Dear Sir,
I have been a reader of Livestock Weekly for over 20 years, and it was with confusion and dismay that I read the article by David Bowser in the April 30 issue concerning the CRMWA municipal water well project in Roberts County, Texas. Dismay because of a rancher calling for the federal government to "help" her, and confusion that you would not recognize the futility and danger of such a course of action. Ms. Duncan-Ward must think that the "environmentalists" are only in the federal government when she says "... a lot of ranchers are against environmental stuff right now." This is absolute nonsense, and such a view equates all environmentalism with the U.S. government. I know of no ranchers who are "against environmental stuff." I know a hell of a lot of ranchers who are against the federal government mandates and bullying tactics for their version of "environmental stuff."

Ms. Duncan-Ward shows an odd disrespect for the dozens of ranchers who border the Canadian River and are working against the listing of the Arkansas River shiner as "endangered." She may not realize the profound changes in agriculture on the Canadian River that will be wrought if this battle is lost. Then again, she may know and just not care.

Ms. Duncan-Ward had better be careful what she wishes for; she just might get it.

Hal Miner
Amarillo, Texas

(Editor’s note: It’s an old story: a threat from one direction often tempts individuals — even entire nations — into unholy alliances that they and their neighbors will later regret. It happened in World War II, when the U.S. helped save a beseiged Soviet empire that repaid the courtesy by threatening to "bury" us. Mr. Miner is not alone in his suspicion that using the Endangered Species Act as a personal shield may be inviting a dagger in the back later.)

Dear Sir,
Just because we live on a ranch and are near busted doesn’t mean we’re stupid.

I couldn’t help but respond after reading the many editorials and news items recently published on the USDA’s and Secretary Glickman’s lack of enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, resulting in my nearly becoming a former steer man. The unbelievable (literally) garbage pouring from the beef industry editors promoting the check-off has left me nauseous. Let me qualify the garbage-spewing editors as being those primarily from "free" subscriptions, sent to us compliments of big business.

Upon reading the excuses and continued "dialogue" (that's your word for doing nothing, Mr. Glickman) of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Packers and Stockyards Administration, I am reinforced in my assessment of a government that appears to be for sale. I could be wrong. It would not be a new experience, and in this case it would be welcome. The IRS seems to have no problems interpreting the law when it comes to law-abiding citizens, who are guilty until proven innocent, but the USDA looks the other way in their law enforcement responsibilities. The USDA selectively enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act, leaving taxpaying citizens to be financially raped by the unrestrained, greedy packers and retailers who have so kindly sent their dollars of support to our Washington leadership.

A simple report of wrongdoing to the IRS will result in almost instantaneous assaults against lives and property, but reams of legal documents, court testimony, old and proven laws and countless investigations uncovering major violations by a single entity (IBP) are not compelling enough to rate a stand one way or another? So much for justice. Wet a finger, check the wind, then with much adieu, stall.

Now for the check-off. When the beef check-off was a voluntary collection, there was in effect a referendum at the time of each and every sale. If it isn’t broke, don't fix it. Not content to allow a cowman to decide for himself if it is worthwhile, the now infamous mandatory beef check-off was masterfully force fed, complete, with the full weight of the government’s mighty hand upon any who dared to retain his own money for his own selfish designs.

Beautiful, just ... beautiful. The stuffed shirts are, even as we speak, creating an adverting blitz, not for the promotion of beef, but rather the beef check-off itself. A referendum would cost too much; all those wasted funds should be used for more gainful pursuits, like golf tourneys in temperate climes, and other languid respites.

It has been my observation that good hands who are making money for the outfit are usually retained. The stuffed shirts, on the other hand, with no one to answer to and the government to insure the collection of funds, do not wish to jeopardize their free ride with a referendum.

Compromise is the order of the day with packers, the USDA, retailers and the like, but when it comes to the producers, the ones they are supposed to represent, no heed is paid.

The beef check-off was fed to the general constabulary with the skill of an Irish fly fisherman, until the bait was taken. I voted against the mandatory check-off, not because of the cost, but rather the loss of my vote. When you can pull the purse strings shut you can garner more respect, more quietly, more better. When it was eventually voted in, I witnessed my vote doing a maneuver resembling that of a yard dart. My money (and opinion) has about the same effect as a yard dart thrown into a section of summer fallow when it's given to the packer controlled custodian of the check-off: the National Cattleman’s Beef Association.

