Dear Sir,
Wade Choate's letter criticizing the futures market awakened old memories of a similar trap in which I was caught about 20 years ago. I was taken for nice hunk of change and I haven't played the futures game since. Most of this time since, I haven't made a big profit and I'm sure we producers lose plenty indirectly by way of Chicago, but I haven't visited with any of the young financial sharks since that time. It sure is tempting, though, with the multitude of good-intended advice coming daily from our college brethren.

Wade, I don't believe you and I nor any of our children will ever again see the day of good, honest, open, active competition for our fat cattle by the packers, or of vigorous, open price competition among the retailers to sell beef.

Supermarkets want to keep a meat glut because it allows them to buy cheaply. They sell at the highest prices and volume so as to keep their costs low and profits high. The old grocery competition is gone and one needs to question the giving of checkoff dollars to an industry that has a vested interest in holding sales down and keeping profits per sale high.

The packers, so concentrated as they are and so protected by our "for sale" government, are ignoring any price-fixing laws which should help protect us. Packer control of captive cattle is one of the real problems, and this gets worse every month with increased packer feedyard ownership and marketing agreements. Feedyard managers are intimidated and scared of the packers, and there are rumors of lesson-teaching boycotts. Some managers are said to use a good pen of cattle to sell other inferior cattle. This may be unfair, but I wonder if there are not also a few questionable manager-packer relationships.

If we producers owned and controlled our own feedyards and we were united in purpose, we could say to the packer, "when a pen of our cattle reach 1100 pounds they will be placed on a maintenance ration. You will buy them before we will offer you any other cattle." After the fuss, the weights would be down about five percent.

If you could get paid for more Choice cattle, you could leave out the implants. It is a proven fact that the percentage of Choice cattle will rise form 50 to 70. Of course, the cost of gain will rise, but the point is that this is a quick way to improve quality. For 30 years, any increase in cattle tonnage has meant less total dollars to the producer.

As for the beef checkoff program, I wish someone could explain to me how anyone not paying the assessment should be on the board, directing how the money is spent. It also seems strange that the payers cannot even vote on keeping or not keeping the program, and I resent the spending of my money to re-educate and re-indoctrinate me so that I will accept the political garbage of the management. My feedyard, which I believe is a good one, regularly sells the sick cattle for 10 to 50 dollars each. Want to guess on whether or not the one dollar is collected on these big losers? I would still vote for the program if all the money were spent for advertising and beneficial political action. Thanks, Wade Choate.

Norman Hahn
Jayton, Texas

Dear Sir,
I was really pleased to see two articles in your paper last week that have been high on my list of gripes.

One was my old friend Wade Choate's letter on the commodities market and the disastrous affect it has on the live cattle market. Prior to the Chicago Mercantile's intervention, a person could sometimes predict cattle prices by virtue of cattle numbers, weather conditions, etc. Now it all depends on the big money people, corporations, and banks dealing in the commodities. Instead of getting less CME, we get more. Now you can trade (gamble) on the feeder cattle also.

Where is the NCBA that is supposed to help us with our checkoff dollars? The problem is, NCBA supports the CME, world trade and many other issues I don't support, and I feel lots of other cow-calf people agree with me.

The other was your editorial on changing beef grading because of the change in cattle breeds plus the scare of fat meat put on us wrongly by the medical profession and others. How can we blame people for eating chicken when it is so consistently tender and beef at cafes is so inconsistent? Recently my wife and I were in Clayton, N.M., where cattle are king and they have three feedlots. We saw a sign advertising a steak special and went in to participate in a good meal. That has to be one of the worst steaks I ever tried to eat, even after sending the first one back. Road kill would have been a step up in quality.

The grading system needs to return to the old Prime, Choice and Good system we had before the packers changed it to their monetary advantage. Meat is not consistent without marbling in spite of all the university and other studies trying to find genetic and other reasons to the contrary. Again, where is NCBA with all the money I contribute annually?

William C. Haverlah
Santa Rosa, NM

Dear Sir,
It was interesting to see in your February 25, 1999 issue that the beef industry's team is hard at work developing convenient products to increase beef and veal sales.

