Dear Sir,

In the August 20, 1998 issue you said what cattle were worth forty-five years ago.

This is what they were worth 70 years ago:

Seventy years ago, my Dad (L.H. Webb) bought 434 cows and calves from G.B. (Snooks) Mathers at $100 per pair. Half the calves were spring calves and half were winter calves. Dad bought them to put on the ranch he had just bought in Hemphill County from Bill Isaacs.

Arthur (Bud) Webb
Canadian, Texas

Dear Sir,

Livestock Weekly's recent article, "Ruling May Make a Moot Point of Feds' 'Safe Harbor' Pacts," contains an unfortunate error that may mislead its readers. The Alabama court case mentioned in the article did not involve an endangered species "safe harbor" agreement. Instead, it involved a challenge to a beachfront development project and related endangered species "habitat conservation plan." Plans such as that are being widely used by developers and major corporations as a way of offsetting environmental impacts from their various projects. In contrast, "safe harbor" agreements are being used by rural landowners to restore or enhance habitat that they can later eliminate or use in any way they wish, notwithstanding that endangered species may subsequently have occupied that habitat. The various safe harbor agreements currently in effect appear to be working well, landowners seem quite happy with them, and none has ever been challenged. The Alabama case is unlikely to affect safe harbor agreements, which, if properly designed, can be very useful to landowners. The article is certainly right that reform of the Endangered Species Act is badly needed, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association is working hard to achieve that reform. But in the meantime, we think safe harbor agreements are worthy of a landowner's consideration. They don't address all of the problems caused by this law, but they do constructively address at least some of them.

Jim McAdams
Chair, Property Rights &
Environmental Management Committee
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

(Editor’s note: We plead guilty to confusion and appreciate NCBA’s effort to set the record straight. In addition, if "safe harbor" agreements are still viable and useful, we hope the opponents of ESA reform are as confused as we are; otherwise, they are bound to target them as well.)