Yvonne Hollenbeck: It Started Here

            After my article, “Song Sung Right,” was printed, I received numerous positive comments. Interestingly, an old cowboy friend from Murdo, by the name of Sam Seymour, called to compliment me on the article and told me that while helping with the historic Ft. Pierre to Deadwood wagon train several years ago, he learned that the idea of making “The Star Spangled Banner” the national anthem began on a parade grounds right here in South Dakota.  Naturally this piqued my interest, so I researched this and found that Sam was right on target! It was on the parade ground of Ft. Meade in 1892. Colonel Caleb Carlton, post commander, established the tradition that the song be played at retreat and at the close of parades and concerts. Carlton explained the custom to South Dakota’s Governor Sheldon who promised that he would try to have the custom established among the state’s militia. As one would say, “the rest is history.”

            While many states boast about famous residents or famous events, major sports teams or man-made tourist attractions, this little group of states that make up the tri-state area have had a major impact on so many historical events and are home to some of the world’s greatest attractions and events. We have never had a team in the World Series or the Super Bowl, but we have been home to more top cowboys and cowgirls than anywhere, including the first world champion bronc rider, Earl Thode from Belvedere, South Dakota. Of course, Casey Tibbs of Mission Ridge probably did more for the sport of rodeo than anyone has ever done. This region is also home to the top livestock seed stock producers in the world, as well as some of the world’s top horse bloodlines, not only performance horses but bucking stock as well.

            In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed Devils Tower as the first National Monument. From that designation to the work involving Presidents Roosevelt, Taft and Woodrow Wilson, the National Park System was established, and many of its famous landmarks and parks are here in our midst.

            Not only has many hardy folks that live and work here in this area made a huge but quiet impact on the lives of all Americans, but where would one go to find more outstanding western and Native American artists? Since the days of Remington and Russell, to the world famous artists today, the list is long. People travel many a mile to visit the Terry Redlin Center at Watertown; so see “Dignity” at Chamberlain; to visit the Kokomo Inn at Lemmon to see the works of John Lopez; the Herb Mignery Sculpture Walk at Bartlett, Nebraska; of course the Cody Museum in Wyoming; and the displays at Prairie Edge in Rapid City as well as The Journey Museum. The Black Hills Stock Show each year, as well as many other area stock shows and fairs, play host to Western Art Shows where one can see the works of many of the area’s current outstanding artists.

Incidentally, Sam Seymour, one of the regular vendors at the stock show for over 30 years, was instrumental in making sure the National Anthem is sung every morning before the trade show begins…a testament to his patriotism and to the type of people that make up this tri-state region. Hats off to you, Sam!

Good and Not So Good News

The good news is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has finalized a rule to end the deceptive labeling practice that has gone on for eight years. You see, the multinational meatpackers were allowed to affix a “Product of the USA” label on meat that was exclusively produced in a foreign country.

The final rule titled Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin,acknowledges that changing this deceptive, 8-year practice is necessary to reduce false or misleading U.S.-origin labeling. In other words, the USDA acknowledges that the 8-year practice deceived consumers. 

Further, the USDA states that the final rule will reduce the market failures associated with incorrect and imperfect information. In other words, the USDA acknowledges that the deceptive practice of mislabeling foreign beef as if it was an actual USA product has caused market failure.

So, the final rule will now correct the market failure and deception caused by USDA’s own policies by now stating that the voluntary “Product of USA” label may only be affixed to meat from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States of America.

That’s the good news.

The not so good news is that the USDA is giving meatpackers two years before they have to comply with the final rule. That’s right. Even though the final rule was just issued, it will not become effective and enforced until January 1, 2026.

Now this means that by the time the rule goes into effect, U.S. consumers will have been deceived with false and misleading labels for a decade and the markets that U.S. cattle producers rely on for their income will have suffered market failure for a decade.

The other not so good news is that the final rule doesn’t require anyone to label anything – it’s completely voluntary, and it doesn’t require imported beef products to retain their origin label through retail sale, meaning to the grocery store.

Does anyone else think that this is nothing short of incredulous? 

So, let’s look at why we even have this problem.

When Congress passed mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and the USDA implemented the law in 2009, the regulations required that all imported beef must retain its origin as declared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the time the product entered the United States, and the product had to retain that origin information through retail sale. In other words, imported beef could not bear a “Product of USA” label…imported beef had to retain its foreign origin on a label when the beef was sold in a U.S. grocery store.

That means that consumers were not being deceived and cattle markets were not experiencing market failure while mandatory country of origin labeling was in effect.

Now we’ve all heard how Congress has a propensity to try to fix things that aren’t broken and to ultimately break whatever it was it set out to fix.

