Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

The calves grazing on the Crested Wheat Grass hillside. This is a real sandy, south facing hillside so the new green grass has really come in under the old grass and they are really enjoying it and doing good on it. Taken 10/29/2007.

Tainted meat traced to Canada

A now-closed Canadian beef company was the source of contaminated meat that sickened 45 people in eight states, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say.

One of those states was Wyoming. A recall pulled the meat from shelves in Cheyenne in late September and early October.

A joint U.S. and Canadian investigation identified the source by matching the DNA fingerprint of E. coli O157:H7 to a sample still in storage with Rancher's Beef Ltd. of Balzac, Alberta.

It also matches samples taken from Topps Meat Co. frozen hamburger packages at the homes of food poisoning victims.

This is interesting. Topps Meat went out of business because of the E. coli problem, and Rancher's Beef Ltd in Canada went out of business before the discovery, or did they. Did Rancher's Beef know of the E. Coli problem and declare bankruptcy and go out of business before the E. Coli could be traced back to them?

In a lot of ways I doubt it, but it is interesting. There is a lot of opposition out there in cattle country to Canada shipping down older cattle because of BSE risk due to the new USDA rule. The chances of somebody getting sick and dying are a lot less from BSE from live cattle, statistically so close to zero as to be unimportant, than all ready proven from E. Coli shipped in from processed meat from Canada. Where is the hue and cry about public safety about E. coli from Canada from within cattle country? I hear a lot of silence.

Truthfully myself, I would be a little more worried about the E. coli, which is a lot more common and causes more fatalities that BSE, than about live cattle bringing in BSE. I know I am in the minority though. Cattlemen are more worried about live cattle than processed beef. I call this hypocrisy. They claim the opposition to live cattle is for food safety, but if it is for food safety shouldn't we be hearing more about the E. coli issue and Canadian beef since this recent disclosure since this E. coli has killed more people than BSE will ever think of killing in the US?

I'm not trying to pick on Canada here, but I do want to highlight where our priorities should be. If it is really on food safety, lets keep our eye on the ball and not lose our way with other issues clouding us. Food safety and security is too big an issue to play politics with.

Action expresses priorities. Mohandas Gandhi

Just a Montana sunrise. Taken 10/23/2007.

I see that there is now a Livestock Title in the Senate version of the Farm bill which has moved out of Committee. Some of the things in it are:

-- Banning packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter;

-- Creation of an Office of Special Counsel at USDA that would enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agriculture Fair Practices Act;

-- House compromise on country of origin labeling;

-- Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat.

These things are interesting. I didn't understand the Special Counsel at USDA until I attended a meeting of the USCA last night. It's simple. In the whole almost 100 year existence of the Packers and Stockyards Act, there has never been a way the USDA could prosecute any violations. All they could do was recommend the Justice department to prosecute something. Packers and Stockyard stuff was never important to the Justice Department so not much happened. The Special Counsel will be able to prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards act. I've always said that we don't need more laws controlling what the packers do, we just need to enforce the laws all ready in place. This might do that.

So, do we really need the ban on Packer ownership of livestock? This is creating a lot of controversy in the industry. A lot of feeders forward contract to the packers or sell on a formula basis and they feel this might violate this provision and feeders will no longer be able to forward contract to packers. I'll be right up front and say I don't know. Maybe there needs to be provisions in the Title about how forward contracting can be done and not violate the ownership ban.

The house COOL provision is included. Actually I heard there is a wording change to tighten up the mandatory aspect of it but COOL is there. Everybody knows my opinion of it, I've talked enough about it. This is going to happen. Help the beef industry? I'm not so sure.

Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat. this one is interesting. I can't find all the provisions now but this is a compromise. There will be some limited Federal oversight of these plants and the plants have to have over 25 employees but if they meet all the requirements they will be able to ship over state lines. I find this one heartening. I personally am not looking to ship state inspected meats over state lines but there are a lot of people who could use this flexibility in their business. Hell, a rancher like me could even start selling grass fed beef straight to the public if they wanted and not have to worry about transporting the critter to a federally inspected facility which are few and far between in this area.

I will point out that the Farm Bill is up for debate on the Senate floor and these things aren't a done deal. Even if they live through the floor vote then these things have to be comprimised with the House bill which is even a bigger problem. Compromise bills are usually a hodge-podge of stuff that never makes anybody happy. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Forward progress happens but slowly. The question becomes, is progress a good thing for all?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

One of the yearling replacement heifers. A little bit of green grass is coming in this Crested Wheat Grass and they really enjoy chasing it. They are forced to get some old grass with it on every bite so it really makes good feed. Taken 10/21/2007.

Ranchers voice concerns over proposed split-state status

Montana cattlemen have a choice to make - to pursue a split-state status in the case of another brucellosis outbreak around the Yellow-stone National Park - or not.

