NCA 2009 President's Award Recipient - The Progressive Rancher ...

NCA 2009 

President’s 

Award 

Recipient

Living in the Now, 

Preparing for the Future 

For many of us, our goals in life remain constant: financial independence 

and providing for family. Striking a balance between saving 

for goals, such as education and retirement, and allocating 

money for daily expenses can be challenging. But you can do it. 

Learn how you can redefine your savings approach 

toward education and retirement. Call or visit today. 

Sonny Davidson, AAMS® 

Financial Advisor 

. 

2213 North 5th Street 

Suite A 

Elko, NV 89801 

775-738-8811 

Jason B Land, AAMS® 

Financial Advisor 

. 

2213 North 5th Street 

Suite A 


775-738-8811 

In this Issue... 

Nevada Cattlemen’s Assn..............pgs. 3-4 

Photo Contest Winner ........................pg. 5 

Obituary: Duilio P. Bottari..................pg.8 

Eye on the Outside...........................pg. 10 

Flying In the Face of 

Common Sense ................................pg. 11 

Fumes from the Farm.......................pg. 13 

Cattleman’s Connection 

Sale Report.......................................pg. 14 

Ramblings of a Ranch Wife.............pg. 14 

The Future of Nevada Ranching: Do 

Rancher’s Property Rights Matter?..pg. 15 

Assembly Bill 227.....................pgs. 18-19 

ENLC: Smith Valley Restoration Project – 

Vegetation Response Report.....pgs. 20-21 

Selecting Alfalfa Varieties................pg. 23 

BQA: Cattle Handling and 

Stockmanship Skills..................pgs. 26-27 

Beef Checkoff...................................pg. 26 

Look Up: Superman.........................pg. 28 

Shaw Cattle Sale Report...................pg. 29 

Gateway Leg.: Horse Tripping Today, 

Your Livelihood Tomorrow?............pg. 30 

The Return of 

Domestic Horse Processing:............pg. 31 

Range Plants for the Rancher: 

Western Yarrow................................pg. 33 

Edward Jones: Financial Focus........pg. 34 

Humboldt Watershed CWMA 

Canada Thistle..................................pg. 35 

www.edwardjones.com Member SIPC 

NVSRM: National Resources Inventory – 

Grazing Land On-Site Study............pg. 24 

Federal Coordination 

with County Plans............................pg. 25 

Why Control the First 

Noxious Weeds?........................pgs. 36-37 

Coloring Page...................................pg. 39 

The Progressive Rancher 

Owner/Editor/Publisher – Leana Stitzel 

progressiverancher@elko.net 

Graphic Design/Layout/Production – Julie Eardley 

julie@jeprographics.com 

Cover Photo: by Jessica Uhalde, “Nevada” 

America’s 

greatness is 

the greatness 

of her people. 

—Barry Goldwater / George W. Romney 

Mailed to more than 6,000 individuals with approved addresses each month. 

The Progressive Rancher is published monthly. The views and opinions expressed by writers of 

articles appearing in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor. Letters of opinion 

are welcomed by The Progressive Rancher. 

Rates for advertising are available upon request. Advertising in The Progressive Rancher 

does not necessarily imply editorial endorsement. Liability for any errors or omissions in 

advertisements shall not exceed the cost of the space occupied by the error or omission. 

The Progressive Rancher is free to people working and active in the livestock industry. The 

Progressive Rancher is donated to the agricultural industry. If you are not currently receiving 

this magazine on a regular basis, and would like to be a part of The Progressive Rancher family, 

contact us by e-mail at progressiverancher@elko.net, today, so we can include you on our 

mailing list. If you have moved or changed addresses, please notify us, by e-mail, so we can 

keep you informed. All requests for the magazine must be made by e-mail. 

Leana Stitzel, Owner/Editor 

1188 Court St., #81, Elko, NV 89801 

(208) 733-1828 • progressiverancher@elko.net 

WWW.PROGRESSIVERANCHER.COM 

Ads sent to or built by The Progressive Rancher become property of this magazine. 

2 April 2013 


www.progressiverancher.com

As we look forward to spring and turnout, 

many producers across the west are still 

facing drought conditions. While some areas of Nevada 

have received good precipitation from last fall through 

the winter, many locations are in need of spring rains to 

help the range. As I travel across the state and look at 

varying range conditions, areas of rehabilitated burns, 

and some empty allotments, I can’t help but to think 

about how the beef industry will rebuild after the last 

couple of years. 

On thing is for certain, the low national inventory of beef 

cows is reflected in the shrinking number of Nevada beef 

cows. This drought has reached the entire beef industry from 

the Midwest to Pacific and from the Canadian border to the 

Mexican border. With the continued uncertainty surrounding 

much of our federal land grazing system, I expect to see further 

contraction of the beef inventory in the coming months. 

Now none of this is breaking news to anyone or should 

be alarming at this point. The reason I bring it up is to remind 

us all that we will turn the corner and when we do, there is 

going to be a huge demand for breeding cattle both here in 

Nevada and across the country. As the drought weakens in 

some areas of the country, there will be a movement of breeding 

stock into those areas, and this stock often comes from 

areas not yet recovered in addition to replacements bred from 

across the country. 

On March 10th, 2013 the federal rule on Animal Disease 

and Traceability officially went into effect. This rule is going 

to have an impact on how cattle are moved from state to state 

and region to region. While we may not be looking to import 

large numbers of cattle into Nevada yet, we quite possibly 

will be looking at sending some cattle out of the state, at least 

temporarily. The process we as producers will go through to 

accomplish this is most likely going to be different to what 

we have done in the past. 

We all celebrated the inclusion of brands in the ADT rule 

when it was published. The thing we must keep in mind is 

that the use of brands will be determined by states and tribes 

and rely upon agreements entered into between these entities. 

There are cases when the use of brands would be acceptable 

to animal health professionals and producers alike. Some 

of these are movement to sale barns, directly to slaughter, 

and to approved facilities for feeding. Further processing of 

animals may take palace at these destinations and additional 

identification such as back tags can be applied at that time. 

The use of brands is not an acceptable form of identification 

in all cases however. 

As I mentioned above, the beef industry is going to 

experience a period of growth in future years. As this happens, 

animals will be entering breeding herds from sources 

that some operations have not used in the past. The Nevada 

Cattlemen’s Association is committed to protecting the resident 

cow herd of Nevada and encourages a strong traceability 

program so that future disease outbreaks can rapidly be 

investigated. The rules of traceability and the need for more 

rapid traceability are changing. We must adapt as producers 

to meet these demands. 

I am not saying that brands cannot and should not be 

used. I am saying that as industry, we must meet animal 

health professionals part way and reach a solution we can all 

live with. The use of additional forms of ID is being accepted 

and used by more and more producers throughout Nevada. 

Part of the reason for this is market driven for sure. There will 

continue to be higher prices paid for cattle that meet identification 

requirements to be exported to foreign markets. This 

will most likely lead to a larger percentage of producers using 

acceptable forms of ID for these markets and programs. 

The capture of these identifications and application into a 

database is going to be a challenge for some smaller states 

with limited budgets such as ours, and we must work with our 

state agency to facilitate this in any manner we can. 

There will be much discussion on what type of ID to use 

and when it is put in. As a producer and veterinarian, I may 

have a little different outlook on this than some, but I think 

we all agree that the less time we spend recording IDs and 

the safer it is on our livestock, the better. That said there has 

been an increase in the application of RFID tags (electronic) 

in recent years. The problem is that the subsequent scanning 

of these tags is still far from perfect. Unless the animals are 

individually stopped in a chute, we are going to miss some 

numbers as they pass by in an ally or loading chute. I do believe 

that this form of ID shows great potential, but we must 

allow technology to catch up before we implement its use on 

a wider scale. The uses of bangs vaccination tags and bright 

tags (the silver tags that resemble bangs tags) have been used 

to ID cattle for decades. They do work well however retention 

is an issue and the obvious downside is the reading of these 

tags and recording of them. This form of ID is time consuming 

when cattle are to be shipped and errors in recording the 

numbers are not impossible. 

Thankfully for Nevada, animals under 18 months of 

age are not affected by the current rule and the vast majority 

of our exports will continue pretty much as it has for the 

past few years. The change is going to be felt when we start 

selling cows for replacements, shipping cows out of state for 

pasture, and importing breeding cattle. We are fortunate to 

have a very supportive Department of Agriculture and Office 

of State Veterinarian. Many agreements with neighboring 

states have been worked out for commuter herds. These 

agreements will require an affidavit stating the animals are 

individual identified, but allow them to move on a brand 

without listing all numbers in some cases. Remember that 

not all states have an agreement with Nevada and there will 

be additional health requirements (that may require ID’s) in 

addition to the ADT rule. 

The take home message from all of this is simple. Plan 

ahead and communicate with your herd veterinarian regularly. 

Many state veterinarians are willing to work with producers 

and their veterinarians when importing and exporting 

animals, but these requests cannot be made while the trucks 

are at the chute. In instances when ID is going to be required, 

the sooner we can start the process the better. If you are planning 

on shipping cattle out of state, recording IDs at the time 

of vaccinating or pregnancy testing is a good idea. Together 

we can figure out how we are going to move cattle under this 

rule and in the future. There will be changes and they will be 

for the better in the long run. If we are to remain a leader in 

the worldwide beef industry, we are going to have to adapt. 

UPDATE 

J.J. 

Goicoechea 

DVM 

Nevada 

Cattlemen’s 

Association 

President 

www.progressiverancher.com The Progressive Rancher 

April 2013 3

Nevada Cattlemen’s Association 

By Desiree Seal, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association Executive Director 

Well, another month has passed, with some much needed moisture I must 

say, as compared to last year anyways. I also have to say that up until this 

point in the month, I haven’t gotten out of the office much. Reviewing many documents 

from agencies and legislative hearings has kept me indoors. Luckily, the last part of 

the month is looking like I may get to be out on the ground with some permittees. The 

one large event that I got to be out of the office (still indoors, but 

not at a desk) was our NCA Legislative Breakfast. 

March 7th was this year’s Agricultural Recognition Day at the 

Legislature, and it was a huge success! 

Our Legislative Breakfast kicked off the day with a presentation 

by Dr. Tom Harris of the UNR Economics Department. Dr. 

Harris has been working on a model on the economic impact of 

public lands grazing. He presented his initial research and estimations 

at the Legislative Breakfast. While we were pleased with his 

presentation, we were even more pleased at the interest of Legislatures 

in attendance. Ag Day at the Legislature also featured a 

lunch and dinner, and, many booths by agriculture groups such as 

Nevada Department of Agriculture, Dairy Farmers of American, Nevada Grown, Nevada 

Farm Bureau Federation, Nevada FFA, NV Energy, USDA-FSA and NRCS, Nevada Dairy 

Commission and Northern Nevada Development Authority. The event was very well attended 

for our first year and we hope to continue to put on a successful Ag Day during each 

legislative session. 

Speaking of Legislature, things are heating up on both the state and national level. 

With the state legislature in full swing, our lobbyist Neena Laxalt, is working hard to 

F a r m ■ R a n c h ■ A g r i b u sin e s s 

For a complete review of your insurance needs and details on coverage 

and credits available, contact our Farm and Ranch specialist: 

Oregon Mutual Insurance Company 

Protecting families and businesses in the West since 1894 

HomeownSolutions_Qtr page ad_2.indd 1 

4 April 2013 

301 Silver Street elko, Nevada 89801 

775-777-9771 

“As we approach the deadline 

of 2015 for USFWS’ decision 

to list or not to list greater 

sage grouse, we hope to keep 

members well informed. our 

members about the facts.” 

6/21/2010 9:15:38 AM 


represent our values and speak for our concerns. There are over 50 BDRs that we are 

monitoring with staff and our lobbyist. For more information visit the Nevada Legislature 

website at www.leg.state.nv.us. The website contains full copies of all bills, the option to 

watch hearings live, comment on bills you are interested in, and learn more about the legislative 

process. If there is a bill that you feel may affect our industry that may not be being 

watched by the Association, please let us know. If you would like 

more information regarding these or any other bills please call the 

Nevada Cattlemen’s Association office at 1-775-738-9214. Next 

month, members will attend the PLC/NCBA Legislative Conference. 

Please tune in next month for an update of the annual PLC/ 

NCBA Legislative Conference in Washington D.C. 

Lastly for issues updates, the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem 

Council met in February and will meet again March 27. Top priorities 

for the Council are the discussion of model of mapping efforts 

for sagebrush ecosystem efforts and development of the Sagebrush 

Ecosystem Mitigation Bank. At the February meeting, the Council 

discussed the various mapping models available to use for mapping 

sage grouse habitat. At the March 27th meeting, the Council is prepared to discuss 

further one of those such models, Dr. Peter Coates’ model, and the cost and timeframe 

for implementing this model. The council also tasked the Technical Team with gathering 

inventory of projects being completed or having been completed by local area work groups 

and sagebrush ecosystem projects between the two meetings. At the March 27th meeting, 

the Technical Team will give their report regarding these topics. For more information, 

please visit www.sagebrusheco.nv.gov . 

For more information each month, check out the column in the NCA newsletter Sage 

Signals, The Power of Conservation and Ranching on: SAGE HEN, SAGEBRUSH AND 

STEWARDSHIP. As we approach the deadline of 2015 for USFWS’ decision to list or not 

to list greater sage grouse, we hope to keep members well informed. Each decade brings on 

different issues for public lands ranchers, and this decade seems to be the possible listing 

of greater sage grouse. There is an abundance of information available about sage grouse; 

we have decided it is best to educate our members about the facts. What is going on with 

sage grouse in the State and across the west? What opportunities are available to ranchers 

to encourage stewardship of the range and sage grouse habitat? This column will serve as 

an area to keep you informed on the progress of the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, 

provide you with information to support a sustainable ranch operation while conserving 

sage grouse habitat, and anything else you may have questions on. 

A large discussion at NCA is the possibility of changing the office headquarters. At our 

February Board of Directors meeting last month, the Board voted to explore other options 

for office management for approval during the summer Board meeting. The NCA Officers 

currently met and made the executive decision to postpone the move until after the 2013 

Convention in November to allow for membership awareness and input. 

Currently, our office is housed next to American Ag Credit and has served as a good 

location. However, when NCA originally moved into this location, NCA and Nevada Beef 

Council shared the space, and expenses. With the move of NBC in 2006 and increased 

operating costs, our current office space is out of our budget. The Office Management 

Committee, as appointed at Board Meeting, has put together a virtual office proposal. 

Virtual office is another term for working from home. The current proposal provides a stipend 

to the Executive Director and Executive Secretary in exchange for office space from 

their home and staff would be provided all necessary off-site communication needed (i.e. 

computer, printers, phone, fax). 

PLEASE NOTE, this is just one proposal. For the full proposal and discussion about 

the virtual office proposal, refer to the NCA Physical Office versus Implementing a Virtual 

Office Environment document in the NCA newsletter Sage Signals. Please let us know your 

thoughts and concerns with this proposal. 

If you are not currently a member of Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, we encourage 

you to join. Become part of an association that is working to protect the future of ranching 

in Nevada. To learn more about the Association or to become a member, please call the 

office at 1-775-738-9214 or visit our webpage www.nevadacattlemen.org. We look forward 

to hearing from you! If you are currently a member, thank you for your continued support. 

Without your membership, the Association’s voice could not be as strong as it is today. 


The Progressive R ancher 

newly earmarked 

angus A 

calf, peeking out from 

tall grasses was chosen 

as the winning entry in 

the recently completed 

Progressive Rancher 

photo contest. This is a 

quintessential depiction 

of American agriculture: 

private property, 

grass, and livestock. 

The photo submitted 

by Cindy Sitz of the 

Sitz Ranch near Drewsey, 

Oregon, was selected 

from among sixty-seven 

submissions from Nevada, 

Idaho, Utah, and Oregon. 

Cindy received an 

iPod from The Progressive 

Rancher Magazine and her 

photo was featured on the 

cover of the March 2013 

issue of the magazine. 

Other “honorable 

mention” photos are also 

featured on this page. 

WINNERS 

Here’s Looking at You! by Cindy Sitz 

Nevada Ranchers 

Caretakers of our 

Rangelands 

Cowboys and sheepherders 

produce food and fiber for 

the nation. Growing food 

on Open range is a natural 

biological process. 

Grazing actually benefits the 

land with hoof action and natural 

fertilization. Plants are healthier 

and regenerate faster after the 

herds move to a new range. 

Antelope and other game animals 

and birds take advantage of the 

improvements made by ranchers. 

Honorable 

Mention 

Heading Out to 

Gather 

by Alex Carone 

New Mexico 

Grazing cattle and sheep coexist 

peacefully with native wildlife 

and, in fact, make a friendlier 

habitat for many species. 

Honorable 

Mention 

The Hat 

by Cindy Sitz 

Sheep often graze on 

steep terrain and can 

control cheatgrass, a 

major fuel for wildfires. 

Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission was created by 

the State of Nevada to promote responsible public land grazing. 

Representatives come from Nevada state grazing boards, Nevada 

Woolgrowers, Nevada Farm Bureau, and Nevada Cattlemen’s Association. 

4780 East Idaho Steet, Elko, NV 89801 • 775-738-4082 

WWW.NEVADARANGELANDS.ORG 

This ad is funded through the NRRC’s assessment of 10 cents an AUM paid by public land ranchers. 


April 2013 5

John Hays 

Agricultural Banking 

Specialist 

775.525.6744 

NEVADA AGRICULTURE IS MY BUSINESS. 

I’m committed to helping Nevada ranchers and farmers succeed. As an agricultural banking specialist, I’ll find 

the right financial products* for your unique needs. Operating lines. Equipment financing. Livestock purchases. 

Real estate transactions. I know Nevada agriculture, and I’m ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work for you. 

Bring your banking home. 

® 

53 years in Nevada 

Over 50 branches statewide 

nsbank.com | 1.866.451.5018 

*Loans subject to credit approval, restrictions apply 

6 April 2013 



Cooperative Extension 

Announces Weed 

Management and Grazing 

Management Workshops 

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, in cooperation with the Nevada Department 

of Agriculture and Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, announces two upcoming 

workshops in the Elko area. 

• Weed Extravaganza, April 30 – May 2, California Trail Interpretive 

Center: This event includes the Elko Weed Summit (4/30), Pesticide 

Applicator Training and Weed Management & Identification (5/1), 

and Testing for Restricted Use Pesticide/Herbicide Certification (5/2). A 

total of 14 continuing education units (CEUs) are anticipated. 

• Strategic & Targeted Grazing Workshop, May 22 – 23, Great Basin 

College, Greeenhaw Technical Arts Building Room 130: This workshop 

focuses on the science and practical use of livestock as a tool for 

reduction of invasive weeds, wildlife habitat enhancement, and fuel load 

modification to reduce wildfire threat. 

Questions can be directed to Kent McAdoo (mcadook@unce.unr.edu; 775-738-1251). 

Scholarship Opportunity 

for Students Studying Natural 

Resources, Agriculture 

The Nevada Association of Conservation Districts (NvACD) is offering a scholarship 

for students pursuing higher education in the field of renewable natural resources, 

agriculture, or a related field. Current high school seniors and students already attending a 

post-secondary program are encouraged to apply. 

The application form is available online at http://www.nv.nrcs.usda.gov/nvacd.html. 

Applications with all relevant letters of reference and attachments are due by April 30, 

2013. Late and incomplete applications will not be accepted. 

For more information, contact: Nevada Association of Conservation Districts; Jake 

Tibbitts, President; PO Box 571; Eureka, NV 89316; (775) 237-6010. 

Upcoming Sales 

Wednesday, April 10 TH 

Holiday Inn, Visalia, CA 

Thursday, May 2 nd 

Cottonwood, CA 

Thursday, May 23 rd 

Cottonwood, CA 

WATCH & LISTEN TO THE SALE on the Web at: 

IRISH BLACK CATTLE 

Registered Bulls & Females 

Logan River Ranch, Logan, Utah 

Lane Parker 435-757-4643 cel. 

www.Irishblackcattle.net 


April 2013 7

Lifetime Lamoille Rancher, Duilio P. Bottari, passed away on February 21st, 

2013, after a long battle with Alzheimer’s, surrounded by his loving family. 

Duilio was born on October 7th, 1922 to Pete and Guiditta Bottari. He spent his entire 

life on the ranch in Lamoille. Duilio and his brother John would ride their horses to the 

Lamoille School where he attended school until the eighth grade. At that time Duilio 

had to quit school and work on the Bottari Ranch. 

On June 21st, 1950 Duilio married EllaMay Allan. Together they raised six hardworking 

children. Ranching required long hours, lots of hard work and Duilio rarely 

had time for anything else except family and friends. Duilio did make some time for 

hunting deer, elk, bighorn sheep and eventually a mountain goat. 

Duilio also loved going for a Sunday afternoon drive or for a picnic in his beloved 

Ruby Mountains. He was a man of few words, had an amazing handshake and a sparkle 

in his light blue eyes. We will miss him always. 

Duilio was preceded in death by his parents, Pete and Guiditta, brother John 

and sister-in-law Betty, daughter Peggy Bottari Roberts, and granddaughter Allison 

Bottari. 

Duilio is survived by his wife of 63 years, EllaMay, sons Pete (Karen), Paul 

(Lori), Perry (Lorri), Bart (Jen) and daughter Pam (Tom Johnson), grandchildren 

Amber(Dave), Josh(Tory), Jason(Stephanie), Sarah(Ryan), Brooke(Kevin), Brittany, 

Abby(Rob), Jacob, Megan(Marc), Makenna, Brenden, Gresyn, 7 great grandchildren, 

many nieces, nephews, honorary children and grandchildren. 

The Bottari Family would like to thank caregiver, Gail McDaniel, for taking 

such good care of our husband and dad. Your time and care over the last six years was 

invaluable. 

