Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

High-stakes testing continues

I really wish I had the ability to turn a phrase like this headline once in a while. The Brucellosis testing going on is high stakes for Montana cattlemen and is being watched closely by many people concerned with the issue.

I've talked about the producers involved in Bridger losing their entire herds of cattle to this, they will be killed, and there is no guarantee of reimbursement of any kind. They just have to eat the loss which will more than likely put them out of business. I see the USCA has adopted a policy that seeks indemnification program for affected ranchers.

"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association urges the Department of Interior and USDA to indemnify ranchers for losses suffered as a result of herds being infected by wildlife," noted Kiker. "The financial losses for individual ranching operations affected by this disease could be catastrophic, to say nothing of the negative economic impact on the entire livestock industry within an affected state."

I doubt anything will come of this since the Federal Government does not want to take responsibility for their reservoir of Brucellosis infection in Yellowstone National Park but at least there is somebody working on the issue.

The proposal makes sense too. The Brucellosis infection in the cattle more than likely came from the Park so the Federal Government is responsible. The Federal Government is responsible for the wildlife in the Park and since they don't want to do anything about the Brucellosis problem with these animals, even though they require private citizens to control Brucellosis, they should be financially responsible for the chaos that ensues from their lack of responsibility.

Responsibility and Government, what an oxymoron.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw

Coach could lose job over alcohol rule

The Plenty Coups High School athletic director and boys basketball coach faces suspension today in a dispute with the superintendent over the dismissal from the team of a player who drank alcohol.

Larry Lee Falls Down, a Billings West High graduate hired for the coaching and director's job last August, said Monday he's sticking to his decision not to reinstate the player. He will take his suspension as basketball coach to the school board through the grievance process, he said.

While recognizing the superintendent's right to overrule his decision, Falls Down said he made a commitment when he took the job to help the players set and achieve goals and to maintain standards for the program. He's not changing his mind, he said.

Good for the Coach. Stick to your guns. I hate the mixed message that sometimes gets sent to athletes that the rules only apply to them when they are losing. When they are winning they can do anything they want and get away with it. That is exactly what we are seeing here. The Coach says no to a player because he used alcohol, illegal for youths under 21, and the Superintendent wants to overrule the Coach. Why? I assume because the team is winning.

Maintaining standards and living by the rules is important throughout life and this Coach should be hailed for his stand to stick by the rules through thick and thin. The student needs to learn there are consequences for your actions and you take them like a man, learn from them, and go on. The Coach is showing exactly this by sticking to his guns and not bowing to the pressure from the Superintendent. Hopefully the students learn a lesson from this.

My life is my message. Mohandas Gandhi

FDA Says Clones Are Safe To Eat

Taking a long-awaited stand in an emotionally fraught food fight, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday released a 678-page analysis concluding that milk and meat from cloned animals pose no unique risks to consumers.

The decision, subject to change after a period of public comment, stops short of approving the sale of food from clones and leaves in place for now a long-standing government request that farmers keep their clones off the market.

To start with let me say I agree with the FDA on this one. If you study how cloning is done, once you get the cell division going in the egg, the processes are no different than what we are used to in normal reproduction so the meat and milk from cloned animals would be indistinguishable from meat and milk from non-cloned animals. I know, some people will yell and scream at me at this point but it's the truth. Sometimes we have to deal with the truth whether we like it or not. There is no underlying genetic manipulation at this point with a clone so the meat is fine. There is a lot bigger question here if you ask me than whether the meat is safe to eat or not. That question is, are we wise to use cloning in our agricultural system? Will it help or hurt our animals that are entrusted to us to care for? These are the questions that should be asked, not if the meat is safe or not, I don't see that as a factor.

