Riding Herd

by LEE PITTS

December 15, 2015 • www.aaalivestock.com Volume 57 • No. 12

BIG DATAI

n the sporting world athletes are no longer solely judged by their physique, won-lost record or by a scout who

travels the country in search of the next NBA or NFL super star. Today it’s done by what is called analytics, saber metrics or BIG DATA.

Whatever you call it, it’s all just huge amounts of data fed into a computer that spits out the winners and losers. It’s be-come not just a way to select your next shortstop, but the backbone of big business as well.

Initially, critics and slow adopters scoffed and said ana-lytics was merely an answer in search of a problem. We gath-ered all this data, now what do we do with it? But it didn’t take long for tech-savvy companies like Amazon, Apple, Fed Ex and the Angus Association to find a use for all the data. Am-azon knows what you’re going to buy before you do and the Angus Association has taken all the guesswork out of bull buying with their plethora of EPDs. It used to be said, “The eye of the master fattens his cattle.” Not any more. Now it’s more likely to be a MacBook, some Oracle software and Zoetis Genetics.

These days if you’re not using analytics and BIG DATA on the

NE

WS

PA

PE

R P

RIO

RIT

Y H

AN

DL

ING

ball field, in the boardroom or in the bull business you can’t com-pete. And with analytics and animal agriculture being a bit behind the curve, it’s safe to say, “You haven’t seen anything yet.”

Ready Or NotIt’s easy to understand why

cattlemen have not rushed to endorse BIG DATA as fast as farmers, because rancher’s first baby steps were not a pleasant experience. In the past, if a pro-

gressive rancher wanted to find out how his cattle performed in the feedlot and on the rail he probably had to own the cattle through the feedlot stage. And even then it was like pulling teeth to get any information on their grade and yield. Pack-ers and feeders did not want to share this information because they feared they’d have to pay more for the cattle in the fu-ture. Once word got out there would be more competition for

the calves. So it’s understand-able why some ranchers would be skeptical. But we’re talking about something far bigger than cut-out sheets. This time it’s dif-ferent.

Todd Janzen, a former Kan-sas farmer and now a practic-ing attorney recently asked in his blog, “Are livestock farmers being left behind in ag’s BIG DATA revolution? Most of the focus on farm data these past few months,” wrote Janzen, “has been on the impact on corn, soybean, wheat, canola, and cotton farmers. I keep wonder-ing when the BIG DATA solu-tions for livestock farmers will appear. BIG DATA has enor-mous implications for livestock farmers too.” Janzen gave an ex-ample. “If production data from dairy cows in the Midwest was tracked and collected in a cen-

BY TIFFANY DOWELL LASHMET, FROM DROVERS JOURNAL VIA DAIRY HERD MANAGEMENT MAGAZINE

It was a busy and exciting year for agricultur-al law. From federal regulations to cloning, drones to GMOs, there’s been no shortage of legal issues affecting the agriculture indus-

try. Here are some of the key developments in 2015.

“Waters of the United States” (WO-TUS) regulation finalized, then stayed. Probably the most-watched issue of 2015 was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers’ regulation defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The agencies solicited public comment in 2014, issuing a final rule last May. Numerous lawsuits challenged the rule’s scope and adop-tion procedure. These suits are pending in nine federal courts. In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nation-wide stay until the lawsuits can be considered. Shortly thereafter, EPA’s motion to consolidate all pending cases into one action before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colum-bia was denied. Although Congress considered bills seeking to overturn the rule, in November the Senate’s version of the bill failed to pass.

For now, the rule is not in force and litigation continues.

Idaho “ag gag” statute declared uncon-stitutional. An Idaho federal judge issued the first legal ruling on the constitutionality of a law prohibiting secret filming of farm operations (commonly referred to as “ag gag” laws). Pro-ponents argue the purpose of such laws is to protect the safety and privacy of farm families, employees and animals from activist groups in-filtrating operations. Opponents claim the laws encourage animal abuse and infringe on free-speech rights. The court agreed with the chal-lengers, finding the Idaho law violated both the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. It is unclear whether Idaho will appeal the court’s decision. Several other states, including North Dakota, Montana, Kansas, Utah, Iowa and Missouri, have similar laws. The impact of the Idaho court’s decision on laws in other juris-dictions remains to be seen.

RCRA “solid waste” provision applied to manure. A Washington federal court found, for the first time, that manure met the defini-tion of “solid waste” under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The case involved the alleged improper storage and

continued on page two

Santa’s A She

I haven’t paid much atten-tion to department store Santas since I was eight years old and I saw a di-

sheveled and sloppy San-ta taking a long puff on a cigarette as he got into his putrid green VW bus with curtains. When the motor came alive that old VW’s mighty muffler belched out more noxious fumes than the Basque do at their an-nual beer and beans barbe-cue.

I wondered, whatever happened to that whole sleigh concept? And I didn’t see any reindeer either. I got a sense Santa trad-ed them all in for the bus, probably shot the reindeer and had Rudolph’s head mounted over the fireplace in his shack a long way from the North Pole.

Fast forward to the oth-er day when I was sitting in a mall food court while my wife was shopping for my Christmas gift to her. I was watching parents drag their kicking and screaming tod-dlers to the almighty giver of gifts to have their pic-ture taken. At first I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary about Santa but something seemed amiss. The first thing I noticed was that Santa appeared to be wearing mascara. That figures I thought, Santa was a transvestite. Why not, ev-ery other tradition has been blown apart in this polit-ically correct world we’re living in.

Curious, I left the food court to get a closer look. I tried to blend in with the parents so the mall security cop wouldn’t think I was a pervert. Aha, now I could see what was out of place. Santa had, how shall I put this so as to not offend any-one? Santa had a bosom. A bust. An udder. And Santa didn’t have a bowl full of jelly or even a beer belly, no, Santa was expecting a little Claus!

Really? Santa’s a she? It’s just another lie our parents told us like, “Eat your car-rots and you’ll have good eyesight; keep eating cook-

www.LeePittsbooks.com

continued on page five

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

continued on page four

The easiest way to find something

lost is to buy a replacement.

2015 Agricultural Law Year In Review

By Lee Pitts

Page 2 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

tralized database, then shared with participating dairy farm-ers, could these farmers better predict the swings in milk pro-duction (and consequent swings in price)? The first step in BIG DATA analytics is collection of the data. This needs to happen in the livestock industry to give farmers another tool to bolster production and reduce the ef-fects of market swings.”

Janzen summarized, “On a recent tour of a meat pack-ing operation, I was able to see how meat packers share all data among each other to measure and compare productivity. But why aren’t dairy, beef, swine and poultry farmers doing the same thing at the local level?”

Keep your shirt on Mr. Janzen, slowly but surely the rev-olution is coming to animal ag-riculture too. Alltech’s Dr. Karl Dawson told listeners at the All-tech Beef Conference in France, “We’ve heard a lot about “BIG DATA” and how it is helping row crop farmers get more out of every acre of land. Only now it is starting to change how the livestock sector contributes to the food chain. Over the last few years, computer tools and even artificial intelligence have been developed that will give livestock producers more information on important decisions.”

Dawson predicted, “Produc-ers will be working more from armchairs and computers than they ever have in the past. Much like precision agriculture in row crops, they’ll have many of the same tools grain producers have. The first generation of these tools,” said Dawson, “Are al-ready being implemented in Eu-rope and parts of the U.S. This is going to be something that revolutionizes what happens in the industry.”

BIG DATA could be one of the fastest growing segments of the high tech industry. Tony Bishop, Vice President, Glob-al Enterprise Vertical Strategy & Marketing, sees a day when it will be possible using “cow data” “to be interconnected with cloud-based BIG DATA ana-lytics to track and analyze the movements of the more than 1.5 billion cows grazing on the planet.”

Bishop says, “One Dutch start-up, Sparked, is using wire-less sensors attached to cows’ ears to measure the vital signs of the Netherlands’ bovine popula-tion. Dutch farmers can instant-ly see if a cow is sick or pregnant via their smart phone or com-puter. The animals’ movements, eating habits and response to environmental factors can also be monitored.”

“The Dutch cow-tracking sys-tem generates 200 megabytes of data per cow, per year. At last count, there were 1.5 million dairy cows in the Netherlands. That’s a total of 300 million megabytes of cow data going over the Internet each year.”

Can you imagine . . . even on the most remote ranch, in-stead of having cowboys check the cows you’ll be able to sit in your arm chair, see where every-

one of them is and know if they are healthy because you also know their vital signs. That’s not some futuristic dream, it’s theo-retically possible right now with the use of low flying drones and wireless eartags.

Brave New WorldIn October, the Commit-

tee on Agriculture in the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on “BIG DATA in Agri-culture.” Billy Tiller, a pathfind-er in the field, told the House, “We have witnessed giant leaps in scientific and agronomic in-novations. In the last 20 years, we have seen another wave of scientific revolution involving biotechnology. All of these in-novations have made farming more productive and have made the farmer a better steward of the land. As I testify here to-day, I believe another revolution in agriculture is occurring now, and that is the Information Rev-olution. It is built on precision agriculture, which involves the integration of computing pow-er, satellites, and software that is increasingly being utilized to bring the American farmer into a ‘brave new world’ of automa-tion and operational analysis. Indeed, we are accelerating to-ward a time when the producer will utilize all available sources of information, deciphered in-telligently to operate more effi-ciently and decisively. This is the ‘BIG DATA’ opportunity within agriculture.”

For Good and BadWe can learn about the com-

ing revolution in animal agri-culture from people who have already experienced it. Blake Hurst, a Missouri farmer and Board Member of the American Farm Bureau Federation, gave House committee members a lot to think about. He said this new wave of analytics can be used for good, and for bad. For example, Hurst said, “Agricul-tural equipment firms have run pilot programs where data is up-loaded every several hours to the cloud, where it can be used . . . well, we don’t really know all the ways it can be used. If 1,000 ma-chines randomly spread across the Corn Belt were recording yield data on the second day of harvest, that information would be extremely valuable to traders dealing in agricultural futures. Traders have traditionally relied on private surveys and U.S. De-partment of Agriculture yield data. These yield estimates are neither timely nor necessarily accurate. But now, real-time yield data is available to whoev-er controls those databases. The company involved says it will never share the data. Farmers may want access to that data, however, and they may not be averse to selling the information to the XYZ hedge fund either, if the price is right — but that’s only possible if farmers retain ownership and control of the data.”

According to Hurst, ranch-

BIG DATA continued from page one

continued on page three

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 3

ers are justified in being weary about data privacy. “Even if an individual operator does every-thing to the best of his abili-ty, following all the applicable rules, regulations, and best management practices, there is still concern that the EPA or one of the numerous environmental organizations that bedevil ag-riculture might gain access to individual farm data through subpoenas or an overall-clad Edward Snowden. This concern about privacy will likely slow the adoption of the technology. The data will be invaluable to regula-tors and to parties in future liti-gation and it may also help pro-tect farmers from accusations of wrongdoing. Of course, some farmers will never be comfort-able sharing any kind of farm information with strangers.”

This is the ag industry’s Catch 22. On the one hand the cattle industry was shell-shocked, says Hurst “when it discovered the EPA was using aerial surveil-lance to monitor livestock firms, at the same time their farmer side was happy about the pros-pect of cheap and ubiquitous drones to monitor crop condi-tions and forecast yields.”

Hurst said, “The transition to a data-driven model will also make it easier for bureaucrats to regulate and measure. Whatev-er this new revolution brings,” Hurst says, “It won’t be the same. The BIG DATA move-ment and the innovative tech-nologies and analytics it yields will lead to at least as much change in agriculture as did the Green Revolution and the adop-tion of biotechnology.”

Who Owns The Data? Probably the biggest ques-

tion about the use analytics is who owns all the data that is being collected? Another person who testified before the House Committee on BIG DATA was Shannon Ferrell, Associate Pro-fessor at Oklahoma State. He said, “The greater concern may be in the privacy issues sur-rounding the sharing of agricul-tural data through BIG DATA applications. Current federal privacy laws do not directly ad-dress one’s privacy rights with respect to information like ag-ricultural data. The current in-tellectual property framework fails to provide a clear niche for agricultural data in the realms of trademark, patent, or copyright law.”