Duilio P. Bottari 

1922 — 2013 

Photo by Leana Stitzel, 1993 

A Rosary was held on Friday, March 1st at Burns Mortuary in Elko, Nevada. 

The family will host a celebration of his life in the spring when the grass is green 

and the cows are turned out. We will let you know the time and place so you can join 

us in the celebration. 

The family requests that instead of flowers, donations can be made to the Lamoille 

Rancher’s Center in c/o Nanette Peterson, 170 Rocking Chair Unit 6, Spring Creek, 

Nevada 89815. 

8 April 2013 



OFFICE: 775-423-7760 

JACK PAYNE Cell: 775-217-9273 

Alt: 775-225-8889 

Email: nevadalm@yahoo.com 

Full-Service Cattle Sales & Marketing serving the Fallon, Nevada and Outlying Areas. 

Sales Results from 

March 20 & 21, 2013 

Regular Butcher Cow, Bull, Feeder, Bred Cow & Pair Sale 

Seller 

City 

# 

Head 

Desc. Type Weight Price CWT 

Truckee River Ranch Fallon 4/4 BLK Cow/Calf 1495 $1,720/hd 

REGULAR SALE 

Every Wednesday 

Sales Results from 

March 20 & 21, 2013 

Regular Butcher Cow, Bull, Feeder, Bred Cow & Pair Sale 

Seller 

City 

# 

Head 

Desc. Type Weight Price CWT 

John & Terry Cooper Oakdale 12 BLK STR 814 $114.25 

Woodrow & Linda Cunrod Reno 1/1 BLK Cow/Calf 1460 $1,485/hd 

Star Bar Cattle Yerington 1/1 BLK Cow/Calf 1440 $1,300/hd 

Jim Cantrelle Austin 41 3&4 yr Old BLK 7&8 mo Bred 1028 $1,270/hd 

Truckee River Ranch Fallon 4 BLK Bred Cow 1441 $1,170/hd 

Lamar Roche Parma 4 BLK STR 325 $189.00 

Lamar Roche Parma 5 BLK STR 415 $169.00 

Charles & Monte Wadsworth Hiko 2 BLK STR 373 $173.00 

Charles & Monte Wadsworth Hiko 5 BBF STR 444 $164.50 

Gandolfo Ranches Austin 15 BLK STR 347 $171.00 

Gandolfo Ranches Austin 12 MIX STR 411 $170.00 

Silver Creek Ranch Inc Austin 15 MIX B/C 360 $171.00 

Silver Creek Ranch Inc Austin 10 MIX B/C 360 $171.00 

Corkill Bros Inc Fallon 8 MIX STR 434 $164.00 

Corkill Bros Inc Fallon 14 MIX STR 516 $140.25 

Bill Licklers Jerome 1 BLK STR 295 $161.00 

Windy R Ranch Washoe Valley 3 BLK STR 327 $160.00 

Stone Cabin Ranch LLC Tonopah 9 CHAR STR 389 $159.50 

Stage Stop Ranch Austin 4 MIX STR 415 $158.00 

Donald & Kenneth Harmon Fallon 3 BLK STR 462 $155.00 

Donald & Kenneth Harmon Fallon 1 BLK STR 615 $138.50 

C-Ranches Inc Beowawe 47 BLK STR 567 $150.75 

C-Ranches Inc Beowawe 9 RD STR 580 $150.25 

Anita Fillmore Fallon 2 BBF B/C 433 $150.00 

Jim & Maureen Assuras McGill 6 BLK STR 538 $147.00 

Trevor & Jake Wade Alamo 4 MIX STR 465 $147.00 

Joe Tibbals Yerington 5 BLK STR 611 $146.00 

Joe Tibbals Yerington 7 BLK STR 594 $144.00 

Robb Goings Fallon 2 BBF STR 438 $143.00 

Small Barn at 10:30 AM 

Cows at 11:30 AM 

Feeder Cattle at 1:00 PM 

Café 

Open on Sale Days 

Stop by and have a 

Homestyle Burger 

SALES 

Feeder Sale 

in conjunction 

with our 

Regular Wednesday sale 

April 17 th & 18 th 

Craig & Margie Burbank Carlin 6 BLK STR 509 $139.00 

Guy Fowler Fallon 10 MIX STR 640 $138.50 

Guy Fowler Fallon 21 BLK STR 679 $128.50 

Simon Fisher Gardnerville 2 MIX STR 618 $138.00 

Brinkerhoff Ranch Lovelock 3 BLK STR 573 $136.00 

Daniel McDougall Fallon 5 MIX STR 569 $131.00 

Eve & Benz Tschannen Fallon 9 BLK STR 502 $129.00 

Fidel Carricaburu Battle Mountain 3 BLK STR 703 $126.00 

Fidel Carricaburu Battle Mountain 2 BLK STR 820 $120.50 

Kevin Jenkins Fernley 1 BBF STR 770 $124.50 

Jessica Brown Carson City 4 RD STR 768 $123.00 

Badger Ranch Battle Mountain 6 BLK STR 812 $121.25 

Kevin Cole Fallon 3 MIX STR 807 $120.50 

Rocky Hatch Hiko 5 MIX STR 735 $120.00 

Stage Stop Ranch Austin 9 BLK HFR 349 $155.00 

Silver Creek Ranch Inc Austin 6 BLK HFR 410 $141.50 

Brinkerhoff Ranch Lovelock 3 BLK HFR 413 $140.50 

Tory Pomi Fallon 18 BLK HFR 490 $132.50 

Nevada First Land & Cattle Winnemucca 29 BLK HFR 609 $131.50 

Nevada First Land & Cattle Winnemucca 14 BLK HFR 680 $124.00 

Manuel Jimenez Paradise Valley 2 BLK HFR 515 $124.50 

Gene Heckman Winnemucca 25 MIX HFR 613 $122.75 

Boomer Ranches Fallon 2 BLK HFR 765 $116.50 

Jessica Brown Carson City 3 MIX HFR 728 $116.00 

Richard & Teresa Braun Winnemucca 5 BLK HFR 654 $115.00 

31 Ranch Fallon 1 BLK HFRTT 1045 $95.00 

Naggin' Woman Ranch Winnemucca 1 BLK HFRTT 1150 $87.50 

Michael & Marian Gottschalk Lovelock 1 WF COW 1180 $76.00 

Truckee River Ranch Fallon 4 BLK B/C 574 $142.00 

Michael & Claudia Casey Fallon 8 MIX STR 481 $140.50 

Michael & Claudia Casey Fallon 4 MIX STR 340 $140.00 



Butcher cows on Wednesday 

Feeder cattle on Thursday 

starting at 11 AM 

Sam Lompa Carson City 1 BLRN COW 1445 $73.25 

Sam Lompa Carson City 1 BCHX COW 1645 $72.00 

Jeff Whitaker Fallon 1 HOLSTEIN HFRTT 1385 $80.50 

Oasis Dairy LLC Fallon 1 HOLSTEIN COW 2020 $68.50 

Oasis Dairy LLC Fallon 1 HOLSTEIN COW 1830 $68.00 

Look for Weekly Market Reports at www.nevadalivestock.us 

We have 4 cattle trains available for your cattle hauling needs. 

We can haul approx. 80,000# of cattle per load either to our sale or in the country. Give us a call for pricing. 

TO ALL OF OUR CONSIGNORS & BUYERS 


April 2013 9

By Joe Guild 

You have all heard the phrase “she must be living in a 

parallel universe”. To me, this means while I and the 

other person may be moving or thinking, we are not doing so in a way in which our 

thoughts or bodies will ever converge so we will arrive at the same place. In one respect, 

no two minds will ever have the exact same thought or conclude exactly the same 

way on a given subject. Therefore, we are doomed to live in parallel universes. The 

best we can hope for is to come to similar conclusions or travel similar paths through 

life so we have some measure of a mutual understanding. One of the road blocks to 

such a meeting of the minds is the places from which we start may be so distinct from 

one another we may never come to a productive consensus. This is one of the problems 

people in agriculture, in general and federal land ranchers specifically face all the 

time. This is because there are so few of us occupying our universe and so many others 

occupying the other universe. 

In recent weeks two small pieces from the New York Times editorial page caused me 

to ponder and conclude what I have written above. Both pieces had 

relevance to the use of federal lands for livestock grazing. 

Often when I haven’t had an original thought for a while I 

turn to the New York Times and my blood boils sufficiently that 

my brain is recharged and I can’t stop thinking. 

The first editorial was entitled “The Gradual Selling of 

America the Beautiful”. There were two messages in this editorial; 

one lamenting the President hasn’t done enough for “conservation 

and protection” in the public lands in the west and second, a call 

for outright protection from commercial development of the two 

thirds of the 640 million acres of public land which is not currently 

enjoying “ complete or high levels of commercial development” 

such as that which is attached to National Parks, wilderness, wildlife 

refuges or National Monuments and National Recreation Areas. 

Let’s think about that statement for a moment. About 212 million acres of public land 

is protected forever from commercial development. This includes, of course, national 

treasures such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Great Basin National Park, 

Rocky Mountain National Park and others like Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

on the Snake River between Idaho and Oregon, and Devil’s Tower National Monument 

in Wyoming. Added to this list of obvious protectable scenic wonders, are hundreds of 

wilderness areas and hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness study areas which are 

managed as wilderness. 

This leaves about 430 million acres of public land which is managed for multiple use. 

In other words, in addition to potential or current commercial use, recreation is a big component 

of the use of this land. 

Last time I checked, no one had discovered a lost or hidden Mount Rainier that needed 

to be added to our National Treasure list. We have done a pretty good job in finding and 

protecting these special places. And, lest you get the idea I am a cynical so and so, I support 

most of the decisions we have made as a people to protect and minimize commercial 

development at these places so future generations can be as awed as I have been in seeing 

them during my life. 

But let’s put 430 million acres into context for this discussion about parallel universes. 

Nevada is the state with the largest segment of public land in the lower 48 states. There 

are 110,000 square miles in Nevada. That equates to about 70.5 million acres. Roughly 62 

milllion acres is public land. This leaves about 10 million acres of land in private hands. 

This amount of land in private property in Nevada is about the size of the entire state of 

Connecticut. 

I once talked with two Congressional staff members who drove from Las Vegas to Ely, 

Nevada on US Highway 93. They were on a tour to personally view some of the areas which 

By the time they had driven 

about an hour north out of Las 

Vegas they were overwhelmed 

by the open space, lack of 

development and utter silence 

of the landscape around them. 

were eventually made wilderness by the Lincoln County Lands Act. By the time they had 

driven about an hour north out of Las Vegas they were overwhelmed by the open space, 

lack of development and utter silence of the landscape around them. They stopped at the 

Pahranagat National Wildlife refuge near Alamo and could not believe how alone they felt 

less than one mile from the US Highway. 

They stated 99 out of 100 people in the east have no idea about the absence or minimal 

impact of the hand of man in much of the west. Most of these people if you placed them on 

the shore of this wildlife refuge would declare unequivocally they were in a wilderness. 

This is an example of the parallel universes occupied by most of the people in this 

country and the comparative few who live in the vast outback of the American west. 

The protectionists want to lock everything up from commercial use of any kind whether 

it is livestock grazing, timber harvest or wind farm development to aid in our country 

becoming energy independent. However, they have, for the most part, very little personal 

frame of reference to take such a position. They do not understand the great distances or 

large acreages in question where such commercial activity can 

occur at the same time they are using the same lands for their 

personal recreation. They have no concept of what 100,000 acres 

might look like. A rancher might have a permit to graze 400 cows 

on an allotment this size. A tourist from St. Louis could pull off 

the road, have a picnic with family or friends and none of them 

would know they are sharing this space with a $400,000 commercial 

investment; an investment not disturbing their picnic or their 

aesthetic experience in looking at the 11,000 foot mountain peaks 

in the range across the valley. Thus we have parallel universes not 

leading to a shared consensus, but a complete misunderstanding. 

By the way I do not mean a misunderstanding by the rancher. He 

has been to a picnic before. I mean a misunderstanding by the 

well-meaning man from St. Louis. 

A week after the first editorial appeared there was a second in the New York Times. It 

was entitled “The Daunting Politics Facing Sally Jewell”. Most readers know by now Ms. 

Jewell is President Obama’s choice to be Secretary of the Interior and by the time you read 

this, she probably will have been confirmed by the US Senate. 

The gist of the editorial was a criticism of the Obama Administration’s apparent push 

to use the public lands as the key to our energy independent future by drilling for oil and gas 

and creating vast wind and solar farms. The writer of the editorial believes the true value of 

these lands is for national parks, wildlife refuges and sources for clean water. 

Of course, no mention was made of the potential of these lands for all of these uses 

plus supplying our nation with forest products and food and fiber. The reason, I believe, 

can only be one of two things. Either the author is ignorant of the potential for the public 

lands to be commercially developed, where possible, not sacrificing the great places that 

deserve our protection because the author is in a parallel universe of misunderstanding; or, 

the author knows what we know; that development and protection can co-exist, but there is 

a larger protectionist agenda here to shut down all commercial activity on the public lands. 

In any case, the editorial was an example of the existence of parallel universes regarding 

the use of our public lands. 

We in the west know best how to deal responsibly with all of the issues facing all of 

the uses of the public domain. Those in the east especially, but really in every urban area 

think they should dictate the way in which these uses should occur and how much we should 

use our public lands and for which purposes. Most have never seen a grazing cow, a timber 

harvest or an oil well but they know best how to do these things in their parallel universe. 

I only hope Sally Jewell can find a way to build a bridge she can use to walk between 

the two universes. 

I’ll see you soon. 

10 April 2013 



Flying In the Face of Common Sense 

If one were to ask almost any rancher in the inland west to name the three most pressing 

and or threatening issues to their livelihood in the spring of 2013, their responses 

would undoubtedly include sage grouse, drought and the federal regulations which spawn 

therefrom, wildfire, and intrusion from the federal and state agencies into their ability to 

make a living. Because the 2015 target date for a decision as to whether or not the sage 

grouse will be placed on the threatened or endangered species list is rapidly approaching, 

this issue commands primary concern. One has only to look to western Owyhee County in 

Idaho where several ranchers are facing massive cuts of their grazing permits due to sage 

grouse to realize that the threat is real and imminent. 

Armed with “shaky” science and revisionist history, the anti-domestic livestock grazing 

forces have appropriated the sage grouse as their primary weapon much as similar 

forces exploited the spotted owl to cripple the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest 

several decades previous. 

There have been literally hundreds of studies and comment documents prepared by individuals, 

sportsman’s groups, livestock and farming associations, as well as local and state 

governments to mitigate the negative effects of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Status Review and Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered 

species. Central to all considerations for a listing decision are total population and trend 

information of a targeted species relative to potential threats. The Owyhee Cattlemen’s 

Association/Idaho Cattle Association document using the data of noted researcher W. F. 

Price who has relied extensively on diaries and journals of early explorers most notably 

Meriwether Lewis in 1805, Peter Skene Ogden in 1824-29, John Work – 1830-31, concluded 

that the factual historic record clearly shows that the birds were relatively scarce or absent 

over much of the range they occupy today, and that current populations and occupied 

habitat is significantly greater than during pre-settlement times, indicating a net positive 

outcome, which is diametrically opposed to the position taken by the USFWS in their listing 

petition. According to Price, the pre-settlement claims are “at best a misstatement of 

fact and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of the historic record…the fabrication of a 

pre-settlement history, which did not exist, must cast doubt as to whether any of the purported 

documentation of information in the petition is accurate, legitimate, and presented 

without deception or bias.” 

The “Status Review and Petition” claims an adverse relationship between livestock 

grazing and sage grouse populations. This is of course the position of several environmental 

groups whose mission is to eliminate livestock grazing entirely on federal lands. This 

assertion is completely at odds with the historic data. Livestock grazing on the public domain 

generally began in the 1860’s and reached its peak in the early decades of the 1900’s. 

Perhaps not coincidentally, those figures parallel the sage grouse populations of the same 

period. Historic journals indicate relative scarcity of sage grouse in the Intermountain West 

during the period from 1820-1850 and vast flocks of sage grouse from the 1870’s to the 

1950’s. There has been a major decline in numbers of livestock and in sage grouse populations 

from the 1950’s to the present. This data does not support the theory that there is an 

adverse relationship between livestock grazing and sage grouse. To the contrary, it actually 

suggests a positive relationship. 

Most studies agree that there are several contributing factors to the decline in sage 

grouse numbers. Near the top of the list are wildfires, disease (West Nile Virus), and predation 

– raiding of nests and killing of chicks in the spring, and killing of adults mainly by 

raptors and coyotes during the winter. A series of late, cold wet springs can also have 

a significant detrimental effect on chick hatch and subsequent survival. At the top 

of the predator list is the raven-which just 

happens to be a protected species – followed 

at some distance by the coyote. 

Many experts also point to habitat 

destruction as a primary threat to sage 

grouse populations. I am sure that all agree 

that the massive wildfires which have 

destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres 

of sage grouse habitat in Owyhee County, 

Idaho, and throughout northern Nevada 

since 1999 could not have helped but have 

had a negative impact on sage grouse numbers. 

So what is the answer? Yes, of course 

remove the cattle and sheep! I am sorry, 

but not only does this approach violate all 

historical evidence and research, it just 

by Linda Drown Bunch 

For What It ’s Worth 

Many people confuse crows with ravens. Crows are smaller, have squared-off 

or fan-shaped tails, and more slender bills. Ravens often soar; crows never do. 

If the bird does a barrel roll, it’s a raven. Crows caw; ravens croak and mutter. 

Raven voices are more varied and much deeper and throatier than the crow’s 

monotonous nasal call. 

Common ravens grow to about 25 inches in length and weigh more than 2 

pounds. They can live for more than 20 years and survive almost anywhere. 

By some estimates, raven populations nationwide have grown by 300 percent 

in the past 40 years. In Nevada, the increase is thought to be more like 600 

percent. 

Ravens are protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under 

the “Migratory Bird Treaty Act” 

flies in the face of common sense! 

The Sage Grouse Conservation Plan adopted in September 2012 by the Elko County 

Commissioners includes the following provision: 

Develop a Pilot Project to monitor the effects of historical grazing, predator control 

and range management methods and their impacts on the Sage Grouse Populations and 

Habitat. 

Issue: 

Lack of current specific data concerning the effects on Sage Grouse Populations and 

Habitat when utilizing historical Livestock Grazing, Predator Control and Range Management 

policies and measures. 

Actions: 

1) Propose the identification of a specific Pilot Project area of approximately 72 square 

miles to 216 square miles in size to implement historical livestock grazing, predator control 

and range management polices to develop scientific data related to the Sage Grouse populations 

and habitat. 

2) Implement and develop the Pilot Project using historical livestock grazing, predator 

control and range management polices to develop scientific data related to the Sage Grouse 

populations and habitat. 

3) Funding through the State of Nevada Department of Wildlife & BLM from Ruby 

Pipeline Sage Grouse Conservation funds. 

In March 2013 the Elko County Commission instituted the first known Pilot Project. 

The ranch chosen is the 15,000 deeded acre Devil’s Gate Ranch, owned by the Ken Bowler 

family, located about six miles north of the Elburz Exit on I80 as the crow, or should we 

say raven, flies. Central to the project are sensible livestock grazing which will manage the 

fuel load and reduce the risk of massive wildfire and predator control. The primary target 

will be the large resident raven population and the goal is to obtain permitted poison-laced 

eggs which are very effective in destroying the target species – ravens. Also hunting and 

trapping of coyotes and other predators will be encouraged. 

In the forty year history of the Endangered Species Act, this is the first known privatelocal 

government agreement with action on the ground to stave off a federal listing, commissioners 

said. It is a long-term project, and even if the sage grouse is listed, the project 

will continue to demonstrate that the bird numbers will improve if the federal government 

will increase, rather than decrease, grazing to prevent massive fires, and engages in reasonable 

predator control. The aim of the project is not to convince the USFWS, but to show 

the public and Congress that there is a direct correlation between federal land management 

policies since the 1950’s and the decline in sage grouse numbers. 

It is encouraging to see local entities and individual stakeholders taking matters into 

their own hands to come up with creative common-sense solutions to a major problem 

rather than relying on the agencies and their “scientific” studies. The USFWS and some 

environmental groups who will automatically close their eyes and plug their ears when 

confronted with any information that runs contrary to their stated agendas, are already 

criticizing the pilot project. Since they are not the target audience, the Elko County Commission, 

and hopefully the people and Congress, will not be deterred by this criticism. The 

goal of the originators of the Elko County Pilot Project is for this pilot project concept to 

increase sage grouse to spread to not only other counties in Nevada but to other states as 

well. A county in Utah is already considering its own pilot project. It is also hoped that 

other ranchers will start looking at their operations to see if the Devil’s Gate Model 

could be adapted to them. Anyone interested in developing a pilot project should 

contact Randy Brown, Assistant Elko 

County Manager, at 775-738-6816, former 

Nevada Assemblyman John Carpenter at 

775-738-9861, or Elko County Commissioner 

Grant Gerber at 775-738-9258. 

(Linda Drown Bunch, a fourth generation 

Elko county native, was raised on the family 

ranch on the South Fork of the Humboldt 

River near Lee, Nevada, at the foot of the Ruby 

Mountains. Her parents later ranched in the 

Three Creek area of Owyhee County, Idaho. 

Linda began her teaching career at the Three 

Creek School where she taught for six years. 

She and her husband Randy then settled in 

Independence Valley where she taught at the 

Independence Valley School before retiring to 

raise horses and buck bulls.) 


April 2013 11

Ship ’Em To 

FALLON 

Livestock Exchange, Inc. 

