Dear Sir,
Just some thoughts on EPA that you may be able to use in your newspaper.

If we look at all the wild animals that are killed on our highways we come to several conclusions. Those animals are there because, in many cases, that is the best grass in the county. Therefore the EPA should have a constitutional and moral responsibility to file lawsuits against state and federal departments of highways to force them to remove all that grass and replace it all with black gravel, fence to fence. It would stop the death and suffering of so many animals, especially rabbits and deer, that are hit by cars.

If we look at the confrontational attitude of the EPA in Montana and New Mexico we wonder why. Since this is a long term problem we should be looking at long term solutions and cooperation. Why not have prisoners build a rock fence 12 feet high (with razor wire on top) around Yellowstone Park and every other area that EPA has an interest in. Then buffalo, bear and wolves would stay inside and ranchers would stay outside. It may take 100 years to complete, but we'll still have this problem in 100 years if we do not start.

Charles Eisler
Balmorhea, Texas

Dear Sir,
In a recent NCBA release concerning the United States International Trade Commission preliminary ruling to drop the Mexico cattle dumping case, NCBA stated that "The preliminary investigation by ITC gave the U.S. government a chance to fully review all the facts."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Last summer NCBA hired their own trade attorney to update them on the process that R-CALF had initiated. NCBA is very aware that the USITC Mexico ruling stopped the Department of Commerce from doing their investigation into antidumping violations of Mexican live cattle into the U.S.; i.e., there has not been nor will there be any investigation into unfair trade practice with Mexico that may be damaging U.S. cattle prices.

I'm sure this has brought a great sigh of relief from those who have enjoyed these cheap imports. However, the thousands and thousands of cattle producers who supported this case are now being denied their due process. Also, the Mexico ranchers who took the time to understand the antidumping remedies and were supportive of the R-CALF efforts will now also be denied their right to receive a fair value.

In 1996 the U.S. tomato growers filed an antidumping case against Mexico which resulted in an increase in prices for both the U.S. and Mexico tomato producers. As one Mexican tomato producer told us recently, "It was the best thing that ever happened to the Mexican tomato market."

In the case of the R-CALF Mexico petition, cattle producers on both sides of the border would have benefited. However, those who had been involved with trade practices that were depressing U.S. domestic prices and taking advantage of the Mexican cattle producer would have been required to pay fair value to the Mexican cattle producer or pay an equivalent violation value to U.S. Customs. The most disappointing part of the whole effort was that our greatest opposition was not Mexico — it came from within our own industry.

Leo McDonnell
President, R-CALF