prey photography.

A special acknowledgement to Dr. William Longland and Ms. Lindsey Dimitri for their assistance in identifying bird species.

Birds of Prey, the larger birds of prey dine on larger mammals; rabbits, squirrels or racoons. Other brids fascinate these meat eating, blood sucking flying killers, like sage hen chics, which are eaten as well. Leana

Red-tailed Hawk, Swan Lake Nature Study Area, Reno, NV

This is a Red-tailed Hawk in its light phase. The coloration patterns of these hawks can vary greatly. Commonly found across North American deserts, grasslands and forests, these birds are intelligent, learn quickly, and often are used in training tasks and falconry.

8 April 2016

Cooper’s Hawk, Oxbow Nature Study Area, Reno, NV

This medium size hawk can be found in habitat ranging from mature forests, to open woodlands, and wood edges. The adult has a blue-steel gray back and reddish underparts, with thicker dark bands on the tail. Short powerful wings and a long tail, aid this agile bird as in maneuvers in dense forest areas.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

American Kestrel, Truckee River, Reno, NV

Also referred to as a sparrow hawk, this bird is the smallest in the falcon family, and commonly found in open or semi-open areas. It has a black striped pattern along the face, and a rusty-colored back.

Cooper’s Hawk, Swan Lake Nature Study Area, Reno, NV

This is the juvenile stage of a Cooper’s Hawk. It has long tail feathers, and is quite similar to the juvenile Sharp-shinned Hawk. This young bird had just chased prey in the marsh area and returned to perch, thus appearing a bit soggy and puffed out.

Osprey, Truckee River, Reno, NV

This Osprey is ready to take flight, from a cottonwood tree, over the Truckee River. Ospreys have a unique ability to dive feet first in water to capture live fish. They have slender bodies, long narrow wings and long legs, with brown coloration on their upper body and greyish/white on their heads and underparts.

www.progressiverancher.com

Great Horned Owl, Rancho San Rafael Regional Park, Reno, NV One of the larger owls, this particular species is characterized by long feathered ear tufts and a horizontal bar pattern on his belly. The Great Horned Owl is extremely adaptable and can be noted over a vast range of habitats. It prefers to hunt for rabbits, mice, voles and rats.

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 9

Peregrine Falcon, Oxbow Nature Study Area, Reno, NV

Rarely seen, the Peregrine is found across a range from coasts to woods and mountains. One of the swifter falcons, it preys mostly on birds. The species is noted with a dark cap, facial marks and larger size.

Red-shouldered Hawk, Oxbow Nature Study Area, Reno, NV

This hawk is characterized by reddish shoulder patches, uniformly colored underparts, and the wings and tail are comparatively longer than the Redtailed Hawk. This medium size hawk is found in open and woodland habitats. Often seen in the mid to eastern United States, these hawks are also found in California and along the border into Nevada.

Great Grey Owl, Swan Lake Nature Study Area, Lemon Valley, NV

Golden Eagle, Plumas National Forest, CA

A long tail and a circular facial pattern are emphasized along with the gray coloration of this bird. It was extremely rare to discover this owl perched low in a sagebrush/desert environment. More typically, the Great Gray Owl resides in the high mountainous elevations of the coniferous forests.

The Golden Eagle is one of the best-known birds of prey, being the largest one found in North America and demonstrating great speed and agility. It has dark brown plumage with lighter golden brown coloration on its neck and head. These birds build large nests, in high places, and tend to return to the same nesting site each year. Their home range can vary with a minimum of 60 square miles.

The Society for Range Management (SRM) is “the professional society dedicated to supporting persons who work with rangelands and have a commitment to sustainable use.” SRM’s members are ranchers, land managers, scientists, educators, students, conservationists – a diverse membership guided by a professional code of ethics and unified by a strong land ethic. This series of articles is dedicated to connecting the science of range

management with the art, by applied science on the ground in Nevada.

Articles are the opinion of the author and may not be an official position of SRM. Further information and a link to submit suggestions or questions are available at the Nevada Section website at http://nevada.rangelands. org. SRM’s main webpage is www.rangelands.org. We welcome your comments.

10 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 11 

March 17th 2016, Pingree Idaho

 12 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 13 

FUMES FROM THE FARM

T

By Hank Vogler

he “Editrix” gets nervous when I wade out into the political wa- delegates that power of the people to a few politicians. The trick becomes for the ters. My fan base of three people demands that my perspective be politicians is to get the wealthy to give them money to get elected and get the shared. Each succeeding generation thinks it invented politics. poor to vote for them and tell both groups they will protect one from the other.

History refutes that premise at nearly every corner. When we Power and money always leads to corruption. My grandfather used to say that were hunter-gatherers, the group with the big stick ruled. The it’s cheaper to buy a politician than it is to be one. Also he always said that the environment controlled population. Drought equaled starvation and surely Democrats and the Republicans fought all day long and slept together at night. changed politics of the day. Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest ruled.

Aesop, several hundred years B.C. Said we hang the petty thieves and

“Civilization” began when surplus agriculture production began. This promote the great ones to high political office. Mark Twain said it can be proven allowed humans to invent language, industry, armies and philosophy, aka “poli- by fact and figure that there is no distinct criminal class in America save Congress. ticians”. As populations became more stable and more people needed fed and He also said that if elections mattered they would not let us have them. Will Rogers clothed the armies went around subjugating other less well-armed neighbors. said that he didn’t tell political jokes because too many got elected. He also said he Politicians always checked the wind before speaking which with that lack of never met a man he didn’t like. He obviously never met president Obummer. commitment, lead to the invention of political decent.

Every once in a while our people get mad enough that they try some Eventually all societies collapsed from within when the power was con- thing different. The Whig party complacency gave rise to the Republican Party. centrated in to a few hands. The populace would tolerate and then finally rebel. T. Roosevelt went third party with the Bull Moose Party and got his opposition Usually this process took just a couple hundred years and then the society would elected. More recently we had the Democratic Convention in Chicago and the end in chaos. The fall of Rome came from corruption within and the barbarians Chicago seven with the riots helped third party guy McGovern get Tricky Dick looked better to the oppressed majority than the central government. If this elected. A few years later H. Ross fooled the people twice and got cigar Bill sounds familiar to you it seems rather evident to me. elected by siphoning off votes from the Republicans.

I grew up in the sixties. The war du jour was H. Is incognito with Jimmy Hoffa as Wal-Mart on TV every night and in color. It lead to the term, Jefferson said that we only have to fear greeters I’d guess. a rich mans war and a poor mans fight. If you read

My first choice, Dr. Carson has fallen by the politicians and thieves and by the history you realized that our own revolution sucwayside. My second choice Carly Fiorina is gone. ceeded because we used guerilla warfare. Every time constitution and the bill of rights, we can WOW!!!!!! a redneck liked a black guy and a woman prevent one from becoming the other. we stood up to the most powerful army in the world candidate!!! What has the world come to??????? Go we got whipped. Through stealth and cunning and figure. I am sure some of the other establishment the press after thirteen years of fighting the British folks would have been ok. I am sick and tired of went home. A lesson that the Viet Cong used to their advantage and through hearing “read my lips” no new taxes, trust me, I will fight for the middle class, politics got America not to lose but to capitulate.

I am not a crook, and when you elect me things will change. If in America they

Our founders learned from history and tried to perfect the mistakes of say that anybody can grow up to be President, we have certainly proven that, so past history. The biggest fear was to take governance away from the people and lets elect some one other than from the good old boys club and if he rolls over put it in the hands of a few elites. This lead to Jefferson saying things like the on us throw him out and keep trying until we get it right. If we throw enough government closest to the people governs best. They feared Democracy as mob of the old guard out eventually they might get it that they had better for once rule. The Republic was set up so the politicians were to represent the states and help the people and not just line their pockets with gold or the unemployment districts they came from. That concept now seems to be lost. Jefferson said that line will introduce them to the America they have forgotten. All I can say about we only have to fear politicians and thieves and by the constitution and the bill the remaining candidates is that the two that have a chance of beating Hill are of rights, we can prevent one from becoming the other. both considered outsiders and are despised by the establishment. That’s enough

All through history power always seems to get concentrated in fewer for me. Let’s focus, vote for Sanity or Santa Claus. hands. The populous becomes complacent and shirks their duties as citizens and Hang and Rattle! Hank Vogler

14 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

2016 Sale Report

Bliss, Idaho

www.progressiverancher.com

March 14th 2016

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 15 

BLM Nevada News - For the Rancher's File

BLM Takes Key Steps to Expedite Solar Energy Development on Public Lands Regional mitigation strategies to implement Western Solar Plan

A

By Matt Spangler

s part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution and spur renewable energy development on public lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced key milestones in implementing the Western Solar Plan with the release of mitigation strategies that will expedite the safe and responsible development of solar energy zones in Colorado, Arizona and Nevada.

The strategies apply a landscape-level approach to managing development in designated areas, known as Solar Energy Zones or SEZs, on public lands. They identify natural, cultural and human resources that could be impacted by potential solar development, as well as ways to mitigate any unavoidable impacts off-site. The strategies provide certainty to potential project developers by recommending a peracre fee that would fund off-site mitigation measures and streamline environmental review for individual projects within the zones.

“The BLM is committed to facilitating responsible solar energy development on public lands in the right places and in the right ways through implementation of the Western Solar Plan,” said BLM Director Neil Kornze. “These strategies represent a win-win for the environment and renewable energy development by taking stock of potential impacts upfront and identifying appropriate offsets, saving time and preventing costly do-overs late in the process. Solar energy development is a promising resource for Western states and counties, and the BLM is committed to moving forward with smart development of this resource.”

Solar Energy Zones were established in BLM’s Western Solar Plan for solar energy development, which was finalized in 2012. The plan provided a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those areas, and a process through which to consider additional zones and solar projects.

The strategies released today build upon the success of the BLM’s first regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada.

That effort led to the first successful Solar Energy Zone auction, which brought in $5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury, and helped the agency approve projects in half the normal time.

Today’s announcement includes the release of final strategies for three SEZs in Arizona (Yuma, La Paz and Maricopa counties) and one in Lincoln County, Nevada.

The Nevada SEZ -- the 25,069-acre Dry Lake Valley North – is the largest of five SEZs in that state, capable of producing up to 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy.

Also released today is the draft mitigation strategy for three SEZs on BLM-managed land in Colorado’s San Luis Valley.

Release of the strategies follows extensive public outreach and multi-stakeholder workshops held in each respective state. The strategies are not National Environmental Policy Act documents or decisions. Rather, they are strategy documents that 16 April 2016

will help inform analyses of specific solar project proposals. The strategies are available by going to the home pages of each BLM State Office: Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

The final strategies are effective immediately; the public will have 45 days to comment on the draft Colorado Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy. For additional information or to submit a comment, please contact Nancy Keohane at 719-269-8531 or email comments to SolarMitigation@blm.gov.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The BLM expects to release the final strategy for Colorado in the spring.

$10,000 Reward for information on Wild Horse shooting

T

By Jenny Lesieutre

he Bureau of Land Management is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for shooting and killing a wild horse in early October 2015 at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, near Carson City, Nevada.

The BLM currently manages thousands of wild horses in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which gives the agency a mandate to protect and manage the animals. The Northern Nevada Correctional Center/Stewart Conservation Camp Saddle Horse and Burro Training Program is a cooperative partnership between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Nevada Department of Corrections-Silver State Industries. Through this training program, wild horses and burros are gentled and trained before being adopted.

About 60 wild horses and burros are trained and adopted at the facility each year.

Currently, the Northern Nevada Correctional Center horse program houses and maintains approximately 1,500 BLM horses.

Individuals with information about this incident are encouraged to call the BLM crime hotline phone number at: 1-800-521-6501

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

In the Mind of a Millennial

I

By Jill Scofield, Nevada Beef Council

t has been an interesting journey since I consumers who range in age and are nationally representative of the U.S. population, joined the staff of the California and Ne- balanced for census profile distributions of gender, age, ethnicity, region and child presvada beef councils a few years ago. For this ence. The latest results from this research are from August 2015, and the cumulative Nevada-grown girl who spent her forma- data helps track the shifts in consumer perception. tive years on a multi-generational cow-calf One overall finding from the latest CBI is that beef continues to be an American ranch in Washoe county, my “industry knowledge” was based in large part favorite. To those of you reading this, I’m sure that comes as no surprise, but it’s nice to on memories of survival. Surviving everything Mother Nature had to throw at have this fact validated through solid research. Specifically, nearly 80 percent of Millennial parents responded that beef is their first/ us – drought, fire, frigid winters. And if Note: the following graph is from the August 2015 Consumer Beef Index. top choice in terms of protein, compared to we got through that, we faced the often the total market percentage of 75 percent. volatile and unpredictable cattle market.

When it comes to nutrition, Millennial Of course there are many, many wonderful memories mixed in with those reparents continue to place a greater importance called hardships. There’s no way to replicate on nutrition than other age groups. Further, or help someone who’s never experienced they have a much greater appreciation than ranch life fully understand the excitement other age groups of beef’s value for the money of a cattle drive; the appreciation you have and its fit with a health-conscious diet. Millennial parents are also more engaged in for land and livestock when you are a steward of both; the true fulfillment of seeing information-seeking than other groups and your hard work get hauled to the market in are an active part of the conversation about a cattle truck, fat and healthy. beef and nutrition. Given beef’s powerful What I don’t remember, though, is nutrition story and a growing awareness of the spending a lot of time talking about the importance of protein’s role in a healthy diet, end-user of our product – the consumer this bodes well for our industry. who would ultimately purchase beef at the The importance of healthy fats is also supermarket or restaurant. I’m sure those The Consumer Beef Index has proven to be a powerful tool for the Beef Checkoff Program becoming more important to this generation, conversations happened on some level, I was in helping ensure messaging and strategies continue to align with consumer attitudes and though there is more room for education. In just too young and naïve to be a part of them perceptions. To learn more about the CBI and other useful beef research tools, visit www. a study conducted by the International Food – or perhaps I just wasn’t paying attention. beefresearch.org. For more on the Nevada Beef Council, visit www.nevadabeef.org. For ad- information Council in late 2015, “When it But I also think that those conversa- ditional details about consumer or other industry research, visit www.MyBeefCheckoff.org. comes to dietary fat, millennials realize the tions – from the ranch to the retailer, and every segment along the way – have evolved healthfulness of omega fatty acids but do not fully understand the differences between tremendously since my days on the ranch. We have come a long way as an industry, different types of fats.” Specifically, 64 percent of millennials rate omega-3 fatty acids, and that is a testament to the progressive cattlemen and cattlewomen who have known a type of polyunsaturated fat, as healthful, yet only 17 percent of millennials rate all along that to survive, one must adapt. polyunsaturated fats as healthful. Additionally, one in three millennials have changed As I’ve shared the insight culled from vast amounts of consumer research in these their view on the healthfulness of saturated fat, with millennial men being more likely monthly articles, I too have learned a lot along the way. As that little girl on the family to view its healthfulness more favorably. ranch, I spent little (or no) time thinking about the woman I’d become today – a working Getting back to the CBI, another favorable finding from the latest study suggests mom of two little boys who doesn’t have a lot of time to spare, especially when it comes to that perception of beef’s safety continues to improve. Given that food safety is a top cooking meals. So understanding the drivers of what pushes women and men in similar consumer demand driver, this is excellent news for the beef industry, and a testament circumstances to a meal-purchasing decision – and how those of us in the food and beef to the work put into rigorous food safety protocols over the years. industries can use that information to better sell our products – has been eye-opening.