Sale Every Tuesday at 11:00 AM 

Selling All Classes of Livestock: • Cattle • Horses • Sheep • Goats • Pigs 

ANNOUNCES 

The 9 TH Annual 

Back to Grass 

Special Calf and Yearling Sale 

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. 

along with our regular sale 

You can bring in your cattle early on Sunday or Monday at no extra charge (only 

feed) and we feed good quality alfalfa hay and have deep fresh well water in our pens. 

Remember to call us early with your consignments. It pays, so we can notify buyers. 

It means more buyers on sale days in the seats. 

The entire crew at Fallon Livestock Exchange would like to thank all the consignors and buyers alike for your business. 

Fallon Livestock Exchange, Inc. 

2055 Trento Lane • Fallon, Nevada 89406 • 775-867-2020 

MARKET REPORT 

March 19, 2013 

TOP OFFERINGS 

Weight Steer Heifer 

300-400 191.00-215.00 187.00-204.00 

400-500 187.00-200.00 160.00-171.00 

500-600 163.00-178.00 138.00-155.50 

600-700 140.00-150.00 121.00-131.50 

700-800 128.00-137.50 116.60-123.50 

800-900 116.00-126.00 

Lite Holstein (under 600#) 70.00-83.00 

Heavy Holstein (over 600#) 65.00-83.00 

*Single, Small Framed or Plainer Cattle 15.00 to 20.00 less 

than top offerings 

BUTCHER COWS & BULLS 

Breakers (Fat Cows) 70.00-75.00 

Boners (Med Flesh) 75.00-80.00 

Cutters (Lean) 58.00-66.50 

Holstein Cows 35.00-69.00 

Butcher Bulls 78.00-90.00 

Shelly (Thin) Bulls 40.00-60.00 

Shelly Cutters (Thin) 20.00-40.00 

Young Feeder Cows 60.00-68.00 

Heiferettes 83.00-102.00 

Holstein Heiferettes 80.00-89.00 

Holstein Bulls 81.00-85.00 

Feeder Bulls 65.00-75.00 

Cutting Bulls 80.00-95.00 

Used Roping Steers 72.00-85.00 

Preg Tested Cows (3, 4, 5 yr. old solid mouth) NT 

Pairs (solid mouth) 3-6 yrs 

NT 

Pairs (broken mouth) 

NT 

TODAY’S COWS 

Avg. Wt Avg. Cost 

Top Cow 1350 86.00 

Top 10 Cows 1278 75.69 

Top 50 Cows 1208 70.82 

Top 100 Cows 1070 62.22 

Top Butcher Bull 1880 90.00 

CALVES-SHEEP-GOATS-PIGS-HORSES 

Beef Calves (HD) 60.00-500.00 

Dairy Calves 2.00-35.00 

Feeder Lambs 105.00-140.00 

Fat Lambs 100.00-110.00 

Ewes (CWT) 25.00-60.00 

Bucks (CWT) 35.00-48.00 

Small Goats (under 65 lbs.) (HD) 20.00-90.00 

Large Goats (over 70 lbs.) (HD) 95.00-160.00 

Weaner Pigs 45.00-95.00 

Feeder Pigs 60.00-130.00 

Top Hogs 60.00-75.00 

Butcher Sows 15.00-20.00 

Horses (under 1100 lbs.) 8.00-15.00 

Horses (over 1100 lbs.) 16.00-20.00 

MARKET TREND: 

Feeder cattle sold steady with very strong buyer 

demand on same kind and quality depending 

on fi ll with good butcher cows steady. 

Fallon Livestock is a key market for the livestock 

industry, where buyers and sellers meet each week with 

a professional staff with over 50 years of experience in 

marketing livestock. PLEASE call us ahead with your 

consignments. It helps us market your cattle. We talk to 

buyers all the time–they want you to know what’s coming in. 

We have trucks available for your hauling needs, pasture 

to pasture or from your Ranch to the sale yard. 

For more marketing information, 

or to arrange trucking needs: 

Call Monte Bruck, Manager at 

775-426-8279 

12 April 2013 



You can’t make this stuff up!!!!! I have been listening and reading the comments 

on the sage grouse impending doom for Nevada. The doomsayers 

have more to gain by the conflict than a solution. The ranchers, miners, hunters and 

the people are going to be the losers. The fern fairies convinced the Pacific Northwest 

that tourism would replace logging and lumber mills. The spotted owl was the tool. 

The result that no one wishes to speak of is the dead and dying forests. Diseases, weeds 

and decadent brush are replacing multiple use and renewable natural resource concepts. 

The only tourists are fire fighters to watch the huge destruction of water sheds 

and wildlife. 

Back here in Nevada the so called experts or more affectionately referred to as the 

“fact less” scientists are decrying huge burns on sage brush eco-systems. After further 

examination, these same experts said we must remove livestock to protect the same ecosystem. 

The cattle and sheep were removed and the sage burnt up. For job security the same 

folks don’t seem to remember they caused the problem in the first place with “fact less” 

science to remove the livestock. Sagebrush is less palatable than grasses and other Forbes. 

Sagebrush is like the rutabaga of most animals’ diets. They will eat it, but not as a first 

choice. Also cheat grass is a non-native species so we must hate it rather than find a use or 

a solution. No biologist has ever gotten tenure by solving a problem or admitting that their 

idea is culpable in the problem. Being wrong is never discussed because all the little fuzzy 

critters need their help. Help that is, unless they are non-native, then they are a reminder of 

the evil human that may have on purpose or by accident introduced them. 

We have studied the sage grouse for at least the last twelve years. We have meetings 

and seminars to display the information collected. We have played what if and spoke endlessly 

on what will happen if the little darling edible morsel is put on the dreaded endangered 

list, yet no one wants to step up and cure the problem. We know that the number one 

problem is that the raven eats the eggs of the sage grouse, and I have personally observed 

a raven killing the chicks. Badgers, coyotes, and raptors all contribute to the demise of the 

grouse. And the correct answer to the demise of the sage grouse is to stop livestock grazing 

and mining? Also we must study the problem more, hire more biologists and have more 

public forums to report on more studies. 

For the last one hundred fifty years sage hens and livestock have lived side by side, and 

as livestock numbers have been removed, the number of grouse has declined in tandem. If 

blaming domestic livestock for the decline of sage hens and removing livestock is the cure 

for the problem and if this cure makes sense to you, please get some professional help. The 

real cure to the problem is to limit the number of animals that prey upon the birds and the 

number of biologists that refuse to solve the problem. 

Public Lands Council 

Unveils Sage Grouse 

Data Base 

The Sage Grouse database is a library containing documents that support the 

continued presence of public lands ranching on the range as Sage Grouse conservation 

planning efforts unfold. Grazing is compatible with and beneficial to Sage 

Grouse habitat conservation, and this library is intended provide members of the 

public lands grazing community with the scientific, legal, and policy resources to 

support that fact as plans develop west-wide. The documents provide a balanced 

perspective and sound scientific information that should shape the policy decisions 

and legal proceedings that are rapidly developing. 

The library was funded by PLC and the Public Lands Endowment Trust and 

developed under contract by Resource Concepts, Inc., a public lands consulting 

group based in Carson City, Nevada. Find the database at www.GrazingForGrouse. 

com or at www.PublicLandsCouncil.org. Please feel free to use and share this information 

widely, and to send us feedback using this link: http://grazingforgrouse. 

com/feedback. 

Fumes From The Farm 

by Hank Vogler 

The big meeting in Elko was the bizarre twilight zone for me. People with college educations 

in fuzzy critters, but zero math skills, had the nerve to stand before the world and 

declare if you try to cure the problem by killing predators, “ravens” without the knowledge 

of the area will move in and splinter the territory of the old regular established predator 

“ravens” that know where all the nests are and splinter the area and make for more predators 

in the area???????????????? HUH!!!!!!!! 

Ok boys and girls, pull your shoes off, get you abacus out, fire up your confuser, grab 

you calculator and we will begin. Agriculture contributes around four BILLION dollars to 

the state of Nevada. Mining contributes BOZILLONS of dollars to the state of Nevada’s 

economy and hunting as well adds a few million. The bird will curtail or eliminate these 

activities if the “fact less” scientists prevail. So why not buy some insurance. Let’s poison 

some ravens. Why is that so hard? Raven population is up six hundred percent. One suggestion 

was to pick up road kill. Why not eliminate roads? Then you get two birds with one 

stone. OR just maybe drive along the roads every morning and as the ravens congregate at 

the road kill, throw out some poison eggs. The eggs are very specific. They are far more 

lethal to ravens than other birds. When the ravens migrate around and concentrate in the 

winter, put out some more eggs. You can get all the eggs you want for municipal dumps 

now it is just the ravens out on the high wide and lonesome that are left to around three 

thousand poison eggs state wide. This is not a solution. It is the equivalent of dipping five 

gallons of water from the ocean and expecting the water level to drop. It is to perpetuate 

the argument to remove mining and ranching and hunting. 

The excuse that you can’t kill enough ravens is simply bs. You cannot kill three thousand 

and do any good, that is for sure. Let’s look at this with common sense. A chicken 

egg at the store here in Hooterville is around thirteen cents per egg. If you boil them, inject 

them with the poison and distribute them, and for arguments sake, say the cost is fifty 

cents per egg, for what the federal biologists will destroy it is well worth it. I say we start 

by spending a million dollars in poison eggs. A million dollars won’t buy what it used to 

but if you could deliver without cost-over-runs by the administrators, you could put out 

two million eggs at fifty cents an egg. If 

your kill ratio was four eggs to the raven, 

I believe that would kill five hundred thousand 

ravens. Anyone in this state that will 

not eliminate enough ravens to save most of 

the economies of Northern Nevada should 

not be allowed around sharp objects or operate 

heavy equipment. We spend millions 

on a lot less worthy causes. So unless your 

agenda is to hire ten more biologists at one 

hundred thousand per copy to tell the world 

that things are a changing and to protect 

my job no solution will be found, or make 

a bunch of ravens take a dirt nap here is a 

quarter, call someone who has a strait jacket 

in your size. Hang and rattle Hank 

Call or Stop By! 

GOOD LUCK 

at the NV State 4-H 

Livestock/Horse Judging/Skillathon 

Contests 

Sonny Davidson 

Jason B. Land 

2213 N. 5th St. , Elko, NV 89801 

775-738-8811, 800-343-0077 

www.edwardjones.com 

PINENUT 

LIVESTOCK 

SUPPLY INC. 

263 Dorral Way 

Fallon, Nevada 

Reno Highway across from 

A&K Earth Movers 

Stop by and 

see us, 

we look forward 

to seeing you! 

PHONE: 775-423-5338 

john@pinenutlivestocksupply.com 


April 2013 13

of a Ranch Wife 

Spring Cove Ranch & 

JBB AL Hereford- 

Cattleman’s Connection 

Sale report 

Spring Cove Ranch, Bliss, Idaho 

March 11, 2013 

Art and Stacy Butler of Spring Cove Ranch 

and John and Bev Bryan and James & 

Dawn Anderson of JBB/AL Herefords 

141 Yearling & Fall Yearling Angus bulls averaged 

$4782. 

19 Reg. Angus yearling heifers averaged $1747. 

40- 2, fall and yearling Hereford bulls averaged 

$2729 

14 Yearling Hereford Heifers Averaged $1707 

10 Commercial Angus yearling heifers averaged 

$1214 

High selling Angus bulls: 

Lot 9 Spring Cove Emblazon 2003 , $11,750, 

selling to Rabbit Creek Ranch, Jon & Sue Key, Elko, 

Nevada. 

Lot 12 Spring Cove Emblazon 2034, $11,250 selling 

to Morgan Ranches, David and Ann Rutan, Jordan 

Valley, Oregon 

Lot 15 Spring Cove Emblazon 2033, $11,000 

selling to Rabbit Creek Ranch, Jon & Sue Key, Elko, 

Nevada. 

Lot 8 Spring Cove Emblazon 2025, $10,500 selling 

to Morgan Ranches, David and Ann Rutan, Jordan 

Valley, Oregon 

Lot 20 Spring Cove TL Emblazon 2019, $10,000 

selling to Rabbit Creek Ranches, Jon and Sue Key , 

Elko, Nevada 

High selling Angus heifer was Lot 158, Spring 

Cove Blossom 231, sired by SLL Overload T18, selling 

at $2400 to Robert Allison /AC Ranch, Kuna, Idaho. 

High Selling Hereford bulls: 

Lot 232, AL Advisor 233, $5250, selling to Sherbine 

Ranches, Bellevue, Idaho 

Lot 209, JBB/AL 3027 Domino 187, $4400 selling 

to Williams Farms, Mike Williams, Baker City, Ore. 

Lot 216, JBB Progressive Prince F101, $4100, selling 

to Tuccorri Ranch, Gooding, Idaho 

Lot 247, JBB Prince 267, $4000, selling to Mink 

Land & Livestock, Cambridge, Idaho 

Lot 211, JBB/AL 153T Prince 189 selling to Alan 

Oppio, Gooding, Idaho 

High selling Hereford heifer sold at $2300, to 

High Desert Cattle Co., Mt and Cori Anderson, Canyon 

City, Oregon 

Volume buyer was Maxine and Dean Haumont, 

Buhl, Idaho 

14 April 2013 

Hello my name is 

Jennifer, and it 

has been said that “Behind every successful cowboy is 

a wife with a good job in town!” My husband whom I 

affectionately refer to as the Cow Boss, and I are no exception. 

Like many ranch wives, I have a job in town. 

I tried teaching High School Agriculture but quickly 

learned that I was better suited to older students and 

now teach Animal Science at Great Basin College in 

Elko, Nevada. I also hand tie mohair cinches when I 

can find the time. 

The Cow Boss grew up in southern Idaho. He cowboyed 

over quite a bit of southern Idaho and northern 

Nevada. He met me in 2004. I promptly quit my teaching 

job, married him and moved to a remote cow camp. He is 

handy with a horse, braids beautiful rawhide, and likes to 

rope. We make a pretty good team. 

I work alongside the Cow Boss on the ranch. We 

take care of beef pairs but also run yearlings from May 

to October. You have to be pretty versatile to be a ranch 

wife. My job description includes helping ride, doctor, 

branding and moving cows, as well as spraying weeds, 

brushing meadows, feeding cows, cooking for a crew, 

and office manager/secretary, besides being a mom and 

a wife. 

Lamoille is arguably one of the prettiest places in 

Nevada and we are so blessed to live where we do. We 

have an apple orchard in our back yard and the gorgeous 

Ruby Mountains in our front yard. There is plenty of 

room for our boys to run and grow. TR will be 6 in June. 

I still can’t believe how time flies, he was just 3 months 

old when we moved here. He wants to be a Marine when 

he grows up, but has finally conceded he will be a cowboy 

on his days off and help us take care of the cows then. We 

did home school this year, but are both looking forward to 

first grade in public school. QT will be 4 in June. He 

is our little free spirit and is pretty 

content to just be. Today he says 

he is going to be a knight when 

he grows up, so he can protect 

princesses. They try our patience 

from time to time, love us despite 

our short comings and make every 

day an adventure. 

One of the best things about 

our job here is that we work for a 

family ranch and we get to take our 

boys to work with us whenever we 

want to. This is very important to 

my husband and me. We both grew 

up on ranches working with our 

families. It is not uncommon to drive 

past one of our fields and see me riding 

a horse with QT in front of me 

and TR trotting along behind, see my 

boys helping us rebuild fence, or playing 

in a supplement trough while the 


J. B. White le y 

Cow Boss and I rope and doctor a yearling nearby. Most 

parents buy expensive playground equipment for their 

kids. We have trees to climb, antique farm equipment and 

miles of pasture for ours to play. 

I grew up on a ranch in northeastern Nevada. My 

great grandparents originally purchased the ranch in the 

1930’s, and our family has lived on this ranch ever since. 

My great granddad brought the first Black Angus cows 

to Northeastern Nevada. They have run strictly Black 

Angus since then; my dad has worked really hard to make 

it one of the best herds in the state. I hope to one day go 

home to the ranch, making my boys 5th generation ranchers 

in the area. 

The Cow Boss and I come by ranching very naturally 

as you can tell. We have started our own herd of black 

cows and look forward to teaching our boys where their 

food comes from and the same lessons of hard work, determination, 

and perseverance our parents have taught us. 

I love all aspects of raising cattle. I remember being 

4 years old and my mom gathering up my little sister and 

me in the middle of the night to help my dad pull our first 

calf out of a Registered Angus cow our parents bought for 

us from Thomas Angus, making calving and winter one 

of my favorite times of the year. There is nothing cuter 

to me than watching a baby calf switching its tail as it 

nurses. I also love spring and branding, all of the saddle 

time in the summer as we doctor yearlings and check on 

calves, and fall with the weather turning cooler comes 

shipping time – that bittersweet time of the year when we 

sell our calves and we can see what all our hard work was 

for. Every day is a new adventure for us. 

We do this because we love this way of life and 

the livestock. It gives us great satisfaction to know that 

maybe we made a difference somewhere. Maybe it was 

for the calf we saved from the creek, or the person who 

buys one of our steaks, 

but a difference none 

the less, and we enjoy 

our job! I always tell 

the Cow Boss a bad 

day cowboying beats 

a good day teaching! 


Invited Property Rights Editorial 

Note: The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author. The Progressive Rancher does not endorse submissions, but allows all to voice their views. 

The Future of Nevada Ranching: 

Do Rancher’s Property Rights Matter? 

Over 20 years ago, thirty Clark County ranchers 

were driven out of business when the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) began using the terms and 

conditions of grazing permits to protect the desert tortoise 

instead of rancher’s who had preexisting rights to run livestock. 

While the tortoise was never actually listed as “endangered” 

under the Endangered Species Act, cows were 

deemed to be a threat because they might step on tortoise 

eggs. The fact that cows, sheep and tortoises had cohabitated 

for more than a century was ignored. 

Then in 1998, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management 

Act was passed by Congress. The Act legalized 

public land sales in Clark County, lands which included 

some of those same rancher’s adjudicated grazing allotments. 

The Clark County ranchers were never compensated 

for their vested water rights, forage rights, range improvements, 

easements and rights of ways. They were simply 

eradicated by the heavy hand of BLM regulations. Lands 

that were formerly deemed to be tortoise habitat were sold 

to developers armed with excavators and paving equipment. 

Meanwhile, environmentalists and the BLM are mostly 

mute on the subject of the desert tortoise. 

So far 39,378 acres have been sold in Clark County for 

over $3 billion dollars for an average of $77,253 per acre. 

According to the BLM 2010 Report to Congress (http:// 

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/ 

las_vegas_field_office/snplma/pdf/reports.Par.90311.File. 

dat/SNPLMA_FY2010_Annual_Report.pdf), ten percent 

of those moneys were funneled to the Southern Nevada Water 

Authority and five percent to education. The remaining 

funds went to the Department of Interior for land acquisition 

and conservation. To date, a total of 69,120 acres of 

mostly ranch lands have been acquired—in a state which 

is already 87 percent government controlled. The BLM and 

U.S. Forest Service pursued policies burdening grazing permits 

with so many conditions, they forced many ranchers 

to become “willing sellers” of their devalued ranches and 

prime targets for land acquisition. 

The sage grouse is the new desert tortoise or spotted 

owl to be deployed against the Nevada rancher, the mining 

industry, hunter and recreationalist. The objective is the 

same—force ranchers to walk away from their vested water 

rights, forage rights, range improvements and easements 

without compensation, or at the very least convert them into 

“willing sellers” at a discount. 

Since 1982 Nevada has lost over one-third of its cattle 

production, down from 700,000 to 450,000. Sheep production, 

which peaked at 3 million in the 1920’s, is now down 

to a mere 70,000. These losses are largely due to the cuts the 

BLM and USFS have imposed on ranchers through grazing 

permits. Computing both direct and indirect economic 

impacts, Nevada has lost well over one billion dollars in 

economic activity as a result. 1 

Rather than following the land management laws of 

by: Ramona Hage Morrison 

Congress which specifically protect rancher’s preexisting 

property interests in vested water rights, forage rights, easements, 

rights of ways and range improvements, the agencies 

promote policies that eliminate livestock. By extension, 

their policies encourage massive rangeland fires and the infestation 

of weeds and cheat grass—something previously 

not witnessed in Nevada. The agencies assigned to protect 

and manage the western rangelands and forests instead 

have created what can only be described as an ecological 

disaster. Conversely, rangeland grazing by livestock has 

always corresponded to greater wildlife populations, better 

access to areas for recreation, and greater water yields from 

watersheds that supply irrigation and recharge aquifers. 

The question remains—what can individual ranchers 

do to protect their property rights from the sage grouse? 

The short answer is we need to force the federal land management 

agencies to follow their own laws. Additionally, 

we need to document preexisting rights and learn to defend 

those property rights. Finally, seek the protection of the 

courts, armed with an exhaustive chains of title, attorneys 

experienced in this area of law, and carefully framing the 

issues in a manner which recognizes preexisting rights. 

Every land law passed by Congress has provisions protecting 

preexisting rights. For example, Congress was very 

clear in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

when it stated: “Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment 

made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any 

valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use 

right or authorization existing on the date of approval of 

this Act...” (43 U.S.C. 1701 notes). 

Nevada’s ranches were settled well before the creation 

of the Forest Reserves and the passage of the Taylor Grazing 

Act. Nevada’s prior appropriation water law is based 

upon recognition of preexisting beneficial use of water. 

Vested stock water rights and range (i.e. forage rights) were 

put to beneficial use well before the statutory water law 

in Nevada, and an equitable estate was created under the 

local laws, customs and court decisions of the time. Most 

of Nevada’s range and stock waters were bought, sold, or 

transferred by inheritance for 40 years before the creation 

of the Forest Service or BLM. Property taxes were assessed 

on the use of the range by taxing the livestock. Inheritance 

taxes were also assessed on the value of the range, and still 

are by the IRS. (See Griffith v. Godey, 113 U.S. 89 (1885)). 