And that’s exactly what Congress did. Congress tried to appease the multinational meatpackers by repealing mandatory country of origin labeling for beef eight years ago. When Congress repealed MCOOL, it effectively granted the multinational meatpackers two gifts:

First, the gift of no longer having to inform consumers as to the origin of the beef they buy at their grocery stores for themselves and their families.

Second, the gift of being able to unwrap an exclusively foreign beef product and rewrap it with a new label that says, “Product of the USA.”

Those are the gifts Congress gave to the multinational meatpackers when it repealed MCOOL for beef.

The gifts Congress gave the rest of us were deception and market failure.

Perhaps this helps explain why an additional 107,000 independent cattle producers went out of business during just the past five years. Consumers couldn’t choose to support our American farmers and ranchers by buying their beef because there were no mandatory labels to tell them which beef was produced by American farmers and ranchers. And for those consumers who did try to support America’s cattle producers by buying beef with a “Product of USA” label, well they were just as likely to be supporting producers in some foreign country because the label itself was deceptive.

Congress caused this travesty by repealing MCOOL and the USDA cannot fix it, only Congress can.     

Call your members of Congress and urge them to pass mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef in the 2024 Farm Bill.

Tell your Senators to cosponsor the Senate MCOOL bill, the American Beef Labeling Act (S.52); and tell your Representative to cosponsor the House MCOOL bill, the Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act (H.R. 5081).

Tell them no Farm Bill without MCOOL!

You can learn more about MCOOL by going to www.labelourbeef.com.

–Commentary by Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA

Sow and Grow with Sara: Alfalfa Winter Kill

Alfalfa winter injury tends to come in question this time of year. Of course, we cannot predict with any certainty whether stands will show signs of injury, but there are a few factors that come into play when determining the likelihood of experiencing issues.

Although plant stress from drought conditions may weaken plant vigor, dry conditions can also have a positive effect on alfalfa winter hardiness. Alfalfa grown in well-drained areas tends to be less prone to winter injury, and low fall moisture levels can actually make winter kill less likely to occur. Dehydration of the plant is one of the primary factors required for alfalfa to tolerate winter temperatures. Stands that go into the winter months with lower soil moisture have less difficulty losing remaining plant moisture and are actually less likely to winter kill. In some areas, extreme drought may have caused more plant stress, but dry soils can also be helpful for plant dehydration.

Another important factor in alfalfa winter-kill is snow cover. A blanket of snow insulates soils; however, many parts of the state have had little to no snow cover for much of the winter. Temperature fluctuations in the soil tend to be minimized under snow cover. In fact, a 4-inch blanket of snow can result in a 10°F difference in soil temperatures. With no snow cover, soil temperatures are more susceptible to fluctuate faster and become more extreme. Leaving high stubble (~6″) after the last fall cut can help to catch snow, but also provide more insulation as well. Winterkill usually occurs if soil temperatures (2-4″ deep) reach 12-13°F or lower.

Other factors that can affect winterkill include:

  • Stand age- the older a stand gets, the more susceptible it is to winter injury.
  • Soil fertility- stands with high fertility, especially adequate to high potassium levels, are less likely to experience winter injury than stands with inadequate fertility.
  • Cutting schedule- Harvest frequency and the timing of the last fall cutting are important factors in stand winter hardiness. Intense, frequent cutting schedules tend to experience higher levels of winter stress. In addition, if a cutting was taken between September 1 and mid-October, the stand is at higher risk for winter injury as plants may not have had enough time to replenish root carbohydrate reserves before a the first hard frost.
  • Variety- varieties with excellent winter-hardiness ratings and high disease resistance markers tend to experience less winter injury.
  • Soil pH- A soil pH of 6.6-7.5 is most ideal for alfalfa stands.
  • Ice sheeting- Refroze snow/rain or winter rains can result in ice sheets that prevent air exchange to alfalfa crown roots. A healthy alfalfa stand can tolerate up to ~3 weeks of being covered by ice before dying.
  • Heaving- repeating freeze/thaw cycles may result in an alfalfa field pushing a portion of the plant roots out of the ground, causing a heaved appearance. This may cause the crown and root to have exposure above the soil surface. Often, these exposed roots are cut during harvest, resulting in plant death.

When any remaining snow clears and temperatures rise, check for alfalfa winter injury. Should you have concerns, stem or plant counts should be taken across problem areas, and replant options can be considered based upon stem density threshold values. Search the SDSU Extension website for “Alfalfa Winter Kill” for more information on this topic.

While we’re talking forages, another important spring considerations include pasture conditions and turnout timing. Feed reserves, timing, order of grazing, and pasture readiness are all important factors to consider before turning livestock out to graze. Of these things, pasture grazing readiness is often the most challenging decision-making factor to navigate. SDSU Extension has created a tool to help livestock growers understand the earliest date/range of spring turnout dates on their operation.