“The governor is leaving it up to the cattle industry,” said Jan French, Board of Livestock member from Hobson, Mont., during a recent meeting discussing split-state status in Lewistown, Mont. “I'm pretty sure we will lose our brucellosis class-free status at one time or another, but this is an option.”

To start with, I am not so sure the Governor is giving us an option. The majority of the members of the Board of Livestock are beholden to the Governor for there position and the Montana Cattleman's Association (MCA), which is in lock step with the Democratic Party, has also come on board favoring the Governors split state idea. This is an interim step until the membership can vote on the idea but the leaders of the MCA are really pushing it. It will be interesting to see what the members of MCA think of the split state idea if they are allowed to vote on it. That's neither here nor their though.

Back to the split state idea though. Anybody that reads here knows I am not in favor of this split state idea. It is going to cost the state and cattle producers a lot of money for not much good. There is no proof that other states will respect the split state status, North Dakota says they won't, so all the money and work on it might not be for any good at all.

I would like to point something out about the split state status. If we were to have a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park right now, it would be a Brucellosis free zone and the rest of Montana would be suspect since the Morgan's place, which recently had a Brucellosis problem is not within the buffer zone. It would fall in the state of Montana so actually one more Brucellosis case would screw Montana where it would take two in the buffer zone. Kind of backwards isn't it?

I want to point out one thing. All of this split state status is because of the recent Brucellosis outbreak at the Morgan's place in Bridger. Some of the cows on the place were traced back to Emigrant which is very close to Yellowstone National Park. So the assumption is that the Brucellosis that was found in the Morgan's herd was from wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. This has never been proven. As far as I am aware they have never been able to pinpoint where the Brucellosis came from that affected the Morgan's herd. My sources indicate that some of the Corriente cattle in the Morgan's herd, which they bought, were not vaccinated for Brucellosis and the herd they came from was not vaccinated. Again the same thing here, there is no proof one way or the other that these cattle are how the Brucellosis got into the herd but it is an interesting bit of information.

So why are we having this split state discussion when we have absolutely no concept how the Morgan's herd was infected? Since there is no proof, lots of speculation but no proof, it came from Yellowstone National Park, why are we having this argument? If we knew for sure it came out of Yellowstone national Park, it would be one thing but we don't. I know, we are doing it just in case. But if there is a second case we are screwed anyway. I don't feel the split state status is the answer. Putting our time and effort into leaning up the Brucellosis reservoir in the wildlife is a better idea. Not sacrificing ranchers in the buffer zone for the supposed safety for the rest of us.

Logic is the technique by which we add conviction to truth. Jean de la Bruyere

Here is a real interesting story about ethanol and some problems that are developing in the whole ethanol is our savior myth.

However, there are problems developing in the marketplace. Supply chain problems and rising costs are hampering growth in the industry despite an ethanol production subsidy and a federal mandate requiring increased usage of ethanol. There is trouble ahead for companies involved in ethanol production. Several recent studies have poked holes in what many had hoped was the answer to the U.S. reliance on foreign oil, which last week was nearing $90 a barrel. However, according to recent studies, including one released earlier this year by University of Minnesota (UM) researchers and a Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report, there may be more potential risk ahead for the industry.

“We definitely believe that biofuels have a significant potential,” said Jason Hill, lead author of the UM study. But he added that ethanol should not be viewed as “a savior” to our energy problems and its rapid expansion as a motor fuel has its drawbacks, especially if it is dependent on food crops such as corn and soybeans as feedstock.

Now I'm not going to link back to what I've said before, but what has always been my concern with the booming ethanol industry? Food security I call it. By converting our food into fuel we are hurting the food security of the United States. Other people are starting to see this now.

If every acre of corn were used for ethanol, it would replace only 12.3 percent of the gasoline used in this country, Hill’s study said, adding that the energy gains of corn-produced ethanol are only modest and the environmental impacts significant.

As a fuel source, ethanol, which produces just 25 percent more energy than it requires to make it—is inferior to feedstocks such as sugar cane which is as much as 400 percent more efficient.

It also widely believed by the public that ethanol presents a environmentally friendly option to fossil fuels, however, both the Minnesota and CRS studies found that increased corn production causes the release of nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticides into waterways as runoff from fields. In addition, ethanol, especially at higher concentrations in gasoline, also produces more smog-causing pollutants than gasoline per unit of energy burned, the researchers said. In fact, in terms of alternative fuels, experts point out that biodiesel represents a far better fuel choice than corn- based ethanol.

Twelve percent. That's how much gas ethanol would replace if every corn acre in America were converted to ethanol. People call this energy security? This is producing all our energy at home? If we were to convert all our corn to fuel, what the hell would you eat? Have you people seen how much of our food depends on corn products of one kind or another? This is what I mean by food security. We are endangering Americas food security by turning our food and cropland into food.