Because the concept of BIG DATA has exploded in a rela-tively short period of time, cur-rent laws and regulations have not kept pace. The question arises, should BIG DATA be regulated according to trade-mark, patent, copyright or trade secret laws? At this point there is no answer. And because all this data being collected has poten-tial economic value, Ferrell tes-tified, “questions began to arise regarding who had the superior “ownership” right to that infor-mation, given that multiple par-ties had a hand in its creation. Thus, this issue might be framed as, “Who owns data generated about an agricultural producer’s operation?”

In the age of identity theft a still bigger question might be, what happens when there’s a breech and an unauthorized dis-

closure of your data? Consider-ing the downside, one assumes the American rancher, whose average age is 57 years old, may drag his boot heels in the ground and will not be an early adopt-er of this technology. But even if you have to be dragged kick-ing and screaming into the 21st century, the age of BIG DATA is coming to ranching whether you like it or not.

Be Afraid, Very Afraid According to Blake Hurst,

“Some of the contracts that farmers are signing with those who collect and store their data are over 30 pages in length and even then it’s unclear as to who owns the data.”

Billy Tiller told Congress many of these agreements, “Give these companies the right to a worldwide license to use your data in any way they please and in most cases for free.”

Even though the contracts are verbose, Hurst says, “It’s still unclear whether the data will be shared or sold; who can access it; whether it will be kept in a place that could make it acces-sible to others via a Freedom of Information Act request; whether farmers can get his data out of the system; wheth-er it is accessible to govern-ment agencies such as the En-vironmental Protection Agency; whether or not it could be used by the service provider to specu-late in the commodities market and what happens to the data if the company is sold, acquired, or dissolves.”

“One of the most important issues around BIG DATA goes

directly to property rights,” Christopher Caldwell pointed out in the Claremont Review of Books. “Just because Facebook, MasterCard, or Google keeps track of what I searched for or where I buy lunch, it is not al-together clear why they should assume ownership of that data.”

These same questions could be asked of the firms now pro-viding age and source verifica-tion for cattle. If the IRS asked them how many calves Joe Rancher enrolled do they have the obligation to tell them, or to sell that information to a third party?

In view of the many unan-swered questions about BIG DATA, there’s no denying that besides entering a new age in data analysis we are also prob-ably entering a golden age of lawyering and lawsuits.

Cyber security expert Mikko Hypponen, believes we are at the beginning of an enormous social change that carries with it real danger. “We are the first generation that can be tracked from birth to our deathbeds, where we are, what we do, who we communicate with, what are our interests. It’s easily track-able and saveable for decades. It feels like we’re in a massive experiment done on mankind. Only much later will we realize what it means when all of our thoughts and movements not only can be tracked but are be-ing tracked.” He asks, “Will BIG DATA lead to Big Brother?”

After all is said and done, maybe it won’t be so much about who owns what, but who owns who.

BIG DATA continued from page two

Page 4 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

application of manure by dairies in Washing-ton state. Shortly after the decision, the par-ties settled the case, entering into a consent decree under which the dairies would take several steps to prevent manure contamination of groundwater. Whether this same decision will be made by other courts across the coun-try is unclear. At least one dairy in California has reportedly been served with an “intent to sue” notice under RCRA. More lawsuits are a possibility. Producers should certainly be con-cerned.

U.S. Supreme Court sides with raisin farmers in takings case. It is not common for a farmer to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court, but California raisin farmers and bro-kers not only appeared, but prevailed on their “takings claim” earlier this year. Under the Ag-ricultural Marketing Agreement Act (which is also the law authorizing Federal Milk Market-ing Orders), USDA sets a volume quota on rai-sins eligible to be sold annually in the United States, requiring growers to give a certain per-centage of their crop to the government. The surplus crop is then either destroyed, donated, or sold in non-competitive markets. The plain-tiffs claimed this marketing scheme resulted in a taking of their private property rights without compensation. The high court agreed, ordering USDA to compensate the growers the market value of the raisins at the time they were taken. How broadly this decision will be applied, and whether it will impact any dairy marketing or-ders or price control laws is, for now, not clear.

Corn producers and agribusinesses file suits against Syngenta. Several agribusi-nesses and corn producers brought suit against Syngenta after export shipments of U.S. corn were rejected by China due to the presence of a genetically modified Syngenta variety, MIR-162. The pending lawsuits, the vast majority of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation, generally allege Syngenta’s U.S. seed sales without Chinese approval caused a de-cline in the corn market due to the rejections. Syngenta argues the seed was approved for use in the United States, China was not a major purchaser of U.S. corn, and there is no evi-dence the MIR-162 seed caused the corn price decline.

GMO production bans and labeling is-sues considered. The legal issues over genet-ically modified organisms (GMOs) increased in 2015. Chief among these is a legal challenge

to a Vermont law requiring labeling of all prod-ucts containing GMO ingredients by 2016. Numerous plaintiffs, led by the Grocery Man-ufacturers Association, filed suit claiming the law violates the First Amendment, the Com-merce Clause, and is pre-empted by federal law. In April, the court issued a ruling primarily in favor of Vermont, which is now on appeal. Although Connecticut and Maine have also passed labeling laws, only the Vermont law has a set effective date (the other states’ laws be-come effective once certain trigger conditions are met). Another case arose in Hawaii, where a federal judge struck down a local law prohib-iting farmers from growing any GMO crops in Maui County. Specifically, the court found this local law was pre-empted by state and federal laws.

Draft drone regulations published by FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published much-anticipated draft reg-ulations related to drone use in the United States. The regulations cover a variety of is-sues including operator qualifications, height and visual requirements for drone operation. These regulations, when finalized and enacted, will allow commercial drone use in the Unit-ed States. Currently drones may only be used for recreational or hobby use. Any commercial drone requires an FAA permit. The draft rules were open for public comment, and final rules should be forthcoming.

Lesser prairie chicken listing under En-dangered Species Act vacated. In Septem-ber, a federal judge in the Western District of Texas found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) failed to follow their own rules when listing the lesser prairie chicken as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Specifical-ly, USFWS failed to adequately consider vol-untary conservation plans by landowners prior to the listing decision. USFWS is expected to appeal. For now, however, federal protections for the bird have been removed.

AQHA cloning suit reversed, registra-tion not required. After losing at the trial court level, the American Quarter Horse Asso-ciation scored a major victory on appeal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the AQHA rule banning registration of cloned horses or their offspring did not violate the law.

This article is not a substitute for the advice of a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

ELM ESCALONHWY 120

HWY 99

SALEHEADQUARTERS

STOCKTONHWY 4

TOSACRAMENTO

FARM

ING

TON

MANTECA

SALE SITE

TO FRESNO

MODESTO

OAKDALE

VALLEY HOME

J17 MARIPOSA RD

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

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

LIVESTOCK SALES3 days per week on

Monday, Wednesday, & Friday

MONDAY: Beef Cattle FRIDAY: Small AnimalsWEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle Poultry – Butcher Cows

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

CONSIGNMENTS

WELCOME!

Call for more

information

on consigning

your stock.

MIGUEL A. MACHADOPresident

Office: 209/838-7011Mobile: 209/595-2014

JOE VIEIRA Representative

Mobile: 209/531-4156THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

CJ BRANTLEY Field

Representative209/596-0139

Law Year in Review continued from page one

The American Angus Associ-ation welcomes breed leaders to serve its 25,000 members.

The American Angus As-sociation® announced new members and offi-cers elected to its Board

of Directors during the 132nd Annual Convention of Dele-gates in Overland Park, Kan. Those serving the Association for three-year terms are: James Coffey of Hustonville, Ky.; Chuck Grove of Forest, Va.; Mike McCravy of Bowdon, Ga.; Don Schiefelbein of Kim-ball, Minn.; and Mick Varilek of Geddes, S.D.

Jim Sitz, Dillon, Mont., was elected the new Association president and chairman of the Board of Directors. He suc-ceeds Steve Olson, Hereford, Texas. Jim operates Sitz An-gus Ranch near Dillon, Mont., which has been a family tra-dition since 1928. He and his wife, Tammi, have four chil-dren: Amber, Ashley, Tyler and Tucker.

Charlie Boyd, Mays Lick, Ky., was elected by delegates to serve as Association vice president and vice chairman of the Board of Directors. A fam-ily-owned seedstock business, Charlie and his wife, Paula, their two sons operate Boyd Beef Cattle in northern Ken-tucky. His sons, Blake and Lo-gan, represent the operation’s fifth generation.

Kevin Yon, Ridge Spring, S.C., will serve as the 2015-2016 treasurer. First-gener-ation Angus breeders, Kevin and his wife, Lydia, established Yon Family Farms in 1996. He has served as president of the South Carolina Angus Association and South Caro-lina Cattlemen’s Association. They have three children: Sally, Drake and Corbin.

A total of 318 delegates from 44 states, Washington, D.C., and Canada represented Association members during the Annual Convention of Delegates hosted during the 2015 Angus Means Business National Convention & Trade Show at the Overland Park Convention Center.

More than 2,100 Angus breeders and commercial cat-tlemen attended the three-day event in Overland Park, Kan., and enjoyed educational ses-sions, a packed trade show, as well as fun and entertainment.

Newly elected board members

James Coffey is a fifth-gen-eration Angus breeder from Hustonville, Ky. Raised on his family’s cattle and tobacco op-eration, Branch View Angus, Coffey has spent his entire life working with the Angus breed. A graduate of the University of Kentucky in accounting, he worked for Coopers and Ly-brand, Louisville, Ky., a Big Six accounting firm, then joined Kerbaugh and Rodes, CPAs, Danville, Ky., and finished his

CPA certification. In 1993, he purchased Pitman Creek Wholesale, a regional sporting goods distributor. He has two sons, Addison and Bennett; and he and his wife, LuAnn, have a son, David Reid.

Chuck Grove was raised on his family’s registered Angus farm in Forest, Va. A life mem-ber of the American Angus Association since 1973, Grove served the American Angus As-sociation as a regional manager for 39 years, covering Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Del-aware and Ohio. He served as the regional manager represen-tative to the American Angus Association Board of Directors for nine years and was the first Association staff advisor of the National Junior Angus Board (NJAB). He and his wife of 41 years, Ruth, have two chil-dren, Jake and Rachel, and two grandchildren. They live on the family farm, grazing 100 regis-tered Angus cows.

Don Schiefelbein was born and raised as the seventh of nine sons on his family’s Angus farm near Kimball, Minn. He graduated from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, with a degree in animal science. Following graduation during the depths of the farm crisis of the 1980s, he was un-able to immediately return to the family farm. He made his career with the American Gel-bvieh Association serving as executive director of the asso-ciation. This will be Schiefelbe-in’s second term on the Amer-ican Angus Association Board of Directors. He and his wife, Jennifer, have three daughters: Shelby, Abbey and Bailee.

Mick Varilek is a lifelong Angus breeder and rancher from southern South Dakota. He met his wife, Lynn, while at South Dakota State University and after graduation returned to the family ranch where they raised three children. Their ranch is on the Missouri River at Geddes, S.D. It currently consists of 3,000 acres of na-tive pasture and 1,000 acres of grass hay, irrigated alfalfa and cropland. The ranch in-cludes 500 registered Angus females that have been select-ed through genomic tests since 2010. Mick and his family have always been committed to rais-ing top-quality Angus cattle.

Mike McCravy of Bowdon, Ga., established MM Cattle Co. with his wife, Christy, with 40 cows and a dream in 1999. Today’s operation consists of 125 registered Angus females along with a commercial cow herd situated in west-central Georgia. In addition to the cat-tle, Mike owns and operates a small custom hay business. The McCravys, along with fellow area cattlemen, host an annual bull and commercial replace-ment female sale in November each year. Mike is retired af-ter 25 years with the Douglas County Fire Department.