In order to use the Spring Turnout Map tool effectively, it’s ideal to outline your management principles and understand the species composition of your pastures. The tool allows the user to identify the average spring turnout and the range of possible turnout dates based upon location (over 40 years of growing degree day data) and compares them between two native cool-season grasses (Green Needlegrass and Western Wheatgrass), a native warm season grass (Blue Grama), and an introduced cool season grass (Crested Wheatgrass). You can access this free tool here: https://extension.sdstate.edu/south-dakota-grazing-readiness-spring-turnout-map.

This tool is meant to be used in conjunction with other management objectives and considerations. Historical turn-out dates, bio-mass measurements, and close monitoring all remain important parts of effective range management. This tool simply adds another option for producers to take advantage of.

Alfalfa grown in well-drained areas tends to be less prone to winter injury, and low fall moisture levels can actually make winter kill less likely to occur. SDSU | Courtesy photo
alfalfa-winter-kill2

–SDSU Extension

Stockton: Cows and methane – the cycle of life

Those of us raising cattle are upset at the movement blaming cows for global warming, especially since this is not supported by reality. The role of animal agriculture in carbon dioxide, and particularly methane emissions, is complex. Cows, however, cannot be singled out as the guilty party. 

All animals produce and contribute to global atmospheric carbon dioxide. We, and the other animals, would not be alive if we did not. All animals also emit methane but those that subsist on grass and other forms of cellulose produce more. While it is in the atmosphere, methane absorbs more of the sun’s energy than does carbon dioxide, thereby causing more warming.  Ruminant animals produce more than rodents, omnivores and carnivores. Many insects, particularly termites and dung beetles, are prodigious sources of methane.

Animals contribute about 15% of the world’s atmospheric methane. Rice paddies produce about 11 percent. The largest source includes wetlands, lakes, and rivers for about 20 percent to 30 percent of the total. The melting of the arctic tundra is also adding methane but there does not seem to be an agreed upon figure as to how much. Oceans too produce methane, particularly the coastal areas where most of the marine plants grow. These are all what you might term “natural” sources of methane. 

However, twenty-three percent (23 percent) of the methane is said to come from leaking oil, and gas wells, as well as coal mines, and biomass facilities. These “unnatural” sources of methane seem to be just a guess, which is why a satellite was just launched to map methane leaks. Plugging wells would be very helpful because these sources add the only “new” methane to the atmosphere.

We don’t yet know how much methane comes from leaking oil and gas wells nor do we know for sure how much methane comes from the world’s wetlands, oceans, and tundra. We also don’t really know how much methane is being produced by cows and other animals. Chances are that the people who blame cows are not in favor of draining the world’s swamps. An inconsistent position.

Somewhere between 2 percent and 12 percent of the energy in a cow’s diet goes up as methane, which is a large range indicating a lot of scientific uncertainty. This undoubtedly is because cattle are raised in a wide variety of circumstances. At one end are the 1700-pound Holstein dairy cows, constantly munching away on a diet of corn, silage, and alfalfa. Among the less advantaged are little African cattle with horns as big as their bodies wandering around looking for something to eat in the Sahara Desert. Clearly these two cows are not emitting the same amount of methane. It’s doubtful that anyone knows what the actual average is across the globe because of these widely different types of cattle, raised under very different management and environments.

If 2 percent to 12 percent of the feed we give our cattle is going up as methane, it would be to our advantage to do something about it because this costs money. Some types of red algae and a feed additive called Bovaer can reduce the amount of energy lost as methane. Bovaer is not yet licensed in the USA, so we don’t know how effective it is or how much it will cost. But who would not like to increase their feed efficiency by a few percentage points?

However, it is not that easy. It never is. Methane is produced by methanogenic microorganisms that are found everywhere in the world. These microorganisms are not well understood because they do not grow easily in petri dishes. The thing is, methanogens play a vital role in the digestion of cellulose in the cow’s rumen. Even though they cause a net loss of the feed’s energy, they create the proper environment for the other microorganisms to break down the nutrition locked up in the cow’s feed.   

If Bovear or red algae proves to be a cost-effective way to improve feed efficiency and at the same time reduce methane emissions, that would be a good thing for everyone. But if that does not prove to be the case, we are still left with the question of would reducing the number of cattle actually reduce the methane in the atmosphere?

Perhaps some people imagine that if cows were not wandering around Montana’s hills consuming grass, that the rangeland would just go into some kind of hibernation. Much like a diesel engine that is idling, not doing much of anything but not consuming a lot of fuel either. Nature does not work that way. If there is a food source available, some kind of organism will move in to consume it. The quickest to respond would be insects, followed by rodents, and finally wild ruminants. Then too, we would probably experience more range fires with all of the destruction and pollution that entails.