I sincerely feel these scientific types have seen the light. The only real problem is this should have been happening in February 1949, not 1999.

The chicken and fish folks have left us so far behind, it will be another 50 years before we catch up.

I'm a faithful subscriber to your newspaper. Keep up the good work.

D.M. Martin
Willcox, Arizona

Dear Sir,
Right at this time, the United States Senate is under extreme pressure to ratify the United Nations' International Criminal Court treaty. This treaty will subject every private U.S. citizen and military member to a United Nations Criminal Court, and it is without question the most dangerous threat to our freedom and liberty you and I have ever faced.

It is imperative that the senators hear from us, the grassroots, and to know that we do not want nor need this treaty! Senators Gramm and Hutchison have been very responsive in the direction of protecting the citizens of this country, but Sen. Trent Lott is being pressured to bring it up for ratification, and without OUR opposition on HIS desk, he just might decide to do so. It is he alone who will decide if the ICC treaty will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote. He can decide to ignore it, refuse the vote and kill the treaty. With enough opposition to this treaty from you and me, this is just what he might do. It is of utmost importance that we leave him no other choice, by calling his office, or by sending faxes or e-mail letters to his office and creating the pressure that is needed. Senator Trent Lott's address is simply: Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. His fax number is (202) 224-2262. His e-mail address is senatorlott@lott.senate.gov.

If you and I don't stop this UN treaty, I sincerely believe there will be no stopping the UN's drive for global power. This treaty will give the UN the power to try private American citizens for "crimes against UN treaties."

Think about what this means:

American soldiers, pilots and commanders can be arrested, jailed and even executed for war crimes when the U.S. military launches attacks on terrorists!

American ranchers and loggers could be tried for violating UN environmental treaties.

Parents who spank their children can be arrested and jailed for violating the UN's "Rights of the Child Treaty."

The judges who will decide the fate of these Americans can be from countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Communist China and Cuba.

And the U.S. government will be powerless to stop it!

What type of defense would a private American citizen be able to mount against such a powerful international court? If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will shred our Constitutional guarantees to fair and impartial justice. Under this treaty, American citizens and military members:

Will not have the right to a speedy trial by jury.
Will not have the right to reasonable bail.
Will not have the right to confront their accusers.
Will not have the right to cross-examine witnesses.
You will have no rights whatsoever in the U.N. Criminal Court!

If you have never written or called your senators, this is the time to do so. It doesn't take much! All you have to do is tell them, "Kill the United Nations' treaty establishing a United Nations International Criminal Court. Period!" A phone call or fax costs only about 10 cents, so money should not persuade you not to do something. Never underestimate what your voice can do to influence Washington and the way they vote!

Again, please let Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and, especially, Senator Trent Lott hear from you immediately!

Mrs. Rae Lehmberg
Mason, Texas

Dear Sir,
Jose Peña, Extension economist, provided a solid analysis of the domestic lamb industry section 201 trade case regarding lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand in the March 11 issue of Livestock Weekly. In particular, he detailed the industry's request for a strong tariff-rate quota that would bring price equity between American lamb and cheap foreign lamb, which has been flooding the U.S. market. In addition, I would like to point out that the U.S. International Trade Commission voted unanimously in February that imports posed a serious threat to the U.S. lamb industry. This is a strong signal to the administration and the Congress that relief needs to be implemented.

Also, by law, importers cannot "retaliate" against trade action for at least three years. The political environment is right now to make headway on trade action. In fact, more attention is being paid to agriculture and the devastation uncontrolled imports have had on various industries now than ever before. The U.S. lamb industry and its supporting members of Congress can secure effective trade relief through the administration. The Commission will recommend trade remedy to the White house by the first week of April, which gives the administration 60 days to decide on implementation. I would caution Mr. Peña's comparison of lamb to the cotton industry, since sheep producers have no price support, no marketing loans, and no processor programs, all of which the cotton industry does have.

The industry greatly appreciates your continued coverage of the critical lamb import situation and resulting trade case, which, by the way, is closely followed by many in the agriculture community.

Peter Orwick
Executive Director
American Sheep Industry Association