I hope you too have pulled some insight from these articles, or at least a different perspective about how we as an industry think about and approach the consumers who are purchasing the beef you work so hard to produce. When the Progressive Rancher first approached me about providing these updates, I thought the content well would quickly run dry. As it turns out, there’s no shortage of research on the consumer trends of the millennial generation, whether it’s being sought after by the beef industry or another group looking to tap into and better understand this lucrative market.

Consumer Beef Index

One valuable tool we use at the NBC – and in the beef industry nationally – is the Consumer Beef Index (CBI). Developed in 2006, the checkoff-funded CBI is used to track changes in consumers’ perceptions of and demand for beef relative to other proteins, particularly chicken. It assesses the impact of communications efforts on consumer attitudes and behaviors, and helps shape strategy, nationally and statewide.

This survey is conducted semi-annually, and is done in an on-going format with www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

Jill Scofield, Nevada Beef Council April 2016 17

Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission Sets Funding Priorities To Promote Public Land Ranching

Nevada Ranchers Caretakers of our

Rangelands

Cowboys and sheepherders produce food and fiber for the nation. Growing food on Open range is a natural biological process.

Grazing actually benefits the land with hoof action and natural fertilization. Plants are healthier and regenerate faster after the herds move to a new range.

Antelope and other game animals and birds take advantage of the improvements

Grazing cattle and sheep coexist peacefully with native wildlife and, in fact, make a friendlier habitat for many species.

T

By Rachel Buzzetti his year the Nevada Rangeland Resource Commission (NRRC) will be supporting the livestock and grazing industry by partnering and funding the following organization’s activities. These are consistent with the NRRC’s mission to reach out to the public and help them understand the value of public land grazing.

RANGE Magazine

Their charter is to provide and disseminate information about the use, care and maintenance of natural resources. R ANGE reaches more than 170,000 readers. R ANGE will renew 500 gift subscriptions for doctors’ and attorneys’ offices back East, which will say “Compliments of Nevada ranchers.” In addition, all four issues of R ANGE will have a full color page ad on the back cover. Lastly, R ANGES new book, “Reflections of the West: Cowboy painters and poets,” will be mailed to all 652 Nevada libraries for art, literature and history classes.

Golden Productions

They are a video production company based in Reno, Nevada and San Diego, California. The media company will transition this next year from making documentaries to a television advertising and social media campaign, and thus delivering the NRRC message from the previous 5 documentaries. They will write and produce six 30 second commercials to air over one year on two Northern Nevada TV channels. In total, they will be running a minimum of 160 thirty-second spots. The commercials will inform the public of current issues as well as drive them to the website. They will also bring the NRRC website as well as other social media tools up to date, since they have become the “go to” sources for information.

The Progressive Rancher

Founded in 2001 to honor agricultural traditions, while embracing modern education. The grant will promote Nevada Rangeland education materials to an audience which is affected financially by the health of Nevada Rangelands and to educate the readers both in the magazine and on the internet as to how the livestock industry continues to improve and steward the land.

Nevada Ag Foundation

Sheep often graze on steep terrain and can control cheatgrass, a major fuel for wildfires.

Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission was created by the State of Nevada to promote responsible public land grazing.

Representatives come from Nevada state grazing boards, Nevada Woolgrowers, Nevada Farm Bureau, and Nevada Cattlemen’s Association.

4780 East Idaho Steet, Elko, NV 89801 • 775-738-4082 WWW.NEVADARANGELANDS.ORG

This ad is funded through the NRRC’s assessment of 10 cents an AUM paid by public land ranchers.

18 April 2016

Their mission is promoting agricultural education and research throughout the state. They award teachers annually who are active in educating Nevada’s children about agriculture as well as they have awarded $1.6 million in scholarships to students graduating from Nevada high schools. They have always been a supporter of the Ag in the Classroom Program (AITC), where recently they realized that the current AITC materials are not specific to water nor to how it relates to agricultural production in Nevada. A distinct education program with education materials on water and its role in agricultural production will give a new focus to AITC on this vital topic.

Great Basin Water Network

Founded in 2005, when the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) re-activated its groundwater applications all over Nevada. The wide-ranging Network works vigorously to oppose SNWA’s massive water exportation project. Their goal being to educate as many rural and urban people about the economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed SNWA project as well as legally responding to court rulings.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Nevada Rancher Magazine

Allie Bear

The oldest independent livestock monthly magazine in Nevada, whose mission is to inform the reader about agricultural related news. The magazine is distributed in Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon. The funding will promote NRRC ‘s message by placing ads and a written column throughout the year regarding the Commissions efforts to educate the citizens about public land ranching.

The NRRC is governed by a commission of nine voting members. These members are nominated through each of the grazing boards, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, Nevada Woolgrowers, and the Nevada Farm Bureau; then appointed by the Governor. The NRRC has one part-time staff person.

For more information about the NRRC please visit our website at www.nevadarangelands.org or join us on facebook.

Real Estate

Spec ializing in hunting, ranching, and horse properties Howell Ranch Nestled on the hillsides of the East Humboldts in Elko County. Water-righted meadows produce 1200 average ton of hay a year. 4 homes with mature landscape. Multiple barns, shops, storages, chutes & corrals. $4,900,000

Lamoille View Ranch 49.23 AC with Water Rights in picturesque Lamoille, Nevada. 5 bed, 3½ bath, home with 2 bed, 1 bath mother-in-law quarters. Gourmet kitchen, sunroom, wraparound deck. Nice Barn with two stalls, tack room, and hay storage, a new Dressage arena, and rolling native grass pastures. On a good water year the hay yield has been 40 ton and 15-20 ton in dry years. $872,000

17 D iamondback Place (Spring Creek, NV)

3.95 acres — Plenty of acreage for a horse pasture or 4H animals. 5 bed, 2 bath home with 3-car attached garage.

Barn and large indoor arena with power and water to both. NEW PRICE $299,900

Nevada Division of Forestry

Landscape Scale Restoration and State Fire Assistance Grant pre-proposals being solicited

C

By Ryan S. Shane

ARSON CITY, Nev. – The Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) is currently soliciting pre-proposals for two competitive grant programs; Landscape Scale Restoration and State Fire Assistance.

Landscape Scale Restoration Grant Nevada’s urban and rural ecosystems are continuously threatened by the invasion of non-native species, vegetation diseases, development disturbances and destructive natural events such as floods and wildfires. NDF is providing a funding opportunity made available through the USDA Forest Service, which enables cooperators to identify natural resource restoration needs in regards to landscaping and apply for funds. Funds may be used to implement restoration treatments that reduce negative ecosystem impacts such as wildfire and noxious weeds and improve or restore urban/rural forest and rangeland health, recreational opportunities, water resources, riparian areas and wildlife habitat.

State Fire Assistance Grants

NDF is also seeking pre-proposals for the State Fire Assiswww.progressiverancher.com

tance program that would help cooperators identify and implement hazardous wildfire fuel reduction projects to mitigate community losses from wildfires. Funds may be used for costs associated with implementing on-the-ground hazardous fuels reduction projects, information and education campaigns relating to Wildland Urban Interface issues and homeowner and community action projects.

Proposed projects must be implemented on state and/or private lands located in Nevada. Projects on federal lands are not eligible.

Pre-proposals must be submitted on the approved forms available on the Nevada Division of Forestry website at http:// forestry.nv.gov/grants/. The site also contains a more detailed description of the criteria, including deadlines, instructions for eligibility and the scoring criteria that will be used to rank applications. Pre-proposals must be received by the Nevada Division of Forestry as prescribed in the grant guidance documents found on the website. Late, incomplete, or faxed pre-proposals will not be accepted.

For more information contact Ryan Shane at (775) 684-2511.

The Progressive Rancher

Recanzone Ranch (Paradise Valley, NV)

Great subdivision potential 9 parcels and can be divided into more.

Neat 900+ acres, 300 AUMs, ranch right by town. Original Sandstone House.

Easy access to Hinkey Summit & surrounding mountains. Includes Barn, Outbuildings and Corrals. $1,320,000

Starr Valley Pasture Unique fenced 1,104 acres on Boulder Creek bordering U.S. Forest Service in Starr Valley, Nevada. Water-righted with nice meadows. $1,400,000

602 Forest Tow Way (North of Elko, NV)

45+ Acres. 3 bed, 2 bath, large garage with shop, fenced yard with mature trees, shrubs. $265,000

9320 Mountain City Hwy (North of Elko, NV)

157+ Acres with water rights 3 bed, 2 bath, 4 car garage, large barn, stalls, tack room, corrals, round pen, fenced/cross fenced. $399,000

View complete listings at:

www.ARanchBroker.com

775-738-8535 Allie Bear, Broker/Realtor 775-777-6416

April 2016 19

CHECKOFF NEWS:

W

Celebrating Beef Producers

By Jill Scofield, Director of Producer Relations

Beef Production and Water Use

ith the warmer spring months upon us, nature’s bounty is on full display throughout Nevada. And with Earth Day being celebrated on April 22, it’s always a great time to remind others (and ourselves) of the great stewards of this land that are Nevada’s beef producers. So this month, we at the Nevada Beef Council (NBC) thought we’d share some important facts and background about beef production from an environmental standpoint.

Some of this information is new, and some has been around for a while. But all in all, our hope is that this helps you as a beef producer continue to tell the story of how your work and way of life has a positive impact on the surrounding land and ecosystem.

The Latest in Beef Sustainability Research

In addition to sharing beef ’s health benefits and positive aspects with consumers, the Nevada Beef Council (NBC) and Beef Checkoff are committed to conducting important research and disseminating science-based information regarding aspects of beef production that are critical to our industry’s long-term success.

One perennial topic of concern among consumers is that of “sustainability” – not just for beef, but for nearly all facets of life. In an effort to provide answers to some of the more challenging and complex questions about the sustainability of beef, the Beef Checkoff-funded sustainability research program developed a series of fact sheets called “Tough Questions about Beef Sustainability.” These informative fact sheets, available for download at www. beefresarch.org, provide good, factual information about a variety of aspects dealing with beef and environmental sustainability.

In one such fact sheet, researchers Ashely Broocks, Emily Andreini, Sara Place and Megan Rolf discuss beef ’s important role in increasing carbon sequestration, which refers to the long-term capture and storage of carbon from the atmosphere (typically carbon dioxide, CO2). Enhancing biological carbon sequestration in soil and plants is a promising method of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and combating climate change.

According to the fact sheet, “There are many different techniques to achieve carbon sequestration, including reducing tillage of soil and establishing permanent grasslands. Beef cattle play an important role in increasing carbon sequestration through the production of human food from untilled pastures, grasslands and rangeland,” in other words, lands that can store a large amount of carbon.

To learn more about this complex issue, and download fact sheets on other important aspects of beef ’s sustainability, visit www.beefresearch.org.

Though the moisture we’ve received in the past several months has been a welcome change from the past few years, the discussion surrounding beef and water use seems to be a perennial one in the arid West. It might be helpful to know just what the truth is when it comes to how much water it takes to produce beef.

According to www.beeffacts.com: “Taking into account all water from farm to fork—including water for cattle to drink as well as water used in irrigation of pasture land that cattle may graze on, growing crops (such as the carrot tops and almond hulls) that cattle may eat, harvesting and processing beef, water used for refrigeration units at the grocery store or at a restaurant to keep food cold, for transportation as well as in cooking, and even the water taken into account for food waste—it takes 617 gallons of water per one pound of boneless beef consumed, according to a recent beef industry sustainability lifecycle assessment, funded by the Beef Checkoff.”

It’s also important to remember that water for raising beef is not “used up.” The water cycle we all studied in elementary school still applies. Water percolates into aquifers, it runs down streams into lakes and oceans, it evaporates and returns as precipitation, and cattle pastures provide land to filter this water and return it to the ecosystem.

Overall Environmental Stewardship on the Ranch

This time of year is also a good time to remind folks that, for the beef producer, Earth Day is celebrated every day, in large and small ways. Sharing how the industry has achieved continuous improvement over the years is one way to highlight that fact. For example, research done by Washington State University’s Dr. Jude Capper suggests that without improvements within the U.S. beef production system, producing the same amount of beef as in 1970 would require: • • •

10 million more beef cattle 17 million more acres of land for grazing and growing feed 81 million more tons of feed, and 138 billion more gallons of water

This would result in 18 million more metric tons of CO2 equivalent being released into the atmosphere, and 16.9 million acres of forests being destroyed in other countries to maintain global beef production, as U.S beef supply would decrease 17%.

Additional Resources For more information on these complex topics, be sure to check out these helpful resources: • 40 Ways Ranchers Help Protect the Environment: www.explorebeef.org/protectingresources.aspx • Beef Sustainability Research: www.beefresearch.org/beefsustainabilityresearch.aspx For more on NBC and Beef Checkoff activities, visit www.nevadabeef.org or www.mybeefcheckoff.com today.

For more about the Nevada Beef Council, visit www.nevadabeef.org.

20 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Easy Sheet Pan Meatloaf and Vegetables

From James Winstead, RDN, Director of Food and Nutrition Outreach for the Nevada Beef Council

UPCOMING SALES

Thursday, May 5Th Cottonwood, CA Catalog Deadline: April 20th

A New Approach on an Old Favorite At the Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner. Web site, new takes on favorite beef recipes are constantly being added to help at-home chefs create delicious, fun and EASY meals that are sure to be fan favorites for adults and kids alike. This month’s recipe is no different.

Meatloaf may not be a new concept by any means, but preparing it on a sheet pan with the side vegetables makes for an easy all-in-one meal that is sure to please.

Enjoy! And as always, for more beef recipes for any occasion, visit www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com.

Total Recipe Time: 1.25 to 1.5 hours Ingredients - Makes 6 Servings

• 1-1/2 pounds ground beef (93% or leaner)

• 1 can (8 ounces) tomato sauce, divided

• 1 cup dry bread crumbs

• 1 small onion, finely chopped

• 1 egg

• 2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce

• 1 teaspoon dried thyme leaves

• 1/2 teaspoon salt

• 1/4 teaspoon pepper

• 2 pounds red potatoes, cut into 3/4 inch cubes

• 1/2 teaspoon garlic salt

• 1/2 teaspoon pepper Topping:

• 1 tablespoon packed brown sugar

• 1 teaspoon dry mustard

Thursday, May 26Th Cottonwood, CA Consignment Deadline: April 18th

WATCH & LISTEN TO THE SALE on the Web at:

For details call (530) 347-3793 or the representative nearest you:

Instructions 1. Heat oven to 400°F. Reserve 1/4 cup of tomato sauce; set aside.

2. Combine Ground Beef, remaining tomato sauce, bread crumbs, onion, egg, Worcestershire sauce, thyme, salt and pepper in large bowl; mixing lightly but thoroughly.

Gary Nolan

Mark Venturacci

(775) 934-5678

(775) 427-8713

Elko, NV

Steve Lucas

Paradise Valley, NV

(775) 761-7575

Brad Peek— (916) 802-7335

3. Shape beef mixture into 8 x 4 x 2-inch loaf on parchment-lined sheet pan.

Vegetables

or email us at wvm@wvmcattle.com

1. Toss potatoes with nonstick cooking spray, garlic salt and pepper. Spread potatoes evenly around the meatloaf on the sheet pan.