So, I am sure you are asking, what does he mean about the wisdom of using clones in our agricultural system? Simple, there is no such thing as the perfect animal that meets all requirements. If we find a genetically superior cow that raises large calves for a rancher to sell, what are the trade offs for this cow to be able to perform this function? The cow might not be healthy over a long term basis, or might not breed back reliably, or the calf might not grow later in life well, or something else. There are always tradeoffs in these things and they might not always be known right off the bat.

An example of what I'm talking about can be gleaned from Liz's comment on my post about Scamper being cloned. She pointed out that using AI techniques a dangerous and sometimes fatal condition known as HYPP was spread through the Quarter Horse community all through one sire that everybody thought at the time was a genetically superior creature. Is there a possibility the same thing could happen with a clone? There definitely is that possibility. Picking a genetically superior creature doesn't mean the critter isn't with out it's faults, whether they are know or unknown at the time. With the Impressive line and HYPP it was a fault that wasn't known and got spread through the gene pool to the detriment of the Quarter Horse community and is still causing problems. The same thing could happen with cloning and it could happen in an accelerated manner if cloning were to become very widespread.

I can give another less documented, more personal example of what I am talking about. When I got out of the Navy, my father was using all bulls from one particular breeder. They were not cheap bulls and it was a breeder with a very good reputation and raised very nice bulls. Dad was using these particular bulls to add length and muscle to the cattle at the time and they were doing this very well. The trade off? It turned out they also had what I call pin-asses. They threw cows that had such a small pelvic area we started having trouble with the cows calving. I finally got us away from these bulls and after awhile the problem went away. It got so bad before it turned around that I was pulling almost 100% of the calves off of our two-year old heifers because the heifers had such pin-asses bred into them. Now I pull very few calves and the problem has gone away. This is what I mean though by trade offs though. You push certain traits and there is a good chance some other trait will suffer and it might not be readily noticed at the time or the short comings might be overlooked because of the trait being pushed.

Holstein cows in the dairy industry are suffering from the trait being overlooked in my opinion. They have used breeding techniques like AI to push so hard for milk production that Holsteins now are not as healthy or hardy as they were at one time. The dairy industry has decided that milk production is more important than other considerations and have breed their cattle that way. Since I'm not in the dairy industry my viewpoint on this might be wrong but that is the way it seems to me. Overall Holsteins are not as healthy or hardy as they used to be. This has been done on purpose, but is it appropriate that we have done this and can accelerating the process with cloning cause this and other problems in our domesticated animals?

Mankind has domesticated the animals we are talking about for over 2000 years now and it is our ethical responsibility to take care of them properly. Is cloning these animals instead of using natural reproduction an ethical way to take care of these animals that we are responsible for? Is pushing one genetic characteristic at the expense of other characteristics, the breed they belong to or the whole genus of the animal the way we should be taking care of our responsibility? Awful tough question to answer if you ask me. We've changed the animals over time with selective breeding but with reproduction technologies available today we are accelerating the changes we are making to our animals faster than ever and there is no guarantee that what we are doing won't have bad consequences in the long run. By our reliance on just certain breeds for production agriculture there are even domesticated animal breeds going extinct and we are losing valuable genetic diversity in our animals every day.

By cloning we are not only in danger of losing breeds, but losing all the diversity in a breed for one animal that the experts believe to be superior. What happens to our genetic diversity when all the animals in one "breed" are all just one animal? We will then have no diversity and no fall back if there is a problem with the animal. It will also speed the extinction of the genetic diversity available in all the breeds that are now in the world that are endangered. Cloning may be a valuable tool for agriculture like they claim since it will allow us to use superior genetics to increase the production of our herds, but I don't think so. I think it is an abrogation of our responsibility for the ethical care of the animals we are entrusted with and just another example of man's belief that he knows better than God/Mother Nature. The meat of cloned animals might be indistinguishable from the meat of non-cloned animals but that doesn't mean that this is the road we need to go down. There are too many potholes in this road and is not the way mankind needs to take his animals. This road will just be too rough on them and us.

Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind. Albert Schweitzer

Schweitzer: Budget plan works

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said he thinks his budget proposals, which include double-digit spending increases, are sustainable for future years, contrary to warnings in a new legislative analysis.

Schweitzer said much of the spending is "one-time" for such things as repairing buildings and fixing a troubled state pensions system.

The governor, during an interview Thursday with the Associated Press, responded to a Legislative Fiscal Division analysis that said the budget may set spending levels that can't be maintained.

If you wish hard enough, I guess it will be true, at least according to Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Now I'm not an expert on these things but it does seem to stretch the mind a little to think that such large increases in spending are sustainable. Let's see, cut taxes, spend more money, seems like a recipe for trouble to me.

One thing mentioned in this article is a pet peeve of mine. The bailing out of the "troubled state pensions system." This pension fund lost money in the 2001 stock market crash and now doesn't have enough money to pay for people's pensions. These people are all government employees. Why if I, as a private citizen, lose money in a stock market crash which I am holding for retirement, am I just shit out of luck and have to accept the loss but the government employees just get to take more of my tax dollars to fix their losses so they have the money they want for retirement? Shouldn't they just have to take their lumps like the rest of us do when the stock market has troubles? Seems only fair to me, but fair doesn't apply to government employees obviously and my money gets used to bail them out instead of being used by me for maybe my retirement fund. Then the government employees wonder why people have a low opinion of them. This might be one of the reasons why.

Hell, as a private citizen and business man if I cut my income and increased my spending hoping to spend my way to wealth it wouldn't work very well. Why does the government think it can? Because that's what the people like and tough decisions aren't required by the politicians. I sure hope it works out for the Governor because if it doesn't, I, and a lot of other people, as a taxpayers will pay for it.

I wish my name was Brian because maybe sometimes people would misspell my name and call me Brain. That's like a free compliment and you don't even gotta be smart to notice it. Mitch Hedberg

Livestock groups turn up opposition to Schweitzer's bison plans

Two of the state's largest livestock groups are turning up their opposition to Gov. Brian Schweitzer's proposals regarding the management of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park each year.

The Montana Farm Bureau issued a new study that maintains the threat of the spread of the disease brucellosis to cattle is too great to allow bison any extra room to roam outside the park. And the Montana Stockgrowers Association separately issued a policy statement saying it opposes removing any cattle from areas outside the park to accommodate wandering bison.

The documents outline positions both groups have expressed previously. Members of those groups and others have concerns about allowing park bison to roam outside the park, for fear the animals could spread brucellosis to cattle and threaten the state's brucellosis-free status.

I am glad to see the Farm Bureau coming in on this issue like they are. I didn't expect it. The Stockgrowers doesn't surprise me, it's there job to protect Montana's livestock industry and that is what they are doing, protecting us from a proposal that could cost us a lot of money.

Losing the state's brucellosis-free status would cost the ranching industry somewhere between $4 million and $16 million in extra expenses, mostly for labor and disease testing, the Montana Farm Bureau report concludes.

In addition, because brucellosis carries such a stigma among ranchers, the presence of the disease could reduce cattle prices by somewhere between $5 million and $26 million, the report says.

Be truthful, if you were facing a proposal that had the potential to cast you this kind of money, you would oppose it to. If the Federal government would just do something about their animals carrying the disease, this wouldn't be a problem. Until the Federal Government owns up to the problem, we ranchers are faced with dealing with the situation. The funny thing is, the reason ranchers so fear Brucellosis, is what the Federal Government will do to us if it's found in the state.

So, they will punish us if it's in the state, but won't do anything about animals under their control who have the disease and have the potential to pass it to animals in the state. It's a catch-22. They're bound and determined to give us the disease but yet will punish us for having the disease around. The only solution? Keep the animals out of the state until the Federal Government fixes the problem either by fixing the Brucellosis laws or cleaning up the Brucellosis problem in their herd.

