Rebellion on the Range Over a Cattle ID Plan
HORSE SPRINGS, N.M. - Wranglers at the Platt ranch were marking calves the old-fashioned way last week, roping them from horseback and burning a brand onto their haunches.
What they were emphatically not doing, said Jay Platt, the third-generation proprietor of the ranch, was abiding by a federally recommended livestock identification plan, intended to speed the tracing of animal diseases, that has caused an uproar among ranchers. They were not attaching the recommended tags with microchips that would allow the computerized recording of livestock movements from birth to the slaughterhouse.
"This plan is expensive, it's intrusive, and there's no need for it," Mr. Platt said.
Mr. Platt said he already did all he could to fight epidemics. He does not bring any outside animals into his herds, and he happily staples on metal tags that identify animals to help with brucellosis control. But as he drove his pickup from grasslands into dense thickets of piñon pine on this highland desert that requires 100 acres per cow, he explained why he thought the federal plan was wrongheaded.
Mr. Platt called the extra $2 cost of the electronic tags an onerous burden for a teetering industry and said he often moved horses and some of his 1,000 head of cattle among three ranches here and in Arizona. Small groups of cattle are often rounded up in distant spots and herded into a truck by a single person, who could not simultaneously wield the hand-held scanner needed to record individual animal identities, Mr. Platt said. And there is no Internet connection on the ranch for filing to a regional database.
Looking over the 22,000 acres that his cattle share with elk, pronghorns and mountain lions and where animals can easily disappear, Mr. Platt scoffed at the idea of reporting every death, as animal health officials prefer.
"They can't comprehend the vastness of a ranch like this," he said of federal officials. "They don't appreciate what is involved logistically."
Ranchers like Mr. Platt have been joined by small-scale family farmers and other agrarian advocates to oppose the national animal identification system, a plan first broached five years ago by the Bush administration. It has created more visceral opposition than officials expected.
The plan, which is still being ironed out, might have seemed simple enough. With the ever-present threat of animal epidemics, why not modernize the system for identifying livestock? Why not keep computer records of movements so that when a cow is discovered with bovine tuberculosis or mad cow disease, its prior contacts can be swiftly traced? The disease source and the herds needing to be quarantined can be determined faster, officials said.
"Now, when there's an outbreak, we can't trace prior movements quickly, and we end up testing a lot more animals than necessary," said Neil Hammerschmidt, director of the identification program for the federal Agriculture Department. "We want to put in place the infrastructure prior an outbreak."
Mr. Platt expresses his opposition in more measured terms than many. Web sites analyze every official statement with suspicion, and angry farmers have packed the "listening sessions" held around the country this spring by the Obama administration's new agriculture secretary.
Rumors have swirled, and farmers are asking whether the government will really require tags on every baby chick and catfish fingerling or a computer report when a pet pony trots onto a neighbor's land.
Underlying the opposition is the fragile economics of ranches and small farms, which are already disappearing. The extra cost of radio tags, scanners and filing reports when animals change premises would be crushing, some smaller producers say.
"My main beef is that these proposed rules were developed by people sitting in their offices with no real knowledge of animal husbandry and small farms," said Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms in Snow Hill, N.C., which rotates sheep, cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens among three properties and sells directly to consumers and co-ops.
"I feel these regulations are draconian," Ms. Pridgen said, "and that lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture."
Paul Hamby, owner of Hamby Dairy Supply in Maysville, Mo., and a vocal opponent of the plan, said, "It is very much an economic and class warfare issue."
"Fifty years ago," Mr. Hamby said, "hundreds of thousands of farms raised hogs, and now very few players have control of the market. I believe one of the reasons for this plan is to consolidate the cattle industry."
The notion of centralized data banks, even for animals, has also set off alarms among libertarians, drawing former supporters of the Ron Paul presidential campaign like Mr. Hamby into the fray. One group has issued a bumper sticker that reads, "Tracking cattle now, tracking you soon."
Among all the different types of livestock, cattle have the most pressing need for improved records, said Mr. Hammerschmidt, who added that some opponents were misinformed.
"It's never been our intent to implant chickens, especially chicks," he said. "People out there are saying that they have to microchip every chicken, and if that chicken crosses the road they'll have to report that event to the government. That has really stirred the pot."
Nor do officials want every small producer to buy a $1,000 scanner, Mr. Hammerschmidt said. "The tag could be read at the market or feedlot, where they are more likely to have a reader," he said, suggesting looser monitoring than many ranchers fear.
Mr. Hammerschmidt pointed out that Michigan and Wisconsin, to strengthen the fight against bovine tuberculosis, now require radio tags for cattle. But he emphasized that the federal government had not mandated the tags, instead hoping it could prod states and individuals to join in.
"At the end of the day," he said, "we need the ability to trace an animal where there's a disease issue."