2. Place sheet pan on the center rack of oven, bake in preheated 400°F oven for 40 minutes. Meanwhile, combine reserved tomato sauce with brown sugar and dry mustard. Spread sauce evenly over top of the meatloaf, stir potatoes, and continue cooking another 20 minutes or until instant-read thermometer inserted into center of meatloaf registers 160°F.

Fallon, NV

Look for the catalog and video on our website www.wvmcattle.com

Market your cattle with the professionals!

3. Remove meatloaf and let stand 10 minutes before slicing. Test potatoes for doneness and return to oven if needed while meatloaf rests. Cut meatloaf into slices. Serve with potatoes.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 21

W

e all hear stories about how decisions in Washington, D.C., are reached through a combination of political horse trading, backroom deals, cor- ruption, deception and double-dealing flim- flam, and outright mugging. Well, it’s true. And one of the worst such decisions in recent memory will have enormous lasting impact on the West.

The great American West is engaged in a war— what Wyoming Sen. Michael B. Enzi calls a “regulatory war”—with the Obama administration and unelected Washington minions over the stewardship and use of public and private lands in the West, and the West is losing. At stake is everything from water to oil and gas production, coal mining and coal power plants to cattle and sheep grazing, mineral extraction to timber production, and summer to winter recreation.

Nothing happens in Washington today without a partisan political battle; gone is the consensus for the common good that used to exist. Meanwhile, the feds run roughshod over our lives. State and local governments, ranching and mining interests, and average families are fighting this regulatory war on virtually every front, and the massive churn- ing machine of unelected federal bureaucrats and political appointees has brought a how- itzer to a knife fight.

In a classic Washington story, where power is everything and the process is laced with insider intrigue, backroom deal mak- ing, political chicanery, scheming backstab- bing, conspiring turncoats, partisan obstinacy, and shifty bureaucratic maneuver- ing, a range bird sort of like a chicken has handed us the potentially most devastating federal triumph yet in the losing battle for western states’ rights.

Growing Federal Dominance

Today, the Department of the Interior employs over 70,000 bureaucrats spending over $13 billion in 2015.

The Department of Agriculture employs over 100,000 bureau- crats with a budget of $140 billion, and EPA has more than 15,000 with an $8 billion budget.

A recent study revealed that federal workers’ pay and benefits were 78 percent higher than private-sector employees, who earn a yearly average of $52,688 less than government workers.

Just to keep things in perspective, there were 56 signers of the Declaration of Inde- pendence in 1776, and 55 delegates drafted the Constitution in 1787.

A Football-size Bird

In what has been a hotly debated topic for several years, the state/federal battle over the Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) is chairman of the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. greater-sage grouse, a bird about the size of a football, is about far more 22 April 2016

than a bird. It is about the destiny of western states and the ranching way of life, about food production and resource extraction, about something we used to possess called private property rights, and about whether “we the people” or Washington hacks control our future and our livelihoods.

According to the North American Breed- ing Bird

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) is chairman of the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Survey, in the past 50 years greater- sage grouse populations have decreased by 65 percent. Once believed to number in the millions, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service esti- mates there are now approximately 500,000 birds spread over 173 million acres in 11 western states and two Canadian provinces. About half of that habitat is on private land.

Conservation officials attribute this decline to a loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat attributable to invasive species such as piñon pine, juniper trees and nonnative cheatgrass, to catastrophic wildfire, loss of wet meadows, power lines, off-road vehicles, predation, industry, and urbanization.

Hot Topic

In 1985, federal bureaucrats and environ- mental activists proposed listing the sage grouse on the federal Endangered Species List (ESL). Repeated petitions to list were filed, yet no listing was warranted.

In 2005, Western Watersheds Project filed a federal lawsuit challenging that decision. The U.S. District Court of Idaho ruled in its favor and ordered a listing reconsideration. In 2010, the feds concluded the listing was “warranted but precluded,” considering if existing regulatory mechanisms and state efforts were adequate to protect sage grouse and their habitats. More lawsuits followed, causing state and private conservation costs to skyrocket, and a September 2015 deadline was established for a listing decision.

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, The Progressive Rancher

it declared its purpose was to conserve species deemed to be in danger of extinction. Species not in such danger are managed and protected under state authori- ty.

But by law it is the feds alone who make the extinction endangerment decision. States can talk throughout the process, but there is no guarantee the feds will listen; on the greater-sage grouse, they didn’t.

In what ultimately proved to be a futile effort to preserve state management primacy and avoid a listing of the greater-sage grouse on the ESL, since 2001 North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Northern California—11 western states having some sagebrush-steppe habitat— have spent several hundred million dollars to preserve, enhance, and restore greatersage grouse habitat. They estimate that millions of acres of habitat have been restored and pro- tected from wildfires and invasive species.

Costs borne by these western state gov- ernments have been exceptional, including the enrolling of thousands of ranches in the effort to help protect 44 million acres of habitat. Since 2006, for example, Utah—with an estimated total sage grouse population of only 13,000 birds—has treated over 1,120,491 acres of wildlife habitat at a cost exceeding $300 million. With only an esti- mated 308 sage grouse, North Dakota has also spent millions.

Western Strategy and Tactics

Realizing that state efforts were losing to the Obama administration and recognizing an endangered species listing would cost the Defense Department tens of millions of dol- lars, endanger critical military facilities, and imperial western states’ military training essential to national security, last April Utah Congressman Rob Bishop, chairman of the powerful House Committee on Natural Resources, crafted a brilliant solution to balance conservation and national security, pre- serve state control, and protect military facilities.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. www.progressiverancher.com

Working with Colorado’s Sen. Cory Gardner (and after much backroom arm twisting and deal making), Bishop secured a successful House vote on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would prohibit the Obama administration from declaring the sage grouse an endan- gered species.

The amendment recognizes that state plans are effectively managing and conserv- ing sage grouse populations and it would ensure time for state plans to be fully imple- mented. In other words, the states were suc- ceeding and did not need federal control.

Resistance came from the Senate, sur- prisingly led by Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In essence, McCain abandoned his western colleagues and threw western states’ primacy to the Obama forces by deleting the Bishop amendment to secure our western future. It was not included in the final bill signed into law by President Obama.

Cagey Federal Decisions

With just a handful of days remaining before the September 30 listing deadline, U.S. Secre- tary of Interior Sally Jewell, a nonelected political appointee of President Obama, ambushed states rights and private property rights when quietly behind closed doors she determined that state and private efforts to save the greater-sage grouse mean the bird no longer faces extinction and does not need to be listed as an endangered species. Some heralded this camouflaged federal ploy as a victory for all parties.

But read between the lines, where the feds hide the fine print. “Jewell’s cagey move,” as one western governor proclaimed, “was the equivalent of a listing decision out- side the normal process and fail[ed] to support an appropri- ate balance between conservation and other public uses of the land.” With the stroke of her pen, this bureaucrat bypassed years of legal contest, leaving the fed’s man- agement plan and rules and agenda in force, and let the states be damned. Those federal plans are so exces- sively restrictive and costly that they are equivalent to a listing under the Endangered Species Act, but without any legal process or challenge. Jewell’s decree was arbitrary and final. The Obama plan for control of western land, both public and private, just found greatly expanded authority.

Wyoming Congresswoman Cynthia Loomis, chair of the Congressional Western Cau- cus and who after a quarter century of elected office is calling it quits, characterized the protections invoked by BLM and Forest Service land- use plan amendments as just as onerous as a listing. “With the stroke of a pen, the Obama administration’s oppressive land-management plan is the same as a listing. Now, successful conserva- tion done at the state level will be in vain. The new command-andcontrol federal plan will not help the bird, but it will control the West, which is the real goal of the Obama administration.”

Saying Jewell’s move “changes nothing,” House Natural Resources Chairman Bish- op adds: “They did not go through the front door. They went through the back door.... They have the same type of control as if it is listed.”

Federal Control of Western Lands

“The natural progress of things,” Thomas Jef- ferson once wrote, “is for liberty to yield and for government to www.progressiverancher.com

President Barach Obama’s Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, a Democrat.

gain ground.” That’s just what’s happening today.

By any other name, this policy is nothing more than a disguised federal land control grab. While some state plans provide a one- mile buffer around a lek—the mating area for the sage grouse—the federal plans have a three-mile zone. There are also high fed- eral standards for “human disturbance,” an enormous federal obstruction of livestock, timber, mining, and energy interests.

BLM officials have admitted that “stipulations” for greater-sage grouse will be implement- ed in the federal permitting process, mean- ing that long-standing sheep and livestock grazing permits, mining permits for countless minerals, and timber harvesting per- mits may be arbitrarily reduced or denied by a bureaucrat. Travel restrictions are like- ly for livestock, mining, and timber compa- nies, and for off-highway vehicles. This potential financial devastation to the West is incalculable.

So if the habitat is 173 million acres and the feds want a three-mile protective enve- lope, federal control of a billion acres or more of public and private land may well be the true result. And all this has little to do with a sage grouse that is protected by responsible stewardship; it has everything to do with federal bureaucrats controlling not only our land but everything that happens on it, no matter who owns it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The West won the battle to keep the sage grouse off the ESL, but through federal sleight of hand we lost another colossal war over federal land use dominance in our slow death by regulation.

Now there is yet another major battle brewing. Calling the Endangered Species Act a failure and economy killer, western states, led by Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, chairman of the Western Governors’ Asso- ciation, are launching the newest battle against Washington’s reluctance to remove species from the list after they’ve recovered. When a species is listed, western governors argue, there are “extreme opportunity costs.” Only about one percent of listed species has ever been delisted.

Meanwhile, Washington carries on in its steamrolling of western states’ liberties and freedoms. The The Progressive Rancher

use and productivity and destiny of lands where the ven- erated sage grouse may live, whether publicly or private- ly owned, now rest with the opinions of a federal bureaucrat. While the greater-sage grouse may not now be an endangered species, what is endangered is private property rights.

Everywhere we see gov- ernment encroaching on such rights through zoning restrictions, permit requirements, and ever by a bureaucrat. Travel restrictions are like- ly for livestock, mining, and timber compa- nies, and for off-highway vehicles. This potential financial devastation to the West is incalculable.

So if the habitat is 173 million acres and the feds want a three-mile protective enve- lope, federal control of a billion acres or more of public and private land may well be the true result. And all this has little to do with a sage grouse that is protected by responsible stewardship; it has everything to do with federal bureaucrats controlling not only our land but everything that happens on it, no matter who owns it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The West won the battle to keep the sage grouse off the ESL, but through federal sleight of hand we lost another colossal war over federal land use dominance in our slow death by regulation.

Now there is yet another major battle brewing. Calling the Endangered Species Act a failure and economy killer, western increasing regulations. The battle for recourse, if available, can be costly and time consuming, often beyond the resources of individuals and business-

Gov. Matt Mead (R-WY) has served as Wyoming’s boss since 2011.

es, but never beyond the deep pockets of government.

In four case decisions during 2015, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the vesting of “the federal gov- ernment with an undifferentiated ‘govern- mental power’” beyond the three constitutional branches. We should too.

My old boss, Ronald Reagan, believed pri- vate property rights to be “one of our most precious rights.”

They are fundamental to our United States. What the federal govern- ment has just pulled off in the name of one football-size bird is nothing but a federal taking of states rights and private property rights that will have immeasurable, unfore- seen, and very costly consequences for gener- ations of westerners.

Stephen M. Studdert is a sixth-generation westerner.

He was a senior White House advisor to three presidents.

April 2016 23

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770 Recently, Colorado College released a 2016 Conservation in the West Poll, where statistics were twisted to meet the needs of those administering the survey. Matt Anderson, who heads Sutherland Institute’s Center for Self-Government in the West project, published a recent article exposing this “survey” for what it really was, “...a push poll that biases results and does not accurately represent how Utahns feel about federal land management.”

The results differed dramatically: 55 percent in support, 39 percent opposed, and 6 percent refusing to answer or didn’t know. The upshot is that Utahns do support our friends, family and neighbors managing our public lands far more than we do D.C. bureaucrats.

We can conclude that Colorado College’s Conservation in the West survey is a push poll that biases results and does not accurately represent how Utahns feel about federal land management. The faculty director of the project, Eric Perramond, said in a press release, “Charges of government overreach from the ideological fringes are making headlines, but in reality most Westerners in this poll favor greater protection and sensible use of the open lands and national treasures that define the region.”

Contrary to Perramond’s statement, Utahns in favor of a transfer do not constitute an ideological fringe. This healthy majority understands that public lands are part of our cultural heritage and need to be protected by those who love and care most for it — the people of Utah.

Matthew Anderson heads Sutherland Institute’s Center for Self-Government in the West project.

My view: Facts are stubborn, statistics are pliable

S

By Matthew Anderson

tatistics are all around us, in many forms. Sports, health care, business and almost every facet of our society look to numbers to help sort out the world.

With so much riding on the line, sound statistical methods and principled research are imperative. Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Numbers can be manipulated to support any number of arguments.

Such is the case in Colorado College’s 2016 Conservation in the West poll. Released a few weeks ago, this seven-state survey attempted to gauge public opinion on a number of issues facing the Rocky Mountain states. Highlighted among this year’s findings was a question regarding the transfer of federal lands to Western states: “Some Members of Congress have proposed giving the (Utah) state government control over national public lands, such as national forests, national monuments, and national wildlife refuges in its borders. The state government would decide the future management of the lands, but state taxpayers would pay all costs, including the cost of maintenance and preventing and fighting wildfires. Do you support or oppose this proposal?”

The results for Utah left me scratching my head — 41 percent in support, 47 percent opposed, 11 percent unsure. How can the state leading the charge in the federal lands transfer movement have such little public support from its own residents?

The answer comes in how the question — which forces certain assumptions on the participating individual — was asked.

First, let’s remove one misapprehension: The transfer excludes national parks and leaves national monuments largely untouched. The poll leads participants to believe that all public lands would be turned over, but transfer proponents are seeking multiple-use lands like those managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Such wording surely led those unfamiliar with the transfer movement to see it as an all-out land grab.

Second, the question pushes respondents to believe, wrongly, that state residents would be responsible for picking up the price tag of land management and fire prevention costs. A study released by the Property and Environment Research Center last year found that for every dollar the federal government spends to manage its multiple-use lands, it loses $0.27. States, on the other hand, generate $14.51 for every dollar spent managing lands under their care.

In other words, taxpayers are losing roughly $2 billion a year due to inefficient federal land management. State management of these lands would lower management costs and produce revenue.

Considering these two major flaws in the poll, I was left wondering how Utahns actually feel about the state’s effort to take control of federal land. Luckily, Utah Policy released a poll just a few weeks later on the issue. Its poll involved over twice as many participants; was not just limited to voters but included Utahns from all walks of life; and had a significantly smaller margin of error than the Colorado College poll. Most importantly, however, Utah Policy’s question was far simpler: “Do you support or oppose the state taking control of federal lands?”

24 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

N Farm Bureau Nevada evada Farm Bureau

Tractor Safety Action Plan

Agriculture Needs Your Voice!

By Mariesa Bergin | Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

D

uring the month of March, the American Farm Bureau Federation celebrated Agricultural Safety Awareness Week. Farm Bureaus across the nation swept social media with warnings and educational tips regarding high-risk activities for anyone working in Agriculture. Farm Machinery, Youth on the Farm, grain bin, transportation, and ATV safety were highlighted as some of the most prevalent safety risks in agriculture.

Did you know that spring is the most hazardous time of year for those working in production agriculture? Overtired, overworked ranchers are at an increased risk for injury when operating dangerous machinery or navigating terrain that has changed through the winter season. Nevada Farm Bureau urges farmers and ranchers to err on the side of overly cautious as you gear up your tractors and plows this season, as tractor overturn is continuously the leading cause of death in the industry.