Angus Elects New Board Officers, Members

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 5

Selling Brangus Bulls & Brangus Influenced Bred CattleSaturday, February 13, 2016, NOON at Marana Stockyards, Marana AZ

(20 min W. of Tucson off I-10) — Viewing Available on Friday, February 12 at the Stockyards

Cattle are range raised in Arizona, New Mexico, & California, & are

drought & heat tolerant.

LIVE Bidding Available through: Cattle USA.COM ON SALE DAY

For Information Contact: Dr. Bart Carter 928-348-4030; Diane Parker 520-403-1967;

or Clay Parsons 520--444-7650

SOUTHWEST BRANGUS BREEDERSBest in the West

SALE

ies and you’ll turn into one; don’t swim after eating or you’ll drown; when you get my age you’ll understand.” But now I’m old and I still don’t get it. What a pack of lies our parents tried to sell us! What’s next, a transgender Tooth Fairy or bi-sexual Easter Bunny?

I guess it was only a matter of time. Women are in the In-fantry, driving semis and rid-ing bulls, why not shimmying down chimneys? Although I do admit, Santa being a she does explain a lot of things, like why I always asked for toys and only got underwear and socks on Christmas day.

I moved in closer because I wanted to hear what the kids thought of a she-Santa. Did they say, “Hey, mommy, that Santa sounded like a girl.” Or, “Daddy why did that lady have a beard?”

What if the little tykes saw the she-Santa use the lady’s bathroom on her break, or reading Marie Claire, Vogue or the Ladies Home Journal in the magazine section of Barnes and Noble?

If Santa really is a she it does answer some questions. I never did buy the idea that any man was organized enough

to be able to pack all those toys on a single sleigh. Only a woman could do that. And it always bothered me that San-ta seemed to know so much about dolls and playhouses but did not know the difference be-tween a Winchester 22, which is what I repeatedly asked for, and a Daisy BB gun, which is what I got.

I suppose a more lithesome female with smaller feet could get drown a chimney easier and it explains why there were no cookie crumbs on the couch, spilled milk or boot tracks of soot on the carpet Christmas morn. A real man would never wear clothes made out of what I believe is crushed velvet, and we all know that women are far more knowledgeable about stockings and such. And here might be the best argument yet that Santa’s a she: every-one knows a male could never go around the world without a wife riding shotgun telling him how to drive.

Still, I do have a few con-cerns, like how a woman can grow such a great beard but I, a man’s man, can’t.

I also worry that this news is going to come as quite a shock to the elves and Mrs. Claus.

Riding Herd continued from page one

BY BROOKE WAHLBERG, ENDANGEREDSPECIESLAWAND POLICY.COM

On October 27, 2015, the U.S. Fish & Wild-life Service (“Service”) issued a memorandum

to the Service Regional Di-rectors announcing new guid-ance to streamline findings on petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The stated purpose of the guidance is to “streamline petition findings while ensur-ing [the Service] conducts an adequate review of petitions.” The memorandum clarifies that this guidance is “interim guidance” until the Service’s amendments to its petition listing rules are final. Once finalized, the guidance will supersede previous guidance issued in July 1995, November 1995, and November 2012.

The interim guidance con-sists of the guidance itself and several updated appendices made available concurrently with the Directors’ memoran-dum. These include:

n Procedures for Making 90-day Petition Findings Un-der ESA Section 4(b)(3)(A) and Publication of Findings in the Federal Register (updated October 20, 2015).

n A Petition Acknowledg-ment Letter Template (updat-ed November 5, 2015).

n Guidance on making 90-day Petition Findings Under ESA Section 4(b)(3)(A) (up-dated October 20, 2015).

n Petition Review Form (Updated November 5, 2015).

n Summary of Court Rul-ings Related to 90-Day Find-ings (Updated October 20, 2015).

n Guidance on Batching 90-Day Findings for Publica-tion in the Federal Register (Updated October 20, 2015).

n Batched Federal Register Notice Template (Updated November 5, 2015).

n Briefing Paper Template (updated November 5, 2015).

This guidance follows a flurry of listing actions that have occurred over the past five years. The 2011 listing

settlement arose out of the Service’s failure to process pe-titions in accordance with the time frames set forth in ESA Section 4. Since then, the Ser-vice has, in accordance with the court-ordered deadlines, published findings on the hun-dreds of species included in the settlement. All the while, environmental organizations have continued to file “me-ga-petitions” for tens of spe-cies at a time, again triggering the Service’s obligations under ESA Section 4. Notably, the proposed amendments to the petition listing rule referenced in the Directors’ memorandum would prohibit the filing of me-ga-petitions and limit petitions to one species at a time, pre-sumably to avoid the Service falling behind on its Section 4 listing obligations. This guid-ance serves to further advise Service personnel on how to effectively make findings on petitions in accordance with both the time lines and the substantive aspects of ESA Section 4.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Issues Updated Guidance to Streamline 90-Day and 12-Month Petition Findings

Portales pair indicted on 139 charges stemming from cattle fraudBY TRAVIS RUIZ, ASST NEWS DIRECTOR, HTTP://ABC7AMARILLO.COM

Two people have now been in-dicted on 139 criminal charges stemming from alleged cattle fraud, according to the Ninth

Judicial District Attorney.Calvin and Darcie Pario, both

of Portales, NM, were indicted on the charges, including Forgery, Fraud, Conspiracy and Racketeer-ing. The alleged activity happened while the pair was working at High Plains Livestock Auction as the managers, the DA’s Office said.

A search warrant was first ex-ecuted at High Plains Livestock Auction in January 2015 by the Livestock Board, DA’s Office, State Police and the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office.

The investigation, according to the DA’s Office, revealed a fraud-ulent scheme where Calvin was accused of buying cattle at the auction for a certain price and then after the auction, have Darcie change the prices on different buy-ers and sellers.

The DA’s Office said that the inspectors estimated more than 13,000 sales tickets had been al-tered and more than $2 million had fraudulently deprived dairy owners and buyers in Texas and New Mex-ico.

Inspectors only focused on 20 random sales throughout the past year and more than $20,000 was altered at each sale, the DA’s Of-fice said.

Documents, according to the DA’s Office, suggest years of fraud-ulent activity by the pair.

The pair remains out on bond pending trial.

Page 6 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

Several sheep producer groups maintain the U.S. Forest Service relied on skewed data to shut down

sheep grazing in 70 percent of Idaho’s Payette National Forest. The Idaho Wool Growers Asso-ciation, joined by the Colorado Wool Growers Association, the Utah Wool Growers Association and the American Sheep Indus-try Association, argued before a federal appeals court that the agency ignored expert opinion and used inaccurate models in reaching its decision, which was intended to protect wild bighorn sheep from disease.

William Myers, an attorney for the organizations, asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-peals to invalidate the Forest Service’s decision for violating the National Environmental Policy Act during oral arguments held Nov. 2 in Portland. The ar-guments can be heard at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000008459.

The agency was required under NEPA to seek the exper-tise of Donald Knowles, Ph.D., DVM, a scientist at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service who specializes in disease trans-mission between domestic and

bighorn sheep and found signif-icant gaps in the Forest Service’s analysis, Myers said. Because the agency didn’t solicit his ad-vice, the result was a decision that’s prejudicial to sheep pro-ducers who relied on the nation-al forest for grazing.

The Idaho Wool Growers As-sociation filed a lawsuit against the 2010 decision to severely curtail sheep grazing in the na-tional forest but the complaint was dismissed last year by a fed-eral judge who said uncertain-ties about disease transmission were properly considered by the agency.

In their appeal, the sheep groups argue that the Forest Service violated NEPA by ig-noring the best science available in making its decision and not heeding warnings that its dis-ease models were faulty.

Robert Lundman, an attor-ney for the agency, said the For-est Service wasn’t required to specifically solicit information from USDA ARS in writing its analysis because it’s primarily concerned with agricultural is-sues, not wildlife issues. Even if the agency were required to solicit the expertise of ARS and Knowles, the omission was

Sheep Producers Dispute Disease Study in Grazing Lawsuit

The View FROM THE BACK SIDE

BY BARRY DENTON

I just returned home from the American Quarter Horse World Championship Show in Oklahoma City, Oklaho-

ma. Having been there for two weeks with our horses I was certainly glad to get home.

The trip this year with our cow horses was exciting as usual and I always learn a great deal more when I ride with folks that know things differ-ent than I do. I also wanted to point out the blizzard between Clines Corners and Moriarty, New Mexico. What fun it was to be pulling a truck load of horses on icy roads when you cannot see six foot in front of you. It just would not be a proper blizzard without fifty mile per hour winds to go with it. Folks were sliding off of the road, as well as sliding on the road. I realize that there is no point in having good weather the third week of November in New Mexico. It just would not be right.

The American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) seems to be the most political-ly correct horse organization in America. They, too, have thrown out their standards and accept about any horse into their breed that wants to become one. I saw horses that were seventeen point three hands tall that were tagged as hunters and jumpers. Thor-oughbred is the first thing that comes to mind, but no, it is a registered Quarter Horse. No, not hunting horses, “hunt-ers” that are ridden around an arena and hopped over fences that were entirely too small for the size of the horse.

I believe it has to do with fear factor of the rider. Once they get aboard these giant horses they realize it is way too far to the ground if the horse is just standing still. The riders do not want to make the horse jump too high. One thing I have noticed is that the ma-jority of the horses at this level are beautifully groomed and in great physical condition.

The thing that perplexes me is that the riders are normally well groomed, but seem to lack the physical conditioning. No wonder they are scared. Out on the ranch this would be the horse you would use to tie onto the big steers.

The next horse I saw walk by me was a true phenome-non known as a halter horse. In AQHA terms that is a horse that is lead around with a hal-ter. These are shown in hand as an example of breed confor-mation. The only thing is that they are almost never ridden. The over abundance of mus-cles on these horses makes it impossible for them to move well.

I will say if you have an in-terest in the grotesque then this would be your type of horse. These animals are mus-cle bound, overweight, and their feet are way too small to carry their weight. One of the halter horse’s biggest problems is laminitis and a short lifes-pan. This does fascinate some people, just like any form of extreme body building.

It always makes me think of the bearded lady or the guy covered from head to toe with tattoos at the circus. Freaks fit right in at the World Show. What would this horse do on a ranch? Get sent to the sale barn.

In spite of the horses that I do not particularly cotton to there are many horses there that will astound you with their talent. Calf and steer roping horses just seem to get better and better. The horse’s conformation matches its job so well that it can carry out the task with finesse and grace. Many of these horses go on to become professional rodeo horses. A horse in top physical condition and well trained is a true pleasure to watch and en-hances competition.

Personally I enjoy watching the cutters and the working cow horses. These horses are true athletes and so are their riders. It is fun to watch these horses work cattle.

The horses love these disci-plines and create a dance with their bovine counterparts. The cutters tend to get very low to the ground and are cat quick. The cutting horse riders have to be athletic enough to stay with their horse and work as one. When you add speed any-thing can go wrong.

In regard to the working cow horses, these animals have to be in the correct position to work their cow efficiently. Maintaining correct position at high speed and controlling a

a “harmless error” because he nonetheless communicated his concerns to the Forest Service.

“We know what he said and the final EIS responded to that uncertainty,” Lundman said.

The Idaho Wool Growers As-sociation argues that any con-tact between the Forest Service and Knowles was “grudging” and insufficient to meaningfully affect the decision to cut graz-

ing. The judges did not indicate

when they would make a ruling in the case.

Reprinted in part from Capital Press

Quarter Horse Observations

cow at the same time is a mon-umental feat. Sometimes when they are out of the correct posi-tion it spells out trouble in the way of a wreck.

I read an entire diatribe on the internet the other day about how wonderful the AQHA western pleasure horse is to show. I made a point of watching this class once again so I could see what I had been missing. It was truly bizarre as the horses have a tendency to travel sideways and extremely slow.

Keep in mind that western pleasure consists of the walk, trot, and lope. I have no idea what gait I was watching as the entire class was dreadfully slow. This class was created as an en-try level class as it is simple and safe enough for about any skill level.