In the long run there would be no reduction in methane. Animals and other sources of “natural” methane have always been part of a global cycle. It takes about twelve years for a molecule of methane in the atmosphere to be reduced to carbon dioxide and water. The carbon dioxide in turn is taken in by plants to create more starch and cellulose. It is a natural cycle – the cycle of life.

All of the “natural” sources of methane, including wetlands and animals, are pretty much fixed as to the amount of methane produced. On a global basis the popular concern is more as to preventing the loss of wetlands rather than worrying that they are increasing and making more methane. In the US, the cattle herd has been going down from 99 million in 1999 to 87 million today. Worldwide, cattle numbers have decreased from just over one billion in 2012 to 942 million now. 

Since wetlands across the globe are not increasing in acreage and grass consuming animals are not more numerous than before, and as mentioned above, if a cow or sheep is not grazing the hillside – a deer, antelope, elk, or bison will. Methane emissions are, therefore, not a function of the number of livestock; it is a function of the grass and the other vegetation available to be consumed, digested, or alternatively rot in the bottom of a swamp. 

This cycle, inevitably, releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Methane from natural sources is not increasing as to the total amount because it has always been with us. It is a function of the world’s capacity to grow vegetation. It is part of the cycle of life. 

Cattle producers don’t have to be on the back foot confronting those who are anti-cows. We should just tell them to go back to school, and this time pay attention in biology class.

Gilles Stockton

Grass Range, Montana

MCA Eastern District Director

Eisele: New Law Protects American Farmland and Food Security


In Washington, there is a little-known government board called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Its purpose is simple—review foreign transactions for their national security implications in the U.S.—but today this committee has new importance for protecting America’s farmland and food security.

The committee was first created by President Gerald R. Ford in 1975 and consisted of several cabinet officials including the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, the Attorney General, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. CFIUS was designed to be a central group that would review foreign investments, analyze developments, and make recommendations to the President. Over the years, the committee’s work would be shaped by changing legislation, but its core function makes a lot of sense. After all, we wouldn’t want a foreign power to buy out the American companies that build our military’s ships, planes, or tanks.

CFIUS is currently chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S. Treasury Department is responsible for reviewing proposed acquisitions. If a purchase by a foreign company raises alarm bells, the President has the power to step in and block a transaction that might harm national security.

Today, we face new threats to our country that also pose a risk to American agriculture. As farmers and ranchers, we know that we cannot have national security without food security. The food we provide supports our fellow citizens and powers our military. Hunger also creates tremendous unrest. The foreign acquisition of agribusinesses and farmland has raised alarm bells in recent years. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) believes farmers and ranchers should have a seat at the table, starting with the Secretary of Agriculture. The agriculture appropriations bill signed into law by President Biden formally adds the Secretary of Agriculture to CFIUS as a permanent member, ensuring that this critical national security board always has a voice who represents America’s agricultural community.

NCBA has long pushed for this representation. Last September, we backed Rep. Frank Lucas’ (R-OK) Agricultural Security Risk Review Act to add the Agriculture Secretary to CFIUS. Two years ago, NCBA was at the White House for the signing of a national security memorandum that directed top government officials to identify threats to the food and agriculture sector and develop effective responses. NCBA will continue to work to ensure the federal government recognizes food security as national security.

The U.S. cattle industry faces many threats, from cyberattacks to foreign animal disease, and adding the Secretary of Agriculture to CFIUS is an important step forward for strengthening our security. Now, we have a permanent seat at the table and an advocate for protecting American agriculture from foreign national security risks. On behalf of NCBA, thank you to Rep. Lucas, our supporters in Congress, and to the White House for standing with America’s cattle producers.

–NCBA President Mark Eisele

Kenzy: Economic Development – Which Will America Choose?

Economic Development: Which Will America Choose?

R-CALF USA has long sought principled, common sense reforms that would benefit cattle producers and the rural communities they serve to holistically improve economies.  Importantly, these reforms if implemented would end no one’s business. Quite the contrary- the return to competitive transparent markets that reward producers on merit of production would incentivize new entrants and allow producers large and small to take part in feeding America.