"And this too shall pass," more like, "This won’t scour." Stripped to the hide and wearin’ paint ...

K.T. Hayward
Parks, Nebraska

Dear Sir,
A few years back, 1994 to be exact, Bruce Babbitt (the head honcho in the Interior Department) decided that the hill country of Texas is such a nice place and it should become the province of the federal government. His "vision" was to designate 33 counties in Central Texas as a habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler, thereby declaring all sorts of controls and no-no's for the landowners and giving his bureaucracy the power to tell Texans what can and should be done with their own property.

Mr. Babbitt discovered very soon that Texas is Texan-owned and Texans want to keep it that way! Texans would have nothing to do with allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's invasion of their property. After "getting the message," Mr. Babbitt retreated back to his drawing board. He was successful in getting an agreement with Travis County officials, environmentalists and developers called the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (1996). That property has declined drastically in value, as the owners have found that they are forced to wait until the government can pay them for it, which would take up to 30 years! The landowners are still paying property taxes on it, however! And that is just one of the heartaches that go with this "vision" of the Bruce Babbitts in Washington, D.C.

Now, he has come up with another "vision" to gain control over Texans' private property and that is to make them think they will not be so controlled if they would just "volunteer" their property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, by means of a "Safe Harbor" Central Texas Rare Species Conservation Plan. Doesn't that sound nice and safe? Well, let us look at it. Under the Endangered Species Act, state parks and wildlife departments may develop their "own" conservation plans, but they cannot go below the maximum rules and regulations of the ESA. However, they can be more restrictive if they so choose. (By the way, this is not explained in the "draft" plan!) And, their final plan must be approved by the USFWS before it becomes effective. When the landowners found out that this plan was on the drawing board, they became just as irate as they were back in 1994, if not more so!

Some very good Texans are being "drawn into" helping formulate the program because of the lack of information about what it will entail when implemented, such as five-mile wide buffer zones around these habitats that will be drastically restricted — or else! Safe Harbor for the government bureaucrats, but very unsafe for Texans! (Gotta watch the terms they use!)

The battle lines have been drawn between Texas private property owners and those who want to take away all private property. Texas is 97 percent private owned and the "powers-that-be" in Washington, D.C. just can't let that continue to be the case! The entire battle is not about protecting these two little pretty birds but it is about who controls the property. These Washington bureaucrats do not believe in private property rights, but they do believe that the federal government knows best and that they are the only ones who care about the future. There are similar plans to "take" Texan's water rights, and also to develop our cities and towns into their "visions" for "sustainable communities." THEY WANT TEXAS, PERIOD!

Texas is facing a very serious situation. All of these "visions" effect all Texans, whether they own just a home, a business, an automobile (ask Al Gore!), one acre or 10,000 acres! What Texans have, the Bruce Babbitts want, and they are out to get it, one way or another; whether it be by deception, subterfuge, confiscation, or any other means necessary! The outcome of this "battle" being fought today in Texas will determine whether private property rights remain in the hands and control of Texans, or whether the federal government will gain all these rights. And just think about this! These plans are all the result of the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, which has not (repeat: HAS NOT!) been ratified by our elected senators in Washington, D.C.!

It is our fervent hope that Governor George Bush will stand tall when in Fredericksburg on May 18th, and tell the Bruce Babbitts they need to find other "fish to fry" somewhere else! Let's all show up for that meeting to find out what the Governor has to say!

Rae and Lou Lehmberg
Mason, Texas

Dear Sir,
Over the past few months, Superior Farms has been made aware of an increased producer and feeder interest regarding imported lamb products and specifically, Superior’s role in imported lamb. In response to this interest and subsequent inquiries, attached you will find a duplicate copy of a producer’s comments made to our Internet website. As office manager for Superior Farms, I thought that perhaps you or your readership would have an interest in both the topic of the inquiry and Superior’s response.

Karen O’Brine
Superior Farms

(Editor’s note: The inquiry to which Ms. O’Brine refers was from a California lamb producer who wrote, in part: "My family produces approximately 15,000 lambs here in California each year, and this is soon to be our last year of production... The importation rate of lamb by your company has eroded the market for American lamb and in turn devastated the American producer... Does Superior care that they are destroying the lives of American producers? We are the individuals who supplied lamb to Superior, creating the company that it has grown to be."