However, I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily riding one of these horses. I realize they are not lame, but they travel lame on purpose. That is the only way they can get them to show that slow. I’d certainly be ticked if it took me five minutes to lope around a small arena. I bet this class was developed this way for desk jockeys as the horse does move slightly faster than a desk.

Can you imagine how much fun those western pleasure rid-ers would have if they ever got on a barrel racing horse? It must be that the AQHA needed a horse that was for timid folks. Probably the fastest thing they ever did before they got a show horse was sip wine. Do not get me wrong, I realize there are boring people in the world that like horses.

This World Champion-ship show is held every year in during November in Oklahoma City. If you have not been, you are in for a treat. It truly has something for everyone. My guess is that the trip will inspire you to do something more with your own horse.

You will probably figure out what you do not want to do with your horse as well. Who knows, you might buy a nice rope horse there and qualify it the following year.

Lately there has been a lot of talk about how cruel it is to ex-hibit animals. Remember that the proponents of this know nothing about showing hors-es. The horses at the AQHA World Show get the best of care and feed. No expense is spared on these magnificent animals. The folks that think this is cru-el ought to start looking at fe-ral, starving animals on Indian Reservations and in urban back yards. Horses can be amazing creatures as evidenced at the AQHA World Show. Go and enjoy it!

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 7

Registered AngusProduction SaleFriday, January 29, 2016

at Verdigre NELivestock Market

Max & Wendy Doerr402-288-4299

www.doerrangusranch.comdoerrangusranch@hotmail.com

An industry leader in 50K Registered

Black Angus Seedstock

Doerr Angus Ranch53244 Hwy 84

Center NE, 68724-8004

BY MIKE KOSHMRL

JACKSON HOLE DAILY

Senator John Barrasso has introduced a companion bill to existing legisla-tion in the U.S. House

of Representatives that would strip federal protection for Wyoming’s wolves.

Assigned to the Senate En-vironment and Public Works Committee on Nov. 10, S. 2281 would reissue a rule that in 2012 removed Endangered Species Act protection for wolves in Wyoming and gave management to the state. The Wyoming Republican’s legis-lation — like a bill co-spon-sored by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis in the House — would also give management of wolves in Minnesota, Wis-consin and Michigan back to the states, allowing hunting.

Barrasso vowed persistence in using a legislative approach to get around the Endangered Species Act protocol. Since a federal courts ruling came down in September 2014, the act has dictated how the ap-proximately 300 wolves in the

Equality State are managed.“This is just one of many

legislative opportunities we’ll continue to pursue until Wyo-ming’s wolf management plan is protected and fully imple-mented,” Barrasso said in a statement.

“Wyoming has honored its commitment and put togeth-er a solid and working plan to protect the state’s wolf pop-ulation,” he said. “Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees that wolves should be delisted in Wyoming.”

The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis-consin. Lummis also paired with a Wisconsin representa-tive, Reid Ribble, in her Feb-ruary 2015 legislative effort to give Wyoming managers control once again over the canine.

The language of the Sen-ate and House bills are nearly identical, and both are terse.

The bills would give Fish and Wildlife 60 days to reis-sue delisting rules “without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies.” They also prohibit

any court from reviewing the decision.

Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, said in a statement that the bill would not modify the Endangered Species Act.

“Nor does it prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from ever returning the wolf to the endangered list if it determines the population is again threatened and in need of federal protection,” he said. “I strongly agree with Wis-consin’s farmers, ranchers, loggers and sportsmen that future gray wolf listing deci-sions should come from the experts, and not from judges.”

Last winter, Governor Matt Mead backed using a legislative approach on the wolf issue.

“Congressional action is now the most effective means to bring gray wolf manage-ment under state control,” Mead told The Associated Press in February.

In 2011 Congress took the unprecedented step of delist-ing wolves in Idaho and Mon-tana and portions of Utah, Washington and Oregon.

BY: PETE BONDS, PRESIDENT, TEXAS AND SOUTHWESTERN

CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION

As most ranchers and land-owners know by now, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues

waging a war against ranchers and private property owners across the nation by trying to implement its flawed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.

The rule redefines the term “navigable” under WOTUS to allow the EPA to regulate all surface water on private lands. Implementation of the rule would require private property owners to meet stringent and costly EPA regulations, making it more difficult for ranchers to continue running successful cat-tle operations.

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TS-CRA), its members and many others submitted over 1 million comments voicing their con-cerns and opposing the rule. The EPA continuously disregarded these serious worries across the country and stressed the agency would move forward with imple-mentation.

On May 27, the EPA an-nounced the final rule and said it would become effective on Aug. 28. While this came as bad news to us, leaders across the nation were still working to prevent it from immediately taking effect. We recently had some notable victories in our fight against the WOTUS rule, and I am pleased it has not actually been imple-mented yet.

A preliminary injunction was issued against the rule by a U.S. District Court in North Dako-ta on Aug. 27, the day before

it was to take effect. However, this order applied only to the 13 states involved in the law-suit. Texas and Oklahoma were not included in this litigation; regardless TSCRA was glad to know some preliminary relief was immediately granted for part of the country.

On Oct. 9, a bigger mile-stone was achieved when it was announced that the Cincinnati, Ohio based U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay on the rule. Petitioners in the Sixth Circuit concluded that the rule is illegal because treatment of tributar-ies, “adjacent waters,” and wa-ters having a “significant nexus” to navigable waters are “at odds” with a U.S. Supreme Court rul-ing. The court also said that im-plementation would cause “ir-reparable harm,” to the states. This decision was a significant achievement for all ranchers and landowners who have long wor-ried about the rule, however it didn’t provide a permanent fix.

In addition to recent victo-ries, many federal district courts across the nation, including one in Galveston, Texas, are pro-ceeding with multiple lawsuits aimed at indefinitely scrapping the onerous water rule. Lawyers for the president’s administra-tion were seeking to consolidate these legal challenges, but the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multidis-trict Litigation refused to grant their request. The 7-judge pan-el said “centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties.” TSCRA is glad these court cases will move forward separately to provide more am-munition against the EPA water rule.

Further, Congress has in-

troduced and partially passed legislation that would prohibit the EPA from implementing the rule. Most recently the U.S. Senate passed a joint resolu-tion of disapproval for the rule. This orders the EPA to with-draw the rule and prevents the agency from drafting a similar one in the future. The joint res-olution essentially sends a clear message to the EPA that Con-gress doesn’t approve of the EPA’s plan. This still needs to be passed in the U.S. House of Representatives before making it to the president’s desk.

Unfortunately, the president has said he will swiftly veto any bill that would block or change the WOTUS rule. This is why we must keep our focus on the litigation being led by the fed-eral judicial courts across the country. While the rule has been temporarily blocked by the ju-dicial stay, we must continue working to get it thrown out for good.

TSCRA will continue work-ing closely with state and federal officials, as well as other cattle industry and landowner organi-zations to permanently put this issue to rest. TSCRA greatly ap-preciates the tireless efforts al-ready put forth by many leaders across the country.

TSCRA leaders and staff will be sure to keep their members informed of any new develop-ments in our fight against the EPA WOTUS rule. Securing private property rights has been and will always remain one of our top priorities at TSCRA.

Pete Bonds has ranched his entire life. He operates the Bonds Ranch in Saginaw, Texas, where he also lives. Bonds currently serves as the president of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. He and his wife Jo have 3 daughters, Missy, Bonnie and April.

Working to Permanently Scrap the EPA Water Rule

Senator Barrasso takes wolf battle to the Senate

Page 8 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

Missouri Land Sales 139 Acres - 7 AC stocked lake; hunting retreat. Beautiful 2 BR, 1 BA log cabin. Only 35+ miles northeast of Springfield. MLS# 60031816. 82.4 M/L - Horse Lover’s Dream (joins Mark Twain National Forest). Spring fed pond stocked with bass. 4 BR, 1 BA, older home (rented), pasture (rented). 24 miles north of Mt. Grove. MLS# 60034710. 174 M/L Acres. Cattle, horses, hunting retreat. Live water year round - spring crawdad creek. 30+ ac open, more land could be opened with brush hogging. Good fencing, 2 miles from S&H fish pay fishing ponds. 8 miles east of Ava on Hwy. 76. MLS# 60029427 GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704; Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com, enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARDCell: 417/839-5096

1-800/743-0336MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORS

SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

3879 State Road 209Broadview, NM 88112

575 456-2000www.bigmesarealty.comPaul Stout, Qualifying Broker 575 760-5461

7351 Quay Road AI Large ranch home over 3000 square feet

over looking Ute Lake on just under 40 acres.

Featured Property North Eastern Nevada FarmThis 583-acre farm is located on the outskirts of the Montello in the Pilot Valley. All of the land has underground water rights for irrigation and one new pivot has just been installed and the set-up is in for a 2nd pivot. There are 3 wells in now which will serve 2 pivots. 4 pivots will fit the property. No home with the sale but several good homesites on the proper-ty and other private residential properties are available near or adjacent to subject. The power costs are very reasonable.

For more information call Paul Bottari, Broker 775-752-0952 or check it out on BottariRealty.com.

Fallon-Cortese LandNEW MEXICO

P.O. Box 447Fort Sumner, NM 88119

575.355.2855 office575.355.7611 fax575.760.3818 cell

nick@ranchseller.comwww.ranchseller.com

Filling Your Real Estate Needs in Oregon

Andrew Bryan, Principal/BrokerOffice 541-523-5871Cell 208-484-5835

andrew@bakercityrealty.comwww.bakercityrealty.com

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

SCOTT MCNALLYwww.ranchesnm.com

575/622-5867575/420-1237

Ranch Sales & Appraisals

Bar MReal Estate

Bottari RealtyPaul Bottari, Broker

775/752-3040

Nevada Farms &

raNch PrOPerTYwww.bottarirealty.com

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista RealtyQualifying Broker:

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

Socorro Plaza Realty

On the PlazaDonald BrownQualifying Broker

505-507-2915 cell505-838-0095 fax

#5 PlazaPO Box 1903

Socorro, NM 87801www.socorroplazarealty.com

dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

AG LAND LOANSAs Low As 3%

OPWKCAP 2.9%INTEREST RATES AS LOW AS 3%Payments Scheduled on 25 Years

Joe Stubblefield & Associates13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062

joes3@suddenlink.netMichael Perez Associates

Nara Visa, NM • 575/403-7970

Livestock Market Digest

HeAdquArters West Ltd.ST. JOHN’S OFFICE:

TRAEGEN KNIGHT

P.O. Box 1980St. John’s, AZ 85936

www.headquarterswest.com

928/524-3740 Fax 928/563-7004

Cell 602/228-3494info@headquarterswest.com

Filling your real estate needs in Arizona

Terrell Land and Livestock Co.

575-447-6041Tye Terrell, selling ranches since 1972

We know New Mexico and New Mexico needs.tyecterrell@yahoo.com

Los Lunas, NM

Lisa ArenasManager/Principal Broker

Licensed in the state of Oregon548 Business Park Drive, Medford OR, 97504

HarcourtsOROP.com

800 772 7284541 772 0000

fax 541 772 7001

Polvadera New Mexico... looking for a charming home in the country? This home has a Great Room for entertaining family and friends. A mod-ern kitchen compliments this home and a large dining area. This property also has a one bedroom guest house with a fireplace. Also there is a pool for summer fun and mature cotton-wood trees and elm trees make this property complete. This prop-erty has 9.7 acres with pre 1907 water rights and this is negotiable and not part of the listing price of $350,000.00. Call today for more information on the Rio Grande Valley Gem. Call 505/507-2915 • Fax: 575/838-0095

P.O. Box 1903, Socorro, NM 87801Don Brown, Qualifying Broker

dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTYScott and co.L

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027Ben G. Scott – Broker

Krystal M. Nelson, CO/NM Qualifying Broker800-933-9698 day/eve.

www.scottlandcompany.comwww.texascrp.com

FT. SUMNER VALLEY – beautiful home on 20 irr. ac., 3 bdrm/2 bath country home, nice combination apartment/horse barn w/2 bdrms., one bathroom/washroom & three enclosed stalls w/breezeway, currently in alfalfa, ditch irrigated. GRAIN & BEEF FACTORY – Union Co., NM – 960 ac. +/-, fully developed for farming & cattle w/new set of pens, completely fenced & watered, 3 mi. of all weather road. CUCHARAS RIVER RANCH NORTH – Huerfano Co., CO - buy this well located, choice, grama/western wheat grass ranch & develop the really scenic parts of the ranch for residential subdivisions w/10, 20, 40, 100 acre tracts. 12, 088 deeded ac. +/- w/an addtl. 33,000 deeded ac. +/- available for sale across the hwy., addtl. perks, hunting, fishing, recreation w/a large lake on the ranch together w/the Cucharas River, Santa Clara & Sand Creeks.SILVERTON, TX. - Rhoderick Irrigation - Pivot sprinkler & pump sales and repairs, gift, accessory & floral shop.