A few of the Farm Bill reforms we seek:

  1. Restore MCOOL for beef to allow American producers the right to compete with imports and American consumers the ability to choose to buy American.  Just as importantly it would stop the current practice of allowing foreign meat to be labeled “Product of the USA”.  Sovereignty must never undermined if a country wants to remain food secure.  There are currently bills in the US Senate and House that would restore MCOOL to beef products, they need your support.
  2. Enforce the P&S of 1921.  A 100 year old antitrust law specific to agriculture exists to “assure fair competition and fair trade practices, to safeguard farmers and ranchers…to protect consumers…”.  Efforts are underway to finally enforce this law, but opposing efforts are also underway to defund enforcement of this law that would enhance competition.  Your DC representatives need to hear from you.
  3. Beef Checkoff reform via the OFF Act.  The OFF Act is a bill that has been filed in the Senate and House to require transparency via reporting, regular compliance audits, and to prohibit lobbying with Checkoff tax dollars.  The “War on Beef” based on the notion that cattle destroy the environment is real, although the premise of the war is not. An accountable Checkoff must work to dispel the need for MMRV (measure, manage, report and verify) systems of all kinds that the technocrats in government have planned for you once they have mandatory traceability systems (that we oppose) in place.

The Farm Bill has been delayed by the stormy seas in our nation’s capital, but common sense reforms like these are closer to becoming a reality than ever.  It is critical that we keep working on these issues and many others because historically, our elected officials have chosen subsidies and various insurance schemes over structural reforms.  I would call the 34 trillion dollar national debt that grows by another trillion every 100-160 days (depending on whose report you read) a result of inaction. Forty years of mismanaged globalism and free trade have left America with the smallest cow herd since the 1950’s, a net food importer status and perilously in debt.

A new form of economic development?

By now you may be asking could it get any worse?  As our nation has turned its back on competitive markets and sovereignty, we have become vulnerable to any number of dangers as we grow increasingly import dependent and indebted.  Global elites have used this weakness to drive a radical sustainable agenda that seeks to control production and consumption of every staple of your life through various taxpayer funded programs.  These programs will start voluntary and provide income via incentives to producers but will ultimately be used to manage scarcity via central control.  The Great Reset, the Green New Deal and Build Back Better are real and your productive and consumption freedom is at stake.  Sound fantastic?

Here’s a real-world example, the greatest victory you’ve never heard about occurred quietly this year.  The NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) requested the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) to gather comments and allow the trading of NACs (Natural Asset Companies) on the NYSE.  A United Nations accounting system would have been adopted to quantify and monetize natural processes to promote sustainability by creating NACs.  Put another way, NACs would verify that only sustainable practices would occur on the enrolled land and would be monetize natural processes (like photosynthesis, CO2 sequestration etc.). The NACs could include all public land, land with conservation easements and perhaps any land with a federal nexus (ex: EQUIP contracts).  The NACs could then be traded globally on the NYSE.  In theory the Chinese could buy a NAC enrolled on Yellowstone National Park and effectively eliminate any logging, grazing, mineral developments or recreation.  It is remarkable that a few groups led by American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) and joined by R-CALF USA and few worked with State Treasurers and Attorney Generals and a few US Congressmen to stop the SEC consideration.  The pro radical sustainability media never reported any of this.  Again, it was the greatest David and Goliath win for America almost no one knows about.

The push to create and trade NACs are just one part of the radical sustainable effort.  The Climate Smart Commodity Program administered by USDA received $3.1 Billion America Rescue Plan dollars (partially matched by private funds to create USDA approved Public Private Partnerships) to promote and incentivize sustainable practices by ag producers by creating a pathway to MMRV systems mentioned earlier.  Farm Journal received $40 million to “educate” producers on the “voluntary” pathway to carbon sequestration and other technocrat goals.  Interestingly the program’s foundation was laid by a US Senate Bill that was passed unanimously by both parties. In addition a US House Bill that never went to the House floor for debate, but was conveniently tucked into an Omnibus spending package and passed.

An immediate illustration of a this new type of economic development is the debate of SB201 in my home state of SD.  It is interesting that many of the proponents of this bill are opponents of the principled reforms mentioned earlier. SB201 is promoted as a compromise that would transfer a level of local control to state government to streamline the process to grant permits to corporations to harvest federal dollars to build carbon pipelines.  The pipeline would allow biorefineries to turn corn into SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel), transport the CO2 to North Dakota and bury it underground. These plants could then also qualify for federal subsidies.  This is what economic development looks like in a nation that has turned its back on virtue; the Green New Deal has arrived in SD!  It would appear that as our government and many trade associations have for decades turned their back on competitive markets that foster entrepreneurship. They have replaced those ideals with ever bigger and more centralized government that changes rules and encroaches on property rights to create its own form of economic development.  The folks looking to stimulate corn demand had better look at the strings attached to Building Back Better.

History will not remember any of the details of this writing.  It will remember what real Americans chose: principled American economic development based on merit of production and rule of law or globally contrived, centrally controlled schemes to reallocate tax dollars to solve problems many question are even real. Do not miss your chance as a citizen to make your decision heard.  A government of, by and for the people requires us to take part in this process.