Even the most seasoned of workers can make simple mistakes that result in overturns. The New York Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health reports that 80% of tractor-related deaths fall upon experienced farmers. Those who operate old equipment that lacks the industry’s latest safety features, are at the highest risk of experiencing a tractor-related injury. The good news is that a rollover protective structure (ROPS) is 99% effective in reducing your risk of injury or death during a rollover, if you are wearing a seatbelt.

Make a plan today to equip at least one of your tractors with a roll bar this spring. If you can’t afford to add roll bars to all of your tractors at once, you can still designate one equipped tractor to use in situations where roll risk is high.

Additionally, create a seat-belt reminder sign for your updated tractor and post it in a spot where the rider will easily see it.

Finally, make a point of teaching all employees and children about rollover safety and seatbelt use. The age of your machinery largely does not affect your ability to install these structures. The University of Kentucky has an extensive database of tractors and compatible ROPS structures along with contact information for dealers: To research a structure compatible with your tractor’s make and model, visit: warehouse.ca.uky.edu/rop

Avoiding a Tractor Roll

More tips available through the Iowa Fatality Assesment Control and Evaluation (FACE) program • Always do a general safety check before starting a tractor • Always hitch loads at the drawbar.

• Use front weights to increase tractor stability.

• If possible, avoid backing downhill. Drive around ditches.

• Back out or be towed out of ditches or mud.

• Match speed to operating conditions and loads.

• Do not let the front wheels bounce.

• Slow down before turning.

• Use engine braking when going downhill.

• Avoid crossing steep slopes.

• Watch for depressions on the downhill side and bumps on the uphill side.

• Turn downhill, not uphill, if stability becomes a problem.

• Stay 10 feet or more away from ditches, steep slopes and riverbanks.

• Keep front-end loader buckets as low as possible when moving to maintain a low center of gravity.

• If the right front tire goes off the road into the ditch, turn downward or hold steady and slowly recover. Do not attempt to turn sharply back onto the roadway. www.progressiverancher.com

I

By Hank Combs | President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

n a time when political parties are becoming more and more polarized, when we are wrestling over which presidential candidate to support, when the entire world has a magnifying glass on production agriculture, it can be easy to throw our hands up in the air and walk away from politics altogether.

I understand the feeling, but I want to share a few words of encouragement. As President of Nevada Farm Bureau, I have had the opportunity to see this organization stand up for agriculture in a big way. We have successfully advocated for water rights and property rights, brought balance to the endangered species act, and continuously oppose government overreach.

Currently we are working with the U.S. Senate to standardize accurate food labeling requirements throughout the nation.

The strides we make in our advocacy efforts cannot occur without your support. Changes that are fought for at a local level in our individual counties can be the beginnings of national movements. Our Nevada Farm Bureau members have spoken up time and again to protect agriculture in our Battle Born State. We must continue to raise up our voices so that generations to come can be prosperous in this stewardship we take on as farmers and ranchers.

In the early 1900’s, at the first organizational meeting of the American Farm Bureau, AFBF President James Howard said, “What’s good for farmers is good for America.”

Lately it seems there are many who disagree with that statement. Let us be reminded that agriculture and ag-related industries contribute more than $800 billion to U.S. gross domestic product according to the United States Department of Commerce. The United States is the world’s leading exporter of agricultural products as reported by the International Trade Administration. We create and support jobs in communities all over the country, and most importantly, we feed the world.

So, please, don’t be afraid to stand up for your livelihood. The American economy rests on our efforts and the work that we do does matter. It matters to our families, it matters to our communities, and it matters to anyone on the planet who wants to eat! We cannot stand on the sidelines and expect someone else to stand up for our agricultural values, if we don’t do it, nobody will.

2016 is an important political year for us. We have the opportunity to elect our next United State’s President, and candidates for congressional and senate seats in Nevada are hard at work seeking our votes. While it’s an interim year for our legislature, interim committees are meeting regularly to draft policy and debate on issues that could affect us.

All of our successes in Farm Bureau advocacy have taught us that citizens in this country do have power to change things. We will be heard, if all of us can commit to speaking up. I encourage you to participate in politics this year. Research the candidates, become engaged with your party on a county level, or attend interim committee meetings to offer your testimony as a citizen in production agriculture. Above all, plan to vote when the primaries and general elections come around.

It is my hope that our children will learn from us as we speak up so that generations to follow will be raised in homes where agricultural values are defended.

It is never to late to step into the conversation! If you need information about becoming involved in any meetings or processes mentioned in this article, reach out to your county president, or the state office. Any one in Farm Bureau will be eager to assist in your efforts.

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 25

THE (DESTRUCTIVE) POWER OF THE MEDIA DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING YOU READ?

D

uring my career working as a professor or meat industry professional, I received (and still receive) numerous emails, phone calls, and letters asking my opinion about articles written by food bloggers. For this reason, one of my teaching goals is to prepare my students to be successful if they decide to pursue their careers in the meat or food industry. They will definitely need to understand food production systems and human nutrition to answer questions like that. At a some point of their careers they will be informing the public about differences between myths and facts.

During spring, I teach AGSC 255 Meat Industry, Food Safety, and Quality Systems.

Students who miss field trips are required to work on an extra activity to compensate their absence. This year, two of my students missed the first field trip and I decided to expose them earlier to a real life situation. I showed them an email I received. The sender was asking clarification about an article published in a blog. I asked my students to give me their points of view about the article and discuss with all other students how the content of the article would affect public’s opinion.

The article was written by a blogger called Vani Hari, better known as “Food Babe”, according to herself. I confess that it was the first time I heard about her, but it seems she has a lot of followers. I decided to take a look at her website and found out that most of articles are based on the lack of understanding that general public has about food science and composition. It surprised me that she has an advisory board composed by physicians and nutritionists, but none of them directly contributes to her blog.

After checking her website, it is clear that the battle against major fast food chains is always the hot topic of her discussions. Generic discussions about gluten-free, high fructose corn syrup, growth hormones, and antibiotics are also made without citing proper scientific sources.

The dissemination of myths and affirmations based on beliefs will lead us to believe that most of the population does not understand food production mechanisms. There is a common lack of knowledge about substances that are added into the production chain to improve food and sustainability, as well as nutrients that play an important role in our metabolism. For example, over the last years the world population raised concerns about genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, and growth hormones.

In one of her articles, “Food Babe” erroneously approaches the question about antibiotics by mentioning that Subway is feeding the public “meat on drugs”.

The title “We want subs, not drugs!” directly suggests that meat products used by subway contain antibiotics. The true is that the USDA has a very rigorous methodology to access prohibited substances in meats. The National Residue Program for Meat, Poultry, and Eggs (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/04c818ed9bb1-44b2-9e3f-896461f1ffb9/2015-Blue-Book.pdf?MOD=AJPERES) verifies if meats and eggs produced in the U.S. have residues of chemicals and antibiotics.

Therefore, the presence of prohibited substances is strictly monitored by the government, ensuring that meat is safe for consumption.

Although Food Babe’s article title suggests that the meat we eat at Subway contains

26 April 2016

antibiotics, her article approaches the fact that conventional meat production systems use antibiotics to improve productivity. Food Babe never discussed about antibiotics residue in meats. Her concerns are related to antibiotic resistance due to sub therapeutic doses that are used during production. Although some research suggests that bacteria living in those animals can become resistant to some drugs, the most important pathogenic bacteria is usually eliminated if the meat is properly cooked,. Meats used by subway are processed and produced under standards that ensure they are wholesome. Therefore, her statement that resistant bacteria can be spread to humans is not totally accurate, specially when meat is cooked or chemically treated with food additives.

The article about In N Out is still more aggressive. She mentions similar issues regarding the use of antibiotics, suggests that high fructose corn syrup leads to diabetes in children, and that Yellow 5 (Tartazine) leads to increased hyperactivity in the children.

These considerations are totally dependent of the quantity that these ingredients are ingested are how much they are added to food products.

Although some of her comments have some scientific evidence, she completely ignores government measures that control the use of ingredients and co-factors that substantially decrease her suggested outcomes. Her comments about grass fed are also not very accurate. She mentions that grass-fed beef is healthier because animals are not raised with growth hormones.

Although some grass-fed animals typically aren’t given hormones, government regulations do not specify if hormones can be used or not. Most of conventional feedlot cattle in the U.S. is raised with hormones, which may include grass fed beef. Growth promotants are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and extensive toxicological testing is conducted prior to the approval of any new growth promotant. The natural production of androgens and estrogens by humans is thousand times the content of a large serving produced with hormone implants. For example, eggs and milk naturally contain more estrogen than implanted beef (Table 1).

Therefore, there are facts, myths, and wrong affirmations. In order to know the true, challenging the information source is always the best choice.

HOW ABOUT THE SOCIAL MEDIA

Two months ago, I saw random posts on Facebook suggesting that a major meat company was shipping U.S. chicken to be processed in China and later be exported back to the U.S. The scariest part of these posts was comments made by users, who did not hesitate in criticize and blame the company. But let’s stop here and ask us simple questions that would at least lead to a reasonable line of thought: 1. How much would cost to this major company to send live animals or fresh poultry overseas and import back?

2. Why the largest and most efficient chicken producer in the world would be supplied by a foreign-approved meat plant?

Obviously, Tyson Foods was not shipping chicken to be processed in China and I am sure that users who commented that post didn’t ask themselves those two simple questions. Should we blame them for the comments?

Maybe the questions we should ask ourselves are: Does the general public understand logistics? Did they ever have access to the information about the U.S. chicken industry?

Well, some people will try to use the media to explore our lack of knowledge in some areas. However we all can question the veracity of misleading articles.

Nowadays, nobody needs to spend hours in a library looking for books. Internet can help us out with that; we just need to set our brain to filter what really makes sense.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Wisdom or the world?

L

by Pastor Diana Gonzalez

et’s open our Bibles and read I Corinthians chapter 1, verses 18-31.

Let’s look at verse 18 again, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the Power of God.” (KJV) And verses 23 and 24, “23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (KJV) So what is the definition of wisdom? Having prudent discernment, good judgment, learning, enlightenment and knowledge. But take note of this: wisdom is a skill. God is the starting point in any quest for wisdom. James 1:5 says if you ask God for wisdom He’ll give it generously, without reproach.

Godly wisdom is the skill that gives us the ability to use our judgment correctly; wisdom is the skill that causes our minds to take action based on our knowledge and understanding of the Bible and Biblical principals, Christian enlightenment.

James 3:13, who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. (NAS) We need our owner’s manual (the Bible) and the enlightenment that we get from it. If you’re not in the light, then you’re in the dark. It’s hard to see in the dark, hard to know which way to go, which way to turn. Psalm 119:105 says Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (KJV) Godly wisdom will light your path so you will know where to go, what to do, what to say and how to say it. It’s a skill you learn as you fill yourself with the Word of God. Let’s read Proverbs 1:2-7.

Let’s look at verse 7 in the Amplified Bible, “The reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal and choice part of knowledge; but fools despise skillful and Godly wisdom, instruction, and discipline.”

In this world there are two kinds of wisdom: Godly wisdom and worldly wisdom.

The born again, redeemed, spiritual man has Godly spiritual maturity and has found the wisdom and skill to operate in this world free from strife, and has a mature nature that responds to the Truth, the Word of God, with faith and love.

The unredeemed, worldly man (or woman) finds this hard to understand. Why? Because he (or she) is used to leaning on his (or her) own understanding.

Let’s read Proverbs 3:5-8.

Again, verse 5 says, Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

Let’s ready Proverbs 16:16-29.

Your Godly wisdom, your Godly skill will not leave you unchanged. The Bible says we are changed from glory to glory. As God’s Word and wisdom is taught to you, God’s truth and promises will begin to influence you. Any of you who knew me in years past know that’s true. The wisdom of the Truth will influence your heart (your spirit); your heart will influence your speech; your speech will influence your conduct; your good conduct will influence your disposition; your good disposition will bring about desirable human relationships and release divine grace in your daily living, leading to happiness and health.

www.progressiverancher.com

If you humbly acknowledge the power and the might of God, with both your speech and with good manners, you can be that believer who overcomes the world and lives in victory.

Here are the keys:

1.

2.

3.

Pray. Have a relationship with God. Read your Bible. Get in the Word.

Go to church and Bible studies.

James 1:5 says He’ll give you wisdom if you ask.

Happy trails. May God richly bless you. We love you and would love to hear from you. If you would like someone to pray with, or just have a question, please give us a call at (775) 867-3100. ‘Til next time….

Cowgirl Thinking Tainted scientific reporting to support the Interiors agenda driven by ideology is nothing but injustice of the highest kind that is intentionally knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting the facts.

Is that not a crime. ? - Leana

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 27

 28 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

House Advances Amodei Bill to Increase Local Control of Nevada Public Land

W

By Logan Ramsey

ASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-2) commended the House Natural Resources Committee’s unanimous passage of his bill to allow public land to be held in trust for six different tribes throughout Nevada. H.R. 2733, the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, would greatly benefit the people of these regions by providing increased opportunities for economic development.

“Today’s vote puts us one step closer to placing Nevada public lands back into local control – rather than in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. My bill carefully balances the unique needs of our Nevada tribal nations with those of local ranchers, land owners and businesses. These lands will enable the tribes to chart brighter futures for their communities and preserve their cultural heritage and traditions.

I’m pleased to see the Committee move this important piece of legislation and I look forward to the full House passing this bill as soon as possible.”

Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe: Would transfer approximately 19,094 acres of BLM land in Humboldt County to be held in trust to resolve checkerboard lands issues. This would help to address law enforcement and emergency personnel jurisdictional questions, as well as enable the tribe to plan for housing development.

Nevada U.S. Senators Bible and Cannon introduced a similar bill in 1971, but the legislation was never re-introduced.

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation: Would transfer www.progressiverancher.com

approximately 82 acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land in Elko County to be held in trust for housing and infrastructure to address the reservation housing shortage and to recruit doctors, nurses, law enforcement, conservation officers, and first responders.

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe: Would transfer approximately 941 acres of BLM land in Humboldt County to be held in trust for protection and management of Summit Lake’s natural resources and fish population and to unify the reservation around Summit Lake.

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony: Would transfer approximately 13,434 acres of BLM land in Washoe County to be held in trust for the creation of a safety buffer around the Hungry Valley community. The housing is surrounded by BLM lands to the north, west and east where multiple activities routinely occur, some permitted by the BLM and others prohibited, that illicit safety and quality of life concerns from residents. Such activities include off-roading, target shooting, illegal dumping, and unauthorized motorcycle racing. The lands also hold cultural significance and several of the landscape features are used for traditional religious practices and a source of medicinal plants.

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe: Would transfer approximately 6,357 acres of BLM land in Washoe County to be held in trust to expand the reservation boundary to fully incorporate the watershed of Pyramid Lake. Other sections near the lake would be used for potential economic development and management efficiency.

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe: Would transfer approximately 31,269 acres of BLM land.

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 29

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 1365 Corporate Blvd. Reno, NV 89502 Phone (775) 857-8500 www.nv.nrcs.usda.gov

Agricultural Marketing Service

By Heather Emmons, Public Affairs Officer

USDA Commits $20 Million to Innovative Conservation Projects

R

Proposals sought for water quality, outreach and conservation finance

eno, Nev.–U.S. Department of Agriculture is making up to $20 million available for new Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) nationwide, said Ray Dotson, NRCS Nevada State Conservationist. CIGs spark the development and adoption of cutting-edge conservation technologies and approaches for farmers, ranchers and other landowners.