Mr. Platt, the rancher, said he believed that the authorities already had ample information to pounce on diseases.
Though he is one of the larger independent ranchers, the business is precarious, Mr. Platt said, sustained by land trades and sales. "Any new expense will mean a loss for us," he said.
Mr. Platt watched with pride as one of his adult sons worked a cutter horse in a timeless ritual, hiving off calves from the herd in the branding corral. "We do this because we just enjoy it," he said.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
13 Comments so far
Show AllI am from Horse Springs and grew up there. What the article does not say is that the cases of mad cow disease that happened a few years ago were traced without microchips. The branding system and regulations that are in place can do the job well enough.
As for stewards of the land, I can say for certain that we are. Forty years ago we warned Forest Service personnel they were hunting deer to extinction. They didn't listen. Now mule deer are rarely seen.
We told them to let the fires burn the underbrush. They didn't listen. Now they are trying to perform "proscribed burns".
annak says that most land is owned by Texas banks. Wrong. You want to see what happens when government is a steward of the land? Go to the Sevilleta Wildlife Refuge. They don't take care of the water wells. Except for near the Rio Grande, there is absolutly no wildlife there. Hundreds of square miles of nothing. Animals cannont live without water. Grass is so overgrown that it falls over and kills the new grass. The result is this grey landscape that looks like the moon.
Horse Springs is in my neck-of-the-woods. It's located in Catron County, or as we call it, Cartoon County. Google Catron County and you'll see what kind of place it is. They don't want re-intro of the Mexican Grey Wolf, they want more logging of the Apache and Gila. It's full of wing-nuts and rednecks, all with a sense of entitlement.
Contrary to the "rancher/cowboy mystique" portrayed by the article, ranching is big business with big bank backing. Less than half the ranches in SW New Mexico are owned by generational folks, even so, their operations are financed mostly by Texas banks. There is very little private land and most cattle graze on public land (BLM and NF) with devastating results. Grazing permits are cheap. Ranching folks do very, very well, all on the public dole. When you see what kind of destruction cows do in the SW it breaks your heart. Don't ever believe their crap about being "stewards of the land". All you have to do is visit NF where grazing isn't allowed and you'll see what the SW is supposed to look like.
You must not have grown up there. If you had you would know that logging happened decades ago. It was severely restriced about 25 years ago. So they don't want "more" logging, they just want the sustainable logging that used to happen there.
As far as the grew wolf is concerned, they have spent millions on this program. And they keep changing the rules. First, they said they would compensate ranchers for losses. Then they changed and said it has to be proven that the wolf killed the animal and didn't just scavenge it. Now they are saying they don't want to pay any compensation.
When are you going to learn that wolves are predetory animals? One woman that regularly gave to the Sierra Club retired and bought a place near Glenwood. Wolves killed and ate her dogs. She said "I had no idea!"
Are you going to listen when a person or a child is killed by wolves?
Yes, I know, in the rancher’s ideal world all opposition to ranching including the predators would be eliminated. It would be one big happy environment with nothing but cows, cowsh*t and flies as far as you could smell.
I’m from Silver City originally, grew up there in the 50’s. I’ve worked on a ranch or two in my time, even worked in the copper mines. I have backpacked the Gila my entire life and still do. Anyway, you aren’t telling the whole story. Ranchers are business people and they will do what’s good for business not the environment. Just ask Kit Laney. If you had your way you’d still be grazing in the riparian (Gila and all the forks). Those areas are making a remarkable recovery but I know of certain ranchers who intentionally leave gates open and let fences degrade so they can “sneak” some cows into wilderness up around Indian Creek and Aeroplane Mesa. All one has to do is look at a fence line that is grazed on one side and you’ll see what contributes to your “lunar landscape”. Sevilleta is Rio Grande wetland not Gila rangeland so it’s not a fair comparison. Mule deer were over-hunted partly because of local outfitters and the heavy promotion of hunting in the Gila. Locals brought in high-paying clients to shoot all the trophy bucks, thereby weakening the gene pool. Now they run down bear and cougar with dogs just to make some money. The proliferation of outfitters was so bad the Forest Service had to limit the number of pack animals because of the trail destruction. These outfitters are mostly Catron and Grant County local boys, part time ranch hands.
One of the things that make fires worse is grazing. The natural cycle of forest fire consumption is grass, undergrowth, mature trees. Grass fires will naturally thin out the young trees and fire-scar the old but when the cows eat all the grass the undergrowth increases until a catastrophic fire occurs. This is fire science not cowboy “common sense”.
Texas banks have a huge influence in SE and SW New Mexico. They help finance ranch operations and reap profit that is already subsidized by the American public; national forest and BLM is public land. Some are private equity groups out of Houston. It’s a scam that’s been going on for too long with too much environmental damage while ranchers try to portray themselves as salt-of-the-earth types who know what’s best. All the rest of society has to change and adapt, all except the ranchers who want it the way it’s been for 100 years.