Brett Kenzy

Gregory, South Dakota

R-CALF USA President

Stoneberg: The Endangered Species Act is broken

The Founding Fathers had many contentious debates over the powers of the United States versus the States.  Their goal was to avoid any suggestion of creating sovereignty.  Section 8 of the Constitution of the USA limited the roles and powers of the Federal Congress to International issues, declarations of war, interstate commerce, etc.  In Amendment X the powers not specifically delegated to the United States are reserved to the States.  The Founding Fathers tried to design a system where power was not concentrated in any aspect of the government.  This was the situation until the mid-1860’s when the country exploded into a war between the States.  The war was fought over an indefensible issue, slavery, between the Federal Government and the slave-holding States.  Fortunately, the emancipation States won, but, unfortunately, the Federal Government also won and exerted new controls over the southern States.  The Federal Government from that point on has chipped away at States’ rights.  In the 1930’s President Roosevelt, aided by a packed U.S. Supreme Court, was able to buy many of the States’ rights.  Most subsequent Presidents have added to the problem.

The affluent period after the Second World War led to over-exploitation of natural resources, a housing boom, river fires, and a proliferation of litter.   In the 1960’s environmental organizations started to agitate for change and were supercharged by the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring”.  By the early 1970’s Earth Day was inaugurated, and in 1973 Congress responded with a bipartisan bill, the Endangered Species Act (Act), which was primarily aimed at making the U.S. compliant with International Treaties and Conventions dealing with “various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction”.  The Act rightfully gave total authority for addressing International issues to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) (Sec 8A (a)) but it also opened the door for federal management of resident State wildlife species.  The Act appears to give the States major roles in managing resident listed species (i.e. Sec. 6) but in practice the Federal Government has assumed total control.  This contradicts the U.S. Constitution.

The Act has not lived up to the initial euphoria and has resulted in considerable hardships, especially to landowners and developers.  Non-government organizations (NGOs) proliferated, seeing the Act as a ‘cash cow’.  Their cow had two money spigots.  The first was an appeal to the public for monetary support to save a species.  The second spigot was to sue the Federal Government to list the species, and when the Federal agency decided it had recovered enough to delist, they sued again.  The NGOs were able to find sympathetic judges that unscientifically ruled in their favor, and by using the Equal Access to Justice Act, they have been able to milk the Federal Government out of millions of taxpayer dollars.  The Act is broken, and it needs fixing.

Prior to this Act, except for migratory birds (mainly ducks and geese) and eagles, management of resident fish and wildlife was handled by the States’ Fish and Wildlife agencies.  These agencies were formed in response to the homesteader westward invasion that was wiping out the resident wildlife.  The over-harvest was controlled by enforcing quotas and seasons.  These agencies also have proven track records of bringing resident species back from the brink of extinction.  They accomplished this by relocating animals the same way wolves are being reintroduced today.  They did not use, and the wolves do not need, the Act with all its bureaucratic mandates!  We need to return to the Founding Fathers’ intended mandate to separate the powers between the individual States and the United States.  The Secretary should maintain control of the actions of the International Treaties and Conventions and manage listing of migratory bird species.  The States should have total control over the listing of resident fish and wildlife species.

An endangered species is defined as, “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range…” and a threatened species is defined as, “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”  The first thing the State agency would have to determine is whether a resident species will become extinct in the foreseeable future in their State.  They would have to study all the available scientific evidence and, if this is deficient, then fund more data collection studies.  Many species get dropped from listing when additional studies find they are more abundant then first thought.  Each State should make the final decision of whether a resident fish or wildlife species should be listed in that State.

Once a resident species is listed, the State agency should try to discover why the species’ population is declining (or disappeared) in that State.  The agency would then suggest actions that would remove the supposed barriers to population recovery.  These programs would have to be vetted to be sure they will achieve the desired result and that they do not negatively impact the economy of the residents.  After a reasonable length of time, the actions should be evaluated as to whether they worked. If they didn’t, they should be dropped and a different approach taken.  Once the species has recovered, it should be delisted largely based on the advice of the agency experts and on common sense.

Ron Stoneberg

Box 37, Hinsdale, MT 59241

(406) 367-9314

Stockton: NO FARM BILL WITHOUT COOL

This is the year to reinstate Country-of-Origin-Labeling (COOL) for beef. Actually, last year was the year to reinstate COOL – along with all of the other priorities that are supposed to be re-authorized in the Farm Bill. If Congress does not address COOL now, it will be five years before the next Farm Bill comes around.