Everybody blames the ranchers for this problem. People need to look at the Federal government avoiding the issue as the problem. If the Feds would work on their end of the situation this would have a lot easier solution.

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Abraham Lincoln

Governor's bison ideas irk ranchers"

If Montana continues its current approach to bison that leave Yellowstone National Park, eventually Brucellosis will be transmitted to cattle, according to Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

"I don't want to be the governor of Montana when we lose our Brucellosis-free status," Schweitzer said.

So, Schweitzer doesn't want to be the Governor that loses Montana's Brucellosis-free status. His solution so that it doesn't happen? Let more Brucellosis infected bison wander around in the state potentially spreading the disease. How is this going to accomplish anything but infect Montana cattle with Brucellosis. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BRIAN. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth as usual.

I see a new proposal in this article that I have never seen before.

He has also suggested that a quarantine area could be set up for cattle outside Gardiner where cows would have to be tested for the disease as they enter and as they leave and would not be used for breeding in Montana or any other state.

So, set up a Brucellosis check station and confirm to all the world that Montana believes there is Brucellosis in the state. All this will accomplish is other states not accepting Montana cattle without being tested for Brucellosis. We will be Brucellosis-free state while at the same time, spending all the money for testing as if we weren't Brucellosis-free state. This accomplishes nothing and hurts the whole cattle industry in the state.

Another question, how is he going to make sure these cows aren't going to be used for breeding? Who made Schweitzer God and able to tell people with perfectly healthy cattle what they cannot do with them. I thought our government was supposed to protect private property, not confiscate it and tell us what we can and cannot do with it if there is no health risk associated with it.

The solution for this problem is for the Federal Government to acknowledge that they have a problem with their animals and to do something about it. That's not going to happen though. They require us private citizens to maintain a Brucellosis-free herd under penalty of law, but they don't have to follow that same requirement. Typical Government hypocrisy. Responsibility is the solution, to bad the government isn't responsible.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Ronald Reagan

Tax preparers make many mistakes: study

Professional tax preparers make significant errors on returns and often charge the taxpayer more than the client had been told to expect, according to a government study released on Tuesday.

The study by the Government Accountability Office was a very limited one, involving 19 outlets of commercial chain tax preparers in one major metropolitan area. But lawmakers said it was a red flag about the tax return industry.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said "bad practices" appear to be "pervasive and systemic in the industry."

GAO investigators presented the tax preparers with fictional, but plausible and not overly elaborate, tax scenarios. Most of the returns ended up wrong -- sometimes inflating the refund for the taxpayer by as much as $2,000 and sometimes costing the taxpayer up to $1,500 in overpayment.

My question is "who's to blame for these problems in the tax industry?" The tax preparers for not do a good enough job preparing taxes or Congress for making the tax law so complicated that nobody can follow it and you are almost guaranteed to make a mistake? I think they should both, Congress and tax prepares, shoulder the blame for these problems in their "industry." Yes, taxes are Congresses industry and they need to suck it up and take their share of the blame.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw

You are a student in High School involved in extracurricular activities and the rules tell you that you can't use, possess, buy, sell or give away alcohol, tobacco or drugs. You are also banned from gathering at any place where any of these illegal activities are taking place. These are the rules you are bound to abide by. So, when you are caught at a party with alcohol and tobacco present what happens? Your parents sue the school because their precious little angels were kicked off the team.

If you knew the rules going in and did not agree with them why didn't the parents protest the rule then instead of waiting until their kid was trapped by it? Why were the kids involved in the sports if they couldn't abide by the rules?

What ever happened to teaching your kids responsibility? Abide by the rules or suffer the consequences. What does this teach them down the road? If you don't like the rules, violate them then sue to change them? Bah! These parents little angels need to learn responsibility and take their punishment like men, not fight it like little weasels. What an example the parents set.

You must accept responsibility for your actions, but not the credit for your achievements. Denis Waitley