HEREFORD, TX. – Let’s look at this excellent location, 200 S. 25 Mile Ave., a nice, well maintained commercial building w/8 offices, 4 restrooms, reception area, break room, 2 central heat/air units. Two long-time renters w/room for a third.WHEELER CO., TX. - 20 ac., East of Twitty, you will fall in love w/the unique, barn-style, rustic yet modern home, panoramic views, native grass, trees, hunting, semi-enclosed horse barn, city water, all-weather road.EQUINE HAVEN – Deaf Smith Co., TX. - 15 ac. +/- of choice property located adjacent to the city limits on Hereford’s north side. Homes, barns, saddle shop (no equipment or furnishings), numerous horse stalls w/runs, automatic waterers, 11 lots platted, property zoned for horses & livestock, round pen & large arena, on pvmt. & all-weather road. Owner motivated!Please view our websites for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rainfall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX., NM, OK & CO.

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 9

BUENA VISTA REALTY521 West Second St.Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

80 acre irrigated farm - Small 1060 sq. ft home rented out. 2 pivots 1/8 mile watering alfalfa and wheat from 2 wells on pavement 3 miles east of Portales - excellent location, perimeter trees windbreak on west. $267,000 160 acre Mini - Stock Farm, this place was absolutely made perfect with new plumbing, electrical, roofing, fencing etc. - then the lure of a perfect job lured them away. Great gramma grass turf, Savory grazing fenced, new shed for equipment or hay. Only 1 mile off pavement, small com-munity on school bus & mail route. Talk about quiet and peaceful with wonderful small town nearby.

See our website at www.buenavista-nm.com for pictures andcall office for more details.

FLORES CANYON RANCH: Located between San Patricio and Glencoe, New Mexico in the Hondo Valley. 3,630 total acres to include 680 acres of NM State Lease all under fence. The property extends south of U.S. Highway to include the Rio Ruidoso River. Turnkey sale to include livestock, small bison herd and equipment. Nice improvements with two wells and pipeline. Elk, mule deer and barbary sheep. Price: $4,000,000.00

ELK HAVEN RANCH: 410 acres at Bent, New Mexico between Ruidoso and Tularosa, south of Highway 70. Approximately 50 acres have been benched and leveled, planted in improved grasses. Water from a free flowing large volume spring with water rights that predate statehood. Nice improvements to include a residence, mobile home, barn and corrals. Elk, mule deer and barbary sheep. Price: $1,500,000.00

TOLAND RANCH: Small ranch property located near Cedarvale, NM in Torrance County. Just 15 minutes from the Cibola National Forest and the Gallinas Mountains. Comprised of 1,440 deeded acres situated in two noncontiguous tracts separated by State Highway 42. The north tract is fenced with one water well equipped with an elec-tric submersible pump. A portion of the south tract is not fenced and there is no devel-oped source of water, but several earthen tanks. Excellent grassland. Price: $432,000.00

Scott McNally Qualifying BrokerBar M Real Estate

www.ranchesnm.com • Office: 575-622-5867 • Cell: 575-420-1237

Tom HardestySam Hubbell520-609-2456

Tom HardestySam Hubbell520-609-2456

Phoenix • Tucson • Sonoita • Cottonwood • St. Johns

Designated Brokers • Con A. Englehorn, AZ • SAM HUBBELL, NM

• 125 acres, Henderson Coun-ty, TX. Excellent grass & wa-ter. Square in shape, fronts a good, paved county road. $3500 Per acre.

• 275 acres, Recreation, hunt-ing and fishing. Nice apart-ment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3950 Per acre.

• 270 acre, Mitchell Coun-ty, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water de-veloped, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20.

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

Joe Priest Real Estate1205 N. Hwy 175, Seagoville, TX 75159

972/287-4548 • 214/676-69731-800/671-4548 • Fax 972/287-4553

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

Miami Horse Training Facility. Ideal horse train-ing facility w/large 4 bedroom 3 bathroom approx 3,593 sq ft home, 248.32± deeded acres, 208 irriga-tion shares, 30' X 60' metal sided shop/ bunk house, 8 stall barn w/tack room, 7 stall barn w/storage, 10 stall open sided barn w/10 ft. alley, 2 stall loafing shed, 14 11' x 24' Run-In Shelters, 135' Round Pen, Priefert six horse panel walker. Many more features & improvements. All you need for a serious horse operation in serious horse country of Miami New Mexico. Additional 150 acres available on south side of road.  Miami is at the perfect year round horse training elevation of 6,200.  Far enough south to have mostly mild winters.  Convenient to I-25. $1,550,000.High Productivity Sub Irrigated Grass Unit, 624.027± deeded acres plus 178± acres graz-ing. Has supported 80-100 cows since November 2012, with winter supplementation. Exceptional grass producing unit surrounds lake 11 of Maxwell Conservancy and has 70 irrigation shares out of Stubblefield Reservoir.  $1,150/deeded acre.

O’NEILL LAND, llcP.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347

land@swranches.com • www.swranches.comGood inventory in the Miami, Springer, Maxwell and Cimarron area. Great year-round climate suitable

for horses. Give yourself and your horses a break and come on up to the Cimarron Country.

SOLD

Miller Krause Ranch. 939.37± deeded acres. 88 Springer Ditch Company water shares. Mostly west of I;25, exit 414. Big views. $559,000.Maxwell Farm, 280 +/- deeded acres. 160 Class A Irrigation shares, 2 center pivots. Nice barns, small feed lot, owner financing available.Miami Mountain View. 80± deeded acres w/80 water shares & house. $490,000.Miami. 80± deeded acres, awesome home, total remodel, awesome views $395,000.Miami WOW. Big home in Santa Fe Style great for family on 3 acres. $234,000.Miami Tangle Foot. 10.02± deeded acres w/water shares & meter. $98,000.Maxwell. 19.5± deeded acres, water, outbuild-ings, great horse set up. $234,000.Canadian River. 39.088± deeded acres, w/nice ranch home & river. $279,000.CONTRACT

PENDING

SOLD

Happy Holidays!Happy Holidays!

Page 10 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

KADDATZAuctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales

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

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

ClassifiedsDigest

B U L L SANGUS

CHAROLAISSIM ANGUSHEREFORD

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

PAT GRISWOLDCATTLE CO

Goldthwaite, Texas817/946-8320 mobile

Call: 979/245-5100 • Fax 979/244-4383 5473 FM 457, Bay City, Texas 77414

dwendt@1skyconnect.net

Dan Wendt

S

S Santa Gertrudis Cattle Polled and Horned

HERD ESTABLISHED 1953 SS

SANTA GERTRUDIS

angus

Bradley 3Ranch Ltd.

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

Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

Annual Bull Sale:February 13, 2016

at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX

www.bradley3ranch.com

PhillipsRED ANGUS

Spring & Yearlings For Sale

CECIL FELKINS • 209/274-4338Email: CWCOWBOY@ATT.NET

5500 BUENA VISTA RD. IONE, CA 95640

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR

RED ANGUS GENETICS

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

209/727-3335

RED ANGUS

Willcox, AZ

R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654

4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643

g•u•i•d•e

RegisteredPolled Herefords

Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510

MANUEL SALAZARP.O. Box 867

Española, N.M. 87532

Bulls & HeifersFOR SALE

AT THE Phone: 575/638-5434

HEREFORD

BEEFMASTER

BRANGUS

BY BEN RUBIN, ENDANGEREDSPECIESLAWANDPOLICY.COM

In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a final rule des-

ignating 1,724 acres as critical habitat for the endangered Riv-erside fairy shrimp (Streptoceph-alus woottoni). Included in that designation were 56 acres of pri-vate land, on which the plaintiff, Otay Mesa Property, L.P. (Otay

Court Rejects Some, But Not All Challenges to Critical Habitat Designation of Private Land

Mesa), had planned to build a recycling facility and landfill.Because of the land use restric-

tions potentially implicated by the critical habitat designation, Otay Mesa challenged the final rule in federal court, asserting that (1) the Service improperly determined that the property met the definition of critical habitat in the Endangered Spe-cies Act (ESA), (2) the Service did not properly account for the economic consequences of the designation under the ESA, and (3) the Service failed to comply with the National Environmen-tal Policy Act before issuing the final rule, as the Service did not prepare an environmental as-sessment analyzing the environ-mental impacts of the critical habitat designation. In a recent opinion, the United States Dis-trict Court for the District of Columbia rejected the majority of Otay Mesa’s arguments, al-though it did find that further briefing was necessary on the issue of whether the entire 56 acres was properly designated as critical habitat. Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Case No. 13-cv-0240 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2015).

Under the ESA, the Service is strongly encouraged to issue a critical habitat designation whenever it decides to list a species as threatened or en-dangered. However, when the Service listed the Riverside fairy shrimp as an endangered spe-cies in 1993, it did not designate any critical habitat.

Instead, the first critical hab-itat designation took place in 2001. That designation, how-ever, was challenged in federal court, and as a result the Service issued a revised critical habitat designation in 2005. With re-spect to the 56 acres, while the Service concluded that the prop-erty met the statutory definition of critical habitat, it decided not to include the 56 acres based on

an economic analysis of the des-ignation, finding that the bene-fits of exclusion exceeded (esti-mated to be between $5 million and $31 million) the costs of inclusion.

Again, however, the Service’s critical habitat designation was challenged in federal court, thus leading to the 2012 final rule at issue in the Otay Mesa litiga-tion.

The inclusion of the 56 acres in the 2012 critical habitat des-ignation was based on three en-vironmental surveys of a former cattle stock pond on the prop-erty. These surveys positively established that Riverside fairy shrimp were located in the stock pond. In order to include the entire 56 acres surrounding the stock pond in the designation, the Service also found that the surrounding acreage comprised the watershed for the stock pond.

With respect to the economic analysis, the Service, employing a different methodology than that used in 2005, found that the estimated costs associated with the critical habitat desig-nation were only between $1.77 million and $2.85 million. In light of this new analysis, the Service elected not exercise its discretion to exclude the prop-erty from designation.

The district court found that with respect to the stock pond and the surrounding water-shed, the Service’s designation was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore was properly designated as critical habitat. The court explained that “the record evidence amply supports the agency’s conclu-sion that Riverside fairy shrimp occupied the vernal pool that exists on [the property] at the time the species was listed, and the [Service] rationally deter-mined that the watershed area surrounding that pool is part of the occupied critical habitat for

that endangered species.” The court also upheld the Service’s alternate finding, stating that the area “qualifies as ‘unoccu-pied’ critical habitat because preservation of the stock pond and watershed is essential to the conservation of the shrimp that indisputably exist there at present.” The court, however, could not make a finding as to the entirety of the 56 acres, be-cause the record portions that were provided to the court did not contain any topographical maps or other record evidence justifying the conclusion that the entire 56 acres were accu-rately identified as a watershed for the stock pond. According-ly, the court ordered the parties to identify any additional por-tions of the record that related to the watershed issue, and es-tablished a supplemental brief-ing schedule.

The district court rejected the argument that the Service employed an improper meth-odology when analyzing the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, explaining that while the methodology was clearly different than what was employed in 2005, the Service’s deviation from the 2005 meth-odology was supported by a rational explanation – the new methodology was developed as a result of prior conflicting court decisions.