This Congress is quite obviously feckless, ridiculous, and a laughing stock, but unfortunately we still depend on them because they are the only Congress we have. Their job is to pay the bills, which includes programs vital to America’s farmers and ranchers. Furthermore, it is Congress’s responsibility to reauthorize COOL, restore competition in the cattle markets, and fix the corrupt beef checkoff tax. 

They are not doing their work because a small number of extremists delight in throwing monkey wrenches into the gears. Personal fame and notoriety are more important to them than doing the hard work necessary to negotiate bipartisan consensus to govern our nation.

Country-of-Origin-Labeling for beef was specifically removed by Congress in 2015, so clearly Congress has been building towards this current level of spectacular dysfunction for a while. Their action in 2015 was purely transactional. Besides themselves, the only beneficiary in flooding the market with imported beef, and denying beef consumers the right to know the origin of their meat products, is the international cartel of beef packers. 

Congress’s corrupt fecklessness has cost Montana’s ranchers and Montana’s economy about a billion dollars a year for each of the past seven years. Fortunately, calf prices have recovered this past year, but this is because drought devastated the herds. Ranchers got a good price but only because they had fewer calves to sell. Montana’s economy and ranchers continue to suffer as a result of Congress’s corrupt vote on COOL.

It is no secret that the beef packing cartel is rapidly vertically integrating feedlots into its tentacles. Independent feeders are throwing in the towel, and no one can blame them. They can’t keep losing money year after year. Meanwhile, the seven largest corporate feedlots are growing because they apparently get sweetheart deals. This is all illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act, so Congress needs to find the courage that their colleagues had in 1921. Competition must be restored to the cattle market.

For the past thirty-six years we have been paying the beef checkoff tax with no accountability and falling beef consumption. It is long past time to reform the beef checkoff; the Opportunities for Fairness Act (OFF) is a bipartisan opportunity to do just that.  Again, it is dysfunction and grandstanding that is blocking this needed reform.

All three of these measures – COOL, Competition, and Checkoff Reform – are supported by the majority of cattle producers and consumers. Opposition comes from the beef packers and their paid lackeys. These people have no loyalty to this country and to the millions of hard-working taxpayers.  Congress has a chance to do what is right by just doing the job that we elected them for.  Call them and tell them to get the lead out. (Rep Rosendale 202 225-3211; Rep Zinke 202 225-5628; Sen Daines 202 224-2651; Sen Tester 202 224-8594).

“Kicking the can down the road” is not acceptable.

Op-Ed by Gilles Stockton, Montana Cattlemen’s Association Director

Budd-Falen: Really? The End of Democracy as we Know It?

Really? The End of Democracy as we Know It?
The headlines are funny. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a ruling that may pull back the administrative power of the unelected federal employees and force that power into the hands of Congress. But the pundits posit the end of America if decisions directly impacting the American citizens are left to the elected representatives we voted into office. As I recall from my government class at Big Piney High School, the purpose of elected officials was so they could make the laws. Making laws was not the job of the bureaucracy.


The cases before the Supreme Court arose out of the federal agencies making regulations that “interpret” Congressional statutes. Currently, when Congress passes a law, it is so full of holes a Mac truck could drive through it. In 1984, the Supreme Court held that in matters interpreting federal statutes, courts were to defer to the federal bureaucracy’s policy interpretations. It was called “Chevron deference” and while there are extremely limited circumstances when someone could challenge Chevron deference, in my experience the courts would just defer to the agency rather than letting other experts testify. I cannot tell you the number of cases I have brought opposing a federal regulation that was going to adversely impact someone’s property rights and the government counsel would just claim “agency deference; ” end of the discussion. Even if my expert was eminently qualified to offer an expert opinion, they would never be heard because the court would defer to the agency.
I am not saying that all federal agency regulations are wrong, but for government attorneys to not argue the substantive merits and just say the agency is right merely because it is the federal agency is not how our system should work. If after all the evidence is reviewed and the legal arguments are made, the agency is correct, so be it. But to not even allow the American citizens to make an argument is wrong and I am thrilled that this Supreme Court is reconsidering Chevron deference.
2 | P a g e
You know, what else amazes me is that many environmental groups have lined up against the ability to challenge federal agency regulations and supporting “Chevron deference.” The Natural Resources Defense Council states that federal agencies should get to make “policy choices,” because “Congress is not equipped to micromanage the day-to-day operation of the legislation it passes.” EarthJustice believes that “statutory decisions that require policy judgments [should be left] to politically accountable legislators and executive branch agencies.” There are approximately 4000 politically appointed individuals who come in with any given President to manage 2.95 million federal government employees. With that kind of ratio, rarely is the bureaucracy politically accountable. I am not saying all federal employees are politically motivated, but the math doesn’t add up.
And consider the whiplash that the American citizens have to go through every time there is a change from a liberal to a conservative President. You see it all the time. The new person just revokes the old person’s rules and writes their own. I think either Congress stating exactly what policy choices its wants or the courts taking a much more active role in interpretating what the Congress has ordered is better than the stark changes from the Obama to the Trump to the Biden regulatory regime. In the real world, we feel like a tennis ball at Wimbledon.
Leveling the playing field and giving litigants (whether representing the conservative or liberal view) a level playing field against the federal agencies is exactly what this Supreme Court should do. Forcing our elected representatives to pass clear legislation and setting the policy to implement that legislation is not the end of democracy—it is democracy.
P.S. And to my friends who are complaining that we don’t have a democracy but a republic, I know, and the point is still the same.