These rights can and should be documented with an exhaustive 

chain of title. (See previous article in The Progressive 

Rancher, February 2013, page 7) 

The road ahead for the ranching industry is riddled 

with attacks on our property rights, and on our very liberty. 

The past is riddled with bad case law as it relates to the 

rangeland ranching industry. Many of the worst court decisions 

were cases where ranchers argued they had rights by 

virtue of a grazing permit, rather than that they owned preexisting 

property rights acquired by their predecessors under 

the local laws, customs and court decisions of the time. 

We are a nation of laws, but to some extent our industry 

has been ineffective in forcing the federal agencies to follow 

their own laws. When it comes to the federal grazing 

programs, often government employees ignore those very 

laws in the enforcement of their own rules and regulations. 

When bureaucrats act outside their lawful delegated authority, 

they are no longer protected by immunity from personal 

liability afforded a government employee. 

In the 1991 Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. 

U.S. filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and in U.S. 

v. Hage, the 2007 forage right case filed in Nevada Federal 

District Court, as well as the Southern Monitor Valley Water 

Adjudication, the primary evidence before the court was 

an exhaustive chain of title documenting the preexisting 

use of and rights to the range and vested waters. My family, 

thankfully, has prevailed in all of these cases against 

great odds and adversity. Even in the July 26, 2012 Federal 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which reversed, upheld 

and remanded narrow portions of Judge Loren Smith’s eight 

published rulings from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 

all of Judge Smith’s property findings were left intact by 

the court. The Federal Circuit also reversed its previous 

disastrous ruling from Colvin v. U.S., when it ruled in the 

Hage case that we did, in fact, have a right of access to our 

waters. (The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 

Hage v. U.S. is currently on appeal to the United States 

Supreme Court.) 

The future of the ranching industry will depend, in my 

opinion, in great part on how effective we are in protecting 

our property rights. We’ve come a long way. Prior to my 

father, Wayne Hage, writing “Storm Over Rangelands”, 

many ranchers had no idea they owned anything, including 

their water rights, on the public domain. Twenty year ago, 

most judges and lawyers would argue the same position. 

Today, however, copies of “Storm Over Rangelands” 

are housed in the U.S. Supreme Court law library as one of 

the few authorities on western federal land law not funded 

or published by a government entity. The numerous published 

decisions in the Hage cases have clarified the issue of 

whether or not ranchers own property interests in the nature 

of an equitable estate on lands managed by the BLM and 

Forest Service. And we have learned a little along the way 

about how to plead cases for the greatest chance of success 

in the court system. There have also been mistakes made 

from which we have learned as well. But either way, the 

objective was that we could blaze a trail for defending the 

western rancher’s property rights which others can follow. 

I am optimistic that is being accomplished. 

I am also optimistic that Nevada’s ranchers can defend 

their property rights against a plethora of environmental 

schemes, including the sage grouse. The rancher’s preexisting 

property rights are the only real line of defense to stop 

the continued abuse of powers. 

1 

The Economic Impact of Nevada Livestock Industry, Anthony L. Lesperance, Ph.D. (2002) 


April 2013 15

PLC and NCBA Ask Supreme 

Court to Settle Hage Case 

—Call for a Limit on the Federal Government’s Reach 

WASHINGTON (Feb. 26, 2013) —Public Lands Council 

(PLC) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

(NCBA) are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up and 

settle a decades-long property rights case, Hage v. United 

States. The high court would determine whether the U.S. Forest 

Service violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution 

when it interfered with Nevada ranchers Wayne and Jean 

Hage’s stock water rights. 

PLC and NCBA were joined by Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, 

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Washington 

Cattlemen’s Association in their brief of amicus curiae, filed 

by Western Resources Legal Center (WRLC). 

“We believe that the case’s precedent-setting nature and 

importance to livestock producers’ property rights merits the 

Supreme Court’s consideration,” said Brice Lee, Colorado 

rancher and PLC president. “They deserve compensation for 

what the Forest Service took from them. Ranchers cannot 

operate without access to the water that is legally theirs.” 

The U.S. Forest Service had denied the Hage family 

access to ditches supplying their stock and several meadows 

with water. The agency demanded that the family file for a 

permit in order to maintain and use the water. Although a federal 

claims court decided the Hages were owed compensation 

by the agency for the water taking, the Federal Circuit Court 

of Appeals reversed this determination in part. 

“This case threatens the ability to carry out livestock 

activities both on and off federal land,” said WRLC Executive 

Director and representing Counsel Caroline Lobdell. “The 

federal agency, in effect, would be armed with the authority to 

unilaterally determine what constitutes reasonable or routine 

maintenance, and therefore empowered to subjugate vested 

1866 Mining Act rights-of-way in favor of whatever policy 

rules the day.” 

According to NCBA President and Wyoming rancher, 

Scott George, if the agency is allowed to demand a permit for 

Hage’s ditch right-of-way, county road rights-of-way established 

under the Mining Act (known as “R.S. 2477 roads”) 

would also be in jeopardy. This would further threaten ranchers’ 

ability to stay in business, George said, since they often 

depend on those roads to access their grazing allotments. 

Lee summed up the case’s importance to livestock producers 

nation-wide. “The implications to livestock producers 

at-large are undeniable. This case, if not overturned, stands 

to remove the protective boundaries surrounding what constitutes 

a property right versus a ‘permitted use.’ It will lay a 

marker regarding individuals’ right to compensation for government 

takings. We strongly encourage the Supreme Court 

to take up this case.” 

Amicus Curiae 

Definition: Latin term meaning “friend of 

the court”. The name for a brief filed with the 

court by someone who is not a party to the case. 

“... a phrase that literally means “friend of the 

court” — someone who is not a party to the litigation, 

but who believes that the court’s decision 

may affect its interest.” William H. Rehnquist, The 

Supreme Court, page 89. 

Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme 

Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ 

of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding 

a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a 

positive correlation between number of amicus 

briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and 

the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Some 

friend of the court briefs provide valuable information 

about legal arguments, or how a case might 

affect people other than the parties to the case. 

Some organizations file friend of the court briefs 

in an attempt to “lobby” the Supreme Court, obtain 

media attention, or impress members. 

“An amicus curiae brief that brings to the 

attention of the Court relevant matter not already 

brought to its attention by the parties may be of 

considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae 

brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the 

Court, and its filing is not favored.” Rule 37(1), 

Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (Wikipedia 

on-line dictionary) 

Paula Wright 

Memorial Scholarship 

Together with the family of the late Paula Wright, 

the Silver State Stampede Association would like to make 

known the availability of a $2,500 memorial scholarship. 

The scholarship will be awarded to an Elko County graduate, but is not limited to 

2013 graduates. Any past graduate of an Elko County high school who is currently 

pursuing higher education is eligible to apply. While 2013 will be the first year that this 

scholarship will be awarded, in future years, former recipients will be eligible to reapply. 

IT’S NOT JUST CATTLE 

IT’S YOUR LIVELIHOOD 

Purchase livestock, machinery, real 

estate and more with our intermediate 

term loans. We’ll design a plan that’s 

right for you. 

Paula touched the lives of literally thousands of people through her 

work and dedication to community service; thus, the scholarship will 

be awarded according to applicants’ extracurricular and community 

service activities as well as goal-setting and plans for the future. 

All applicants will submit a resume and essay that will be reviewed and scored 

by a panel of Paula’s family and friends, and finalists will be interviewed in 

person. Finalists will also have the opportunity to earn additional points 

through hands-on volunteer work at the 2013 Silver State Stampede. 

Interested students can call Becky Lisle at 775-934-9201 or 

email paulawrightmemorial@hotmail.com for more information 

and application materials. Interested individuals will be given 

the actual judging criteria to help with preparation. 

Deadline for resume and essay submissions will be JUNE 1, 2013. 

Entries can be dropped off or mailed to 

Paula Wright Memorial Scholarship, c/o JM Capriola’s 

at 500 Commercial Street, Elko, NV 89801. 

The scholarship will be awarded at the 2013 Silver State Stampede rodeo; 

monies will be paid directly to the institution 

of higher learning. 

Call 800.800.4865 today 

or visit AgLoan.com 

RENO • ELKO • FALLON 

A part of the Farm Credit system. Equal Opportunity Lender. 

16 April 2013 


AAC_ProgRanchr_cattlefinancing_4.8x5.425_bw.indd 1 

1/22/2013 12:34:24 PM 


Nutrition & Health 

Your success depends on it. 

Opportunity is knocking. Cattlemen are seeing some of the most favorable market conditions they may 

see in their lifetimes. More than ever, every pound counts. Loss of gain due to stress, sickness, poor 

nutrition, late calving, etc. does not have to happen. 

With good nutrition and animal health, producers can reduce unnecessary performance losses and add to 

their bottom line. 

For more than 20 years, Anipro has been designing supplement programs that will help make the most of your 

herd and feed dollar. Now is the time to work with your Anipro consultant to anyalyze feedstuffs and design a 

program to maintain cow body condition, calf health and optimize breed-back. Call 800-558-3341 today. 

Liquid Supplements 

Molasses and Distillers-Based Tubs 

Weatherized Minerals 

Complete Livestock Nutrition Programs for Profitability 

Anipro.com | 800.558.3341 


April 2013 17

AB 227 Creates Nevada Lands 

Management Implementation Committee 

AB 227, a bill being considered in the Nevada legislature, 

would create an interim committee for the purpose of 

conducting a feasibility study of the ramifications of federal 

land being returned to the states in 2015 as a result of the 

Transfer of Public Lands Act which was passed and signed 

by the governor in Utah in 2012. Sixteen other states currently 

have similar bills pending in their legislatures. The 

Nevada Land Management Implementation Committee 

will be made up of one county commissioner from each 

county. This bill only authorizes research, fact finding and 

education. 

AB227 is based on the recent law that passed in Utah. 

Sixteen other states currently have bills pending in their 

Legislatures. The Nevada Land Management Implementation 

Committee will be made up of one County Commissioner 

from each County. It will conduct a study during the 

2013-2014 Interim to address the transfer of public lands 

in Nevada from the Federal Government to the State 

of Nevada, in contemplation of Congress turning over the 

management and control of these public lands to the State 

on or before June 30, 2015. 

The Western States came into the Union on an unequal 

basis to states east of the Mississippi River. This has placed 

us in an inferior position as a result of the Federal Government 

withholding a significant portion of land as a condition 

of admission to the Union. Nevada is treated not as a coequal 

state but like a territory, being subjects of the BLM, 

Forest Service, National Park Service, the Department of 

Energy, and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The entire bill as it now reads is below. 

A.B. 227 

Assembly Bill No. 227–Assemblymen Ellison, Wheeler, 

Hansen, Hickey, Hardy; Paul Anderson, 

Bustamante Adams, Carrillo, Duncan, Fiore, 

Flores, Grady, Hambrick, Healey, Kirkpatrick, 

Kirner, Livermore, Neal, Ohrenschall, Oscarson, 

Spiegel, Stewart And Woodbury 

March 11, 2013 

Joint Sponsors: Senators Goicoechea, Gustavson, 

Roberson, Hutchison, Hammond; Atkinson, Brower, 

Cegavske, Denis, Hardy, Jones, Kieckhefer, Kihuen, 

Manendo, Parks, Settelmeyer, Spearman and 

Woodhouse 

Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections 

SUMMARY—Creates the Nevada Land Management 

Implementation Committee to conduct a study 

addressing the transfer of certain public lands in this 

State. (BDR S-594) 

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: May have Fiscal Impact. 

Effect on the State: Yes. 

AN ACT relating to public lands; creating the Nevada Land 

Management Implementation Committee to conduct a 

study addressing the transfer of public lands in Nevada 

from the Federal Government to the State of Nevada; and 

providing other matters properly relating thereto. 

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: 

1 This bill creates the Nevada Land Management Implementation Committee, 

2 consisting of a representative from each county in this State appointed by the board 

3 of county commissioners, to conduct a study during the 2013-2014 legislative 

4 interim to address the transfer of public lands in Nevada from the Federal 

5 Government to the State of Nevada, in contemplation of Congress turning over the 

6 management and control of those public lands to the State of Nevada on or before 

7 June 30, 2015. The Committee is required to submit a report of its findings and 

– page 2 – 

8 recommendations to the 78th Session of the Nevada Legislature on or before 

9 February 1, 2015. This Committee is similar to an interim commission that is being 

10 recommended for creation in the State of Utah to study issues relating to the 

11 transfer of public lands in Utah from the Federal Government to the State of Utah. 

12 (House Bill No. 148, 2012 Utah Laws, ch. 353, § 5) 

1 WHEREAS, Unlike the eastern states that received dominion over 

2 their lands upon joining the Union, the western states have been 

3 placed in an inferior position as a result of the Federal Government 

4 withholding a significant portion of land from those states as a 

5 condition of admission to the Union; and 

6 WHEREAS, According to the Congressional Research Service, as 

7 of 2010, the Federal Government manages and controls 

8 approximately 640 million acres, or about 28 percent of the 2.27 

9 billion acres, of land in the United States; and 

10 WHEREAS, The highest concentration of land managed and 

11 controlled by the Federal Government is in Alaska (61.8 percent) 

12 and the 11 coterminous western states, namely Arizona (42.3 

13 percent), California (47.7 percent), Colorado (36.2 percent), Idaho 

14 (61.7 percent), Montana (28.9 percent), Nevada (81.1 percent), New 

15 Mexico (34.7 percent), Oregon (53.0 percent), Utah (66.5 percent), 

16 Washington (28.5 percent) and Wyoming (48.2 percent); and 

17 WHEREAS, In contrast, the Federal Government only manages 

18 and controls 4 percent of the land in the states east of those western 

19 states; and 

20 WHEREAS, The state with the highest percentage of lands within 

21 its boundaries that is managed and controlled by the Federal 

22 Government is Nevada, with over 80 percent of its lands being 

23 managed and controlled by various federal agencies, including the 

24 Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the United 

25 States Forest Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

26 and the Department of Energy; and 

27 WHEREAS, Increased control by the State of Nevada over the 

28 public lands within its borders would benefit the residents of 

29 Nevada significantly by allowing the State to balance the economic, 

30 recreational and other critical interests of its residents, with special 

31 emphasis on the multiple uses that are allowed presently on the 

32 public lands; and 

33 WHEREAS, In March 2012, legislation was enacted in the State 

34 of Utah that, among other things, requires the Federal Government 

35 to turn over management and control of the public lands in Utah to 

36 the State of Utah and requires the study of various issues that may 

37 arise during such a transfer; and 

38 WHEREAS, Other western states are considering the enactment 

39 of similar laws and momentum is building towards the Federal 

– page 3 – 

1 Government turning over management and control of certain public lands 

2 to the western states; and 

3 WHEREAS, In light of the magnitude of federal management and 

18 April 2013 



4 control of public lands in Nevada, a study by the State of Nevada, in 

5 contemplation of Congress turning over the management and 

6 control of public lands in Nevada to the State of Nevada on or 

7 before June 30, 2015, would assist in ensuring that the transfer 

8 proceeds in a timely and orderly manner; now therefore 

9 

10 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN 

11 SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

12 

13 Section 1. 1. The Nevada Land Management 

14 Implementation Committee, consisting of 17 members, is hereby 

15 created. Within 30 days after the effective date of this act, the board 

16 of county commissioners of each county shall appoint one member 

17 to the Committee. 

18 2. A vacancy on the Committee must be filled in the same 

19 manner as the original appointment. 

20 3. The Committee shall hold its first meeting on or before 

21 July 1, 2013. At the first meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chair 

22 and Vice Chair from among its members. 

23 4. While engaged in the business of the Committee, each 

24 member of the Committee is entitled to receive such per diem 

25 allowance and travel expenses as provided by the board of county 

26 commissioners that appointed the member. Each board of county 

27 commissioners shall pay the per diem allowance and travel expenses 

28 required by this subsection to the member that is appointed by that 

29 board of county commissioners. 

30 5. The Legislative Counsel Bureau shall provide such 

31 administrative support to the Committee as is necessary to carry out 

32 the duties of the Committee. 

33 6. The Committee shall conduct a study to address the transfer 

34 of public lands in Nevada from the Federal Government to the State 

35 of Nevada in contemplation of Congress turning over the 

36 management and control of those public lands to the State of 

37 Nevada on or before June 30, 2015. The study must include, without 

38 limitation: 

39 (a) An identification of the public lands to be transferred and the 

40 interests, rights and uses associated with those lands; 

41 (b) The development of a proposed plan for the administration, 

42 management and use of the public lands, including, without 

43 limitation, the designation of wilderness or other conservation areas 

44 or the sale, lease or other disposition of those lands; and 

– page 4 – 

1 (c) An economic analysis concerning the transfer of the public 

2 lands, including, without limitation: 

3 (1) The identification of the costs directly incident to the 

4 transfer of title of those lands; 

5 (2) The identification of sources of revenue to pay for the 

6 administration and maintenance of those lands by the State of 

7 Nevada; 

8 (3) A determination of the amount of any revenue that is 

9 currently received by the State of Nevada or a political subdivision 

10 of this State in connection with those lands, including, without 

11 limitation, any payments made in lieu of taxes and mineral leases; 

12 and 

13 (4) The identification of any potential revenue to be received 

14 from those lands by the State of Nevada after the transfer of the 

15 lands and recommendations for the distribution of those revenues. 

16 7. On or before February 1, 2015, the Committee shall submit a 

17 report of its findings and recommendations to the Director of 

18 the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmittal to the 78th Session of the 

19 Nevada Legislature. During that session, one or more members of 

20 the Committee must be available, upon request, to present the 

21 recommendations of the Committee to the Legislature or the 

22 appropriate standing committees with jurisdiction over public lands 

23 matters. 

24 Sec. 2. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval 

25 and expires by limitation on June 30, 2015. 

Snyder Livestock Co. 

“Bulls for the 21 st century” Sale Report 

March 10, 2013 

High selling bull was a Red Angus consigned by Lana Trotter. 3625 was sired 

by LJT Citadel 812, and topped his test group for RFI, Ribeye area, and had an 

ADG of 4.42. He sold to Silver Spur Ranch and Genex for $14500. 

An Objective T510 son consigned by Westwind Angus won the calving ease 

Angus division and sold to Fred Wilkerson Ranch for $6600. 

Thanks to all of you for your support for our 2013 sale. 

Averages 

Breed Average Sale Price Head Count 

Early Fall 3054 24 

Angus 3308 12 

Limousin 2500 1 

Red Angus 2827 11 

Late Fall 3768 19 

Angus 3085 13 

Balancer 3300 1 

Hereford 3333 3 


Spring 3436 69 

Angus 3453 45 

Balancer 3033 3 

Charolais 3340 5 

Hereford 4100 7 


Overall totals 3411 112 

382000 

Join us in celebrating another year of achievement 

for the 

Nevada Agricultural Foundation 

at our 

Annual Meeting and Banquet 

Friday, May 10, 2013 

Please contact our offi ce for details 

775-673-2468 | sue@nvagfoundation.org 

P.O. Box 8089 Reno, NV 89507 | 2165 Green Vista Dr., Suite 204, Sparks, NV 89431 

www.nvagfoundation.org 


April 2013 19

Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition 

Smith Valley Restoration Project 

In 2007, the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition (ENLC) in collaboration 

with the Ely District Bureau of Land Management (Ely BLM), and funding 

partner, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), completed the implementation phase 

of the Smith Valley Vegetation Restoration Project, located 15 miles north of Ely, 

Nevada. A variety of mechanical treatment methods were applied on the valley’s 

benches, impacting a total of 900 acres. Today, several years after implementation, we 

checked in with the progress of the vegetation response to the treatments, and here is 

Figure 1 

— Vegetation Response Report — 

what we found. 

The project’s primary goal was to restore the valley’s sagebrush shrublands to a 

healthy and resilient ecological condition or state. Pinyon and juniper trees were increasing 

in the sagebrush communities and were competing with shrubs, grasses, and forbs for 

resources. Like many sagebrush shrubland ecosystems in the Great Basin with similar 

environmental attributes, tree cover needed to be reduced, and in subsequently, increase 

abundance of native herbaceous vegetation and shrub vigor. In addition, cutting trees 

would reduce potential for large, catastrophic fire. Often these large, hot fires result in 

conversion to an ecosystem dominated by non-native annual grasses, or what we know 

as cheatgrass. Conversion to stands of cheatgrass changes the ecological function and 

processes of the watershed, including degradation of wildlife habitat. To measure changes 

in vegetation and its response to various treatment methods, we incorporated a research 

component to a portion of the project. 

The study site we discuss in this article was implemented on 240-acres of a pinyon and 

juniper-encroached black sagebrush vegetation community. Soils for the site are classified 

as calcareous loams. Elevations range from 6800 to 7200 feet, and receive approximately 

8-12 inches precipitation annually. The study consists of 18 13-acre units. (See Figure 1) 

One vegetation-monitoring plot (200 data points) was established in each treatment unit. 

Vegetation composition, cover, and structure data was collected for each plot. Six treatments 

compared at this study site were lop and scatter, feller-buncher and chipper, masticator, 

lop and pile and burn, and veg-crusher (bulldozer-no chain) and control unit (no 

treatment). Each treatment had three replications. 

Vegetation plot data was collected before treatments in 2006. Post-treatment data 

was collected in 2007, 2008, and 2010. Percent cover data for 2006 and 2010 were totaled 

separately and totals are shown for each vegetation functional group or life form (Table 1). 

Percent cover refers to the percent of area covered by vegetation. For example, (as if looking 

down from above) trees covered 23.72% of the 200-square-meter plot and in 2010 only 

1.96%. Measuring cover in this way documents abundance for all vegetation or species. 

Summary of the results for the 240-acre project shows tree cover decreased, as would be 

Table 1. 

Mean Change in Percent Cover for All Plots in Study Area 

2006 2010 

Trees 23.72 1.96 

Shrubs 9.73 14.2 

Forbs 2.84 10.75 

Perennial Grasses 15.53 18.33 

Cheatgrass 0.69 0.3 

Treatment Descriptions 

Lop and scatter: All trees are cut using chainsaws. 

Cut trees are bucked and limbed. Slash is 

scattered to a height of less than 3 feet. 

Lop, pile and burn: All trees are cut using chainsaws. 

Slash is piled in six-foot high 

mounds within treatment unit and mounds 

are burned in fall/winter months. 

Feller buncher and chipper: All trees are cut 

and piled using a feller-buncher. Chipper 

grinds piled biomass into small chips 

that are broadcast evenly over site. 

Masticator: All trees are ground to base by a 

rotational head, slash left on site. 

Veg-crusher: D-8 CAT bulldozers are used to 

knock over and uproot trees instead 

of dragging chain between two bulldozers. 

This method is used because of 

the small size of research units, and 

thus having maneuvering constraints. 

20 April 2013 



Table 2. Vegetation Cover by Treatment, 2006 and 2010 

expected after mechanical treatment. Shrub, forb and perennial grass totals increased, 

shrubs and forbs substantially. For simplicity, the tables do not include 

statistical analysis technicalities. Results shown are consistent with statistical 

analysis results currently submitted for publishing. 

We also grouped the data by treatment method to demonstrate any differences 

in vegetation response between the methods (Table 2). Looking at the 

data by treatment, we see total reduction in tree cover for all treatments except 

the veg-crusher/bulldozer method, which left several live trees. Shrub cover 

increased similarly across all treatment methods. Forb cover more than doubled 

for all treatments except for mastication. Alternatively, the mastication treatment 

showed a large increase in perennial grass cover. Other treatments showed 

a very small increase in perennial grass cover and a decrease for the bulldozer 

method. Cheatgrass cover did not change. Its presence was minimal before 

treatment and did not increase. The method leaving the least amount of slash or 

biomass residue was lop, pile and burn. 

The largest variation among the treatment methods was cost. Table 3 shows 

the costs for each method used in the research project and the current going 

rates. Due to the small acreage for the research project, costs for some methods 

were inflated. The chaining was conducted at normal cost since there were 700 

more acres chaining within the project area. The least expensive method was 

the bulldozer and one-way chaining. The most expensive was the feller-buncher 

and chipper. The lop, pile and burn method was effective in reaching objectives, 

however it is very labor intensive, and thus, expensive. Mastication is at least 

double the cost of lop and scatter. 

Table 3 

Treatment Methods 

Project Rates 

$/acre 

Normal Rates 

$/acre 

Lop and scatter $525 $100-200 

Lop, pile, burn $935 $400-500 

Fecon shredder/masticator $460 $400 

Bulldozer or one-way chaining $83 $100 

Feller-buncher-chipper $2,000 $1000 

We can infer from the results that we met our goals for the project. We reduced 

tree cover and increased shrubs, forbs, and grass cover without introducing 

more cheatgrass onto the site. We have minimized the potential for a large 

fire moving through the study area and the rest of the project area. Flourishing 

shrubs and herbaceous species should improve wildlife habitat for ungulates 

and birds. We, also, more fully understand the variety of methods used to accomplish 

mechanical removal of trees. Finally, monitoring protocols are in place 

for future analysis and evaluation. 

All treatment options seemed to meet project objectives…perhaps some 

better than others, primarily economically. Though veg-crushing or one-way 

chaining is cheap, it does not accomplish thorough removal of pinyon and 

juniper. More expensive two-way chaining increases tree and shrub mortality. 

Shredding machines like the feller-buncher and masticator can be expensive, but 

wood chip residue is preferable to logs and limbs when considering aesthetics, 

fire, and pathogen hazards. On the other hand, dead biomass nutrients remain 

on site that may benefit living organisms. Machines are restricted by topography 

and road access, while chainsaw crews are more versatile on difficult terrain. 

Pinyon and juniper trees with low to medium cover are optimal for chainsaw 

crew lop and scatter methods. 

Options and considerations are plentiful in planning treatments to reduce 

pinyon and juniper cover. Among many things, we must consider available funding, 

terrain and access difficulty, and last, but not least, our desire of healthy and 

resilient ecological condition of our valuable sagebrush ecosystems. 


April 2013 21

GROW MORE FEED, 

NOT THE WEEDS! 

Alfalfas that Lead in the Field! 

6306Q-Somerset 

6442Q-Boulder 

Expedition 

6475 (New) 

6552 (New) 

919 Brand 

919 MF Gold 

Conventional Alfalfa Varieties 

Cinch I (ML) 

Cinch II 

Ron’s Blend 

Haymaker (ML) 

Blazer XL 

Genoa 

Tahoe 

Common 

Ladak 

Vernal 

Ranger 

Renograzer 

Round Up Ready Alfalfas 

FD WH 

Liberator 4 VH 

6497R (New) 4 VH 

Mutiny 4.3 VH 

6516R (New) 5 H 

Revolt 6 

Grain & Miscellaneous 

Oats 

• Cayuse 

• Monida 

Wheat 

• Twin 

• PR 1404 

Peas 

Corn 

Soghum Sudan 

• BMR 

• Piper Sudan 

Grass 

• Sweet RN 

Honey 

Triticale 

• Forerunner 

(Beardless) 

Ryegrain 

• Gazelle - Spring 

• Prima - Fall 

• VNS 

Beardless Barley 

Millet 

Milo 

Sunflower 

Garrison Meadow 

Foxtail 

Dryland & Reclamation Seed 

Wheatgrasses 

Nordan Crested 

Thickspike 

Bluebunch 

Hycrest Crested 

Siberian Wheatgrass 

Oahe Intermediate 

Pubescent 

Indian Recegrass 

Big Sagebrush 

Clovers 

Alsike 

Ladino 

Red Clover 

Strawberry 

White Dutch 

New Zealand 

Yellow Blossom 

Trefoil 

Ron’s Dryland Mix 

Ron’s Rangeland Mix 

Forage Kochia 

Great Basin Wild Rye 

Ladak Alfalfa 

PNW Dryland 

Tall Wheatgrass 

Shadescale 

4 Wing Saltbush 

We Have Varieties Available That are 

Organically Approved 

Turf Grasses 

Manhattan Special 

Ky Blue Grass 

Athletic Turf Mix 

TT Perennial Ryegrass 

Chewings Fesque 

Defiance XRE 

(Drought Tolerant) 

Pasture Mixes 

Olympic Elite 

University w/Clover 

University w/No Clover 

Northwest Pasture 

Horse Pasture 

PNW Dryland Mix 

Field Grasses 

Orchard Grasses 

• Stampede 

• Dawn XL 

• Seco (Dryland) 

• Haymate XL 

• Potomac 

• Paiute 

• Teff Grass 

Meadow Brome 

Smooth Brome 

• Annual Rye Grass 

• Perennial Rye Grasses 

Timothy’s 

• Climax 

• Telon Express 

• Treasure 

Fawn Tall Fesque 

Serving Agriculture for 31 Years 

Call or Stop In For Our Complete List of Seeds & Grains! 

RON’S SEED & SUPPLY 

710 Grass Valley Road • Winnemucca, NV 89445 

775-623-5053 or 1-800-603-5053 

YOUR SEED, FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL HEADQUARTERS FOR NEVADA 

22 April 2013 



Selecting Alfalfa Varieties: 

Fall Dormancy, Winter Hardiness and Pest Resistance 

By: Brent Johnson, Alfalfa Brand Manager, NEXGROW ® alfalfa 

As you’re planning for the upcoming planting year, it is 

crucial to consider your planting environment and what 

traits best suit that climate. Fall dormancy and winter hardiness 

are key aspects to consider when choosing the best seed option 

for your acreage. 

Some think that these qualities are only important in 

terms of winter survival, but they also promote growth during 

the spring months. And the difference between the two 

is vital as well. For instance, fall dormancy relates to how 

quickly a plant shuts down in the fall and when it greens 

up in the spring, while winter hardiness determines a 

plant’s ability to survive over multiple winters and the 

longevity of the alfalfa stand. 

What is Fall Dormancy? 

Fall dormancy is rated on a scale of 1 to 11 

and stem growth in the fall serves as the 

basis for assigning varieties a relative 

fall dormancy rating. A fall dormancy 

of 1 indicates the crop is 

very dormant and will demonstrate 

the least height of 

growth during the fall. Typically, 

the more dormant the 

variety, the slower it regrows 

after harvest but the better it 

survives adverse winter conditions. 

In contrast, a rating of 11 

indicates the least fall dormancy and 

greatest height of fall growth. These very 

non-dormant varieties are highly susceptible 

to winterkill. 

Higher fall dormancy varieties tend to 

green-up faster in the spring and continue 

growing later in the fall. This extra growth period 

could make the difference when attempting 

to gain one additional cutting during the growing 

season. Higher fall dormancy varieties tend to 

have the highest yields, while lower fall dormancy 

ratings are associated with higher forage quality. 

During the fall, dormant varieties – typically those 

with a ranking of 2 to 4 – alter their chemical processes 

to prepare for winter survival. Starch in the crown and root 

is converted into sugars that function as antifreeze and 

helps keep the crown, crown buds and root from freezing at 

temperatures below 32˚F. Crown buds form during the fall 

and are ultimately the source of growth during the spring, 

providing healthy and strong plants for summer harvest. 

Separating Fall Dormancy and 

Winter Hardiness 

Like fall dormancy, winter hardiness 

is also ranked on a scale, in this 

case from 1 to 6 (extremely winter 

hardy to not winter hardy). Winter 

hardiness determines a crop’s potential 

to survive multiple winters and often has 

a direct correlation to stand longevity and 

crop yield. 

Until recently, lower fall dormancy varieties 

were thought to provide the best winter hardi- 

ness. While fall dormancy may have an impact on winter hardiness, 

other factors such as disease and pest resistance ratings also play 

a role. Through advanced breeding techniques in recent years, 

however, researchers have separated the correlation between fall 

dormancy and winter hardiness. Today, growers can plant later fall 

dormancy varieties without sacrificing the winter hardiness and 

persistence that can lead to longer stand life. For instance, in most 

areas in central and northern Nevada, suggested fall dormancy 

levels are usually between 3 and 5 with some fall and late winter 

growth. 

Know Your Climate & Pests 

Understanding your geography and climate will help when the 

time comes to selecting a variety. If the alfalfa is cut every 35 to 

40 days, select a variety with low fall dormancy. If you are on an 

aggressive cutting schedule, such as 26 to 30 days, select a variety 

with a higher fall dormancy rating. 

Aside from cutting schedules, another factor affecting fall 

dormancy is elevation. This is especially true in Nevada where elevation 

varies greatly throughout the state. Typically, a safe rule to 

follow is the higher the elevation, the lower the fall dormancy. High 

yield, quality and outstanding persistence are all essential qualities 

for strong, durable alfalfa stands. 

Beyond fall dormancy and winter hardiness, pest resistance 

is essential when choosing which variety to plant in the upcoming 

season. For instance, stem nematode is a pest that is particularly 

harmful in the Nevada climate. Parasitic or stem nematodes are 

microscopic roundworms which can cause reduced yield and stand 

life to alfalfa fields. Several species of stem nematodes have been 

identified as being parasitic to alfalfa and it is not unusual for several 

different species of nematodes to be present in a single alfalfa 

field. Symptoms of nematode damage are varied and are often 

confused with other problems. In addition to direct feeding injury, 

nematodes cause wounds on roots and stems that allow other diseases 

such as Fusarium or bacterial wilt to invade the plant. 

Thriving in Nevada 

Two specific NEXGROW ® alfalfa varieties that are made to 

thrive in the Nevada climate are Roundup Ready ® Mutiny and 

6516R. Mutiny offers a fall dormancy of 4 and is very hardy to 

survive cold Nevada winters. It offers a large yield potential of 

high quality forage from first cut to last with excellent stand persistence 

and very fast recovery after cutting with high leaf retention. 

Variety 6516R has a fall dormancy of 5 and is also hardy. It offers 

rapid recovery after cutting which enables the maximum number of 

harvests. This variety offers excellent forage quality and very good 

drought stress resistance. Both Mutiny and 6516R have high pest 

and disease resistance, specifically to stem nematodes. 

Considering the climate you’re growing in is essential to 

achieving maximum yield potential. Be sure that fall dormancy, 

winter hardiness and pest protection are topics you discuss with 

your seed representative when selecting future varieties for 

planting. 

Visit http://www.plantNEXGROW.com for additional information. 

©2013 Nexgrow Genetics, Nampa, ID 83653 Read All Bag Tags. They 

contain important conditions of sale, including limitations of warranty and 

remedy. 

Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa seed is available for sale and distribution 

by authorized Seed Companies or their dealers for use in the United 

States only. This seed may not be planted outside of the United States, or for 

the production of seed, or sprouts. 


April 2013 23

SOCIETY FOR RANGE MANAGEMENT 

National Resources Inventory – Grazing Land On-Site Study 

The National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistical survey 

designed to help gauge natural resource status, conditions, and 

trends on the Nation’s non-federal land in the United States – about 75 

percent of the total land area. The NRI is conducted by the USDA-Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the Iowa 

State University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. The NRI 45°N 

is carried out under the authority of a number of legislative acts including 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, the Soil and Water Resources Conservation 

Act of 1977, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform 

Act of 1996, and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The 

NRI provides a nationally consistent database that allows for resources 

assessment and plays a key role in development of conservation policy and 40°N 

programs for the Nation. 

The NRI Grazing Land Study began in 2003 in 17 western states, encompassing 

those states from North Dakota to Texas and West. A limited amount 

of data was also collected in Louisiana and Florida. The initial study focused 

on rangeland – defined as land on which the climax or potential plant cover is 

composed primarily of native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs or shrubs suitable 

for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed 

35°N 

like rangeland. An interagency group – USDA-NRCS, USDA-Agricultural 

Research Service, USDI-Bureau of Land Management, USDI – U.S. Geological 

Survey, and the USDA – Forest Service – worked together to develop the 

field data collection protocols and data elements for the grazing land study. In 

2011, the Bureau of Land Management partnered with NRCS in implementing 30°N 

a national approach to monitoring rangeland resources by expanding the NRI 

on-site data collection to BLM managed lands. This year the Grazing Land 

30°N 

Study will expand to the 48 contiguous states and will include rangeland and 

pastureland on non-federal lands, as well as the BLM managed lands. 

The NRI on-site data are collected at a scientifically selected subset of NRI 

25°N 

sample points. The NRI program is based upon scientific and rigorous sample 

survey protocols. These protocols include maintaining and protecting the integrity 

and confidentiality of the data gathering sites. The geographic locations 

25°N 

of the sites are not public information and all data gathers are required to sign a 

NRI Confidentiality Certification Agreement prior to starting data collection. 

NRI data that identify landowners, operators, data collection sites, or unreleased data are 

not released to the public. NRCS policy also requires permission from the land owner/ 

operator before entering private property. 

The data collection is done by teams of two or three data collectors. With the assistance 

of a global positioning system (GPS), data collectors navigate to sample locations and 

collect on-site data. The inventory process involves collecting data along two intersecting 

150-foot transects and in a macro plot formed by the two transects (150-foot diameter circular 

plot). Photos are taken at the end of each transect and optional pictures may also be 

taken of noxious weeds, soil erosion, fence line contracts, conservation practices, and other 

points of interest. Types of data collected include: land cover/use; soil component name; 

slope gradient, length and shape; ecological site information; rangeland trend; plant production, 

composition, cover, density and height; soil surface aggregate stability; rangeland 

health; presence of invasive/noxious plants; and the presence of any resource concerns, 

disturbances, and conservation practices. 

Quality assurance is an integral part of the NRI Grazing Land Study. All field data 

collectors must be training and authorized before collecting data. They must participate in 

an annual training, pass a written test, perform calibration exercises, pass a performancebased 

test, and sign an NRI Confidentiality Certification Agreement. 

In October 2010, the NRCS prepared a summary of the first four years (2003-2006) of 

by Patti Novak-Echenique — NRCS Nevada State Rangeland Management Specialist 

125°W 

85°W 

120°W 

80°W 

115°W 

110°W 

105°W 

rangeland on-site data – the ‘National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment’. 

The NRI rangeland results addressed current conditions based on data collected at 

10,000-11,000 NRI rangeland field locations. The findings focus on key issues in rangeland 

science, including rangeland health, non-native plant species, native and non-native invasive 

plant species, bare ground, intercanopy gaps, and soil surface aggregate stability. The 

complete report by chapter is available online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ 

nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/?cid=stelprdb1041620 

One key finding is that non-native species are present on nearly half (49.9%) of the 

Nation’s non-federal rangeland. 

This year, the Nevada-NRI sample includes 62 locations in the following counties: 

Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, 

and Washoe. Permission letters will be sent out in early April and data collection is 

scheduled to begin in May. NRCS appreciates your support of this valuable inventory of 

our Nation’s range and pasturelands. 

The Society for Range Management supports the expansion of NRI to include all 

lands. Implementation of a large statistically valid sampling procedure, as exemplified by 

NRI, is necessary to provide accurate assessments of the status of the Nation’s rangelands. 

Use of a uniform inventory and assessment methods of all ownerships will make such 

determinations possible. 

100°W 

Non-Federal Rangeland Where 

Non-Native Plant Species are Present 

Sc a l e 

0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 

K m s 

A lber s E q u a l A re a 

95°W 

90°W 

Non-Native 

Plants 

Percent Acres 

Over 75 

50 - 75 

25 - 50 

25 or less 

None 

No data 

Federal area 

Water 

State lines 

Region lines 

Source: National Resources Inventory 

Rangeland Resource Assessment 

October 2010 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

m11152 

The Society for Range Management (SRM) is “the professional society dedicated to supporting persons who work with rangelands and have a commitment to their sustainable use.” SRM’s 

members are ranchers, land managers, scientists, educators, students, conservationists – a diverse membership guided by a professional code of ethics and unified by a strong land ethic. This series 

of articles is dedicated to connecting the science of range management with the art, by applied science on the ground in Nevada. Articles are the opinion of the author and may not be an official 

position of SRM. Further information and a link to submit suggestions or questions are available at the Nevada Section website at http://www.ag.unr.edu/nsrm/. SRM’s main webpage is www. 

rangelands.org. We welcome your comments. 

24 April 2013 



Federal 

Coordination with County Plans 

Federal Agencies Are Required To Resolve Inconsistencies 

We have all experienced meetings where the earnest federal employees ask us for 

what they call the public opinion. This process promises that the voices of citizens will be 

included in federal decisions, but what we say very rarely shows up in their documents. The 

agency employees are paid to do such things as consultation, cooperation, collaboration, 

and coordination, but they are not instructed to incorporate what they hear into their plans 

or regulations. However, words are important, and the word “coordination” has more than 

one meaning in the federal vocabulary. 

Federal laws also require that Federal agencies “coordinate” their activities on federally 

controlled lands with plans prepared by state and local units of government. That 

means federal proposals are to be consistent with the policy of local government or clearly 

explain why they are taking actions that conflict with official local plans. 

In this context, “coordinate” means the action that federal agencies are required to take 

to resolve inconsistencies between a federal proposal and an official local plan or policy. 

Webster’s Dictionary defines “coordinate” as an action between two parties of equal rank, 

importance, or degree. Congress directs the federal agencies to place a county on an equal 

footing with the federal agency. In other words coordination is negotiation on a government 

to government basis and is not just a form of public input. 

First the local community must write a natural resource plan or strategy that describes 

the local environment and what land uses are endorsed locally within federal and state 

lands. Most of the local plans have been prepared by a committee selected by a County 

Commission, although some are being prepared by other local units of government such 

as Conservation Districts. 

A local environment consists of the natural features such as air, water, plants and 

soils; it also includes farms, ranches, mines, retail business, industry, and recreational 

pursuits. The local strategy describes the current custom, culture, and economy and what 

is acceptable to the community. Once it is written, the local government must notify the 

federal agencies that an officially approved plan has been adopted and usually that includes 

providing the agency with a copy of the plan. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and 

NACo Renew Public Lands Management Partnership 

Sign MOU to Continue, Strengthen Working Relationship 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service 

(FS) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) have officially renewed their 

longstanding partnership that allows them to tackle public lands issues across boundaries. 

By signing the Memorandum of Understanding, the BLM and FS recognize the important 

role counties play in locally based decision-making and the need to emphasize a 

landscape-level approach across local, state and federal boundaries. 

The agreement, signed March 3, establishes a framework for the Bureau, the Forest 

Service and NACo to work cooperatively to address fire, weed management, planning and 

other areas of common concern, as well as seek creative solutions to issues impacting local 

communities such as recreation, grazing, wild horses and burros and energy development. 

It ensures that broad lines of communication are opened to county officials to contribute to 

federal land management initiatives and policies. At a national and local level, the groups 

will collaborate to proactively address potential conflicts and achieve results that benefit 

each organization. 

“Counties are key partners on-the-ground in the successful management of public 

lands,” BLM Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze said. “The BLM values the spirit of 

partnership, goodwill and cooperation we have enjoyed in this longstanding relationship.” 

“It’s essential that we continue our strong, productive partnership with the National 

Association of Counties,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We appreciate the 

association’s interest and participation in the wide variety of land management issues we 

face every day on forests and grasslands cross the country.” 

By Floyd W. Rathbun, Certified Range Management Consultant, Fallon, Nevada 

Authority for local Natural Resource Strategies in Nevada was established over 

twenty years ago with the passage of SB40. Soon after passage, several Nevada counties 

established what were called Public Land Use Advisory Committee and completed what 

were called public lands plans. Definition of the term “public lands” has caused some real 

confusion so emphasizing natural resource qualities is a way to avoid the controversy. SB40 

is codified in the Nevada Revised Statutes within NRS321. 