Finally, while the district court acknowledged that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and Ninth Circuit had reached conflicting conclu-sions with respect to whether an environmental assessment must be conducted prior to a critical habitat designation, it stated “that the Ninth Circuit has the better of the argument,” and therefore the Service was not required to prepare an environ-mental assessment or environ-mental impact statement prior to issuing the final rule.

STEVE PIERCE, HTTP://WWW.AZCENTRAL.COM/

State senator: Arizona public lands have no management, just restriction after restriction from a clueless Washington.

As a third-generation Ari-zona rancher, I am all too familiar with the historic ups and downs of federal

land management in the West.Right now, management is

down, way down. More than I can ever remember. The desk jockeys in Washington, D.C., not only seem to lack empathy for all the families in Arizona and the West who make a living working the land, we often are under downright attack from this administration.

For instance, the White House is looking at locking up 1.7 million acres of land by creating a Grand Canyon Wa-

tershed National Monument that would include thousands of acres of land the federal govern-ment previously gave the state to keep in trust for education. Then there’s the Red Rock Na-tional Monument near Sedona, again locking up state lands.

Increasingly, if you are a fam-ily that depends on traditional and sustainable uses of the land such as timber, grazing or min-ing, then you have been put in the crosshairs. Even hunting and fishing are to be discour-aged. These are activities that appear to be slowly squeezed and eventually stamped out.

Forest management is an-other example. Instead of be-ing done by professionals, our forests are now controlled by environmentalists and judges. The Endangered Species Act is not used to revive species; it has become another tool for advo-

cacy groups to manage the land. Meanwhile human access to our forests continues to diminish while dead wood just keeps pil-ing up as fuel for massive forest fires.

This would be depressing but for the fact we have at least one presidential candidate paying attention to the West and has laid out a plan to turn things around. Jeb Bush proposed a set of policies touching on ev-erything from water storage to hunting rights that shows he understands the relationship between Washington, D.C., and the West is broken.

There is much to absorb in his proposals but they all link back to one theme: Washington needs to respect the West and those of us that live here!

Perhaps the best example of

Environmentalists, judges control our land

continued on page twelve

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 11

Nominations for Farm Credit 100 Fresh Perspectives Are Due by Dec. 18

This is the final month to submit nominations for Farm Credit 100 Fresh Perspectives, a program

that will recognize rural vision-aries across the United States who are changing the future of rural communities and agricul-ture for the better.

Fresh Perspectives will honor the top 100 leaders next year, when the Farm Credit System will celebrate its first 100 years of supporting agriculture and rural communities with reliable, consistent credit and financial services. Nominations for the program are open until Dec. 18.

“The five states we serve are full of individuals whose leader-ship and vision are shaping rural communities in a positive way,” said Stan Ray, chief adminis-trative officer at Farm Credit Bank of Texas, a cooperatively owned funding bank in Austin,

Texas, and part of the nation-wide Farm Credit System. “We encourage people to nominate these outstanding leaders in Al-abama, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas.”

The 100 Fresh Perspectives winners will be selected by a panel representing Farm Cred-it, the agriculture industry, aca-demia and the media, and will be announced during Nation-al Agriculture Week in March 2016.

Of the final 100, one distin-guished visionary from each of 10 nomination categories will receive $10,000 to further their contributions to thriving rural communities and agriculture. The top 10 honorees will be rec-ognized during a special event at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.

Farm Credit 100 Fresh Per-spectives is accepting nomina-tions for farmers and ranchers, as well as individuals or groups who represent agribusinesses, cooperatives, academic institu-

tions, government agencies, and community and nongovernment organizations in the following categories:

n Leadership (over 21): A champion for agriculture who is committed to advancing its suc-cess today and tomorrow.

n Youth Leadership (21 and younger): Part of the next gen-eration of farmers, ranchers and rural leaders, this individual demonstrates a passion for ru-ral communities and agriculture and has already made a positive impact.

n Rural Policy Influence: An advocate for positive change in rural policy who encourages ac-tions that contribute to thriving rural communities.

n Beginning Farmer or Rancher Achievement: With five years or fewer running their own operation, the individual has demonstrated success on their farm or ranch and posi-tively impacted the community through a commitment to the future of agriculture and rural

America.n Entrepreneurship and In-

novation: A skilled entrepreneur within their business sector and within the agribusiness commu-nity, this individual uses busi-ness savvy and visionary think-ing to positively impact rural communities and agriculture.

n Sustainability and Natural Resource Conservation: An in-dividual who demonstrates en-vironmental stewardship and a commitment to natural resourc-es conservation in their commu-nity and beyond.

n Financial Stewardship: Someone who demonstrates fis-cal responsibility and has helped others achieve financial success in farming, ranching or rural business.

n Mentoring and Volunteer-ism: An individual who serves others as a role model and/or volunteers within their commu-nity.

n Agriculture Education and Community Impact: Someone who educates others about the

importance of agriculture today and/or has made a significant impact on their community by sharing knowledge, transferring wisdom and advancing agricul-ture education.

n Rural and Urban Connec-tion: An individual who demon-strates results in connecting rural and urban communities to foster deeper understanding and appreciation for rural con-tributions that touch every life, every day.

Visit www.FarmCredit100.com/Fresh to submit a nomina-tion, including a brief essay, by Dec. 18, 2015.

Farm Credit Bank of Texas provides funding, operational support and related services to 14 borrower-owned lending co-operatives that finance farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses, land-owners and rural homeowners. The bank and its affiliated lend-ers are part of the Farm Credit System, a nationwide network of lending cooperatives that was established in 1916.

Farm Credit Will Recognize 100 Rural Visionaries During 100th Anniversary

AgriLife Extension Offers New Livestock Guardian Dog Publication

Personnel from Texas A&M AgriLife Re-search and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

Service in San Angelo have completed the publication Livestock Guardian Dogs.

“This publication is a guide for sheep and goat farmers and ranchers who are looking at using live-stock guardian dogs to pro-tect their sheep and goats from predation,” said Reid Redden, Ph.D., AgriLife Ex-tension state sheep and goat specialist at the center.

Redden was joined in au-thoring the work by John Walker, Ph.D., AgriLife Research Center director and John Tomecek, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension wildlife specialist.

“This publication is for producers interested in using guardian dogs for the first time,” Redden said. “It’s also for those who may have had some previous troubles with guardian dogs protecting their flocks and herds against predators. The information presented will help both au-diences get started on the right foot and maybe resolve some issues that they’ve seen in the past.”

The eight-page reference guide is available at http://sanangelo.tamu.edu under publications.

Page 12 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

that is his support for moving the headquarters of the Department of the Interior to the West. No doubt some will say this is nuts! But consider that 97 percent of the land managed by the Bureau of Land Management is in the Western United States. Shouldn’t the people making decisions that directly and almost solely affect so many

Westerners be located in the West?Since World War II, 18 of 20 Secretaries of the

Interior have hailed from west of the Mississippi. Isn’t it time we moved the department closer to home?

Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, is chairman of the Senate Natural Re-sources and Rural Affairs Committee.

BY GLENN SELK, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY EMERITUS ANIMAL SCIENTIST

The fall breeding season is about to begin. Herds that aim for a Sept. 1 first calving date, will

turn bulls with the cows in the latter part of November. Bulls that have been recently added to the bull battery, and bulls that have not been used since last year, should pass a breed-ing soundness exam before the breeding season begins. Any newly purchased bull, that has been previously exposed to cows, should also have passed a test for the venereal disease “trichomoniasis.” Reports in-dicate that about 1.4 percent of bulls routinely tested this last year have been found to be positive for this disease. Visit with your veterinarian soon about breeding sound-ness exams and “trich” tests to avoid reproductive problems next year and beyond.

A good manager keeps an eye on his bulls during the

breeding season to make sure that they are getting the cows bred. Occasionally a bull that has passed a breeding sound-ness exam may have difficulty serving cows in heat, especial-ly after heavy service.

While conducting a re-search trial several years ago, I was collecting data on the ability of a bull to breed syn-chronized cows. The bull (be-ing observed) was mature and had been successfully used in the past. Also he had passed a breeding soundness exam. However, it was apparent immediately that he could no longer physically breed females in estrus. Replacing him immediately was the only solution. If we had not been present to observe the prob-lem, an entire calf crop for that breeding pasture was in jeopardy.

Inability to complete nor-mal service and low semen quality are more likely to be problems that affect breeding performance than failure to detect cows in heat. Nonethe-

less poor libido (sex drive) can occasionally be observed in beef bulls. Such problems can best be detected by observing bulls while they work. There-fore producers should (if at all possible) watch bulls breed cows during the first part of each breeding season. If prob-lems are apparent, the bull can be replaced while salvaging the remainder of the breed-ing season and next year’s calf crop. Likewise a small propor-tion of bulls can wear out from heavy service and lose interest. These, too, will need to be re-placed. The greater the num-ber of cows allotted to each bull in the breeding pasture the more critical it is that ev-ery bull be ready to work every day of the breeding season.

Injuries to bulls during the breeding season are relative-ly common. When a bull be-comes lame or incapable of breeding, because of an injury to his reproductive tract, he needs to be removed from the breeding pasture and replaced with another bull.

Observe bulls early in breeding season

Baxter BLACKO N T H E E D G E O F C O M M O N S E N S E

www.baxterblack.com

LUNATICS DEMAND EL-LEN DEGENERES RE-MOVE LEATHER FROM CLOTHING LINE! OH,

NO!Care2 gathered more than

1,800 signatures! To the dis-may of animal rights activists and vegan martyrs, her “luxury lifestyle” brand of clothing has added a $250 pair of Brazilian shoes.

I would guess Ellen is a pret-ty tough cookie. She has pro-moted herself as a vegan and animal rights advocate. Now she’s offended them. It’s com-mon whenever the extremist’s lobbyists get their claws into susceptible, famous prey like Ellen, they cling like kudzu. Some quotes of her predators now heaping shame and disap-pointment on her: “I’m so sad-dened…”, “…I hope our voices will remind her…”, “…it isn’t just heart breaking, it’s baffling.”

Lately Ms. DeGeneres has moved off the end of animal right and vegan activism. She was thrown insults by the para-

sitic extremists for treating her crew to a pizza party. The pizza was contaminated with cheese! Not a felony in the real world where now less than 2 percent of the U.S. population claims to be some sort of vegetarian, and the number is declining.

She also became the face of Cover Girl, which tests on an-imals and is not plant-based. Would they rather test on hu-mans, maybe Syrian refugees pounding at the gates of Eu-rope? Ms. De explained her vegetarian choice because, “I’ve never seen a happy cow.”

She lives in a different world than most of us. She has gone overboard to help causes she believes in, but time goes by and the edge wears smoother. I don’t think she hates 98 percent of Americans because we eat steak, chicken nuggets, BBQ ribs, Ben and Jerry’s, pizza and yogurt. It’s likely that her televi-sion audience is made up of reg-ular people, 98 percent of whom eat meat and don’t protest Cov-er Girl.

We live in a real world. In her world it is hard to see us in the audience when the stage lights are bright. She is limited to ad-visors that she pays. Eventually a performer, politician, or col-umnist begins to believe that he or she knows more than their fans. The logic is, if they like me, then I really must know what I’m talking about! And their enabling sycophants lead them around by the nose.

Care2 claims 32 million members. They stirred up 1,800 petition signatures and called it a “Massive Back Lash!” Ms. De’s television audience when she last hosted the Oscars in 2014 was 44 million. If she’d asked for a show of hands from the 44 million head audience, how many of them liked cheese on their pizza, whataya think?

She has done well as an en-tertainer. Any entrepreneur who becomes successful the hard way deserves credit and, she may not be as gullible as it seems. Or maybe she’s begin-ning to walk in our shoes for a while? I’ve seen thousands of contented cows.

I also have a personal reason to tell her to “stand her ground”. The first time I was on the To-night Show with Johnny Carson, the show ran long and I was the last act to appear that night. In Johnny’s sign-off he apologized for not having the time for an-other guest waiting in the Green Room, “An up and coming young comedienne, Ellen Dege-neres, maybe next week.”