–Karen Budd-Falen, Budd Falen Law Offices

Bullard: Going, Going, Soon Gone

The 2022 Agricultural Census was just released. We use census data to track the trajectories of the critical infrastructure needed to maintain a viable domestic cattle and sheep industry. It’s unfortunate but we have to wait every five years for the publication of a new census to gather the necessary data.

The news from this newest census is not good, but it’s what we expected given that neither the Department of Agriculture nor Congress has taken any meaningful steps to protect independent cattle and sheep producers from the abusive market power emanating from the highly concentrated meat packing industry and from globalization that has allowed concentrated meat packers to source cheaper beef and lamb from around the world, which displaces beef and lamb produced exclusively in the United States.

Let’s start with cattle.

We’ve lost another 107,000 independent beef cattle farmers and ranches in just the past five years! That’s a loss of over 21,000 cattle producers per year during the past five years. And, we’ve lost another 2.5 million mother cows, representing an 8% reduction of our nation’s mother cow herd in five years, with a loss rate of half a million mother cows per year.

And lest you think these losses can be attributed to the recent drought, consider that for the 37-year period prior to the 2017 census, we lost well over half a million cattle farmers and ranchers, with an average loss rate of over 15,000 farms and ranches per year for 37 years.

That means the ongoing loss of cattle producers cannot be attributed to drought as we certainly did not have drought conditions during the entirety of the past four decades. But it’s clear that during the past five years the loss rate was worse, at over 21,000, so some of those increased losses can be attributed to drought. But the long-term downward spiral in the number of U.S. cattle farms and ranches informs us that our industry is in a severe crisis that won’t be reversed unless Congress and the USDA begin taking meaningful actions to preserve what’s left of our U.S. cattle industry.

And let’s put this in perspective, we’ve now lost 665,000 cattle farmers and ranchers and have only 622,000 left, which is a loss of over half of our nation’s beef cattle farmers and ranchers in just 42 years, which is only slightly longer than a single generation. Remember also, we’re talking about the largest segment of American Agriculture, which means our cattle industry is vital to the economic well-being of Rural America. 

And if you think this fast-paced downward trajectory for the number of cattle producers can’t possibly continue, consider this: Today we have fewer cattle producers than we had hog farmers four decades ago, at which time there were 667,000. But today there are only 61,000 hog farmers left. We wiped out over 90% of them in four decades. The same will happen in our cattle industry unless we implement needed reforms such as mandatory country of origin labeling for beef, limiting imports with tariffs, and forcing the concentrated packers to compete for cattle.

Now let’s turn to sheep, the canary in the coal mine for cattle. The new census tells us the U.S. sheep inventory is now the lowest in history, at only about 5 million head. And the number of full-time sheep producers, which we conservatively consider as those with a flock size of at least 100 ewes, is now down to only 6,376 sheep producers in the entire nation. This means during the past five years we’ve lost nearly 500 more sheep producers. And this is an industry much smaller than the cattle industry, but yet, vitally important to the wellbeing of rural communities all across the West. And now through concentration and globalization, we’ve wiped out 63% of our nation’s hard-working sheep producers in just four decades. 

This new information is alarming and poses a grave risk to our nation’s food security. Here’s why: If the U.S. is to feed itself, and not be dependent on foreign supply chains that are prone to disruption, then we must maintain three elements essential to ensuring a viable domestic supply chain. We must maintain supply chain participants, but we’re fast losing our farmers and ranchers; we must maintain our factory, but we’re fast losing our mother cows and ewes; and we must maintain our marketing outlets, but we’re losing our marketing outlets, our cattle and sheep feedlots and packing facilities. In fact, we’re losing all three of these essential competitive infrastructure elements at an alarming rate.

America’s food security is at risk and Congress and the Administration need to wake up.

Call your members of Congress at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to reform our marketplace and our trade policies before our domestic meat production supply chain is gone.

–Commentary by Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA