Letters To The Editor

Dear Sir,

Despite bad science, public protest and the real possibility of legal action against their efforts, Mexican wolves were placed in kennels in preparation for their release in the Blue Range of eastern Arizona.

Such efforts are a clear indication of government out of control. Here is an effort which doesn't have a leg to stand on and yet, despite the objections of state and local governments, despite strong public opposition (yes, we checked the comments on the EIS and found more than 60 percent were in opposition), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service went ahead and did what they wanted to do.

Wolf recovery is based totally on bad science. Wolves have never been in danger of biological extinction! A political definition of "extinction" based on outdated sub-species listing is the "scientific" basis for Mexican wolf recovery. Add the fact that most of these "wolves" come from one female and two males, you have what has been affectionately termed "in-bred, pinhead wolves." What we have is a guaranteed, long-term disaster.

Yes, there are other biological problems. One hundred wolves as a viable population is just one example. No data supports that number. Independent biologists estimate that 1500 to 2000 wolves is more accurate as a viable population. However, so many wolves would be a hard sell, so the figure of 100 wolves was chosen in order to dupe the public.

Did you notice various polls were often quoted as finding the people of New Mexico and Arizona favoring wolf recovery? But did the FWS release whether the comments on the Mexican Wolf EIS were in favor of wolf recovery? No!

"Why?" I asked Dave Parsons, coordinator of Mexican wolf recovery. His reply: "We ... made it clear that it was not a vote ... (If someone wrote in stating) 'I don't want the wolf reintroduced,' Thank you for your comment, but it has no bearing on the content of the EIS."

I asked, "As long as it's something that says 'We don't want wolves,' it's not substantive?"

Parsons' answer: "It's not!"

So there you have it. It really doesn't matter what you think, especially if you happened to oppose wolf recovery.

So why all these polls? They're intended to sway public opinion. And in order to sway public opinion, you need to have the right answers. To get the right answers, you simply ask the right questions. It's that simple.

Parsons agreed polls could be used to obtain certain answers by how the question was asked and who was asked. "You can put any kind of notion in somebody's mind, depending on who's writing the questions," he said. How true!

Let's set the record straight. New Mexico and Arizona never supported wolf recovery. Rather, it was crammed down their throats. Parsons admits that every governmental entity, from county commissioners to governors and legislators, who commented on the EIS went on record in opposition.

But they did it anyway.

T.R. Mader
Research Director
Abundant Wildlife Society
Gillette, Wyoming

Dear Sir,

I really don't know why I am writing. I guess I am plain mad. I read a lot of opinions why our cattle market, lamb market, agriculture products, etc. are in the tubes and sometimes it seems like they stay there. I guess I just want to put in my two cents’ worth.

Futures markets, captive supplies, so-called packer monopolies, oversupplies, Oprah, drouths, government goofups (reports, dairy buyouts, etc.) and probably a lot more things influence our markets and always will, but when you sit down and study agriculture, I wonder why we don't let everyone starve to death.

My math may be off a little but here is a scenario that I put together about the cattle industry: We have a cow-calf operation that might be able to make a $75 profit per head on a $75 cwt. market over about a year without paying anything on debt. We have a grazing operation that buys that calf at $75 cwt., owns it for six months and if he can sell it for $75 cwt. might make $60 per head. We have a feedlot operation that buys that calf for $75, feeds it for about five to six months, and if he could sell it for $75 (we are at $60 to $61 as of this writing) he might make $40 per head.

We have a packer operation that buys this calf, owns it maybe eight to ten days, and probably makes $25 per head. Everyone says, "that's terrible!" Agriculture, by my math, owns this animal about two years and makes $175 and the packer owns it 10 days and makes $25. It may be bad, but to me this is just where our problems start.

These are facts that came out of Texas Cattle Feeders Market Reviews that are sent out weekly: Back when fat cattle averaged $82 to $83 cwt., the retail price they quoted was $2.50 per pound. The newsletter put out February 28, 1998, had fats averaging $59.45 cwt. and retail $2.48. My math says cattle declined 28 percent and retail beef declined .8 percent. A little more math: if that 1200 pound animal at $75 cwt. equals $900, plus $25 packer profit, plus $25 freight and handling, that calf goes to the grocery store, cafe, steak houses, etc. costing $950.

I will bet you $100 to a doughnut their markup is at least 35 percent times $950, or $332.50. "My God, is that right?" Sure it is, but not all profit. They have labor, buildings, insurance, etc., just like we do, but I think 15 percent is a safe profit estimate. Fifteen percent times $950 equals $142.50.

Good gosh, where did I mess up? Agriculture, for two years’ work, gets $175; the packer, for 10 days, gets $25; and retail, for 10 days, gets $142.50. They own this meat maybe 10 days, so that is a turnover of 36½ times per year. That's 547.5 percent return on the money. I guess we are in the wrong part of our business.

My wife tells me we need to go to the newspaper, TV, government, etc. and tell our own story, but if we do that our consumers get mad at the grocery store and quit buying, period, and we will just be in worse shape than we are now. I don't have any answers, but I think some of my views may put a different perspective on our markets.

We need the grocery store. They should be our allies. They market our products and we should work with them, but on the other hand I think they should work with us, and I do not believe that is happening. I do believe that as an industry we have a lot of improving to do, starting with genetics that will produce the quality, safe, and consistent product we need to produce. We also must become better marketers of our animals (packers just do what we let them do), and we have to produce more ready-to-use beef products.

I know that over the last 10 years or so, agriculture has not been much fun, and I don't see it getting any better. We have all parts of agriculture getting bigger and the little guys getting out, all the way from small farmers and ranchers selling out to bigger corporations, little packers out of business to big packers, small grain companies to large companies, etc. Sometimes I wonder how we have survived here for 30 years.

Rex Bland
Cal-Tex Feedyard
Trent, Texas