Local Process: 

1. Establish by ordinance a Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC). 

2. Select the committee members that best represent your area. For example Owyhee 

County, Idaho, ordinance specifies that people will be appointed to the committee on the 

basis of: “...involvement in, an interest in, and expertise in the various multiple uses of 

the federally and state managed lands and the custom, culture, and economic stability of 

Owyhee County.” 

3. Write a land use and natural resource management plan or strategy for lands administered 

by federal and state agencies, in order to clearly communicate the policies of your 

County to these other entities. 

4. Save time and effort by following the examples of communities which have been 

successful, including: Eureka County Nevada, Pershing County Nevada, Owyhee County 

Idaho, Modoc County California, Wallowa County Oregon, and Walla Walla County 

Washington. Copies of their plans and other materials are available for The County to use. 

5. Officially approve the completed strategy by ordinance, deliver the plan to each 

of the various federal and state agencies, and be prepared to insist that the policies of the 

County be recognized in accordance with the various federal and state laws. 

If the local government has no plan or policy then it (the County) is just one more voice 

that the federal agents will ignore as public input. 

On the other hand, an official local plan or strategy can be used to require the government 

employees to stay within the scope of their authority and often provides the best 

course of action. 

A local planning committee is much more likely to find real solutions for real problems. 

NACo President Chris Rodgers said he is pleased that our federal partners recognize 

the unique role and perspective counties play in the management of public lands. “This 

agreement strengthens our intergovernmental relationships and ensures that county officials 

have input on federal decisions affecting counties and communities.” 

The BLM is a federal agency that manages approximately 245 million acres of public 

land, primarily in the West, and 700 million acres of federal mineral resources. In addition, 

the BLM is responsible for managing public lands scattered throughout the 31 states bordering 

on, and east of the Mississippi River. The agency’s mission is to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of these public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. 

The Forest Service is a land and resource management agency of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture responsible for managing and protecting approximately 193 million acres 

of public lands. The Forest Service provides leadership in the management of the Nation’s 

state and private forests, forest research, and international assistance for the protection and 

sound management of the world’s forest resources. 

National Association of Counties is a national organization that represents county 

governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to 

the nation’s 3,069 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal 

government, improves the public’s understanding of county government, assists counties 

in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides 

value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. 


April 2013 25

Beef Quality Assurance: 

Cattle 

Quality assurance in livestock production focuses on raising safe, wholesome 

products for the consumer. The way producers interact and move their livestock 

has been shown to affect the quality of the products from those animals. Stressed livestock 

results in decreased production, and adversely effects meat quality during animal harvest. 

It is important to understand proper animal handling techniques to minimize stress, ultimately 

benefitting both the animal and the producer. 

Handling cattle 

To handle cattle correctly, it is essential to understand animal behavior. In fact, the 

greater the handler’s knowledge of cattle behavior, the better his ability to predict an animal’s 

response. This results in a quicker, easier job and a lower probability of injury to both 

animals and people. Cattle, because of their size, strength, speed and potential for aggression, 

need to be handled thoughtfully and with confidence. The most important aspect of 

handling any livestock is to be able to recognize and interpret an animal’s reactions. 

Curt Pate, renowned horse trainer and livestock stockman, believes the basis for cattle 

handling is simple: always be in a spot where you can see the animal’s nose. Pate, who is 

also a rancher, says a mistake people commonly make is to walk behind the animal (or the 

herd) when trying to push them forward. But, once you recognize that cattle’s range of vision 

is different than humans, you will quickly realize that walking behind the animal is 

the wrong approach. 

Flight zone 

The flight zone is an important concept in livestock handling. It can be described as 

the area around an animal where it feels safe. When working with new animals for the first 

time, slowly approach them in their line of sight, avoiding the animal’s blind spot. Livestock 

animals have wide-angle vision, which allows them to see everything around them except 

the area directly behind them—the blind spot. To effectively move animals through a lot 

or chute, recognize how to position your body in relation to the animal. The shoulder is 

BEEF CHECKOFF NEWS 

News From the Nevada Beef Council: CHECKING-IN ON YOUR BEEF CHECKOFF 

Addressing Beef Quality Issues 

Since release of the National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) in July 2012, Beef Quality 

Assurance (BQA) have presented or will present a summary of the data in nine states. The 

summary begins by asking the question “Who are the beef consumers in the U.S.?” and 

“What are they asking for from producers?” The presentation also addresses myths and 

realities of beef production and an in-depth participant discussion of NBQA. In response to 

the 2011 Audit, the checkoff is developing programs around three emphasis areas: product 

integrity; eating satisfaction; and telling the beef story. Dr. John Paterson will be presenting 

a summary of the data in Wilton, CA on April 27th. For more information, email Janel 

Fisher, Manager of Producer Communications, at iheartbeef@nevadabeef.org. 

Record. Check. Go. 

At your local auction market, you may see posters and displays for the new Beef Quality 

Assurance (BQA) residue avoidance campaign, Control residues. Every animal, every 

time. The communications effort was created to build awareness of the checkoff-funded 

BQA program and its residue avoidance guidelines. 

Recently, the Federal Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) reassessed the beef carcass 

inspection testing-level requirements for residue risks. After their evaluation, FSIS recommended 

an increase in the number beef carcasses tested. In response to this recommendation, 

the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) advisory board, state coordinators and staff 

decided to create a communications effort to build awareness of the checkoff-funded BQA 

program and its residue avoidance guidelines. 

The campaign’s message is that residue avoidance is easy if you follow three simple 

steps: 

1. Record – pertinent information when you treat an animal 

2. Check – ship date against required withdrawal times 

3. Go – determine if the animal is healthy for shipping 

Often, inadequate record keeping is cited as a major problem during on-farm residue 

violation investigations. The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) findings released 

in July also revealed that proper record keeping and written protocols throughout the 

system were identified as areas where improvement would help strengthen consumer confidence 

in beef products. 

Producer Support of the Beef Checkoff Remains High 

Support for the beef checkoff among its investors remains high, according to a recent 

survey of beef and dairy producers nationwide. Support, at 76 percent, remains at the 

historic high reached in January 2012. The nationwide survey of 1,200 beef and dairy 

producers conducted by the independent firm Aspen Media & Market Research in late 

December 2012 and early January 2013 found that an overwhelming majority of beef and 

dairy producers continue to believe their beef checkoff has value for them in many ways. 

• Eight out of 10 producers say the beef checkoff has helped to contribute to a 

positive trend in beef demand. 

• Seven out of 10 producers say the beef checkoff contributes to the profitability 

of their operations, is there for them in a crisis and represents their 

interests. 

• Seven out of 10 beef producers believe the checkoff is well-managed. 

For more information regarding the survey, go to MyBeefCheckoff.com. 

Introducing Schmacon 

The checkoff’s new-product exchange at the 2013 Cattle Industry Convention showcased 

a new beef product from Schmaltz Retail Products, LLC, touted as “beef’s answer 

to bacon.” The product, Schmacon, is a new patent pending product/process made from 

beef and said to offer flavor, convenience and nutrition advantages over conventional bacon. 

More than 30 state beef council representatives attended the presentation by Schmaltz 

Retail Products, LLC President Howard Bender, then had opportunities to taste the product 

in its strip form, as well as in beef-slider and eggs Benedict applications. The company 

expects Schmacon to be available for distribution into the retail, foodservice, healthcare, 

and military market segments in the next few months. 

Adding More Beef to Menus 

Final results indicate that BJ’s Restaurants sold nearly 107,000 of featured beef products 

during its 2012 holiday beef promotion partnership with the checkoff. The national 

checkoff team partnered with beef councils in Arizona, California, Florida and Texas to 

market steak (in combination with the restaurant’s seafood offerings) throughout BJ’s 126 

restaurants nationwide. New York strips, ribeyes and top sirloins were promoted via menu 

“outserts,” in addition to a Free Standing Insert in newspapers across the country; promotional 

activity on the restaurant’s website and social media pages; as well as loyalty-club 

and e-club loyalty mailings. Funds from the participating state beef councils helped support 

a wait staff incentive contest in individual states. 

Getting Results! 

A recent checkoff-funded survey of more than 1,700 health professionals and influencers 

found that 94 percent would be somewhat likely or extremely likely to recommend eating 

lean beef as part of a healthy diet; and 64 percent would feel comfortable recommending 

that consumers incorporate lean beef into a healthy diet at least three to five times per week. 

Learn more about how your checkoff helps these important messengers teach consumers 

about beef and heart healthy eating at www.BeefNutrition.org. 

26 April 2013 



Handling and Stockmanship Skills 

Flight Zone 

By moving towards the front of the animal, the beast will move backward or turn away. 

From the front, you can deflect cattle sideways by moving to either side of an imaginary 

line drawn through the middle of the animal’s length. 

If Handler 

Stands 

Here, 

Animal will not 

Retreat 

If Handler Stands 

Here, Animal will 

Retreat 

recognized as the point of balance; this is a neutral zone of movement for the animal. To 

move an animal past you, approach the animal from the side, behind the shoulder, and walk 

towards the tail of the animal. To make an animal back up, walk from the shoulder towards 

the head of the animal. 

When a person penetrates the flight zone, the animal moves away. A good stockhandler 

knows when to penetrate this zone and when to retreat so that the cattle move quietly in 

the desired direction. 

Cattle move most effectively if they can see the handler at all times. Cattlemen often 

think the best way to move cattle is to get behind. However, when a person is directly behind 

the animal, that animal can’t see the person. 

The most important point to remember about the flight zone is not the flight zone itself, 

but the area before the flight zone. When approaching an animal, it is important to be able 

to predict the animal’s response to your entering the flight zone. If the desired movement 

is not going to occur, you need to back out, reposition and approach at a different angle. 

Position and movement 

Experienced stock handlers use the point of balance of an animal to move it. Looking 

from a side view, this means behind the shoulder; from in front, it is from the center of the 

head. 

When close to cattle, the stockhandler’s position in relation to an animal’s shoulder 

can affect which direction the animal will head. The line through the shoulder is the point 

of balance. If the stockhandler goes behind this line, the beast moves forward. 

On a fence beast moves backwards 

With no fence beast turns away. 

Stockmanship skills 

The role of a stockman is to create movement in cattle and then use position to control 

and manage that movement to the desired result. When cattle lose movement, they become 

reluctant to work. When movement is lost, excessive pressure, force and driving aids are 

more likely to be used. Creating and managing movement is key to achieving effective 

stockmanship. 

There are five basic principles of cattle behavior that, when used properly, can improve 

the ease and speed of working cattle while reducing stress and increasing efficiency. Those 

principles are: 

1. Cattle want to see you. 

Understanding how cattle see is basic to getting cattle to respond to 

your position. Cattle can see everywhere but directly behind them. 

2. Cattle want to go around you. 

This allows you to position yourself such that, when they do go around 

you, they are pointed directly at the gate of destination you had in mind. 

3. Cattle want to be with and will go to other cattle. 

Cattle know there is safety in numbers. Stockmen can take 

advantage of this natural instinct when working with herds. 

4. Cattle want to return to where they have been. 

The natural instinct of a cow is to return to the last 

safe or comfortable place they were. 

5. Cattle can only process one main thought at a time. 

Fear is the biggest distraction for cattle. Any perception 

that the handler is a “predator” must be avoided. 

These five behavior principles form the core of cattle handling and effective stockmanship. 

Employing these behavior principles to improve management skills has two important 

benefits: improved cattle performance may also improve your income without adding costs 

to the process; and, perhaps most importantly, effective stockmanship promotes animal 

welfare, an important part of today’s increased transparency in our industry. 


April 2013 27

LookUP 

by Pastor Diana Gonzalez 

by Pastor Diana Gonzalez 

Superman 

Remember the old Superman series on TV? How cool it was when the poor 

weaklings got saved from the bad guys when the man of steel came to their 

defense. We might think how convenient it would be to have Superman on speed dial. 

Right now I have some aggravating cows I’d like him to work over if they don’t stay 

in the pasture! 

When I think back on that TV series, I don’t think about how strong and fast Superman 

was, I think on the people who thought they were poor and weak. And while the show 

was only make-believe, it reminded me of the Hebrew children when they came out of 

Egypt. The good Lord had rescued the nation of Israel out of slavery, bondage and abuse. 

He showed himself strong, powerful and faithful through signs, wonders and miracles over 

and over and over again. Still, the people murmured and complained over and over and over 

again. The Lord promised them a good land; a land filled with milk and honey. 

Numbers 13:1-2 — Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Send out for 

yourself men so that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I am going 

to give to the sons of Israel; you shall send a man from each of their fathers’ 

tribes, every one a leader among them.” NAS 

When the spies returned they had a good report, and a bad report. 

Numbers 13:25-28 — When they returned from spying out the land, at the 

end of forty days, they proceeded to come to Moses and Aaron and to all 

the congregation of the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; 

and they brought back word to them and to all the congregation and showed 

them the fruit of the land. Thus they told him, and said, “We went in to the 

land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and 

this is its fruit. Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and 

the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants 

of Anak there.” NAS 

Twelve spies went into the promised land. Two men, Joshua and Caleb, saw the exceedingly 

good land, and ten men saw only the giants. 

Now all of the Hebrews, including the twelve spies, had seen the mighty miracles of 

God. Two were convinced. Ten were not convinced that God could do what He said He 

could do. What was the problem here? Ten men had a heart condition: hard, unbelieving 

hearts. 

In Numbers 11:23, the Lord asked Moses, “Is the Lord’s power limited? Now you shall 

see whether My Word will come true for you or not.” NAS 

God’s power is unlimited! And God’s Word is true. So who got to enter the promised 

land? The two believers whose hearts were tender to the Word of God, whose hearts were 

full of faith in God. 

The same is true today; the receivers are the believers. In a way we have our own 

Superman. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world (in spite of us and our sins) that He 

You are invited to 

COWBOY CHURCH! 

1st Saturday of every month 

Standish, CA @ 6:00 p.m. 

Hwy. 395 /A3 — Standish 4-H Hall 

Are you having a 

Rodeo or Livestock event? 

Give us a call. 

We would love to come to your 

event or ranch and host 

Cowboy Church for you. 

Harmony Ranch Ministry 

Tom J. Gonzalez Diana J. Gonzalez, Pastor 

3767 Keyes Way (775) 867-3100 

Fallon, NV 89406 threecrossls@cccomm.net Cell (775) 426-1107 

gave His only begotten son, Jesus. 

Jesus came to Earth as a man. Everything He did He did as a man, with the power of 

the Holy Spirit. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a blueprint of how we 

are supposed to walk on this Earth, with the same power and authority that Jesus has. He 

died for us to have it! 

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will 

do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 

Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified 

in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. If you love 

Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14:12-15 NAS 

Greater works than Jesus! How on Earth are we going to do that? Jesus answers that 

question in John 14:16-20: 

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be 

with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, 

because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He 

abides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come 

to you. After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see 

Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in 

My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. NAS 

The mighty Holy Spirit gives us the power to be little Christs (Christians). So what’s 

the key to this power and authority? 

Key #1: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to 

the Father but through Me.” John 14:6 NAS 

Ask Jesus into your life. Jesus said in John 3:3 you must be born again (spiritual 

regeneration). 

Key #2: Read and believe the Word of God with a tender, loving heart. 

John 15:7-11 — If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever 

you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you 

bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. Just as the Father has loved 

Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, 

you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments 

and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may 

be in you, and that your joy may be made full. NAS 

James 4:6-8 — But He gives a greater grace. Therefore is says, “God is opposed 

to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit therefore to God. 

Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will 

draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, 

you double-minded. NAS 

Key #3: Dare to live (your choice) the abundant life, with all the power and authority 

Christ died to give you. 

The thief (Satan) comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have 

life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10 NAS 

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with 

power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 

for God was with Him. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon 

all those who were listening to the message. Acts 10:38, 44 NAS 

Let’s purpose in our hearts to humbly submit to the Word of God. Then with faith in 

that Word we can live the superman (and woman) lives that bring us peace, no matter what 

is going on around us. 

Read Mark 11:22-26 and Luke 10:17-20. 

Happy trails. May God richly bless you. We love you and would love to hear from you. 

If you would like someone to pray with, or just have a question, please give us a call at (775) 

867-3100. ‘Til next time… 

If you would like a Cow Country Church booklet for yourself or a friend, email or 

call us with your request and we will mail it out to you free of charge. Pastor Diana, threecrossls@cccomm.net. 

(775) 867-3100 

28 April 2013 



Shaw Cattle Co. 

Production Sale Report 

87 Hereford Bulls $4,178.00 

221 Black Angus Bulls $4,732.00 

40 Red Angus Bulls $3,769.00 

114 Commercial Heifers $1,072.00 

Hereford 

Lot # Amount Buyer 

2 $7,000.00 Harrison Herefords ID 

4 $6,000.00 Lord Ranch ID 

14 $6,250.00 J Spear Ranch OR 

57 $7,000.00 Lambert Ranch CA 

76 $6,750.00 Desert View Ranch ID 

COW- 

BOY 

LOGIC 

“It’s not 

happy 

people who 

are thankful; 

it is thankful 

people that 

are happy.” 

Courtesy PCC Update 

February 20, 2013 

Black Angus 


123 $7,000.00 T Five Ranch NV 

126 $8,000.00 Desert View ID 

132 $6,750.00 Thomas O Leary OR 

191 $9,500.00 Rees Bros UT 

223 $9,500.00 G J Livestock NV 

Red Angus 


320 $5,500.00 Aldecoa & Sons ID 

325 $5,250.00 Baker Ranch NV 

326 $5,250.00 Alan Johnstone ID 

333 $5,250.00 Carlton Anderson OR 

WESTERN NEVADA CATTLEWOMEN 

Invite you to our Scholarship 

Bar-B-Que Dinner 

and Western Dance 

Music by Sierra Express Band 

Auction W Raffl e W Door Prizes 

April 20, 2013 W 6:00 PM Dinner 

Smith Valley Community Hall, Smith, NV 

Adults $20 per person 

Ages 4-12 – $10 W 3 and under Free 

Get Your Tickets Before It Is Sold Out! 

For Tickets: Gardnerville: Vicki Hone 775-783-8198 

Terri Chichester at Pine Nut Livestock 775-901-6274 

Smith Valley: Linda Huntsberger 755-720-3106 

Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. is a voice for women 

in the Nevada beef cattle industry to promote a 

positive image of the livestock industry; by educating 

and informing the public; to build and maintain 

demand for beef as a product; and to support 

the agricultural lifestyle; through a strong and 

enthusiastic membership to achieve such goals. 

Allie Bear 

Real Estate 

Specializing in hunting, ranching, 

and horse properties 

Cattle Ranch 

South of Eureka 

(Duckwater) 

4851 deeded acres, of which 600 

acres are hayable meadows & 410 

irrigated pasture meadows from 

year-round springs. 3820 acres of 

native grazing lands) will run 830 

head of cattle. Family owned for 

generations. 807,954 BLM acres 

out the gate for spring, summer 

& winter grazing. Also, 134,865 

acres summer Forest grazing. 

$3,500,000. 

Sherman Hills Ranch 

All Private. Approx. 1,259 acres, 

six pastures, with corrals, shop, 

garage, newer 2040 sq. ft. perm. 

man. home, landscaping, nice BBQ 

deck. Year-round creek. In Osino - 

within 15 min of Elko! NEW PRICE 

$1,500,000 

Flying M Ranch 

Great ranch, Just minutes from 

I-80 (Imlay, NV) & not far from 

Winnemucca. Approx. 23,000 acres 

of deeded ground with over 23 

miles on the river. Winter outsideno 

feeding. $15,000,000 

Bear Ranch 

Great Development Possibilities. 

Meadow & Range Ground, East 

Idaho St., Elko. Cattle Operation 

& Open Space!, Meadow Water 

Righted; Produces Grass Hay! 

$1,700,000, (Ranch Headquarters 

not included) 

Wildhorse Ranch 

Approximately 4,500 deeded acres 

north of Elko, Nevada. 2,123 accepted 

water-righted acres. Borders 

the forest & Wildhorse Reservoir. 

View comple listings at: 

www.ARanchBroker.com 

775-738-8535 

Allie Bear, Broker/Realtor 

775-777-6416 


April 2013 29

ll 

ll 

Mustang Facts 

The 1971 Wild Horse & Burro Act states: “The 

Secretary shall cause additional excess wild free 

roaming horses and burros for which an adoption 

demand by qualified individuals does not exist to 

be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient 

manner possible.” 

A 2008 GAO report found the BLM to be in noncompliance, 

and states: “The act provides that 

unadopted excess animals shall be humanely 

destroyed or, under certain circumstances, sold 

without limitation.” However, BLM only manages 

these animals through sales with limitations. 

BLM is concerned about the possible reaction to 

the destruction of healthy animals. 

ll 

It is estimated that there are currently 11,000 

more wild horses and burros on public lands than 

what can exist in appropriate balance with other 

rangeland resources and uses. From Fiscal Year 

2012: 

Max. 

State Horses Burros Total AML 

AZ 502 3,194 3,696 1,676 

CA 1,965 939 2,904 2,063 

CO 967 0 967 812 

ID 640 0 640 617 

MT 170 0 170 120 

NV 18,425 1,456 19,881 12,778 

NM 108 0 108 83 

OR 2,093 35 2,128 2,715 

UT 3,040 217 3,257 1,956 

WY 3,543 0 3,543 3,725 

Total 31,453 5,841 37,294 26,545 

ll 

ll 

ll 

As of Feb. 7, 2013, there were 15,705 horses 

and 1,348 burros in corrals and 33,664 horses in 

pastures. The combined figure of 50,717 animals 

in holding compares to the BLM’s total holding 

capacity of 52,986. 