Now I know some wise ass out there will tell me that switch grass and straw can be made into ethanol. Theoretically, yes it can but it has not been done on a commercial scale yet and is still in the research stage. Kind of like fusion power is in research stage. Technically possible but they haven't figured out how to do it yet so let's not bank on cellulosic ethanol yet. It's not here yet.

I am not opposed to ethanol. I just think it needs to be approached with more caution. Ethanol is not the solution to our energy problems and the greenhouse gas problems. Ethanol also endangers America food security by diverting land from food production to fuel production. These things all need to be considered instead of just running willy nilly head first into a "solution" that just creates more problems. But getting people to look before they leap is just impossible now days.

Hope is a great falsifier. Let good judgment keep her in check. Baltasar Gracian

Bella, my blind calf, resting comfortable waiting for her next meal. She is the cutest little thing I have seen in a long time. Has a heck of a personality. She even plays with Lucky once in a while. Taken 10/26/2007.

We now see how Democrats in Montana truly think. They will force you to do "the right thing" whether you want to or not. The headline of the article sounds very benign but you read the article and some of the things in it scares the shit out of me. When did the Government get so demanding?

Initiative being drafted would extend health care to all kids

State Insurance Commissioner John Morrison on Friday unveiled a proposed ballot measure to extend health coverage to all 37,000 uninsured children in Montana through a combination of public and mandated private health insurance.

Like I said the headline sounds wonderful but the very last part of the paragraoph scares me, "mandated private health insurance." The state is going to tell us we have to buy this whether we want to or not.

The remaining children's families would be required to buy private health insurance from a partially subsidized "pool" designed by the state.

I think my head is going to explode! REQUIRED TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE? Excuse me if I am not excited about this. Requiring people to buy something they might not want to buy is not what Americas version of freedom is about. Did our Founding Fathers break away from England so they could tell people what they could buy or not? No!! It was about freedom to make choices for ourselves without the government stepping in.

Talk about additional intrusion, check this out.

The state would launch "automatic enrollment," which is an aggressive push to sign up all eligible, uninsured kids for CHIP and Medicaid. For example, schools would check to see if kids are insured and help sign up those who aren't.

So, the schools are going to get involved? Aren't they there to educate our children not be a social service to make sure that they are part of the "right" government programs? How is the school going to know the parents income level to see whether they are eligible for CHIP or not. Is the state going to open up our tax records for the school to see? That's the only way i can see them doing this.

One of the things that really blows my mind away is that there are open slots in the Montana CHIP program presently. This means that there is more money available than people that want to use it so what is Morrison's answer? Make it mandatory so the state can spend all its money and raise taxes on us some more. If people are not choosing to take advantage of CHIP, isn't this a good thing? Aren't we showing our independent spirit by not relying on the government for a handout when people can mange on their own?

WHY IN THE HELL IS IT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE DAMN THING MANDATORY AND TO REQUIRE THOSE WHO DON'T MEET THE CHIP REQUIREMENTS TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

It's all about control, controlling our lives "for our own good." Isn't freedom about letting us make these decisions? For the record here my children are eligible for CHIP but are not enrolled in the program. I provide health insurance for them without help from the state. Accepting Government handouts when it is not necessary is wrong in my opinion. This law would require me to enroll them in CHIPS. I would have no choice.

Everybody talks about choice in health care, where is my choice here? Either I enroll my child in a "government approved" program, CHIP, or I am required to buy "Government approved" insurance, whether I can afford it or not. NOT A HELL OF A LOT OF CHOICE IS THERE?

I know I am going to hear all kind of talk about insuring children is a good thing. I am not going to argue that. But isn't freedom about us being able to make our own choices? they might not always be great choices but that is what it is about. In my opinion, if you are for a mandated insurance program you are opposed to the concept of freedom the United States was formed to stand for to the world as a beacon to show them what freedom is about. Whether it's for our own good or not, freedom should prevail here, not a government that wants to put its foot down on our neck and tell us what is "good" for us. What is good for me should be my decision to make.

There are two good things in life - freedom of thought and freedom of action. W. Somerset Maugham

Fla. mother acquitted in piercing case

Busby man sentenced for sex abuse

Lame deer man faces abuse charge

Lodge Grass man denies sex abuse

I sometimes really worry about the world and the inhabitants that populate it. Today I really wonder seeing all these headlines in one day. What prompts such behavior by people? It is really depressing to see all of these things.

My Darling Wife always says that stuff like this is why she doesn't read the paper sometimes. But burying our heads in the sand doesn't make the problems go away, it just hides them from our sight.