Ellen Degeneres Pizza10 Premier Red Angus

Herd Bulls, $12,400149 Ranch Ready Red

Angus Range Bulls, $5,14036 Ranch Ready Red Hy-

bred Range Bulls, $4,430Top Bulls:Lot 1 LSF TBJ Take-

down 4857B sired by LSF Takeover 9943W and out of a Basin EXT 7455 daughter sold for $20,000 to Chile Beef, Santiago, Chile.

Lot 5 LSF SRR Big Beef B630 sired by LSF Boxed Beef 9063W and out of a Feddes Big Sky R9 daugh-ter sold for $15,000 to ABS Global of Deforest, Wis-consin, JST Angus of Colu-sa, California and Lorenzen Ranches, Pendleton, Ore-gon.

Lot 3 LSF SRR Fertil-ity 4476B sired by Beck-ton Epic R397 and out of a Messmer Packer S008

daughter sold for $13,000 to Cedar Hill Farm, Jane Lew, West Virginia.

Lot 7 LSF SRR Im-age 4404B sired by Beck-ton Epic R397 and out of a LCHMN Enterprise 1370H daughter sold for $13,000 to Cooper Ranch, Billings, Montana.

Lot 123 LSF SRR Re-demption 4194B sired by Brown JYJ Redemption Y1334 and out of a Mess-mer Packer S008 daughter sold for $12,000 to Law-rence Ranch, Jordan, Mon-tana.

Volume Buyers were Zia Ag Consulting, Albu-querque, New Mexico; 21 Ranch, Sundance, Wyo-ming; Lawrence Ranch, Jordan, Montana and Reynolds Ranch, Rozet, Wyoming.

Ludvigson Stock Farm’s Fourth Annual Herdbuilder Bull Sale, Fall Edition November 6, 2015

Environmentalists continued from page ten

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 13

This column reviews a weird year, with insect meat, toad roads, bobcat bridges and zoo poo

Insect Meat

This is the season when one can reflect back on the happenings and issues that have occurred over the

previous months. As one who reports in issues affecting the West and especially livestock producers, I can definitely say this has been one weird year.

It started on January 4th, when I wrote about scientists in the Netherlands who published a study on their discovery that insects produce significantly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than cattle or pigs. After critiquing the environmental costs of the current methods of producing meat, the learned professors at Wageningen Uni-versity undertook studies of mealworms, house crickets, mi-gratory locusts, sun beetles, and Dubia cockroaches.

They were the first ones, ever, in the whole wide world to quantify the amounts of meth-ane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) released per kilogram of insect meat. Their findings were that the amounts of gases released by insects to be much smaller than those released by cattle and pigs. One example given was that mealworms pro-duce between ten and a hun-dred times less greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram than do pigs, leading the researchers to “advocate for replacing cattle with insects.”

I certainly couldn’t let this pass by so I decided to have a lit-tle fun and wrote the following:

Some university types and all the DC Deep Thinkers want ag producers to be early adopters and enter into the latest management and production techniques.

Let’s analyze what this would bring us if we established an insect ranch.

For one thing, we’d be way ahead on capital outlays and an-nual production costs:

• Instead of ropes all you need is a flyswatter

• You can brand with a tooth-pick

• Use thimbles for water tanks and popsicle sticks for fences

• You can trade your trailer for a matchbox, and

• Switch from bedeezers to twee-zers

Like any new operation there will be challenges. For instance, how do you preg test a Praying Mantis?

But there would be fun things too. For instance, think of all the fun you’ll have marketing maggot meat.

I see one big drawback though: instead of calf fries on the campfire you’ll be having grasshopper go-nads on your cigarette lighter.

Wildlife WackinessWhile one group of numb-

skulls were promoting meal-worm meatloaf, other entities were making extraordinary ef-forts at great expense to keep all kinds of critters alive.

You’ll recall the Toad Road, where in New Jersey they in-stalled a series of five under-ground tunnels to help toads and other small animals get to the opposite side. Wooden fencing surrounds each tunnel entrance and lines the roadway, making the tunnels the only way for the animals to cross the road.

Most recently, we have the California plan to protect bobcats and other wildlife by building “the nation’s largest wildlife overpass”, a 165-foot-wide, 200-foot-long, landscaped bridge over the 101 Freeway. It may be over a freeway, but it won’t be free. The Califor-nia Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority has re-leased a study by Caltrans con-cluding the wildlife overpass was feasible with a projected cost of $33 million to $38 million.

Now we’ll have a Bobcat Bridge to go along with the Toad Road. One on each coast. They’ll make nice bookends for Obamaland.

Dinosaur Bones & Zoo PooThe Bureau of Land Man-

agement and the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science recently completed a four-year project of excavating two ancient creatures known as Pentaceratops from the bad-lands of northwestern New Mexico. Problem was the bones of the baby and adult dinosaur were located in the Bisti Wilder-ness, where no motorized vehi-cles or mechanized equipment is allowed. “All the excavation we had to do by hand,” the Mu-seum’s chief curator said. “We had to haul the plaster, the wa-ter, the tools, in by hand.”

An exception to this policy was allowed to remove the skel-etal remains, as the NM Na-tional Guard showed up with their Blackhawk helicopters and lifted them out of the Wilder-ness to a place where vehicles were allowed.

This made me think of the time several years ago I was giving a presentation on Wilder-ness to a group when a member of the audience stood up and said he was employed by the local BLM and asked to speak. Turns out he was the chief over the firefighters. He told us of an incident where a firefighter had broken a leg in a Wilderness

area. They asked for a chopper to extract the injured. Since the injury was not “life threatening” their request was denied and they had to carry him out by hand.

One can only conclude that, to the feds anyway, dead dino-saur bones are more important than live human ones.

Then we had this heart-break-ing story out of Denver. The Denver Zoo set out ten years ago to become “the greenest zoo in the country” and a ze-ro-waste facility by 2025. They were to accomplish this by de-veloping a technique to trans-form elephant dung and other waste at the zoo into fuel pellets that would generate electricity through a gasification process. What a great idea! The EPA and the National Renewable Ener-gy Lab got involved. The zoo showed off the potential of its poo by powering a blender to make margaritas and, later, a motorized rickshaw that went on a promotional tour to zoos across the West. The $4 million plant was nearing completion

but the zoo was experiencing a problem with those pellets. “What we were still working on was pellet consistency,” a zoo official said. “How do you cre-ate a consistent pellet out of an inconsistent waste stream?”

That’s too bad because the zoo has hired a new CEO who has put together a new master plan and turning elephant dung into energy isn’t in it.

Who knew that elephant dung was so diverse? It will make margaritas and run rick-shaws but that’s it?

They were done in by the PCP ... the pellet consisten-cy problem. Guess these dung dumbies just couldn’t get their you know what together.

Yup, it was a very weird year.Here’s wishing everyone a

Merry Christmas and a Very Prosperous New Year.

Till next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Ag-riculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The Du-Bois Rodeo Scholarship

Page 14 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

BY BRIAN SEASHOLES, DIRECTOR, REASON FOUNDATION ENDANGERED SPECIES PROJECT

If you want to harm the sage grouse, a chicken-sized bird that roams across 171 mil-lion acres in 11 western

states, follow the Interior De-partment’s blueprint. The sage grouse has been in the news a lot lately because in September the Department announced with much fanfare that the bird would not be proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Many cheered be-cause the Act’s penalty-based approach, which harms species by creating huge incentives for landowners to rid their property of species and habitat and does enormous economic damage, was avoided.

This good news, however, was a mirage because the Inte-rior Department substituted 15 amended federal land use plans for listing under the Endan-gered Species Act. The plans, which cover almost 73 million acres of federal land, perpetu-ate the penalty-based approach that will very likely harm the grouse and western states’ economies.

Over the past decade, suc-cessful conservation efforts and favorable weather conditions have resulted in a minimum sage grouse population of al-most 425,000 that increased by 0.78 percent annually. Now, this success is in jeopardy due to the 15 amended federal land use plans.

Successful sage grouse con-servation, which is based on a cooperative approach led by states, in partnership with land-owners, counties, conservation groups, energy companies and universities, has several key elements that illustrate how badly out of step the Interior

Department is with the on-the-ground realities of conserving the grouse.

First, a holistic “all lands” focus is necessary, which states have embraced, because sage grouse don’t recognize lines on a map and range widely across private, state and federal lands. This holistic focus also incor-porates the two “halves” of the proverbial conservation coin: the entire biophysical environ-ment that consists of all lands; and the social “environment,” otherwise known as people — most notably private landown-ers, because they own almost all of the keystone moist habitat without which sage grouse can-not survive.

Second, private land is the linchpin for successful sage grouse conservation. The sage grouse is typically thought of as a “federal lands” species be-cause 64 percent of its habitat is federally owned, compared to 31 percent for private lands. But this misses the indispensi-ble role of private lands. A 2014 federal study found that 81 per-cent of the moist habitat sage grouse depend on during the summer – such as wet mead-ows, streamsides and ponds – is privately owned. “Wetlands are keystone features that structure [sage grouse] populations,” Patrick Donnelly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and lead investigator of the study, said.

Donnelly and co-investiga-tors found that leks, the sage grouse courtship and breeding sites located in dryer habitats, are mostly on federal lands, with the highest densities being within 1.8 miles of moist habi-tat. “In other words, the scarci-ty of wet habitats in sagebrush ecosystems drive the location of grouse breeding sites on up-lands: hens choose to mate and

nest within a reasonable walk of where they can find late sum-mer foraging for their broods,” according to a federal summary of the study. This has profound implications for sage grouse conservation. “How do you conserve grouse that split their time between private and pub-lic lands?” asks Donnelly. “With 81 percent of sparse summer habitat in private ownership, sage grouse success is inextri-cably linked to ranching and farming in the West.”

Just as private lands are the keystone habitat, private land-owners are the keystone people for sage grouse conservation on private and federal lands. Ranchers hold permits to graze livestock on the vast majority of federally owned sage grouse habitat, which makes them ide-ally positioned to implement conservation measures for grouse on federal lands, as well as their nearby private lands. These thousands of ranchers, and their tens of thousands of family members and employees, are the largest “installed base” of people able to conserve the sage grouse because they live on the land 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, have very detailed knowledge of local biophysical and social environments, are by profession land and resource managers, and possess a deep attachment to the land and its conservation.

Third, successful sage grouse conservation is based heavily on agricultural extension, or extension as it is often called. Extension provides technical assistance and cost sharing to help landowners improve the health and productivity of their lands, and it is the ideal mod-el for the conservation of sen-sitive and endangered species because it is incentive-based, rather than penalty-based, pop-

ular with landowners, and has a decades-long track record of success across the country in a wide variety of applications.

A good example of this suc-cess is the Sage Grouse Initia-tive, started by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture in 2010. “The Sage Grouse Initiative is a new paradigm for conserv-ing at-risk wildlife that works through voluntary cooperation, incentives, and community support,” according to the De-partment. By using extension, the Sage Grouse Initiative, as well as states, have conserved at least 7,000,000 acres of sage grouse habitat, including re-claiming more than 950,000 acres by removing encroaching conifers, and working with over 1,100 ranchers to implement grazing plans that benefit sage grouse on 2.5 million acres.

Fourth, successful conser-vation, whether for the sage grouse or any species, depends on high quality data. And the states have by far the highest quality data on sage grouse.

Fifth, sage grouse conser-vation needs to be flexible, in-novative and site-specific given the enormous geographic and temporal variability across the species’ 171 million-acre range. This is reflected in state-based conservation plans — 11 state-wide plans and 46 local plans — and the approximately 60 local working groups that are crucial for implementing conserva-tion measures across the sage grouse’s range.

Sixth, the sage grouse is in many ways a “conservation-re-liant” species, meaning it re-quires long-term, if not indefi-nite, conservation because the threats to it and measures to help it take long time periods to address and implement. The sage grouse needs hands-on conservation and a wide variety of people willing to pitch in to help, which, as the past decade has shown, is accomplished through the cooperative, incen-tive-based approach, coupled with states’ site-specific conser-vation plans and local working groups.