Congress appropriated $74.9 million to the Wild 

Horse and Burro Program in Fiscal Year 2012, 

which ended September 30, 2012. Of that year’s 

expenditures ($72.4 million), holding costs accounted 

for $43 million (59.3 percent). Gathers 

and removals cost $7.8 million (10.8 percent); 

adoption events cost $7.1 million (9.8 percent). 

(The $2.5 million difference between appropriations 

and expenditures is the amount of money 

“obligated” to certain activities but not actually 

spent.) 

The BLM removed 8,283 animals (7,269 horses 

and 1,014 burros) from the range in Fiscal Year 

2012, which ended September 30, 2012. The Bureau 

placed 2,598 removed animals into private 

care through adoption in FY 2012 — down from 

5,701 in FY 2005. 

Sources: www.blm.gov, www.gao.gov 

Gateway Legislation: 

Horse Tripping Today, 

Your Livelihood Tomorrow? 

Sponsored by Sen. Mark Menando (D) of Las Vegas 

and introduced to the current Nevada legislative 

session, SB 72, known as the horse tripping bill, is: 

by Becky Lisle 

“AN ACT relating to cruelty to animals; 

prohibiting a person from engaging in 

horse tripping or steer tailing for sport, 

entertainment, competition or practice; 

prohibiting a person from knowingly 

organizing, sponsoring, promoting, overseeing 

or receiving admission money for 

a horse tripping or steer tailing event; 

prohibiting a person from using a cattle 

prod on the face of an animal; providing 

a penalty; and providing other matters 

properly relating thereto. “ 

Similar legislation was held up in committee two 

years ago, and therefore did not go before the legislature 

for a vote. The 2011 version focused on horse tripping 

and did not include language prohibiting other events 

or practices. 

It is vital that the current special interest bill also be 

kept in committee, since bills like SB72 might be called 

“gateway” bills, which are commonly created and endorsed 

by extremist animal rights groups in their efforts 

to first limit, and then eventually ban, the use of animals 

for recreation, entertainment, sports, and even food. 

Once their foot is in the proverbial door, precedents are 

set with legislation like SB72, and the pathway is paved 

for the gradual whittling away at the use of animals. 

While this may sound unlikely and dramatic, one 

has to look no further than California for an example 

of the way the animal rights movement has taken hold. 

Bills like SB72 are pieces of a much bigger puzzle. 

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the 

United States, once said: “We have no ethical obligation 

to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced 

through selective breeding. One generation and out. 

We have no problem with the extinction of domestic 

animals.” 

In a concerted effort to incite emotion, the animal 

rights movement chooses easy targets—such as horse 

tripping—for their initial attacks, aiming at events or 

practices that are misunderstood or even unknown by 

lawmakers and the general public. 

At the center of the horse tripping issue is a video, 

which was shown to legislators, taken at a Winnemucca 

charreada (Mexican rodeo). An article in the Reno Gazette 

Journal stated: “Many in the crowded legislative 

hearing room gasped as that video and another showed 

horses crashing to the dirt after being roped by the legs 

and subsequent footage of severely injured horses.” 

There was no irrefutable proof that the “severely 

injured horses” shown were even at that particular event, 

or at any horse tripping event, and veterinary inspection 

of the actual horse that fell found no lasting injuries. Oscar 

Peralta of the Hispanic Legislative Caucus reported 

that in thousands of horse tripping runs since 1995, only 

three falls have been reported. 

No distinction is made between horse tripping and 

the long-held Great Basin tradition of horse roping, 

which has been proven through the decades to be a safe 

and effective method of handling horses for necessary 

practices such as branding and castrating. 

Apathy is our worst enemy. When we allow ourselves 

to believe “it doesn’t apply to me,” we are actively 

choosing to ignore one of the greatest threats to our 

traditions, lifestyles, and livelihoods. Let’s say horse 

tripping is banned, then by default, horse roping. Really 

then, what’s the difference between roping a horse, and 

roping a steer at a rodeo, or a calf at a branding? If tailing 

a steer down is cruel, wouldn’t PRCA bulldogging be? 

Why is it crueler to use a cattle prod on one part of an 

animal than on another? 

A good demonstration of the “foot in the door” 

method employed by the animal rights movement is 

Oregon’s Measure 97, which was thankfully defeated 

by voters in the 2000 general election. Measure 97 

would have banned the use of “body-gripping” traps 

on animals. Meant to eliminate the practice of trapping 

, the ambiguous language would have not only banned 

the trapping of coyotes, bobcats, beavers, and the like, 

but also the trapping of mice and gophers! In addition, 

squeeze chutes and even “trapping” a calf at a branding 

with a rope would have been illegal. 

It is in this way that the insidious animal rights 

movement wedges its way in and, through legislation 

and litigation, works to tear down and destroy use of 

animals—ANY use of animals. As urbanization encroaches, 

rural voices must grow louder so as not to be 

drowned out. Make yourself heard. 

SB72 has been referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources, and a hearing on March 12 produced no 

action. Members of the committee include: 

Aaron D. Ford – Chair 

Aaron.Ford@sen.state.nv.us, 702-772-5544 

Mark A. Manendo – Vice Chair 

Mark.Manendo@sen.state. 

nv.us, 702-451-8654 

Tick Segerblom 

tsegerblom@sen.state.nv.us, 775-684-1422 

James A. Settelmeyer 

James.Settelmeyer@sen.state.nv.us, 

775-450-6114 

Pete Goicoechea 

Pete.Goicoechea@sen.state.nv.us, 

775-237-5300 

Please submit all documents in support of your 

testimony electronically to SenNR@sen.state.nv.us. 

Please see agenda for specific deadlines. Agendas can 

be found through the Nevada Legislature website: http:// 

www.leg.state.nv.us/. 

Becky Prunty Lisle is an occasional free-lance writer, full-time mother, and 5th generation Elko County rancher. 

30 April 2013 



The Return of 

an Uphill 

Domestic Horse Processing: 

Battle 

by Becky Lisle 

On November 18, 2011, President Obama signed legislation that allowed for the 

return of horse processing in the United States. For the previous five years, USDA 

funding bills had included language that prohibited funding for the inspection of horse 

meat; no such prohibition was in the 2011 bill. 

Opponents of horse processing immediately filed a petition to the White House 

through its interactive website in protest. At the time, 5,000 signatures were needed in 

order to have a petition considered. The opponents were shocked when supporters of humane 

horse processing easily got the necessary 5,000 signatures on their petition before 

the deadline—for years, opponents have fallaciously claimed that 80% of Americans were 

opposed to horse processing, when in actuality, that number was taken from a single poll 

of 1,000 urbanites. 

Almost a year and a half later, with several plants ready to operate and no inspectors 

having been assigned, a New Mexico company has taken action. When funding was 

restored for USDA horse inspection, Valley Meats LLC invested in modifying their existing 

cattle facility to put humane horse processing in place. They allege that the USDA is 

wrongfully refusing to provide the final inspection for horses that allows for interstate and 

international trade. 

Joining Valley Meats in the lawsuit are several prominent agricultural organizations, 

including the International Equine Business Association, R-CALF, the South Dakota 

Stockgrowers Association (SDSGA), the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (NMC- 

GA), and several individuals, who all filed motions to intervene. ( In an attempt to block 

horse processing’s return to the US, the Humane Society of the United States also filed a 

motion to intervene in the lawsuit, as well as a motion to dismiss.) 

It is certainly significant that Christie Vilsack, the wife of Secretary of Agriculture, 

Tom Vilsack, ran for office in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District in 2012, and listed among 

her campaign contributors the Humane Society Legislative Fund Political Action Committee. 

Interestingly, Tom Vilsack chose National Agriculture Day, March 19th, to call on 

Congress to find alternatives to horse processing, even while the USDA is required by law 

to provide the necessary inspections. 

Progress is also being made in Oklahoma toward the restoration of much-needed horse 

processing. Sister bills are currently before the legislature: House Bill 1999, which would 

allow commercial horse processing, has passed the House and been referred to the Senate, 

and Senate Bill 375, which would repeal the ban on the sale of horse meat for consumption 

within the state, has similarly passed the Senate and been forwarded to the House for 

consideration. 

In early March, opponents of horse processing staged a protest that boasted approximately 

100 people, most of them from out of state. In contrast, a March 13th rally in support 

Nevada Department of Agriculture 

Signs Cooperative Agreement 

with Non–Profit Horse Group. 

MARCH 14, SPARKS — The Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) has 

signed a cooperative agreement between Return to Freedom, Inc. (RTF), a non-profit 

organization located in Lompoc, CA, that is a sponsor of the American Wild Horse 

Preservation Campaign. 

Currently, NDA limits it’s collection of Virginia Range estray horses to urban 

areas and roadways for public safety purposes. RTF may purchase all such horses 

collected by NDA for $100 per horse on an as-is basis. Any horses tendered to but not 

accepted by RTF within two business days after being notified shall be subject to disposition 

by NDA in any manner permitted by law. 

RTF will work with third-parties who adopt or purchase the estray horses ensuring 

that the horses will not be released back on the Virginia Range, a violation of Nevada 

Revised Statute. RTF will provide NDA with an annual report of all horses resold/or 

placed during the previous 12 months. 

The cooperative agreement applies to Washoe, Storey and Lyon Counties and the 

Consolidated Municipality of Carson City. 

of the return of horse 

processing brought an estimated 

400 people to the Oklahoma capitol. 

In response to the overwhelming support for the 

return of domestic horse-processing, a bill was introduced on 

the national level by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) . Having lent her 

support to numerous”save the horses” bills, Landrieu has been a perpetual 

favorite of the animal rights and wild horse advocacy crowds. 

Ironically, in 2011 Landrieu introduced legislation to protect the Louisiana coast from 

“invasive” wild pigs and rodents, citing problems almost identical to western issues with 

wild horses, such as irreparable damage done to the ecosystem and competition with native 

wildlife for resources. 

The Senate version of Landrieu’s SAFE (Safeguard American Food Exports) Act 

would “prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines raised in the 

United States,” and the House version would”prohibit the sale or transport of equines 

and equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for human consumption.” This would 

mean the end of the ability to ship unwanted, unusable horses to Canada or Mexico—over 

150,000 have been processed across the borders annually since the closures of domestic 

plants in 2007. 

The purported “health threats” in Landrieu’s bill are based on the fallacy perpetuated 

by animal rights activists that American horse meat is toxic because of the presence of 

medications, and that virtually ALL of American horses are regularly, repeatedly given 

medication such as phenylbutazone (bute). 

The claim that horse meat is toxic is based on the fact that withdrawal times for some 

drugs like “bute” have not been established for equines by the FDA, and because phenylbutazone 

proved to be carcinogenic when administered directly to humans. In spite of such 

alarmist claims, there has never been a documented illness resulting from the consumption 

of horse meat. 

A report by four equine science PhDs (Drs. Day, King, Henneke, & Evans) dispelled 

the claims of “bute-tainted meat,” stating that “The half-life for PBZ in horses is 5 to 6 hrs 

(MERCK Veterinary Manual). This is the time needed for a horse to naturally remove 50% 

of the drug from its system. So, by 6 hours post-administration, half of the PBZ has been 

eliminated from the horse; by 12 hours, half of this remaining half-concentration has been 

eliminated, and so forth.” 

It is interesting to note that when finding no traces of bute (or any other drugs) in 

American horse meat while testing at parts per million, some Canadian plants have 

implemented testing at parts per BILLION. In the event that any drug residue was found, 

meticulous safety protocol is in place to ensure that affected meat never makes it into food 

supply. Consumers are at far greater risk of contracting a food borne illness from improperly 

washed produce than from drug-contaminated horse meat. 

Not surprisingly, during and after the recent uproar over horse meat being found in 

hamburger, there have been no reports of illness resulting from its consumption. Great 

Britain has actually seen a tremendous curiosity-driven upswing in the demand for horse 

meat following the media frenzy. 

Horse meat is consumed all around the world, and while it seems obvious that America’s 

excess horses would help meet the demand, the emotion and ethnocentrism of horse 

“advocates” has been the proverbial squeaky wheel getting the oil. An ironic and largely 

ignored result has been the suffering of horses caused by the down economy, high hay 

prices and an insufficient, overwhelmed equine rescue network. 

Now, as we find ourselves with the tide turning back toward the humane and practical 

management of America’s privately owned horse population, we must never forget that the 

imminent return of domestic horse processing has been a very hard-won battle. The war 

will wage on, especially considering that the very head of the US Department of Agriculture 

shows an extreme disconnect from the industry. 

The misguided emotional efforts by horse “advocates” to end the practice of horse 

processing completely will not stop, and will need to be continually thwarted. The recent 

progress made is a very significant yet small portion of what will be an on-going fight to 

keep a vital component of the horse industry alive. 

To help in the ongoing fight, please visit http://www.united-horsemen.org and consider 

joining or donating, or contact UH president, Dave Duquette, directly at (541) 571 7588. 


April 2013 31

NEVADA 

STALLION STAKES 

& Elko County NRCHA Show 

NRCHA Approved 

Working Cowhorse 

★ Aged Event ★ 

August 24-25 ★ Elko, Nevada 

Judge: Blue Allen 

Stallion Nomination Deadline: July 1st 

Nomination fee: $200.00 

Late Nominations will be accepted until August 1st with an 

additional $100 late fee. 

★ NOMINATED STALLIONS to Date ★ 

Twist of Docs Fate ★ Gary & Candace Wines 

RC Yankee Slider ★ Tamara Casey 

Check the website, after July 1st, for updated list. 

Nevada Stallion Stakes Show Entry deadline: 

August 1 with late entries accepted to Aug 15th. 

ECNRCHA Show Entry Deadline Aug 23th, Noon 

Late entries accepted up to show start time with penalties. 

Entries forms available at www.elkocountyfair.com 

E-mail entries to elkocountyfair@hotmail.com 

Mail entries and payments to: 

Elko County Fair Board, PO Box 2067, Elko, NV 89803 

For More Information contact: 

JJ Roemmich 775-397-2769 or elkocountyfair@hotmail.com 

Elko 

County Fair 

August 23 - September 2 

www.elkocountyfair.com 

Applications Now Being Accepted: 

2013 Youth 

Range Camp 

Carson City, Nev., Feb. 25 — Applications are now being accepted from high school 

students to attend the 53rd Nevada Youth Range Camp to be held June 16-22 at the U.S. 

Forest Service’s Big Creek Campground in central Nevada. Applications must be submitted 

by Tuesday, April 30. 

Nevada Youth Range Camp is a teenager’s best opportunity to learn about Nevada’s 

desert and mountain rangelands and diverse ecosystems, while experiencing them first 

hand. The Society for Range Management operates the week-long camp for 14-18 year olds 

from Nevada and eastern California. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension conducts 

the program with staff from various State and Federal agencies including University 

of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nevada Division 

of Forestry, Nevada Division of Conservation Districts, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Financial sponsors include Nevada Wildlife Federation, Nevada Conservation Districts, 

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, and Nevada Society for Range Management. 

Campers will have the opportunity to learn from range management professionals 

who are knowledgeable in the ecology and management of the Great Basin’s desert and 

mountain rangelands. Students learn basic surveying and map reading, identification and 

importance of rangeland plants, evaluation of sagebrush and woodland ecosystems, wildlife 

surveying techniques, evaluation of stream health, and many other topics related to 

rangelands. While the camp is educational, it also offers an enjoyable, outdoor experience 

with activities such as swimming, fishing, hiking, volleyball, horseshoes, campfires and 

photography. 

Interested students must submit an application and letter of recommendation from 

an adult other than a parent or sibling. The cost to attend Range Camp is $180, which includes 

meals and camp activities. Applicants can be sponsored to attend Range Camp by 

contacting their local conservation district or other organizations. Forms and information 

can be found on the Nevada Youth Range Camp Web site at http://nevada.rangelands.org/ 

Range%20Camp.html or by contacting Kathryn Dyer (775) 885-6012 or kdyer@blm.gov. 

Completed applications with enclosures can be mailed to NV Youth Range Camp, c/o 

Bureau of Land Management, attn. Kathryn Dyer, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, 

NV 89701; e-mailed to kdyer@blm.gov ; or faxed to 775-885-6147 (attn. Kathryn Dyer). If 

sent by e-mail, letters of recommendation must be on the adult’s official letterhead or must 

be a scanned copy of the adult’s letter and signature. Applications must be submitted by 

Tuesday, April 30. Approved applicants will be notified within two weeks. 

Camp is held every June at the US Forest Service Big Creek Campground in central 

Nevada’s Toiyabe Mountain Range. The Toiyabes are one of Nevada’s most impressive 

mountain ranges with several peaks over 10,000 feet in elevation. June is an ideal time to 

be in the Toiyabes when numerous wildflowers are in bloom and the vegetation is green 

from the recent snowmelt. 

Garcia 

Bits & Spurs 

The gift that won’t be re-gifted! 

Bit #122 $475 

NV. Sales tax 6.85% 

S&H $12 

Spur #273 $475 

NV. Sales tax 6.85% 

S&H $12 

500 Commercial St. 


Phone: (775) 738-5816 

Fax: (775) 738-8980 

capriolas.com 

32 April 2013 



Range Plants for the Rancher 

By Paul T. Tueller, Ph.D., CRMC 

Western Yarrow 

In the course of preparing these articles 

I have described numerous 

grasses and grass-like plants and 

fewer woody and herbaceous plants. 

Woody plants, primarily shrubs, 

are important for understanding the 

ecology of the Great Basin vegetation 

since the “cold desert” is primarily 

shrub dominated. Grasses 

tend to occur as an understory to 

shrubs and rarely occur in pure 

stands. Perhaps of greatest importance 

is the vegetation found along 

streams or in wetlands. For this reason 

I have recently been describing 

plants that are found in these areas. 

For this issue I describe a plant 

found across Nevada in a variety 

of habitats including riparian areas. 

This plant is called Western Yarrow 

(Acillea millifolium). Achillea millifolium 

known commonly as yarrow 

or common yarrow, is a flowering 

plant in the family Asteraceae. It is 

native to temperate regions of the 

Northern Hemisphere in Asia, Europe 

and North America. In parts of the 

southwestern United States it is called 

plumajillo (Spanish for ‘little feather”) 

due to it’s leaf shape and texture. Yarrow 

grows from sea level to 11,500 feet 

in elevation. 

Yarrow is a native perennial cool 

season erect forb, arising singly or as 

a loose cluster 6 to 24 inches tall. The 

stems have dense wooly hairs. Plants 

flower April to July, and reproduce 

from seeds and rhizomes. The flowers 

are white to pink or pinkish-white 

colored, all with yellow centers. They 

are borne in a flat-topped corymb. The 

fruit is a flattened achene. The leaves 

are alternate, simple and fern-like with 

pubescent surfaces and from 5 to 20 cm 

long. They tend to be aromatic. The plant 

has a strong, sweet scent, similar to rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus). They are evenly distributed along 

the stem, with leaves near the middle and bottom 

stem being the largest. 

Yarrow plants are found in prairies, 

sagebrush plains, pastures, 

roadsides, and disturbed sites. They 

often grow in or near streams. They 

are found from semi-arid shrub 

dominated areas up to the subalpine 

zone and are somewhat shade and 

drought tolerance. They are adapted 

to a broad range of soils, but grow 

best on sandy and gravelly loam. Associated 

species often include aspen, 

big sagebrush, wheatgrasses, and 

bluegrasses. 

Yarrow provides poor to fair 

cattle forage and fair to good sheep 

forage, especially the inflorescence. 

It is usually grazed only when it 

is green, and it may contain toxic 

alkaloids and glycosides. An excess 

of this plant on mountain ranges 

indicates the need for lighter grazing 

or rest. 

Of general interest is the fact 

that Native Americans used tea made 

from yarrow to reliever ear-, tooth-, 

and headaches; as an eyewash; to reduce 

swelling; as a cold remedy; and 

as a tonic or stimulant. Yarrow varies 

in taste and in potency, depending on 

where it grows and at what stage of 

growth it is in. The best time to collect 

yarrow for tea is right before the 

flowers are produced, using only the 

new succulent leaves. Green leaves 

were used to relieve itching, chewed 

for toothaches, and used as a mild 

laxative. 

During the Civil War, yarrow 

was widely used to treat wounds 

and become known as “soldiers 

woundwort.” 

An ethanol extract of yarrow has 

mosquito-repelling properties. So you can 

look upon this pinkish-flowered plant with fern-like 

leaves with renewed respect. 


April 2013 33

F i n a n c i a l Focus 

Presented by Sonny Davidson and Jason Land, Financial Advisors, Edward Jones in Elko, Nevada 

2213 North 5th Street, Suite A | 775-738-8811 

Help Yourself Reduce Investment Stress 

You probably aren’t too worried about it, but 

April is Stress Awareness Month. Each year, 

the Health Resource Network sponsors this “month” to 

inform people about the dangers of stress and to share 

successful coping strategies. Obviously, it’s important to 

reduce stress in all walks of life — including your investment 

activities. How can you cut down on the various 

stresses associated with investing? 

Here are a few possible “stress-busters”: 

• Know your risk tolerance. If you’re constantly 

worrying about the value of your investments, your portfolio 

may simply be too volatile for your individual risk 

tolerance. Conversely, if you’re always feeling that your 

investments will never provide you with the growth you 

need to achieve your long-term goals, you might be investing 

too conservatively. 

• Know what to expect from your investments. Uncertainty 

is often a leading cause of stress. So when you purchase 

investments that are mysterious to you, you shouldn’t 

be surprised if they perform in ways that raise your stress 

levels. Never invest in something unless you fully understand 

its characteristics and risk potential. 