It’s been a dry for a couple of years, when I drive Rt12 to Reserve the rangeland along there is in bad shape. The jetstream is moving north and the big winter snows that used to grace the Mogollons is sporadic now. The Gila now relies on monsoon and winter rains.
Now you have exposed your faulted logic and your true intentions. When you say that cows eat the grass and thereby exacerbate the fire problem, this does not make sense. If there really was a "moonscape" after grazing, then there would be nothing for fires to burn.
In the 60's and 70's I could count all the oufitters on one hand in Catron county. The problem was the State Game office divided the state into a North half and South half. If you were a resident of the state, you could hunt in the North half in October, and the South half in November. Licenses were over the counter and cheap. So everyone in the state was hunting twice.
Also, if you were really from Silver City and lived there continuously and kept track of things, you would really understand that there are periodic wet and dry spells. In the 70's and again in the 80's we had two droughts that lasted at least 3 years. Nothing to do with cows. Most ranchers cut back their herds. My dad's place was down to 50% in the 80's and if it went longer he would have had to sell everything. It is true that some ranchers didn't cut back and they did damage parts of their range. But that shows the difference between you and me. I admit there are some ranchers that aren't stewards of the land but most are. You are radical in your believe that all ranchers are bad.
I still don't know where you get the idea that "Big Texas" banks are an influence. Are you going to rant and rave about New York banks causing the housing market crash? That is just foolishness.
Yes, I know Kit Laney, and lets tell the truth about that one too. His private land was encroached upon by Forest Service personnel. When he fought them on it, it was the forest personnel that let his cows out so they could charge him with tresspassing. Then when they confiscated his livestock and sent it to Oklahoma to be sold, they broke several federal, state, and local laws. Sherrif Cliff Snyder could have stopped this travesty of Justice but he too cowtowed to radicals like yourself.
Thanks for supplying the context that the article seemed to take pains to leave out.
It is amazing that people who introduce an alien species,the Bovine to an area that for several million years had all but rivaled the grazing animals of the African Savannah, would ask for sympathy.
In addition to that, anyone who is not of Native American ancestry, or does not have a 'clear title' issued by a tribe of or a member of a tribe of Native Americans---anywhere 'west of the Mississippi'---is illegally in possession of that land and therefore due no sympathy (at least from this Native Son)----
The 'cattle industry' is one of the most heavily subsidized of all of the agribusinesses. If these 'poor ranchers' cannot manage on their own---on stolen land----introducing an alien species---to subordinate other species who had evolved there---they can find sympathy: (see Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)---look for 'sympathy' ----somewhere between 'shit and syphilis'----.
But then as for tax dollars and how they are spent--the American 'tax payer' is willing to finance all sorts of foolish endeavors---just recently their representatives voted to spend an additional $200 billion to bring 'democracy to people who do not want it'-----after spending a trillion on other illegal wars ---so go figure!
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Well the Horse was also introduced to the New World (Or shall I say reintroduced) and the natives did not complain did they?
Who is Neil Hammerschmidt and what is his background? Looking for something beyond his history in the cattle/dairy industry there is nothing on the web - that I can find. The NCSL page registers an error.
"U.S. beef recall expanded, 18 illnesses suspected"
Every day it gets easier and easier to eat mostly vegetables.
The government should simply pay the ranchers for doing this tagging. If the ranchers incur an expense of $2 per cattle then the government should pay them $4 per cattle. In fact, with a high enough payment the program could be largely voluntary.
With swine flu and other communicable diseases going around it seems reasonable that people should also be tagged and tracked so that a person coming down with swine flu could be scanned and a record of that persons comings and goings and contacts with other people could be produced. Then these other people could be located and scanned...etc. This would make it much easier to contain epidemics. A little microchip in the buttocks would work. A chip reader could be placed inside every toilet seat lid and info about every buttock using the seat could be sent directly to a satellite which would bounce the info back to a central processing site. In this way everyone would be located at least once each day.
"Dear Citizen Jones, our records indicate that on several occasions within the last week, you failed to properly wipe your ass. Since correct hygiene is essential to the smooth functioning of our nation we will be sending a home health worker to your home in order to educate you in proper butt wiping procedure. Budget cuts have forced us to no longer be able to supply you with toilet paper so please have plenty of your own on hand when the health care instructor arrives. Thank you"
>>I feel these regulations are draconian," Ms. Pridgen said, "and that lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture
Yep.When the people have to rely on the Corporations to feed them and provide them with water , there much less a chance they will support policies contrary to the best interests of the Corporation.
See the banking system. "Unless you give us 13 trillion dollars we will collpase and take the entire economy with us"
In a few more years time. "Unless you provide us with 12 trillion dollars we will go under and every one will STARVE.'
This is the process of making the Corporation "Too Big to fail"