Seventh, successful sage grouse conservation must be sustainable and long-term due to the long time frames it takes to restore sagebrush habitat and the need to build durable relationships and partnerships. According to Pat Deibert, Na-tional Sage Grouse Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sagebrush ecosystems have “long restoration times: 20 to > 100 years depending on species and conditions.” Sim-ilarly, successful partnerships and relationships, especially with landowners, take years to develop and must be sustained with trust and goodwill if they are to endure over the long-term.

By contrast, the 15 amended federal land use plans will very likely harm the sage grouse be-

cause they work directly against and fail to incorporate the fac-tors necessary for successfully conserving the species. The plans are harmful because they: are penalty-based, instead of incentive-based; myopically fo-cus on federal lands, thereby completely ignoring the key-stone private lands; incorporate low quality and even erroneous data; are constructed on “a ‘Just Say No’ philosophy”, according to the State of Utah, which is “built upon the incorrect axiom that, once these restrictions are in place, conservation of the bird will follow”; are essentially fifteen cookie-cutter versions of the same plan construct-ed around an unsustainable, short-term framework; and are fixated on achieving “certainty” through penalties and regula-tions that actually decreases certainty by creating mistrust, eroding collaboration, alienat-ing landowners, and breaking partnerships. Sage grouse con-servation requires a delicate touch, not the Interior Depart-ment’s heavy-handed method.

When landowners and peo-ple who work the land are pun-ished for harboring species and habitat, they are unlikely to encourage the conservation of either. “Disgruntled landowners make poor conservationists,” observed David Farrier, profes-sor of law at the University of Wollongong in Australia.

The 15 amended land use plans are creating a lot of dis-gruntled landowners. For ex-ample, the plans are poised to shove livestock off tens of mil-lions of acres of federal land, which will most likely end up harming sage grouse. “The failure of a national strategy to recognize sage-grouse de-pendence on private lands may result in regulations which ul-timately increase sage-grouse habitat loss and fragmentation on private lands if landowners are forced to intensify manage-ment actions to offset lost rev-enues from public land grazing allotments,” according to com-ments filed by Utah about the state’s amended federal plan.

The Interior Department’s fixation on regulation instead of conservation is causing at-titudes to harden, goodwill to evaporate, conflict to supplant cooperation, and landowners to retreat and refuse to become involved in efforts to help the sage grouse. Idaho, Nevada, nine Nevada counties, sever-al mining companies, and the Wyoming Stockgrowers Associ-ation have filed lawsuits against the amended plans.

All of this was perfectly avoidable if the Interior De-partment had not given in to its impulse for penalty-based con-servation. The Department’s approach is so unnecessary because, as the Sage Grouse Initiative and state-based ef-

The Department of the Interior’s Blueprint For Harming the Sage Grouse

continued on page fifteen

December 15, 2015 Livestock Market Digest Page 15

forts have shown, there is an alternate, successful path to sage grouse conservation. It is a sad day when people will-ing to pitch in and help the sage grouse are discouraged and punished for doing so by their own government.

While the courts may rule in favor of those seek-ing to overturn the harmful amended federal land use plans, and thereby give states and others breathing room to continue successful sage grouse conservation efforts,

this is far from certain. A more durable solution is for Congress to step in and re-quire the 15 amended plans to be withdrawn, completely overhauled and based on the proven successful approach to sage grouse conservation taken by states, landowners and the Sage Grouse Initia-tive. Until then, it looks like the federal government is go-ing to harm the sage grouse in the name of helping it.

Source: dailycaller.com

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad inter-vened in a case pending in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota Southwestern Divi-

sion against the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their overreaching Waters of the U.S. rule. Gov. Branstad joins in support of 13 other states: North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkan-sas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico.

Nationwide, governors or attorney generals from over 31 states have taken action to en-sure innovative state-based wa-ter quality initiatives, like the

Nutrient Reduction Strategy, are not bogged down in Federal bu-reaucratic red tape.

“The WOTUS rule is a fed-eral overreach that imposes significant barriers and impairs Iowa’s ability to advance innova-tive, water quality practices that would actually advance our com-mon goal of water quality,” Bran-stad said. “I ran for Governor in 2010 to return predictability and stability to Iowa and this fed-eral rule increases, rather than decreases uncertainty for Iowa farmers and small businesses.”

In October 2014, Gov. Bran-stad, Lt. Gov. Reynolds, Sec. Bill Northey and various state lead-

ers commented on the proposed WOTUS rule and stated that the Federal government’s rule seems to be more concerned with Fed-eral control over local water bod-ies than actually improving water quality.

BY LIZ KLEBANER, ENDANGEREDSPECIESLAWAND POLICY.COM

On November 19, 2015, the Center for Environ-mental Science, Accura-cy and Reliability (CE-

SAR) filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the U.S. Department of the In-terior (Interior) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (US-FWS) (collectively, Federal Defendants) for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in connection with the installa-tion, operation and removal of an emergency drought salinity barrier at West False River in

the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Cali-fornia (Case No. 2:15-cv-0242-WBS-KJN) and the matter has been assigned to Honorable Judge William B. Shubb and referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.

CESAR alleges that the sa-linity barrier project resulted in the unauthorized take of fed-erally threatened delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) due to changed flows and increased salinity levels, as well as block-age of access to spawning and rearing habitat, and that Inte-rior was required, but failed to reinitiate formal consultation

with USFWS to obtain take authorization for the salinity barrier project. A key issue in the case is whether the salinity barrier project was authorized under the 2008 USFWS bio-logical opinion and the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice biological opinion relating to the coordinated long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Proj-ect. CESAR seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

CESAR’s pending suit against DWR and Federal De-fendants is the organization’s third attempt to stop the salini-ty barrier project. CESAR’s suit to stop the construction of the salinity barrier was blocked by

the court in June of this year. Approximately two months ago, the court dismissed CESAR’s earlier complaint, holding that CESAR failed to comply with the ESA’s 60-day notice provi-sion.

BY MATT SPANGLER, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER, CLAY CENTER, NE

Why are we working on these novel traits? Because they have great economic importance. Further, they have heritable genetic vari-

ation.We do have EPDs for feed intake and

fertility, but they are not as pervasive as other (weight and carcass) traits.

Continued phenotypic data collection and recording is critically needed. But, the breed associations have to do some-thing with the data. Otherwise, progres-sive seedstock producers will look outside breed associations for genetic evaluations. This will not be a great outcome for com-mercial cattle producers.

Nine breeds are already incorporating genomic information into EPDs, with many other breeds right on the cusp of re-leasing genomic-enhanced EPDs.

As genotyping becomes more common and more animals are genotyped, many of the current limitations are eliminated. But, there is continued room for statistical approaches to be refined.

Genotyping entire cohorts (groups) fixes many of the problems.

Many groups are rapidly expanding the amount of cattle genomic sequence data. But, substantial effort will be required to turn this data into deliverables and infor-mation for the beef industry.

DNA Technology: Where we’ve been, where we are, & where we’re headed

Iowa Joins Lawsuit Opposing EPA’s WOTUS Rule

CESAR Files Delta Smelt ESA Suit Against DWR, Interior and USFWS

Sage Grouse continued from page fourteen

Page 16 Livestock Market Digest December 15, 2015

Don Painter & Arlen Nelson402-684-2361

Jeri Nelson, Office Manager

www.blacattle.com

BASSETTL i v e s t o c k A u c t i o n I n c

RegulaR Cattle SaleSWednesdays 12:00 Noon

P.O. Box 96 / Hanford, California 93230Richard & Nick Martella

559.582.0358 officeSherry Silva Office ManagerRichard's cell 559.381.2628

Regular Sales 12:00 Noon WednesdayAll Class of Cattle

www.amlivestock.comamlivestockauction@yahoo.com

Wishing our customers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

- Joel & Joey Cozzie

F A R M E R SliveSTOCk MaRkeT

209-847-1033Steve Haglund

R e g u l a R S a l e SMon. 1:30pm Butcher Cows

Thurs. 11:30am Beef & Dairy Cattleflmoakdale@gmail.com

Oakdale, Ca

La Junta LivestockC O M M I S S I O N C O M P A N Y

SALESWednesdays at 10:00 am

All Classes of Cattle

We also “Handle”Special Consignment Sales

La Junta, ColoradoOffice: 719/384-7781 • Don: 719/384-7189

Reg. Sales Wednesday11:00 a.m.

All Classes of CattleWATCH FOR OUR SPECIAL SALES AS

ADVERTISED

14901 W. Kirby Hughes Rd. Marana, AZ 85653

Office: 520/682-4400 FAX: 520/682-4191

Clay Parsons 520/682-4224 520/444-7650 MobileSeth Nichols 520/705-6763

has joined forces with Roundup Internet Sales. Two proven, strong and growing cattle marketing organizations serving ranchers throughout the West.

As an additional cattle marketing service . . .

A special wish for all our customers

& families for a great Holiday Season

and a prosperous 2016!

NEWMANSTOCKYARDS, LLC

2011 E. Stuhr Road Newman, California

John McGillcell: (209) 631-0845

office: (209) 862-4500

REGULAR SALESTuesday & Thursday – 3 p.m.

newmanstockyardsllc@yahoo.com

ORLANDLivestock Commission, Inc

Office: 530-865-4527Wade Lacque: 530-570-0547

Regular SalesWed. 12:00 Noon - Misc.Thurs. 12:00 Noon - Feeder Cattle

O R L A N D C A L I f O R N I A

PrescottLivestock Auction

Sales Jan through April & July and August Biweekly

May & June and Sept to Dec Every Week

Sales start at 11:00am on TuesHosting Cattlemens Weekend March

Richard Smyer 928-445-9571

ROSWELLLIVESTOCK AUCTION575-622-5580

Benny Wooton 575-626-4754Smiley Wooton 575-626-6253

Cattle Sales mondayS

Horse Sales apr., June, Sept., dec.

www.roswelllivestockauction.comRoswell, NM

COTTONWOOD, CA

530-547-3793

Regular Sales FridayAll Classes of Cattle

Shasta LivestockAuction Yard

Ellington Peek - Brad PeekBrad 916-902-7335

www.shastalivestock.com

Los Lunas, NM

Dennis & Tammy Chavez505-865-4600

Regular Sales Saturday 12 NoonTammy cell: 505-362-7116

Southwest L I V E S T O C K A U C T I O N

LIVESTOCK AUCTION Treasure Valley

Caldwell, IdahoOffice: (208) 459-7475

Ron Davison(208) 941-8114

Sales Monday & Friday 10amwww.treasurevalleylivestock.com

Treasure Valley

ValleyLivestockAuction,LLC

8517 Sun Valley Rd, Sun Valley AZ

Derek & Irene Waggoner928-524-2600

Derek 928-241-0920Regular sales Wed. 12 NoonSpecial sales as advertised

Latest sale reports visit our websitewww.valleylivestock.info

Sale Day every

Thursday at 11:00am.

1020 N. Haskell Ave., Willcox, AZOffice: 520-384-2206Fax: 520-384-3955Sonny: 520-384-2206 or 520-384-2531

View sale live at www.dvauction.com

Winfield Livestock Auction

7168 Hwy US160Winfield, Kansas 67156

(620) 221-4364

www.winfieldlivestockauct.comEmail: wla@sutv.com

Sales held each Wednesday in Winfield, Kansas at 11 AM

Our sale is one of the leading livestock auctions of South Central Kansas.

We are now broadcasting ourLivestock Sale on Wednesday,

live at: www.cattleusa.com

101 LivestockMarket Inc

831-726-3303Jim Warren 831-320-3698jwarren@101livestock.com

REGULAR SALES TUESDAY10:00am • Small Animals11:30am • Butcher Cows & Bulls1:30pm • Feeder Cattle

www.101livestock.comSALE LIVE at www.lmaauctions.com

559/591-08849641 Ave 384, Dinuba, Ca. 93618www.Tularecountystockyard.com

Happy Holidaysto all our customers!

RegulaR SaleS FRIDaYS aT NOON

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!