The following is Superior’s response to that producer, and by extension, to the industry as a whole:)

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your Superior Farms Internet Email inquiry. I would like to respond to your comments. Briefly, the chronological sequence of events that have brought about the decline in domestic lamb prices and production are as follows:

(1.) The U.S. Government rescinds the Wool Act payment distributions to producers.

(2.) A herd liquidation begins within the industry

(3.) Lamb slaughter numbers decline.

(4.) In the summer of 1995, lamb slaughter numbers implode to approximately 50,000-55,000 slaughter units per week.

(5.) Wholesale prices are driven to historical highs ($2/cwt. carcass market).

(6.) Despite record lamb values, packers and processors are unable to procure enough product to meet customer demand.

(7.) Retailers and Hotel, Restaurant, Institutional (HRI) buyers become disgruntled with domestic industry's inability to supply minimum quantities to meet even reduced demand at higher prices. Late l995 — rampant speculation creeps into livestock prices.

(8.) 1996 — Summer slaughter again falls into 50,000 units per week. Cost of livestock again driven to $2.00+/cwt. carcass values. Feeding speculators overfeed and overfatten lambs to record weights.

(9.) Domestic buyers again dismayed by domestic industry's inability to supply even minimal customer demand. Product that is available is highly undesirable. Importers see opportunities to offer alternative sources of lamb. Domestic buyers cautiously experiment with imported product.

(10.) 1997 — Feeding speculators continue to force livestock costs to record high values.

(11.) Retail and HRI buyers refuse to pay the 1997 summertime asking prices as packers and processors try to recover invested cost of livestock. Retail and HRI buyers begin to buy increasing tonnage of imported product.

(12.) Consumers accept alternative lamb supplies to domestic offerings, stimulated by price differentials.

(13.) 1998 — Latest government reports, imported lamb now comprises over 40 percent of supply in U.S. market. At the same time, feeding speculators again, in an effort to reduce their invested cost per hundredweight, overfeed and overfatten lambs to record weights. End result is highly undesirable product being sold at severe discount, driving the entire lamb market down.

Summary of Consequences:

• Distortion of normal carcass weight range spectrum.

• Production of highly undesirable over-fat product.

• Customer/buyer dissatisfaction.

• Importers flood the market to fill demand for lighter, leaner, less costly product.

• Downward spiral develops, driven by a domestic supply of heavy over-fat meat with no place to go.

I believe you will find these events accurate and statically supported by USDA market reporting agencies.

Superior Farms

Strategically, Superior Farms became concerned with declining domestic livestock numbers in the early 1990s. In 1993, our strategic forecasts indicated the industry was close to implosion and the company would no longer have the ability to meet our customer demand without augmenting the supply in some manner. Superior Farms was faced with the decision of either letting this "Employee-Owned company" shrink in concert with the domestic supply or developing viable alternatives. We also shared our concerns with the ASI through a very active l994 participation in the Industry Task Force and challenged the industry to develop an "Industry Strategic Plan" that would stabilize production and maintain the domestic industry's ability to meet the domestic demand for lamb in the United States. The end result was a discontinuance of the Industry Task Force. The events that I've stated in the early part of this letter then transpired.

Superior Farms had, and still has, an obligation to its 500-plus employee-owners to maintain the viability of this corporation. Therefore, we embarked on a trail, alone, to develop an alternative supply in order to maintain market presence and meet our customers’ "base demand" with a goal of consumer satisfaction as opposed to domestic product substitution.

The domestic lamb industry is witnessing this evolution to a global market. All meat species are faced with similar globalization competition:

• The beef industry with hundreds of thousands of tons of manufacturing beef entering the market each year.

• Pork — with European and Canadian imports.

• Veal — with European imports; and, now, finally

• Lamb — with New Zealand and Australian supply.

Even today, given the globalization of the domestic lamb markets, Superior is a minor factor in the gross tonnage of imported product.

These economic trends are irreversible as the world continues to shrink through the aid of transportation efficiencies, world-wide semi-skilled labor markets, new science and sanitation technology, packaging improvements, communications, and currency exchange rates (the Asian crisis).

In summary, Superior Farms, in its long-range strategic planning, continues to forecast domestic lamb as the mainstay of our merchandising programs. Hopefully, this adequately addresses your inquiry.

Dennis J. Breen
President/CEO
Superior Farms
Davis, California