Things like these stories always get me down. I then really have to think that while there are a bunch of stories today along these lines, they are not the norm. Also it's news. They report on garbage like this. The large majority of people in this world are good and decent even if all we read in the news is about the scumbags. That doesn't maker everybody in the world a scumbag, just the idiots we read about getting caught. There is the key, just the ones getting caught. How many dirt balls are getting away with this behavior? One is too many and I bet more than one is.

Oh well, all we can do is live a good life and hope the system works that catches these ass holes. They're not worth me getting depressed about.

This life is worth living, we can say, since it is what we make it. William James

I thank Craig for bringing this to my attention. It appears that the University of Montana has limits on the amount of money a student can spend on a campaign for student government offices.

The Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) allocates student activity fees, which are public funds, and lobbies students, the university administration and the state legislature on policy matters. In April 2004, Aaron Flint ran for the student senate. During the campaign, a large number of posters critical of him appeared around the campus. He believes they were placed by the University of Montana College Democrats and the liberal Montana Public Interest Research Group. Neither group is subject to the expenditure limits applied to candidates.

To counter this opposition, Flint spent $214.69 of his own money on professionally made posters and pizza for his campaign workers. He won. But because he spent an impermissible $114.69 -- enough to buy seven large Domino's pepperoni pizzas -- to respond to unregulated speech, ASUM removed him from office. This presumably taught the university's students important lessons about the civic danger posed by too many posters (too much political speech) and too much pizza, and about the dignity of the law.

This can be spun in many different ways by many different people. Some would claim it is in keeping with McCain-Feingold and by limiting the money candidates can spend makes the democratic system more fair. Others come down on the side that limiting spending on campaigns is limiting free speech.

I guess I look at it this way, if burning the flag is considered speech and laws against burning the flag are a violation of my free speech, limiting the amount of money I can spend to get my point across in a political campaign is limiting my free speech too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's really pretty straight forward here. I know that the Amendment says Congress but the Supreme Court has included more levels of government in its interpretation of this provision. Then let us look at the Montana Constitution.

Section 7. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. In all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.

Wow, "Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject." So if a student at a state funded University wants to publish a poster proclaiming his position, the Montana Constitution gives him the right to do this since he is free to publish whatever he will.

This all seems pretty clear to me. The University should have no limits on money like they do. It is clearly a violation of not only the Constitution of the US but the Constitution of the State of Montana. We might not like the role money plays in politics today, but to limit it, limits our all of our free speech. Conservatives hate that flag burning is considered free speech. Maybe Liberals need to understand that limiting money in political campaigns is also limiting free speech and is wrong. Wrong for all of us.

Before you do anything, you need to know if it's right or wrong. Andy Lau

It's amazing how bad some of the springs around here can look and smell but the cattle still think it's really good water. I guess when you live in this dry of country stinky, smelly water is better than none at all. Taken 10/11/2007.

I see a neighbor of mine is trying a different way of weaning calves. Instead of pulling the calf off the cow and separating the two, they put this fancy nose jewelry on which keeps the calf from nursing the cow and more "naturally" weans the calf. The claim is that this is less stressful on the calf and the cow. I don't know how well it works or not. It's interesting to see though. Taken 10/22/2007.

You might know that I've found the whole idea of Canadian Cattle producers getting upset over American COOL as funny. Mostly because it doesn't seem right for them to be upset over internal American Policy. Now I have another reason to think their behavior is funny. Canada has it's own COOL law. It might work a little different from the one being worked on in the US, but they have one.

The way their law works, it allows them to label such things as coffee and olives, crops not grown in Canada, as a "Product of Canada." How interesting. Their law allows such a label as long as 51% of labor or material is in the final product and the final product is a new and identifiable product.

So, under Canadian law, they could take US ground beef, which under present COOL legislation would have a label such as "product of USA, Canada and Mexico, reform it into hamburger patties, add some spices and they could call it a "Product of Canada." Then they want to complain about American COOL? I laugh at them.

I guess what is really funny about this is how it highlights the problems with the proposed COOL law that is in the hopper now. The packer could grind up a bunch of ground beef from cattle that originated in Mexico and Canada with no cattle from the US and slap a label on it that says "Product of USA, Mexico and Canada" and it would be perfectly legal. Not much better than Canada's system is it.

Again, I will point out that I am not a fan of COOL. A true COOL program would cost me a lot of money and not net me much in the end. The compromise that is in the hopper now will not cost me much, but is not really COOL as the proponents mean it to be like my example shows. I am happy for the compromise since it doesn't hurt me as a producer in the field but how much the present system will help consumers, I don't know.

A person who is gifted sees the essential point and leaves the rest as surplus. Thomas Carlyle

This old tractor sitting by what is called the Cook Camp has always intrigued me. There are a few old tractors laying around these hills but this one has always fascinated me. Taken 10/16/2007.