“Conservation Innovation Grants have an impressive track record of fostering innovative conservation tools and strategies,” Dotson said. “CIG successes can translate into new opportunities for historically underserved landowners, help resolve pressing water conservation challenges and leverage new investments in conservation partnerships with farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders.”

Applications for national CIG projects are due by May 10, 2016. More information is available on the national NRCS CIG website. This year’s application process includes two other significant changes: an increase in the maximum award amount to $2 million, up from $1 million in 2015, and a streamlined single proposal process.

Administered through NRCS, CIG is part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and is designed to focus on innovative conservation projects that promote science-based solutions to benefit both producers and the environment. Projects may include on-farm pilot projects and field demonstrations, and are funded to accelerate the transfer and adoption of promising technologies to landowners in order to address critical natural resource concerns.

In 2016, USDA is seeking national CIG applications for innovative conservation projects to benefit historically underserved agricultural producers, improve and protect water quality, and demonstrate the effectiveness of public private partnerships for conservation, sustainable agriculture and forestry.

Up to $2 million of this fiscal year’s national CIG funding has been set aside for projects targeted to historically underserved and veteran farmers and ranchers, beginning farmers and ranchers, and those with limited resources. In 2015, for example, the Minnesota Food Association was awarded funds to assist with the transfer of proven conservation technologies used in organic systems to historically underserved producers in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and to assist those

producers with implementing conservation practices by addressing land tenure issues and accessing NRCS programs.

USDA is also seeking national CIG proposals for projects to stimulate natural resource solutions to protect or improve the quality of ground and surface water.

Last year, Tó Łání Enterprises (TLE), received a CIG award to conduct a three-year national pilot project to demonstrate the environmental, agricultural, economic and sociocultural effectiveness and benefits of solar energy systems for pumping irrigation water. The project was designed to encourage the adoption of such systems among Navajo, Hopi and other American-Indian tribes. The early results have been so promising that the solar-powered system has already been adopted by many Navajo farmers.

In 2015, NRCS made eight CIG awards for projects in the burgeoning field of conservation finance and impact investing. For 2016, USDA is seeking projects that develop additional innovative investment strategies that leverage private capital for private lands conservation. CIG funding may be used to help mitigate risk associated with new conservation investment vehicles, through the use of approaches such as first loss strategies, price floors, guarantees, buyer of last resort mechanisms or other credit enhancements. Successful proposals will demonstrate a likelihood of success and clear metrics for conservation outcomes warranting the use of public funds to support risk mitigation strategies.

CIG awards are made through a nationally competitive process. Projects may be single or multi-year, but cannot exceed three years. Projects must involve EQIP-eligible agricultural producers or landowners. At least 50 percent of the total cost of CIG projects must come from non-federal matching funds, including inkind contributions.

The announcement for program funding can be found here on www.grants. gov. Completed applications should be submitted through www.grants.gov with a pdf to nrcscig@wdc.usda.gov.

Since 2009, USDA has invested over $145 million to fund nearly 400 national and regional CIG awards. CIGs spur development of new tools and practices to improve such items as farm energy and fertilizer use as well as market-based strategies to improve water quality or mitigate climate change.

Apply by April 15 for Sage Grouse Conservation Funding

R

eno, Nev.—The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is offering an additional application batching period for agricultural producers to apply for funding to implement conservation practices on their private land and public land allotments. Producers are encouraged to apply for Sage Grouse Initiative funds available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by April 15, 2016. Applicants who apply by the deadline will be considered in the Fiscal Year 2016 funding.

EQIP is a voluntary, financial assistance program that helps fund conservation practices to protect cropland, rangeland, water resources, soil resources and wildlife habitats.

“EQIP is adaptable to meet various needs of our landowners and address their natural resource challenges,” said Ray Dotson, NRCS Nevada State Conservationist. “We are pleased to be able to provide an additional opportunity for agricultural producers to sign up for projects that are so critical to the Sage Grouse conservation efforts here in Nevada.”

USDA Financial Assistance Programs like EQIP give producers the opportunity to improve their rangeland resources in harmony with protecting critical Sage Grouse 30 April 2016

habitats. Practices may include: prescribed grazing, fencing, water developments, brush management and upland wildlife habitat management.

“Applications for EQIP are accepted year-round on a continuous basis with periodic closing dates being announced so that applications can be ranked and funded,” said Gary Roeder, Assistant State Conservationist for Programs.

Applicants must meet USDA program eligibility requirements for land eligibility and person eligibility, including Adjusted Gross Income limitations for individuals and entities seeking to participate. Applications need to be submitted before 4 p.m. on April 15, 2016 to be considered in the next FY 2016 ranking period.

Farm Bill programs have strict payment limits, and the amount of financial assistance producers may receive varies by program and will depend on future allocations received under the Farm Bill authority. Limited resource producers, beginning farmers and ranchers, or socially disadvantaged agricultural producers may be eligible for up to 15 percent higher payments, not to exceed 90 percent of the estimated cost to install the practice. To learn more, contact your local NRCS office or go online to: www.nv.nrcs.usda.gov.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

USDA Announces $260 Million Available for Regional Conservation Partnership Program

R

Applications sought with a focus on environmental markets, conservation finance

eno, Nev.–USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) today announced the availability of up to $260 million for partner proposals to improve the nation’s water quality, combat drought, enhance soil health, support wildlife habitat and protect agricultural viability.

The funding is being made available through NRCS’ innovative Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and applicants must be able to match the federal award with private or local funds.

Created by the 2014 Farm Bill, RCPP investments of nearly $600 million have already driven 199 partner-led projects, including 3 projects in Nevada. The program leverages local leadership to establish partnerships that can include private companies, local and tribal governments, universities, non-profits and other non-government partners to work with farmers, ranchers and forest landowners on landscape- and watershed-scale conservation solutions that work best for their region. This will be the third round of funding through RCPP, helping USDA build on record enrollment in all voluntary conservation programs, with more than 500,000 producers participating to protect land and water on over 400 million acres nationwide.

“Across the country, locally-driven efforts are having a positive effect on conservation and production,” said Ray Dotson, NRCS state conservationist in Nevada. “RCPP serves as a valuable vehicle for matching federal investment and private capital to advance

www.progressiverancher.com

natural resource conservation and support agricultural production. Partners in the 84 new high-impact projects we announced in February are matching USDA funding more than two-to-one for a combined investment of over $720 million.”

“We recognize the growing interest in leveraging private capital markets to foster impact investments in conservation, sustainable agriculture and forestry,” said Dotson.

“For this new round, we hope to see even more applications that support the development of environmental markets and conservation finance projects.”

One of the 2016 high-impact projects announced in February included High Desert Drought Resilient Ranching that will leverage partner funds and technical assistance to improve drought resiliency on ranches that have: Redband Trout, Columbia Spotted Frog, and Greater Sage Grouse habitats in Nevada, Idaho and Oregon.

USDA is now accepting proposals for Fiscal Year 2017 RCPP funding. Pre-proposals are due May 10. For more information on applying, visit the RCPP website.

Since 2009, USDA has invested more than $29 billion to help producers make conservation improvements, working with as many as 500,000 farmers, ranchers and landowners to protect over 400 million acres nationwide, boosting soil and air quality, cleaning and conserving water and enhancing wildlife habitat. For an interactive look at USDA’s work in conservation and forestry over the course of this Administration, visit https:// medium.com/usda-results.

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 31

Generations Of Hunters

F

By Jennifer B. Whitely

amily tradition. Our attitudes, ideas, ideals, and environment, evolved into a form of recreation that gives families time to enjoy the great outwhich a person inherits from his or her parents and ancestors. doors. People hunt for sport or trophies and people hunt for extra meat to put in the freezer. People hunt as a form of relaxation that helps them to recharge from work and daily stresses. It also gives them the opportunity to observe and Values. Standards of behavior. enjoy the land and the animals in it. Ronica Cornejo of Spring Creek, Nevada Education. The process of giving systematic instruction.

Respect. To act in a way which shows that you are aware of some- says “Hunting is important for me and my family for many reasons. The main one being to feed the mouths of those that we love.” one or something’s value.

The ranching community understands that the goal of wildlife conservaIn speaking with people from ranching families, I have learned that family tion is to ensure that nature and its balance will be around for future generatraditions, values, education, and respect are just a few of the adjectives used to tions to enjoy. They recognize the value of wildlife on public and private lands. explain why hunting is important to many people.

Rancher Sam Mori of Tuscarora, Nevada says “Most ranchers are conservationOur parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and our prehistoric ances- ists. They are interested in creating habitat for livestock and wildlife. They enjoy tors were hunters. A good hunt assured survival. It provided food, clothing, seeing and hunting wildlife as well.” One of his goals is to create feed for both shelter, and tools. Paleolithic cave paintings in Europe show early man’s rever- livestock and wildlife. Ranchers also help develop and maintain springs and ence and gratitude for the game animals that sustained life. Historically, man other water systems which benefit wildlife. Ranchers who hunt enjoy seeing all types of wildlife with their families. and nature depended on each other for survival.

In today’s world, few people depend on hunting to survive. Hunting has

The ranching community understands the importance of multiple use. Public lands are used by ranchers, miners, hunters, and recreational-

2015 Antelope Buck - Mitch’s tag. Ella, Jade and Lane 32 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

2012 Bull Elk - Rachel’s tag www.progressiverancher.com

Amanda Carey with Ryan Carey; father & daughter

Ryan and Amanda with Ryan’s Elk

Hunters who grew up in ranching families understand multiple use, range management, and conservation. Mitch Buzzetti, of Lamoille, Nevada and his wife Rachel own and operate Nevada High Desert Outfitters. He became a guide as a way to stay on the family ranch. Guiding helps supplement his family’s income. The Buzzetti’s understand that ranchers need to know who is hunting on their land. They have open lines of communication with those ranchers. He attributes much of his success as a guide to the positive relationship he has with the ranchers where he guides. According to Buzzetti, “Hunting is second nature to ranchers. We are out on the land, seeing what is going on and that makes us good hunters.”

Hunting ensures the survival and balance of wildlife and protects their habitat.

When wildlife is abundant we hunt to thin herds so they don’t become over populated.

Kathi Buzzetti Wines, also of Lamoille states “The reality of life is that something has to die for something else to survive. That is nature at its most pure and honest. It’s not always pretty to see something lose its life, whether it be by a hunter, be it human, predator, or by natural causes, but as hunters and conservationists we can make sure that animals don’t suffer in the end. We hunt to control populations of wildlife herds so that they don’t contact diseases or starve and suffer horrible miserable deaths. I hunt because I care about animals and I want herds and wildlife populations to be healthy. I hunt with

Ashley with spikie, left Chad, right Mike & back Arlyn. www.progressiverancher.com

Amie Morrison’s first Antelope - Ryan’s Girlfriend

my family, because my kids need to understand and respect life. To understand that life is a gift, not to be taken for granted and that we need to be thankful for that animal that has made the ultimate sacrifice for us to survive. We are not so removed from nature to think that food comes from the grocery store and we are not so naive that we don’t think that humans aren’t meant to eat meat. We are at the top of the food chain, but that does not mean that we should not be thankful for every life that is given so we can survive.

I hunt to be with my family, just as generations of my family before me have hunted together. It is a tradition and one that I am proud and thankful for.”

In speaking with the Carey family about the importance of hunting they said that, hunting is about spending time with family and carrying on a family tradition. Both Ryan Carey and his sister Arlyn Carey Agaman grew up hunting with their father.

Ryan has many fond memories of duck hunts on Christmas mornings. Arlyn has her first shotgun that she has used for many years and plans to pass down to her daughter and son. Hunting together as a family creates memories. It teaches their children life skills when they harvest wildlife. They are showing the importance of caring for and respecting our public lands for future generations. With their children, they are experiencing landscapes and life which can only be seen from the back of a horse in the wilderness. Amanda loved packing in with her dad Ryan to shoot her first deer this past fall. She said “He helped me do everything, skinning and gutting my buck.

It was awesome!” Hunting is a tradition many families enjoy.

Amanda leading a pack of horses in.

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 33

MAJOR REGULATORY EXPANSION OF ESA LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS

W

By Karen Budd-Falen of Budd-Falen law offices, LLC hile private property owners were vehemently protesting Starting with a new 2012 rule and extending to the 2015 rules and the EPA’s expansion of jurisdiction under the Clean Water policy, those considerations have all changed, and in fact the FWS has Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries admitted that the new rules will result in more land and water being (collectively “FWS”) were bit-by-bit expanding the federal included in critical habitat designations. The first major change is the government’s overreach on private property rights and fedinclusion of “the principals of conservation biology” as part of the “best eral grazing permits through the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). This expanscientific and commercial data available.” Conservation biology was not sion is embodied in the release of four separate final rules and two final policies created until the 1980s and has been described by some scientists as “agenda-driven” that the FWS admits will result in listing more species and expanding designated or “goal- oriented” biology. See Final Rule, Implementing Changes to the Regulations critical habitat. for Designating Critical Habitat, February 11, 2016.

1

In order to understand the expansiveness of the new policies and regulations, a short discussion of the previous regulations may help. Prior to the Obama changes, a species was listed as threatened or endangered based upon the “best scientific and commercial data available.”1 With regard to species that are potentially threatened or endangered “throughout a significant portion of its range” but not ALL of the species’ range, only those species within that “significant portion of the range” are listed, not all species throughout the entire range.

Once the listing was completed, the FWS is mandated to designate critical habitat. Critical habitat is generally habitat upon which the species depends for survival.

Importantly critical habitat can include both private and/or federal land and water.

Critical habitat is to be based upon the “best scientific and commercial data available” and is to include the “primary constituent elements” (“PCEs”) for the species.

PCEs are the elements the species needs for breeding, feeding and sheltering. Final critical habitat designations are to be published with legal descriptions so that private landowners would know whether their private property or water was within or outside designated boundaries. Critical habitat designations are also made with consideration of the economic impacts. Under the ESA, although the FWS cannot consider the economic impacts of listing a species, all other economic impacts are to be considered when designating critical habitat, and if the economic impacts in an area are too great, the area could be excluded as critical habitat as long as the exclusion did not cause extinction of the species.

With regard to the critical habitat designation itself, critical habitat determinations were made in two stages. First, the FWS considers the currently occupied habitat and determine if that habitat (1) contains the PCEs for the species and (2) is sufficient for protection of the species. Second, the FWS looks at the unoccupied habitat for the species and makes the same determinations, i.e., (1) whether areas of unoccupied habitat contain the necessary PCEs and (2) if including this additional land or water as critical habitat was necessary for protection of the species. The FWS then considers whether the economic costs of including some of the areas are so high, that the areas should be excluded from the critical habitat designation. In simplest terms, the FWS would weigh or balance the benefits of designation of certain areas of critical habitat against the regulatory burdens and economic costs of designation, and could exclude discreet areas from a critical habitat designation so long as exclusion did not cause species extinction. This was called the “exclusion analysis.”

34 April 2016

2 3

Second, the new Obama policy has changed regarding a listing species “throughout a significant portion of its range.” Now rather than listing species within the range where the problem lies, all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered. See Final Policy, Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range,” July 1, 2014.

Third, based upon the principals of conservation biology, including indirect or circumstantial information, critical habitat designations will be greatly expanded. Under the new regulations, the FWS will initially consider designation of both occupied and unoccupied habitat, including habitat with POTENTIAL PCEs. In other words, not only is the FWS considering habitat that is or may be used by the species, the FWS will consider habitat that may develop PCEs sometime in the future. There is no time limit on when such future development of PCEs will occur, or what types of events have to occur so that the habitat will develop PCEs. The FWS will then look outside occupied and unoccupied habitat to decide if the habitat will develop PCEs in the future and should be designated as critical habitat now. The FWS has determined that critical habitat can include temporary or periodic habitat, ephemeral habitat, potential habitat and migratory habitat, even if that habitat is currently unusable by the species. See Final Rule, Implementing Changes to Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat, February 11, 2016.

4

Fourth the FWS has also determined that it will no longer publish the text or legal descriptions or GIS coordinates for critical habitat, rather it will only publish maps of the critical habitat designation. Given the small size of the Federal Register, I do not think this will adequately notify landowners whether their private property is included or excluded from a critical habitat designation. See Final Rule, “Revised Implementing Regulations for Requirements to Publish Textual Description of Boundaries of Critical Habitat,” May 1, 2012.

1. This discussion only includes requirements to which there have been changes in the last four years.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

5

Fifth, the FWS has significantly limited what economic impacts are considered as part of the critical habitat designation. According to a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, although the economic impacts are not to be considered as part of the listing process, once a species was listed, if the FWS could not determine whether the economic impact came from listing OR critical habitat, the cost should be included in the economic analysis. In other words, only those costs that were solely based on listing were excluded from the economic analysis. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court took the opposite view and determined that only economic costs that were SOLELY attributable to critical habitat designations were to be included. Rather than requesting the U.S. Supreme Court make a consistent ruling among the courts, the FWS simply recognized this circuit split for almost 15 years. However, on August 28, 2013, the FWS issued a final rule that determined that the Ninth Circuit Court was “correct,” and regulatorily determined that ONLY economic costs attributable SOLELY to the critical habitat designation would be analyzed. This rule substantially reduces the determination of the cost of critical habitat designation because the FWS can claim that almost all costs are based on the listing of the species because if not for the listing, there would be no need for critical habitat. See Final Rule, Revisions to the Regulations for Impact Analysis of Critical Habitat, August 28, 2013.

6

Sixth, the FWS has determined that while completing the economic analysis is mandatory, the consideration of whether habitat should be excluded based on economic considerations is discretionary. In other words, under the new policy, the FWS is no longer required to consider whether areas should be excluded from critical habitat designation based upon economic costs and burdens. See Final Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, February 11, 2016.

The problem with these new rules is what it means if private property (or federal lands) are designated as critical habitat or the designated habitat only has the potential to develop PCEs. Even if the species is not present in the designated critical habitat, a “take” of a species can occur through “adverse modification of critical habitat.” For private land, that may include stopping stream diversions because the water is needed in downstream critical habitat for a fish species, or that haying practices (such as cutting of invasive species to protect hay fields) are stopped because it will prevent the area from developing PCEs in the future that may support a species. It could include stopping someone from putting on fertilizer or doing other crop management on a farm field because of a concern with runoff into downstream designated habitat. Designation of an area as critical habitat (even if that area does not contain PCEs now) will absolutely require more federal permitting (i.e. section 7 consultation) for things like crop plans, or conservation plans or anything else requiring a federal permit. In fact, one of the new regulations issued by Obama concludes that “adverse modification of critical habitat” can include “alteration of the quantity or quality” of habitat that precludes or “significantly delays” the capacity of the habitat to develop PCEs over time. See Final Rule, “Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat,” February 11, 2016.

While the agriculture community raised a huge alarm over the “waters of the U.S.,” the FWS was quietly implementing these new rules, in a piecemeal manner, without a lot of fanfare. Honestly I think these new habitat rules will have as great or greater impact on the private lands and federal land permits as does the Ditch Rule and I would hope that the outcry from the agriculture community, private property advocates, and our Congressional delegations would be as great.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

NEVADA STALLION STAKES & Elko County NRCHA

August 26, 27, 28th, Elko, Nevada

Elko County NRCHA Judge: Zeph Schultz, NRCHA 2AA

Stallion Nomination Deadline: August 1st Nomination fee: $200.00

Nomination deadline for inclusion in advertising - May 24th Late Nominations will be accepted from Aug 2nd - 28th with an additional $100 late fee.

NEVADA STALLION STAKES

ALL NSS CLASSES WILL DO HERD, DRY, COW EVENTS

Futurity - Derby - Hackamore Two Reined / Green Bridle and Bridle Divisions NRCHA Rules Nevada Stallion Stakes Show Entry deadline: August 15th with late entries accepted to Aug 19th with additional penalties ECNRCHA Show Entry Deadline Aug 25th.

Entries forms available at www.elkocountyfair.com E-mail entries to elkocountyfair@hotmail.com

Mail entries and payments to: Elko County Fair Board, PO Box 2067, Elko, NV 89803 For More Information contact: JJ Roemmich 775-397-2769 or elkocountyfair@hotmail.com

(307)632-5105

www.elkocountyfair.com www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 35

6th Annual Western States Ranch Rodeo Association National Finals Report 2015

T

By Naomi Loomis, WSRRA Representative

he most successful ever sixth-annual Western States Ranch Rodeo Association National Finals Rodeo was held October 28 - November 1 at the Winnemucca Events Complex in Winnemucca, Nevada. Teams came from eleven western states including far away states like Nebraska and Wyoming.

Throughout 2015, WSRRA sanctioned 41 open ranch rodeos, 15 women’s ranch rodeos and more than 100 ranch bronc riding events. The top open and women’s teams from each of the ranch rodeos, and the top 15 women’s steer stoppers, and top 15 ranch bronc riders competed for cash and prizes at the National Finals. Prizes included Gist buckles, custom made gear made by Ricardo’s Saddlery and John Mincer, halters, stirrups donated by Weber Stirrups, a pair of boots donated by Martin & Co, and knives donated by Kerry’s Custom Knifes.

The Nationals Finals kicked off Thursday with the women’s long go team events and the opening of the Christmas Buckaroo Trade Show. Winners of an evening jackpot big loop were Gary Grockett and Jesse Jolly; of the jackpot team roping, Toby Vineyard and Chad Goings; and of the jackpot women’s steer stopper contest, Amy Ward.

Friday, October 30, one member of each open team started the day showing off their highly skilled ranch horses in a ranch horse contest. Then the teams competed in long go performances of load & tie and team roping. The evening’s performance had a “Tough Enough to Wear Pink” theme with a special presentation by youth on horseback showcasing the LaRena Smith Bengoa Run, Ride or Walk for the Cure fund that benefits cancer victims in Humboldt and Lander Counties, Nevada. Grand Marshalls, David and Lorraine Reynolds from Texas, made an exciting grand entrance in a refurbished horse drawn stagecoach. If that wasn’t enough, the first two rounds of the Professional Wild Horse Racers Association (PWHRA) national finals got everyone’s blood pumping! Rodeo clown, Tuffy Gessling entertained the crowd with his rope tricks and laughs.

Joining us for the first time was master Charro-style roper, Ramon Becerra. In between specialty acts, WSRRA Ranch Bronc riders and open and women’s teams showed their talents in featured performances.

Saturday morning started with two rounds of Women’s Steer Stopping, followed by open team long go’s of sort & rope doctoring, and team branding. Later in the day WSRRA National Sponsors, Performix Nutrition and The Boot Barn, sponsored a dummy roping contest and a stick horse barrel race for the kids. Buckles and jackets were the prizes. At the same time as the kid’s contests, arena action featured jackpot family branding won by Brady Haigh, Jessica Kelly, Jr. Kelly, and Jr. Harney. A new event to the finals was the 1st Annual Great Basin Gathering; music, poetry, and trading gear, that was visited by many. As the sun was going down, the second evening performance started. This performance was full of Wild West action and western traditions. Featured performances of more of the open and women’s teams, along with two rounds each of PWHRA and WSRRA ranch bronc riding kept the arena dust stirred up and the crowd’s excitement high! Performances by Tuffy Gessling and Ramon Becerra continued to liven up the evening’s experience. The Winnemucca event center was filled with kids (and adults) in Halloween costumes, and vendors handed out candy to all the cute Trick or Treaters. Saturday ended with year-end and long go awards at The Winners at Winners WSRRA awards party, followed by dancing to music by the Jeff Palmer Band, both hosted by the Winners Inn & Casino.

Cowboy Church by Bo and Kathy Lowe was well attended first thing on Sunday, the last day of the event. After Cowboy Church, WSRRA held the short go of the national finals for the open and women’s divisions and the final rounds of PWHRA wild horse racing and WSRRA ranch bronc riding. At the end of the afternoon, champions were crowned and awards were handed out.

Congratulations to all the contestants not just the winners. First time visitors to the event were totally impressed with the quality of the competition and the stock. A huge thank you to all the office help, chute help, announcers, judges, vendors, stock contractors, and particularly Hot Creek Ranch, owned by Bobbi and Dave Murphey, who supplied nearly 250 top quality Corriente cattle for the event.

36 April 2016

Established in 2010, the WSRRA has experienced incredible growth, each year growing in number of events and members. The association currently has more than 650 members.

The WSRRA wouldn’t be around without the help of our sponsors and major supporters which include: Winnemucca WVCA Board, Ram Trucks/Ram Rodeo, Boot Barn, Performix Nutrition, Les Schwab Tires, 8 Seconds Whiskey, Twisted X Boots, Gouveia Ranches, Working Ranch Magazine, Mary Williams Hyde/Buckaroo Country, Rodeo News, Cowboy Showcase/Lee Raine, and host hotels, Winnemucca Inn and Winners Inn Casino.

The 2015 Western States Ranch Rodeo World Champions

WORLD CHAMPION WOMEN’S STEER STOPPER: Victoria Jackson

WORLD CHAMPION OPEN RANCH RODEO TEAM: C Ranchs from Nevada Members: Jim Filippini, Luke Lancaster, Quinn Mori, and Michael Mori

World Champion Women’s Ranch Rodeo Team: Fly M Ranch from Idaho and Nevada Members: Timmy Lyn Delong, Lacey Thompson, Desi Dotson, Monel Shelly

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

WORLD CHAMPION RANCH BRONC RIDER Justin Quint from Colorado

TOP HAND COWBOY Micheal Mori

ALL AROUND COWGIRL Kyndal Tibbitts

WSRRA ROOKIE of the YEAR Gatlenn Huddleston from Colorado

TOP HAND COWGIRL Monel Shelley

WSRRA ROOKIE of the FINALS TeJay Fenster from Nebraska

PRODUCER of the YEAR Naomi Loomis from Nebraska

ALL AROUND COWBOY Hyland Wilkinson

STOCK CONTRACTOR OF THE YEAR - Wes Clegg BRONC OF THE YEAR SELECTED BY JUDGES Sister S107 owned by Wes Clegg HIGH AVERAGE CONTRACTOR OF THE YEAR (Based on top 5 Horses) www.progressiverancher.com

ALL AROUND RANCH HORSE – OPEN Wade Tibbitts from the Tibbitts Ranch Team ALL AROUND RANCH HORSE – WOMENS Quoxite’s Sneaky Cat, Kimberlyn Fitch from the Rafter Double Diamond

The Progressive Rancher

PICK UP MEN OF THE YEAR: Curtis Koeppen

April 2016 37

Winnemucca RHR Ranch Hand rodeo 2016 2016 Stock Horse Challenge FINAL 2016 RODEO RESULTS Open Ranch Horse Champion 1st- TL Ranch- Bruneau, ID Tangy- Owner Liz Younger Badasci- Rider: Matt Hoekenga 2nd- Five Acre Ranch- Nampa, ID Open Snaffle Bit/Hackamore Champion Winnemucca Events 3rd- Three Sevens Ranch- McDermitt, NV Pepnics Lil CrossOwner: JD ThackerRider: Dave Thacker 4th- Bar W Ranch- Jordan Valley, NV (High Point Sale Horse – Pepnics Lil Cross) 5th- TS Ranch- Beowawe, NV Top Hand- Clayton Blanthorn- Bar W Ranch- J Valley, NV Open Two-Rein/Bridle Champion Genuine Rednic – Owner: Sandra Friberg– Rider: Flint Lee Steer Stop- Michelle Rutan- Anipro- Jordan Valley, NV Saddle Bronc- Clayton Blanthorn- Bar W Ranch- J Valley, NV Non-Pro Snaffle Bit/ Hackamore Champion Very Slic 45 – Owner: Bret & Jaimie Paulick – Rider: Bret Paulick Branding- Mackenzie Ranch- Jordan Valley, OR Non-Pro Two-Rein/Bridle Champion Mugging- XI Livestock- Homedale, ID Bert – Owner: Jimmy VanBelle – Rider: Jimmy VanBelle Doctoring- Five Acre Ranch- Nampa, ID (Jimmy VanBelle winner of the Gene & Jody Christison Memorial Award for highest score) Team Roping- Three Sevens Ranch- McDermitt, NV Trailer Loading- Five Acre Ranch- Nampa, ID

March 2nd - 6th Complex

www.RanchRodeoNV.com

Ranch Hand Rodeo Top Hand in honor of John & Dutch Zabala Clayton Blanthorn - Presented by Ray Zabala

2016 Winnemucca RHR Barrel Bash Friday Open Champions 1D- Darcie Himmelspach on Colonel Friendly 2D- Lisa Letarti on Notice My Glo 3D- Kerstin Christiansen on Short N Stony 4D- Jackie Buckley on Uh-Oh No Tiny Tornado Saturday Futurity Champions 1D- Anna Montagano on CB Flirtin With Nick 2D- Amanda Burns on Six Figure Judge Saturday Derby Champion 1D- Mindy Goemmer on Cuchara Fancy N Fast Saturday Open Champions 1D- Mindy Goemmer on Cuchara Fancy N Fast 2D- Courtney Sanchez on Hero 3D- Stephanie Shagaio on Shez on The Bar Hancock 4D- Janet Masanz on Shelby Saturday Senior Champions 1D- Max Haylett on Rebelicious Child 2D- Max Haylett on Queen Georgia May 3D- Susie Reese on Chex Easy Jet 4D- Eleanor Kistner on Thor Saturday Youth Champions 1D- Riata Goemmer on Gold Buckle 2D- Jette Black on Jorgie 3D- Kassie Defenbaugh on Doobie 4D- Mattie Merritt on Purdy Flower 38 April 2016

High selling horse- Lot 17- Not Smart Smokin- $17,500 Consignor: Roeser Ranch-Marsing, ID Buyer: Sharon Brown- Winnemucca, NV

Winning Team- TL Ranch- Bruneau, ID Calcutta Winner- Tim DeLong Pictured: TimmyLyn DeLong, Sheree Tibbals, John Schutte, R.C. Crutcher, Lee Dagget, Ira Walker, Mike Eiguren, and Jane Eiguren

Sunday Futurity Champions 1D- Marcie Wilson on Shake Em Fame 2D- Whitney Cabral on FLF Guys Flip For Me Sunday Derby Champion 1D- Jessie Telford on Famous Cool Whip Sunday Open Champions 1D- Jessie Telford on Famous Cool Whip 2D- Anna Montagano on CB Flirtin With Nick 3D- Shannon Giordano on Idaho Cowgirl Fuel 4D- Jane Giles on DT Done It For The Perk Sunday Senior Champions 1D- Max Haylett on Rebelicious Child 2D- Rachel Getman on Kate’s Legacy 3D- Tawni Limesand on Easy Drifting Jet 4D- Eleanor Kistner on Thor Sunday Youth Champions 1DRiata Goemmer on Gold Buckle 2D- Kole Black on Bargain 3D- Alyssa Boyd on Rita Fajita 4D- Tessa Rodrigues on Sara Futurity Average Champions 1D- Anna Montagano on CB Flirtin With Nick 2D- Tea Trump on Kipadeucy Looker Derby Average Champion 1D-Mindy Goemmer on Cuchara Fancy N Fast The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Kevin Hancock with Molly and Miss Winnemucca High Desert Junior Queen Kayla Curtis

Open Pro Champion- Boe Suhr and Kat Boe Suhr with Kat and Miss Winnemucca High Desert Junior Queen Kayla Curtist

Nursery Champion- Brian Jacobs and GS Levi Brian Jacobs with GS Levi and Miss Winnemucca High Desert Teen Queen Taylor Gleason

Average of 44 Sold $6,443 Top 10 Average $10,440 High Selling Hore $17,500

Brace Class Champion Brian Jacobs with Moose and GS Levi Brian Jacobs with Moose & GS Levi and Miss Winnemucca High Desert Queen Jasmyne Herrera www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

Limited Non Pro Bridle Champion HR More Time to Play- Owner: Lynette Phillips - Rider: Lynette Phillips Pictured: Bert – Owner: Jimmy VanBelle – Rider: Jimmy VanBelle

April 2016 39

Cattleman Testifies to Importance of Voluntary Conservation

By Chase Adams and Shawna Newsome

W

ASHINGTON (March 1, 2016) – Today, Frank Price testified on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to the importance of voluntary conservation during the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry hearing “Voluntary Conservation: Utilizing Innovation and Technology”. Price is co-owner and operator of the Frank and Sims Price Ranch in Sterling City, Texas, and recipient of the 2014 NCBA Environmental Stewardship Award. Price, a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and NCBA, told the committee that given the diversity of range lands across the country voluntary conservation programs are key to achieving meaningful results.

“A one-size fits all approach that accompanies a top-down regulation does not work,” said Price. “It’s the voluntary part of the conservation practices that really make them work for ranchers. We’ve had success using some of these conservation programs, but just because a system works for us does not mean it is right for everybody. If these programs were to become mandatory, the rules and regulations that follow would make it harder for farmers and ranchers to use unique conservation practices to ensure their individual operations thrive.”

Price stresses that voluntary conservation efforts have allowed him and his son to achieve their top goals: ensuring the ranch remains profitable and that they leave the

land in better condition for future generations. While drought and wildfire decimated their ranch in 2011 and 2012, conservation and grazing management allowed them to improve their rangelands through these difficult times. One of the programs he says has helped him achieve their goals is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.

“When wildfire came through our ranch in 2011, we had to rebuild miles of fencing,” said Price. “EQIP helped us do it through a cost-share. One of the reasons EQIP has become popular among ranchers is because it is a working-lands program.

Conservation programs that keep land in production and do not limit its use are the best for both the ranchers and conserving our resources.”

While drought is a constant problem in West Texas, innovative practices and voluntary conservation programs have allowed the Prices to improve their ranch and make their grasslands resilient. For Price, the success of conservation and the ranch economy are not at odds in ensuring we can sustain our country’s natural resources and our way of life for generations.

“I believe that economic activity and conservation go hand-in-hand,” said Price.

“We are always looking for new, innovative conservation programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment and help improve our ranching lands. USDA’s conservation programs have been a great asset to cattle producers and it is important that these programs continue to be implemented in the same practical, producer friendly, and voluntary manner for years to come.”

Nevada Department of Agriculture announces new state veterinarian

By Rebecca Allured ELKO, Nev. – The Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) announced JJ Goicoechea, DVM, as its state veterinarian, based in Elko, Nev., where he will oversee the state’s animal health programs with locations in Elko and Sparks.

Goicoechea started his private practice, Eureka Vet Services, in 2000. In addition to his 17 years in private practice, Goicoechea is actively involved the family ranching operation outside of Eureka, Nev. Goicoechea received his doctorate in veterinary medicine from Colorado State University and his Bachelor of Science from the University of Nevada, Reno.

40 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Why exporting beef might be right for you

P

By: Jeff Sutich, Nevada Department of Agriculture international marketing coordinator

eople often ask me why exporting is an important option for business owners in the agriculture industry. Our nation’s agriculture exports continue to prosper despite a slight decrease in foreign demand for other U.S. products. According to the USDA, Nevada reported $168.87 million in agriculture production exports in 2014. The largest export was beef with $34.47 million in sales; so exporting is a smart choice, especially for beef producers. I’d like to dive into why exporting is worth exploring and how to get started as a producer in the western United States.

Diversify your markets

Diversification of markets is key to ensuring you receive sustainable prices and revenue for your food or agriculture products. Exporting provides an outlet to diversify your portfolio and increases the opportunities of having a consistent revenue stream even if demand declines in the United States.

Exporting allows access to a new market of potential consumers. According to the United States Small Business Authority, 96 percent of consumers with two-thirds of the world’s purchasing power live outside the United States. Selling product in the United States only reaches 4 percent of the global consumers, making exporting a logical choice to diversify your operation.

Make your company profitable and create better paying jobs Exporting also helps your business prosper by increasing sales faster which protects your ability to stay in business. According to the Institute for International Economics, U.S. companies that export grow faster and are nearly 8.5 percent less likely to go out of business than non-exporting companies.

The other upside is exporting can help to increase the number of people you employ and the amount you pay them. According to the International Trade Administration, 6.8 million jobs in 2008 were supported by U.S. exports. In agriculture-related industries in the United States, 23 percent of employment (457,238 jobs) comes from exports. The Council of Economic Analysis tells us that employees receive a 17 percent higher salary at companies that export than those that do not.

How to get started

If you are ready to start exporting, here is how you can get started.

1. Identify your product using global language.

In order to sell your product in a foreign market, you must first identify it using a harmonized code, an internationally standardized code system identifying products. Connecting your product to the correct code will allow you to market it using the global export language that all foreign countries are familiar with. Visit export.gov to get started with this process, and feel free to contact our department with questions.

2. Determine which countries you could potentially ship to.

Identifying countries that import your specific good or service is the next step.

The top five markets to which the United States exports meat are Mexico, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong and South Korea. Once you have determined who imports your product, look for countries that have a United States brand preference. The United States is known for its high quality goods and services, and it is important to find countries that desire this added value.

3. Look at country factors that could affect exporting.

In order to target markets that could be most successful for you, identify issues that could affect exports into that certain country. Political, economic, social and technological factors all play a role in the ability of a country to accept imports.

It’s also important to recognize any regulations in a specific country regarding trademarks of goods and services.

4. Use trade missions to find potential buyers.

Both outbound (visiting a country) and inbound (buyers come to you) trade missions are helpful to securing a buyer in a foreign market. Trade missions can include industry visits to potential buyers and tradeshows. The Western United States Agricultural Trade Association and other organizations are great resources if you are interested in securing business in a potential country. Our office is also a great resource to help connect you with future trade missions.

Finding out more information

Exporting is an exciting venture that could truly benefit your business. As you work toward diversifying your operation, reach out to our department for more resources and information to help you along the way. You can contact me at jssutich@ agri.nv.gov.

About Jeff Sutich

Jeff Sutich is the international marketing coordinator for the Nevada Department of Agriculture.

He is a global trade expert who assists Nevada companies through the detailed process of exporting products to international markets.

Sutich has lived in Italy, Guam and Indonesia and has participated in business and personal activities in more than 40 countries worldwide.

Sutich holds a Bachelor of Administration degree in International Business and a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics. www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 41

The President’s Unfinished Promise:

part of the environment for Drakes Estero, just as they were for San Francisco Bay and other coastal bays and estuaries up and down the California coast, and around the world, before most were fished out or destroyed by pollution. Oysters actually provide environmental benefits by clarifying water, which is why they are being restored in projects around the world.

In 2007, the National Park Service refused to publicly share its data and analysis that led to the 80 percent decline claim. When Senator Dianne Feinstein intervened, the National Park Service reluctantly made the data available, and we learned why the agency had refused to act with transparency. The data did not support the Park’s claim.

Harbor seals had indeed declined by 80 percent at one subsite—but that subsite was far from the oyster farm, in what was already a protected wilderness area. The decline correlated with an increase in disturbances from wildlife and human park visitors, not the farm. The seals simply moved to other neighboring sites, some actually closer to the oyster farm, as the overall population remained unchanged. Three years later, in 2010, the Park retracted their 80 percent decline claim.

As a result of the park’s shenanigans, in 2007 the oyster farm owner asked Interior’s Inspector General (IG) to investigate potential misconduct. In 2008, the IG released its report. It found that the National Park Service “had misrepresented research“ and wrote that while the park scientist “denied any intentional misrepresentation,” their investigation revealed the park scientist was privy to information contrary to her characterization and did nothing to correct the misinformation. The IG also determined that Interior lacked a scientific integrity policy.

Around the same time in 2007, Feinstein asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the park’s claims and independently evaluate the data. In 2009, the Academy released its report. While asserting that it would not comment on potential misconduct (i.e., whether misrepresentations were intentional or not), the Academy found the National Park Service had “selectively presented, overinterpreted, or misinterpreted“ the available data, and concluded that, at Drakes Estero, “there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that shellfish farming has major adverse ecological effects.”

By 2010, the National Park Service had retracted most of the claims it had made against the oyster farm in 2006 and 2007. In early 2011, the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior concluded that park officials and scientists had shown “bias,” “advocacy,” a “troubling mind-set,” and that five employees had “violated [the National Park Service] Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct.”

With the retraction of the false claims and rebukes by the National Academy of Sciences, Interior’s Inspector General, and Interior’s own lawyers, there was reason to hope that the park would end its misuse of science. However, with the renewal of the oyster farm’s operating permit coming up in 2012, the NPS embarked on preparing an environmental impact statement to help guide the Secretary’s decision of whether to renew the farm’s permit. While preparing the EIS, the National Park Service doubled down, putting out still more claims of environmental harm. The main evidence for the renewed hardline policy was, again, harbor seals.

In 2007, the National Park Service initiated a secret program, with cameras hidden in dense brush, to gather digital photographs of seals and oyster boats, every minute of the day during pupping season for more than three years—for a total of more than 300,000 photographs. The Academy had asked NPS for all of its data, and even went so far as to write that resolving the controversy “... would require a data collection system that could be independently verified, such as time and date stamped photographs,” yet park officials and scientist failed to disclose the existence of their ongoing data collection and analysis.

The secret cameras and the park’s analysis of the photographs were uncovered in 2010, based on a leaked government document, followed by a Freedom of Information Act request.

The detailed National Park Service logs of those photos revealed no disturbances to the seals by the oyster farm.

But the National Park Service was determined to find disturbances in those photos, so in 2012, as it was preparing its final EIS, and with the help of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, another branch of Interior), it asked one of the world’s foremost marine mammal behavior experts, Dr. Brent Stewart of Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute, to re-analyze the enormous cache of photographs. In Stewart’s May 2012 report, he found “no evidence of disturbance“ of seals by oyster boats. This should have finally put the issue to rest. But it didn’t.

In November 2012, the National Park Service released its environmental impact statement on the oyster farm. It concluded that the oyster farm had a significant “adverse impact“ on harbor seals. Stewart’s finding of “no evidence of disturbance“ was doctored into a false finding of causation of disturbances, a clear case of scientific misconduct. Stewart protested to Interior that he was misquoted, but Interior refused to change its report.

A week later, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ruled against the oyster farm’s permit renewal, citing, in part, the conclusions about environmental harm in the environmental impact statement. (He also cited the false claim that the Wilderness Act required the oyster farm to go.)

The Department of the Interior implemented a scientific integrity policy in 2011 in response to the President’s promise. Interior’s policy - if it had teeth - should have prevented

The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy

I

Dr. Corey Goodman t has been common for scientists, including me, to criticize previous federal administrations for condoning scientific misconduct when it comes to denying climate change or ignoring environmental concerns. So when, in April 2009, President Obama told the National Academy of Sciences “ we are restoring science to its rightful place“, and “ the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over,” the scientists in the audience, including me, gave him a standing ovation. The president then instructed his science advisor Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to issue uniform guidelines for a strong federal scientific integrity policy within three months. But nearly seven years later, there is still no meaningful federal scientific integrity policy, and parts of the Obama administration have continued to misuse science to support ideology. The next administration can, and should, do better.

It took OSTP more than 18 months to issue feeble guidelines that gave individual federal agencies complete discretion to develop their own policies. How effective are those individual policies? The answer is that the policies vary from strong to very weak.

For example, at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that oversees the National Institutes of Health (NIH), there is a strong policy administered by the Office of Research Integrity. In contrast, as shown here, at the Department of the Interior, there is a weak policy that in practice has so little substance as to be meaningless. The Department of Justice, in defending Interior’s decisions, is no better.

Here I present two striking examples. The common theme in both examples is that someone at the top (e.g., the Director of the National Park Service or the Secretary of Interior) made their wishes clearly known about the outcome they desired before their agency embarked on what should have been an unbiased science-driven environmental impact statement (EIS). In both cases, the EIS came to the boss’ desired outcome (no surprise), even if it required fabricating, falsifying, or ignoring scientific data. With a weak scientific integrity policy, formal complaints led to cover-ups and meaningless investigations. In spite of the President’s lofty words, it has been business as usual at the Departments of Interior and Justice with science taking a back seat to ideology.

The next administration should learn from what has been done right (e.g., HHS) — and what hasn’t (e.g., Interior and Justice).

Example #1: The oyster farm at Drakes Estero

The first example concerns how both the Departments of Interior and Justice dealt with the so-called ‘oyster war,’ the decade-long battle between the National Park Service (part of Interior) and an 80-year-old oyster farm, which started at Drakes Estero in Point Reyes National Seashore and ended on the steps of the Supreme Court. The oyster farm lost, and so did scientific integrity.

The creation of Point Reyes National Seashore along the coast of California in 1962 was a historic collaboration between environmentalists and agriculturalists in what should be a model for the rest of the park system - in which the production of wholesome food can exist in harmony with the protection of the environment.

In recent years, however, the National Park Service, Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations decided that Drakes Estero should be turned into a legally defined wilderness area, and with that change, that the oyster farm should go. That decision was a flip-flop from what the same groups said three decades earlier.

In 1976, when Congress passed laws designating Drakes Estero as “potential wilderness,” there was a remarkable consensus among the public - including the Park Service and environmental organizations - that the oyster farm should remain operating under wilderness designation in perpetuity. The Sierra Club, for example, argued that Drakes Estero could be put under the Wilderness Act “even while the oyster culture is continued - it will be a prior existing, non-conforming use.“ The co-sponsors of the legislation, Sen. Alan Cranston, Sen. John Tunney, and Rep. John Burton, all agreed that the oyster farm should continue.

The oyster farm had a lease with the potential to be renewed in 2012.

Once the Park Service, Sierra Club, and others changed their minds and decided they wanted to remove the oyster farm, they presumably needed a justification for their flip-flop - some new information to turn public opinion - and elected officials - against the oyster farm, and thus against the permit renewal. That new information was so-called scientific evidence of environmental harm.

In 2007, National Park Service, led by then West Regional Director Jon Jarvis (who in 2009 under President Obama became NPS Director), announced that the oyster farm was polluting the water, smothering eelgrass, harming fish, and degrading the estero’s ecosystem. Most alarmingly, in 2007, a park official who reported to Jarvis said the oyster farm’s owners should be prosecuted for committing “environmental felonies“ because the farm had allegedly caused an 80 percent decline in the local population of harbor seals, a federally protected marine mammal.

These charges were surprising. Clams, oysters, and other shellfish were an important 42 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

this whole mess, but it did not: Interior officials and scientists knew the conclusion that NPS Director Jarvis wanted from the EIS in order to convince the Secretary to remove the oyster farm, and they appeared willing to change Stewart’s findings to achieve that outcome.

Emails obtained by FOIA revealed the importance of Stewart’s analysis to what NPS wanted to present to Salazar for his decision. For example, a USGS official wrote in February 2012: “the NPS needs this analysis done by the end of March to brief Secretary Salazar who needs to make a decision on Wilderness Status for the park.” “This is a high profile project.“ Shortly before Stewart submitted his analysis in early May 2012, another USGS official wrote to him: “NPS is chomping at the bit (they’ve got deadlines for deciding on the permit)“ and then again a few days later “NPS will be breathing down my neck this week, when do you think you’ll be able to transmit something?“ My own involvement in this issue began back in 2007 when the President of the county board of supervisors contacted me and asked for my help in evaluating the National Park Service science vs. their claims. The county official knew me as a local resident, University of California Berkeley biology professor, elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, and someone who had been involved at the interface of science and public policy (i.e., in my prior role as Chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences). I was distressed by what I uncovered - a repeated pattern of dishonest science used by the National Park Service against the oyster farm. As a result of that discovery, I have been at the center of many of the investigations of false science. For example, I was the person who discovered the secret cameras, photos, and logs, and the person who discovered that Interior had altered Stewart’s findings.

In December 2012, I alerted then-USGS Director Dr. Marcia McNutt (currently Editor of Science Magazine and soon-to-be President of the National Academy of Sciences) to the misrepresentation of Stewart’s report since it involved USGS officials. She agreed the misrepresentation was serious, and said she would instruct her Scientific Integrity Officer to open an investigation. After many months, and with no response to repeated emails to McNutt or her Scientific Integrity Officer, I filed a formal scientific misconduct complaint in May 2013 with the Secretary of the Interior.

Pro bono lawyers representing the oyster farm filed suit in December 2012 asking a federal court to reverse the Salazar’s decision to close down the farm, claiming the decision had been informed by false science. The Department of Justice represented the Department of Interior in court.

Justice has its own Scientific Integrity Policy. The policy states that Justice is “entrusted with awesome responsibilities and ... must pursue, rely upon and present evidence that is well-founded in fact and veracity.” The policy requires that “When science ... forms the basis for the Department’s [position], it is vital that the information relied upon be credible.”

Department of Justice lawyers violated these lofty principles in court while defending the Interior secretary’s decision. Even though they had been alerted by my court filings that the environmental impact statement misrepresented Stewart’s finding, government lawyers continued to cite its claim that the farm causes adverse impacts on harbor seals. Both agencies - Interior and Justice - continued to cite the environmental impact statement as if it were fact, right up to the steps of the Supreme Court.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court denied the oyster farm’s petition for a hearing.

Months later, the oyster farm was gone.

What happened to the year-old scientific misconduct complaint that I formally filed with Interior in May 2013? It took Interior over eight months to interview the key witness, Dr. Stewart, as to whether his scientific report and conclusions had been altered by USGS and NPS officials (Stewart was never asked the key question). In November 2014, five months after the Department of the Interior won the court battle, the USGS Scientific Integrity Officer, Alan Thornhill, sent me a two-sentence dismissal to my 164-page misconduct complaint. He wrote: “... we did not find misconduct or a loss of scientific integrity and the case is dismissed.” In Thornhill’s very brief decision posted on Interior’s web site, he concluded that USGS and NPS officials were following “standard practices,” as if to say it is not misconduct to intentionally misrepresent scientific reports since Interior officials do it all the time (you’ll see Interior use this defense in #2 below).

In dismissing the case, Thornhill never denied that USGS and NPS officials misrepresented Stewart’s report. Moreover, he never acknowledged that he had indeed interviewed Stewart in writing, and that Stewart had not contradicted anything I had written in my complaint.

Thornhill also ignored Interior’s definition of scientific misconduct involving “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly“ misrepresenting the facts. USGS and NPS officials remained silent on the misrepresentation of Stewart’s analysis, did not correct their errors, and did not stop Justice from repeating the errors in federal court.

In January 2015, Michael Ames published a story in Newsweek that included the first public interview with Stewart on this issue. Ames wrote: “On May 3, 2012, Stewart filed his reports, determining there were no disturbances attributable to the oyster farm’s boats.

But when the USGS published its final report that November, Stewart discovered that his findings had been altered and that the study reached conclusions his research directly contradicted. ‘It’s clear that what I provided to them and what they produced were different conclusions and different values,’ says Stewart. ‘In science, you shouldn’t do that.’“ But NPS and USGS officials and scientists did just that, and they got away with it.

Example #2: The Klamath River dams

Water use in the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California has been a source of conflict www.progressiverancher.com

between tribes, farmers, environmentalists, a power company, and the governments for decades. In 2002, many blamed a massive Chinook salmon kill on an allegedly politically motivated decision by Interior and then Vice President Dick Cheney to divert water to farmers rather than to in-stream flows. A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report complicated the picture by concluding that poor water quality, rather than low in-stream flows, was the main risk to threatened and endangered species.

When the Obama administration came into office, it began considering a billiondollar project to remove four dams on the Klamath River. There was never much doubt about the outcome: in 2009, Interior Secretary Salazar said that the proposal to remove the dams “will not fail.“ In April 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation (an agency within Interior) hired Dr. Paul Houser as its Science Advisor and Scientific Integrity Officer—a position created after Interior released its scientific integrity policy in January 2011 (Houser is today professor of hydrometeorology at George Mason University).

In September 2011, Interior released a draft EIS for the dam removal project. Houser complained to his superiors that the draft EIS and its accompanying press release misrepresented the science panel report on the dam removal project, emphasizing the positive benefits without the uncertainties or negatives.

In February 2012, just one month before Interior Secretary Salazar was scheduled to formally make his decision, Dr. Houser was terminated. He believed this was retaliatory and intended to prevent him from investigating whether the final EIS was also tainted by scientific misconduct. In response, he filed a whistleblower complaint with Interior’s Inspector General as well as a scientific misconduct complaint with Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer.

In March 2013, Interior released a report on Houser’s scientific integrity complaint. The report was written by an outside consultant whose main client is Interior. The consultant was not asked to investigate Houser’s actual complaint, but rather was given a set of questions written by Interior, and not allowed to interview witnesses. The report dismissed the charge of “misconduct“ as “normal practice,” and Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer, who reports to the Secretary of Interior, agreed.

In May 2013, the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources released a report on Interior’s Inspector General, highlighting the Klamath River scientific integrity complaint because of what the Committee concluded were failures of both Interior and Interior’s Inspector General.

The House Committee reported that an IG investigator thought it likely that Houser was terminated because Interior disagreed with his scientific analysis. The investigators thought the reasons cited by Interior for termination were “trivial.” Still, Houser was not reinstated, and his whistleblower and misconduct complaints were quietly dismissed.

In 2012, Kate Sheppard published a story on Houser’s case in Mother Jones. Sheppard wrote: “Advocates for transparency and good science within government agencies point out the apparent irony in firing a guy hired to enforce scientific integrity for his attempts to do just that. “I have to say, this doesn’t smell right,” said Francesca T. Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group that has been following the implementation of scientific integrity policy closely. “Interior is struggling to figure out what this policy means,” she added, and has had difficulty implementing it. “[That] leaves giant holes that politics can drive through.”

Conclusions

These two examples show that despite the President’s promise to restore science to its rightful place, it has been business as usual in parts of his administration, with certain Federal agencies misusing science to support their ideology.

What have we learned about the scientific integrity policies in different federal agencies? Certain agencies, such as HHS, have a strong policy, whereas others, such as Interior, have a very weak one. First, Interior’s policy provides no transparency, timeliness, and truly independent review. Second, it fails to deal with agency conflicts of interest. Third, it has no requirement to correct egregious errors. And fourth, it provides no accountability - no way to appeal decisions either administratively or in the courts.

Our country needs a single uniform scientific misconduct policy that applies to all federal agencies, not a series of individual policies that allow some agencies to continue to misuse science. Here are some key elements of what should be included.

• Create a uniform policy. The White House should issue a single uniform policy. The policy should be in the form of an Executive Order, binding on all federal agencies. The scientific community has waited patiently for over thirty years: it is time for a unified federal policy with some teeth.

• Don’t allow exemptions. The federal policy should apply to all branches of government. For example, Inspector General offices believe the policy does not apply to them. No agency should be exempted from being held accountable for scientific misconduct.

• Conduct truly independent investigations. Allegations of scientific misconduct should be investigated by an office or agency that is truly independent of the agency accused of the misconduct. Independent investigators should be charged with investigating the allegations no matter where it takes them, who they need to interview, or what documents they need to demand. The results of investigations should be publicly released with a complete analysis. If investigations are not independent, then conflicts of interest can develop. So long as (i) high-ranking officials pressing predetermined agendas have power

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 43

Continued from 43 over the in vestigators, (ii) outside consultants overseeing investigations have financial ties with those agencies, or (iii) investigators are controlled by pre-filtered questions, then truly independent review will never be accomplished.

• Pursue cases in a timely fashion. Investigations should be conducted in a timely manner, with the goal that each case should be resolved within six months. The current situation, in which an agency can stonewall for more than a year simply deciding whether to conduct an investigation, is unacceptable.

• Implement true whistleblower protections. Whistleblowers need actual protection.

As Jeff Ruch, Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility commented on Houser’s case (i.e., the Klamath River dams) as published in Greenwire in 2013: “If Interior’s own Scientific Integrity Officers are not shielded from reprisal for doing their jobs, how in heaven’s name could one expect a staff scientist to push back against political shenanigans?“ • Admit and correct errors. When egregious scientific errors are discovered, agencies should be required to correct them, including retracting papers and reports. The days of agency directors refusing to correct false science, or government lawyers presenting false science in federal court as if it is fact, has to come to an end.

• Ensure accountability. Persons responsible for violating the scientific integrity policy—or encouraging such violations—should be held accountable. Good science is too important to our democracy for misconduct to be rewarded with promotions. Investigators who find misconduct should recommend appropriate actions to inform the public and remediate any injuries caused by the misconduct.

President Obama is in his final year, and he still has time to get this right. But whatever happens this year, the scientific community, led by the National Academy of Sciences, should demand that the next President issue a government-wide policy that assures that all federal agencies have a scientific integrity policy as good as HHS and NIH.

About the Author

Dr. Corey Goodman is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, biotech entrepreneur and venture capitalist, and retired University of California at Berkeley biology professor. Over the past several decades, he has played a variety of key roles at the federal and state level at the interface of science and public policy.

44 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

April 2016 45 

by Jennifer Whiteley

Spring Time!

I love this time of year! I can’t think of anything I enjoy more than watching a new baby calf getting up and eating for the first time.

The round pen is drying out. We can finally start messing with our colts and getting them ready for work this summer!

We know that branding season will soon be upon us. TR and QT look forward to spending time with their cousins and are starting to be pretty good help on the ground too!

Calves are even more fun once they get bigger. They are curious and have so much personality.

I get sidetracked when I am driving the tractor as the CowBoss feeds because often I am watching the calves play, and not what he is doing (or where I am going)!

We are ready for spring and for school to be out.

We’ve got horses that need rode, cows that need moved, and land to explore!

Soon we will be turning out the ranch cows. The days are getting warmer and they are ready to go.

We are ready to be done feeding!

46 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Financial Focus P rese n ted b y Jas o n L a n d , F in a n c ia l A d v is o r, E d wa rd J o n e s i n E l k o , N e v a d a 2 2 1 3 No rt h 5 t h S t re e t , S u it e A | 7 7 5 -7 3 8 -8 8 11

T

Should You Change Your Investment Mix Over Time?

o be successful at investing, some people think they need to “get in on the ground floor” of the next “big thing.” However, instead of waiting for that one “hot” stock that may never come along, consider creating an asset allocation – a mix of investments – that’s appropriate for your needs, goals and risk tolerance. is likely your biggest long-term goal – retirement – still awaits you, so you may not want to scale back too much on your stocks and other growth-oriented investments. Nonetheless, including an allocation to bonds can help to reduce some of the volatility of the stock portion of your portfolio.

But once you have such a mix, should you keep it intact forever, or will you need to make some changes? And if so, when?

Now, fast forward to just a few years before you retire. At this point, you may want to lower your overall risk level, because, with retirement looming, you don’t have much time to bounce back from downturns – and you don’t want to start withdrawing from your retirement accounts when your portfolio is already going down. So, now may be the time to add bonds and other fixed-income investments.

Again, though, you still need some growth opportunities from your investments – after all, you could be retired for two, or even three decades.

To begin with, why is asset allocation important? Different types of investments – growth stocks, income-producing stocks, international stocks, bonds, government securities, real estate investment trusts, and so on – have unique characteristics, so they rarely rise or fall at the same time. Thus, owning a mix of investments can help reduce the forces of market volatility. (Keep in mind, though, that allocation does not ensure a profit or protect against loss.) Your particular mix will depend on your investment time horizon, comfort with risk, and financial goals.

Finally, you’re retired. At this point, you should adjust your asset allocation to include enough income-producing investments – bonds, certificates of deposit, perhaps dividend-paying stocks – to help you enjoy the retirement lifestyle you’ve envisioned. Yet, you can’t forget that the cost of living will likely rise throughout your retirement. In fact, at a modest 3% inflation rate, the price of goods will more than double after 25 years. So even during retirement, you need your portfolio to provide some growth potential to help you avoid losing purchasing power.

When you are young, and starting out in your career, you may want your asset allo- cation to be more heavily weighted toward stocks and stock-based investments.

Stock investments historically have provided the greatest returns over the long term – although, as you’ve probably heard, past performance can’t guarantee future results – and you will need this growth potential to help achieve your long-term goals, such as a comfortable retirement. Stocks also carry a greater degree of investment risk, including the risk of losing principal, but when you have many years to invest, you have time to potentially overcome the inevitable short- term declines.

By being aware of your asset allocation, and by making timely adjustments as neces- sary, you can provide yourself with the opportunities for growth and income that you will need throughout your life.

Once you reach the middle-to-later stages of your career, you may have achieved some of your goals that required wealth accumulation, such as sending your children to college. However, what This article was written by Edward Jones for use by your local Edward Jones Financial Advisor.

www.progressiverancher.com

You are invited to

You are invited to

COWBOY CHURCH!

COWBOY CHURCH!

Bible Study Fri @ 9 am

Sunday @ 11am services

4275 Solias Rd Fallon, NV

Bible Study Wed @ 6 pm

Are you having a Rodeo or Livestock event? Give us a call.

We would love to come to your event or ranch and host Cowboy Church for you.

Harmony Ranch Ministry 3767 Keyes Way Fallon, NV 89406

The Progressive Rancher

Tom J. Gonzalez | Diana J. Gonzalez, Pastor threecrossls@cccomm.net

(775) 240-8870 Cell (775) 867-3100

April 2016 47

 48 April 2016

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com