• Be prepared for market volatility. Over the long 

term, the financial markets have trended upward, though 

their past performance can’t guarantee future results. Yet 

for periods of months, and even years, these same markets 

can sputter and decline. So when you invest, be aware of 

this volatility; if you’re prepared for it, you won’t be shocked 

when it happens, and you should be able to better keep stress 

at bay. 

• Maintain realistic expectations. If you think your 

investments are going to earn a very high rate of return, 

year after year, you are more than likely going to be disappointed 

— and you could easily get “stressed out.” You’re 

much better off, from a stress standpoint, not to expect 

eye-popping results. 

• Diversify your portfolio. If you were only to own 

one asset class, such as growth stocks, and that particular 

segment took a big hit during a market drop, your whole 

portfolio could suffer, and it could take years to recover 

— causing you no end of stress. But if you spread your 

investment dollars among a range of vehicles — stocks, 

bonds, government securities and so on — your portfolio 

has a better chance of weathering the ups and downs of the 

market. (Keep in mind, though, that while diversification 

may help you reduce the effects of volatility, it can’t prevent 

losses or guarantee profits.) 

• Think long term. If you only measure your investment 

success by short-term results, you can feel frustrated 

and stressed. But when you stop to consider your objectives, 

you may find that the most important ones, such as a 

comfortable retirement, are all long-term in nature. Consequently, 

it makes more sense to measure the progress you’re 

making with your investments in periods of years, or even 

decades, rather than days or months. Instead of fretting over 

your monthly investment statements, compare where you 

are today versus where you were 10 or 15 years ago. The 

results may well surprise and help “de-stress” you. 

Stress Awareness Month will come and go. But by 

making the right moves, you can help take some of the stress 

out of investing for a long time to come. 

This article was written by Edward Jones for use by your local 

Edward Jones Financial Advisor. 

neVaDa ranCHes 

For saLe 

Pristine Locations 

PARADISE VALLEY 

2,290 acres plus BLM and USFS grazing. 

300 plus acres of cropland for winter feed. 

Surface and groundwater. River frontage. 

$2,400,000 

BUTTE VALLEY 

+/-7,200 acres plus summer and winter grazing 

for 600+ cows and 5,000 sheep. 

Many springs, creeks and meadows. 

4 pivots for additional winter feed. 

$6,500,000 

Contact: 

Kelton & associates real estate 

Tom Gunn 

775-343-0200 

www.NevadaFarmland.com 

Clover Valley Farm: 243 Acres with 160 

acres with underground water rights, two 

irrigation wells, a stock well and a good 

domestic well. Large modern home with 

detached 5 car garage, 4000 and 5000 

sq. ft metal buildings and greenhouse. All 

for only $500,000. 

Elko Co. 10,706 deeded with BLM 

grazing permit: These private sections 

are in the checkerboard area and are 

intermingled with public lands. The ranch 

has historically been a Spring Sheep 

range. The BLM permit is only 29% public 

lands. Price includes 50% of the mineral 

rights on all but 320 acres. Price:$130/ 

acre. Or $1,392,000. Considering adding 

the property below to it to make a year 

around unit. 

Elko Co. Humboldt River Property: 

650 acres located between the Ryndon 

and Osino Exits on I-80. This property 

has over 300 acres of surface water 

rights out of the Humboldt River. The 

BLM permit for the 10,706 acres above 

is a short distance from this property 

with a stock driveway on this property. 

Price:$1.2 million. 

Tent Mountain Ranch: Approx. 3500 

deed acres in Starr Valley. Nice larger 

home on paved road plus mountain 

cabin. Great summer range with water 

from numerous creeks and seeps. This 

ranch is made of up of over 20 separate 

parcels if a buyer were more interested 

in Investment property vs. Agricultural 

property. Over 135 acres with surface 

water rights. Price $3.7 million based on 

recent appraisal. 

Indian Creek Ranch: 126 acre Homestead 

with large Spring and at the foot of 

the Cherry Creek Range in White Pine 

County. Certifi cated and permitted water 

rights on the spring for 60 acres. Price 

reduced to $275,000. 

For additional information on these properties go to: BOTTARIREALTY.COM 

SOLD IN 2012: Antelope Peak Ranch -5000 deeded; Z Bar Ranch- 2400 deeded; 

and Mason Mountain Ranch-3700 deeded. We need more ranch listings! 

Paul D. Bottari, Broker 

paul@bottarirealty.com 

Sold in 2013: 113 Ranch at Panaca 

Work: 775-752-3040 

Home: 775-752-3809 • Fax: 775-752-3021 

1222 6th St., P.O. Box 368 Wells, NV 89835 • www.bottarirealty.com 

34 April 2013 



Canada Thistle 

Background Photo: UAF Cooperative Extension Archive, University of Alaska – Fairbanks, Bugwood.org 

Canada thistle rosette. 

Individual Canada thistle plants. 

Canada thistle flower. 

Hello from the Humboldt Watershed Cooperative 

Weed Management Area! This month we would like 

to introduce you to another state listed noxious weed, Canada 

Thistle (Cirsium arvense). Though its name would indicate 

otherwise, Canada thistle is a native of the Mediterranean region 

and southeast Europe. It likely was introduced into North 

America in contaminated hay and grain seed during early 

colonization in the 17th century. Canada thistle has become 

very well established in North America and is now considered 

a noxious weed in at least 35 states and much of Canada. 

Canada thistle usually grows 2 to 3 feet tall with alternate, 

dark green leaves that vary in size. The leaves are generally 

oblong, the length 3 to 5 times the width, usually deeply lobed, 

and have spiny toothed edges. The leaf edge spines vary in size 

and number according to variety. Canada thistle is a perennial 

spreading both by seed and underground rhizomes. It generally 

forms colonies and is found in cropland, roadsides, and disturbed 

pasture soils. However, Canada thistle is not very competitive in 

healthy turf. 

Canada thistle grows best in the northern regions of North 

America where temperature and rainfall are moderate. Canada 

thistle rosettes require at least 14 hours of day length to bolt and 

flower. Its growth is limited or stopped when temperature exceed 

85° F for extended periods. Although it will grow in a wide range 

of soils, Canada thistle produces deeper roots in clay or muck soils 

than in sand or gravel. 

Once the plant becomes established, roots are the most important 

means of propagation. Canada thistle has an extensive 

underground root system that may penetrate the soil to a depth of 

10 feet or more and grow laterally 12 to 15 feet per year. Root buds 

occur randomly along the roots and initiate new shoots whenever 

environmental conditions are favorable. Root segments as small as 

0.6 inch can initiate shoot growth and become established. 

The key principle to Canada thistle control is to stress the 

plant and force it to use stored root nutrients. Canada thistle can 

recover from almost any stress, including control attempts, because 

of root nutrient stores. Therefore, returning infested land to 

a productive state occurs only over time. Success requires a sound 

management plan implemented over several years. 

Cultural control. Grasses and alfalfa can compete effectively 

with Canada thistle if their growth is favored by good management. 

Maintain fertility and, if possible, moisture at optimum 

levels to favor grass or alfalfa growth. Soil analysis can easily 

determine fertility needs. Be cautious with nitrogen fertilizers, 

because excess available soil nitrogen may favor weed growth. 

These are essential management steps to ensure optimum desirable 

plant growth and 

competition. However, 

competition alone seldom 

is effective against 

Canada thistle. 

Mechanical control. Mowing 

hay meadows can be an effective 

tool if combined with herbicide treatments. 

Mowing alone is not effective unless conducted 

at one-month intervals over several growing 

seasons. Always combine mowing with cultural and 

chemical control. Mowing at hay cutting stimulates new 

Canada thistle shoots to develop from its root system. 

Chemical control. Read the label, follow directions and use 

precautions. Research has shown that Tordon 22K (picloram), 

Milestone (aminopyralid), Transline (clopyralid), Banvel/ Vanquish/Clarity 

(dicamba) and Telar (chlorsulfuron) are effective 

against Canada thistle. Canada thistle is difficult to control and retreatment 

for one to three or more years after the initial application 

is common. Refer to following table for use rates and application 

timing. These herbicides are most effective when combined with 

cultural and/or mechanical control. 

Please notify the HWCWMA if you see Canada thistle 

growing along the Humboldt River. Our staff can provide the 

property owner or appropriate public agency with site-specific 

advice on how best to remove it. We have an opportunity to stop it 

from spreading if we act quickly. We map all known locations of 

regulated noxious weeds in order to help us and others locate new 

infestations in time to control them. 

The Humboldt Watershed CWMA has also developed a website 

to serve as a clearinghouse for information on weeds in the 

Humboldt Watershed. Our website (http://www.humboldtweedfree.org) 

contains fact sheets for state listed noxious weeds in 

Nevada, Board of Director’s information, funding partner’s links, 

and many more features including a detailed project proposal 

packet that you can print, fill out and mail back to us at your convenience. 

We are looking to expand our project area outside of the 

Humboldt River and always welcome new funding opportunities 

and partnerships. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Andi 

Porreca, HWCWMA Coordinator at (775) 762-2636 or email 

her at aporreca@humboldtweedfree.org. Or you may speak with 

Rhonda Heguy, HWCWMA President at (775) 738-3085, email: 

hwcwma@gmail.com. 

Herbicide to control Canada thistle in pastures, rangeland, natural and noncrop areas. 

Herbicide 

Rate 

Application timing 

Comments 

(Production/A) 

Tordon 1 quart Anytime when weeds are rapidly growing Fall applications consistent results; may need re-treatment 1 to 2 years 

Milestone 5 to 7 fl oz Spring at prebud growth stage; or fall Use higher rate for older or dense stands; Milestone may be used to 

edge of ponds or streams; may need re-treatment 1 to 2 years 

Transline 0.67 to 1.33 pints Spring after all shoots have emerged, Apply 1 pint/A or more in fall; may need re-treatment 1 to 3 years 

rosette to early bud growth stages; or fall 

Telar 1 oz Spring bolting to bud growth stages; or fall Fall applications most consistent results; essential to use non-ionic 

surfactant at 0.25% v/v; may need retreatment 1 to 2 years 

Banvel, Vanquish, or 

Clarity (diacamba) 

2 quarts Spring rosette growth stage; or fall Fall applications most consistent results; may need re-treatment 2 to 4 years 


April 2013 35

Why Control the First Noxious Weeds? 

Brad Schultz, Kent McAdoo and Steve Foster. 

Extension Educator, Winnemucca; Natural Resource Specialist, Elko; Extension Educator, Lovelock. 

Noxious weeds are an ever increasing problem on range and pasture land in Nevada 

and surrounding states. Many landowners, for a variety of reasons, do not control 

weeds on their property when they are first observed and populations are small. Among 

their reasons are: 1) someone else brought them here, so they should control them; and 2) 

there are only a few plants, they have not spread and herbicides are costly. The first line of 

reason may seem to have merit, but is also pointless. Most of the individuals who brought 

our current suite of noxious weeds into the Great Basin and Intermountain West passed 

away years ago. If dead men don’t tell tales, it is just as likely they will not be killing their 

Table 1. Seed production and maximum longevity for some of the noxious weeds found in Nevada. 

Seed Production Seed Production Longevity 

Common Name Scientific Name Seeds/Plant Years 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense up to 12,000 22 

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum 15,000 to 33,000 10 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica up to 500,000 10 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 10,000 12 

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria 500 to 10,000 10 

Hoary cress Cardaria spp. 1,200 to 4,800 3 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica L up to 3,000 5 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula hundreds 10 

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula 550 to 7,000 25 

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis up to 100,000 10 

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medus tens to hundreds 2 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 10,000 10 

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium tens of thousands ? 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria up to 2,700,000 15 

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea up to 10,000 2 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens 1,200 8 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium 7,000 to 40,000 16 

Salt cedar Tamarix ramosissima 500,000+ 1 

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium 4,500+ 15 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii 1,000 to 30,000 8 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis up to 100,000 10 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris 15,000 to 30,000 10 

weeds. The statement about few plants, slow spread and high treatment cost may be true 

at first; but given time, most weeds increase rapidly when the right conditions occur for 

optimum seed germination and seedling survival. Then control becomes very, very costly. 

Remember, all weed problems started with only a few plants. 

The University of Nevada Cooperative Extension recently published a number of papers 

that clearly demonstrate why landowners should control noxious weeds when they are 

first observed (see list at the end of this article). Live seeds that germinate and grow into 

a mature plant originate from a pool of seeds called the seedbank. There are two general 

types of seedbanks: transient and persistent. A transient seedbank is shortlived, 

with all seeds either germinating or dying within one germination (growing) 

season following the seed’s maturation (ripening). A persistent seedbank lasts for 

at least two and often many growing seasons. 

Seedbanks function much like your bank account. There are annual inputs 

(deposits) when seed ripens and is dispersed, and withdrawals when seeds germinate, 

die or are buried too deep to germinate. When the annual inputs exceed the 

annual losses, the seedbank increases; thus, the potential for new weeds to establish 

increases. Successful weed management programs must focus on reducing 

the seedbank by reducing inputs and/or increasing losses so they exceed inputs. 

One reason to control the first weeds is to prevent them from establishing 

a long-lived seedbank. Table 1 lists 22 noxious weeds that occur in Nevada and 

provides information about seed production per plant and how long some of those 

seeds can survive in the soil. Most weeds produce at least several thousands of 

seeds per plant, with many species typically producing tens of thousands to hundreds 

of thousands of seeds per plant. For each annual batch of seed produced, 

some will survive at least one year. For many species, additional seeds will survive 

at least 10 years, and for a few species a small percentage will survive for 20 

years or more. For a plant that produces 10,000 seeds and has only one-half of one 

percent alive after 10 years, that means 50 live seeds will reside in the seedbank. 

Those seeds may remain where the mother plant dropped them, or any number of 

processes could have been moved them new locations, perhaps where weeds did 

not previously exist. If the right dispersal, germination, and survival conditions 

occur, an entirely new population can establish years after seed-drop, and quite 

possibly at locations far from the mother plant. Once a noxious weed goes to seed 

once, it can create a weed problem that lasts for many years. 

Cooperative Extension also has been addressing noxious weed issues at 

Chimney Dam Reservoir in Humboldt County for a number of years. Two recent 

publications clearly show that excellent control of perennial pepperweed (tall 

whitetop) can occur when herbicide is applied to seedlings. In Figure 1, the reddish 

brown plants are new seedlings of perennial pepperweed shortly after they 

were treated with full label rate Cimarron®Max herbicide in early June 2007. 

The seedlings established on the lakebed in early May when the rapid decline in 

water levels created an ideal germination environment. The brown leaves are the 

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 

Figures 1 and 2. The treatment area 13 days after treatment (1) and one year later (2). The 

brownish hue in figure 1 is the leaves of treated perennial pepperweed (tall whitetop) plants. 

The predominant species in figure 2 is foxtail barley, a short-lived perennial grass. 

Figures 3 and 4. A mature stand of perennial pepperweed (3) 13 days after treatment in 

2007 and in August of 2008 (4). There was evidence of extensive top kill in 2007 (yellowish 

chlorotic plants) but abundant regrowth in 2008. 

36 April 2013 



Spotted Knapweed appeared near Missoula before 

1925 and is now in every county in Montana. 

effect of the herbicide. Figure 2 shows the same spot one year later. The herbicide application 

eliminated over 99 percent of the seedlings and facilitated establishment of foxtail 

barley. Foxtail barley generally is not considered a desired species, but on a lakebed that 

is flooded every few years and has alkaline soil when exposed, foxtail barley probably is 

the best vegetation one can expect. At this location, cattle consume the foxtail barley quite 

readily in the fall and winter. 

The area shown in Figure 3 is about 200 yards from the location of Figures 1 and 2, 

and was inhabited by a very mature stand of perennial pepperweed. This site location was 

treated on the same day, and with the same chemical and application rate, as the perennial 

pepperweed seedlings shown in Figure 1. One year later there was no effective control of 

the mature perennial pepperweed plants (Figure 4). The mature stand of perennial pepperweed 

was eventually controlled (not eradicated), but it took several more annual treatments. 

One critical reason for successful control of the seedlings and unsuccessful control 

of the mature perennial pepperweed is the respective root structure of the different age 

classes. For about the first 6-8 eight weeks of growth, perennial pepperweed seedlings 

behave as an annual, not a perennial plant. The roots are short and they have not developed 

any perennial buds. The buds that develop on the root crown and the roots after eight weeks 

of age are what allow this weed to regrow the next year. When the leaves are killed before 

the seedling can develop perennial buds on the roots and root crown the plant dies. Mature 

perennial pepperweed plants have roots that extend several feet or more into the soil and 

can extend laterally for 10-20 feet or more. Every inch of these roots has developed a bud 

that can produce a new plant. It is literally impossible to place enough herbicide on the 

relatively small amount of leaf area of mature plants to kill all of the buds found on their 

very large root system. Some buds will survive and eventually produce stems that emerge 

the following growing season. Furthermore, emergence may not occur until the middle 

or latter part of the next growing season. Another challenge with applying herbicides to 

mature perennial pepperweed is appropriate location of the chemical. The lower leaves are 

the ones that export most of their carbohydrates from photosynthesis to the roots, and thus 

move the herbicide to the roots. The upper leaves deliver most of their energy production to 

the flowers and seed. It is very difficult to get herbicide, especially from an aerial application, 

through the flowers and upper leaves to the lower leaves, where it is most effective. As 

Figure 1 shows, all of the seedlings had leaves that were completely exposed and therefore 

had the maximum potential for herbicide contact, uptake and movement to the site of action 

in the plant. The work at Chimney Dam showed that perennial pepperweed up to two years 

old could be successfully treated with Cimaron ® Max provided their leaves were readily 

accessible to the herbicide. Complete documentation of the effort to control perennial peppewrweed 

at Chimeny Dam Reservoir can be found in two publications available on the 

internet at the URL addresses found at the end of this article. 

Papers described in the text. Please see these for additional discussion of this topic and 

photos of the success of the treatments applied. 

Schultz. B. W. 2012. The Noxious Weed Seedbank: Out of Sight – Out of mind and eventually 

out of control. UNCE Fact Sheet 12-01. Available at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/ 

search/details.asp?searchby=keywordsearch&searchtext=seedbank&submit=Search 

Schultz, B. W. 2012. Response of seedling and two-year-old perennial pepperweed (Lepidium 

latifolium) plants to herbicide control. Journal of the NACAA, Volume 5, Issue 1. May. Available 

at: http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=136. 

Schultz, B. W. 2011. Differential Herbicide Effectiveness on Adjacent Populations of Young 

(Seedling) And Mature Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Journal of the NACAA. 

Volume 4, Issue 1. November. Available at: http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=103 

The use of herbicide names in this paper does not imply any recommendation from the University 

of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Perennial pepperweed can be treated successfully with a number of 

herbicides and any applicator should know the benefits and constraints of each herbicide and make their 

selection based upon their specific circumstances. 

Specializing In 

Long Term Farm & Ranch Real Estate Loans 

2420 Main St. 

Baker City, OR 97814 

Incredibly 

Comfortable 

Phone: 

775-738-9500 

Fax: 

775-753-7169 

Call Or Visit Today 

Toll Free: 800-444-7101 

Website: www. pacificim.net 

Furniture as 

as You Are! 

2990 Idaho St. Elko, NV 89801 

LEATHER: 

• Outlasts Fabric 

Four-To-One 

• Offers Year 

Round Comfort 

• Is Extremely 

Durable 

• Ages Well 

• Color Stays 

Vibrant 

• Is Easy To 

Care For 

La-z-boy Ashley Sunny Designs Serta Mattresses 

Hours: 

Mon-Fri 

8:30-5:30 

Saturday 9-5 

Closed 

Sundays 


April 2013 37

it’s in the bone 

Jake Telford on Nabisco Roan (full brother to Frettin) 

Boonlight Dancer x Crackin 

2007 Red Roan Stallion 

The Best Gift 

To know you’re not chained to stay 

but are free to go 

But stay because you want to. 

Bring as much to the table as you take! 

And really ask for nothing in return 

But honesty! 

At the beginning of the day be thankful 

And at the end of day be grateful and gracious. 

Honor your traditions, heritage, and culture 

Always show your friends – no matter who they are 

You see them! 

And they matter! 

— Leana Stitzel, March 2013 

Fret’s First Foals 

Frettin 

with Cory Shelman 

Since 1959 - Manufactured in Scio, Oregon 

Main Office 

Powell Scales NW 

39120 West Scio Rd. 

Scio, OR 97374 

Ph 503-394-3660 

Fax 503-394-3502 

Toll Free: 1-800-451-0787 

Spokane Office 

Inland Scales NW 

5602 E. Desmet Ave. 

PO Box 11335 

Spokane, WA 99211 

Ph 509-535-4295 

Fax 509-535-4296 

Steve Orr • 503-510-3540 

www.scalesnw.com • SteveOrr@ScalesNW.com • SCALES 800-451-0187 

TRUCK SCALES • LIVESTOCK SCALES • WAREHOUSE SCALES • RENTAL SCALES 

MOBILE LIVESTOCK RENTALS AVAILABLE AT: 

Bullet Rental - Klamath Falls, OR • ACW Rentals - Burns, OR • Powell Scales - Scio, OR 

Rentals 

Available! 

standing to a limited number of mares 

PRIVATE TREATY 

Tuscarora, NV 

Linda Bunch 

775-756-6508 

C ER TI F I A B LE ! 

A FF OR D A B LE ! 

PORTABLE TRUCK SCALES WITH STEEL RAMP 

OR M O B I LE L I VE ST O C K S C A LE S A V A I L A B LE 

SCALE SERVICE • SYSTEMS • PARTS • SALES & CONSTRUCTION 

38 April 2013 



The Progressive Rancher Coloring Page 


April 2013 39

PRSRT STD 

U.S. POSTAGE 

PAID 

Permit # 3280 

Salt Lake City, UT 

80 

The Fort Ranch welcomes TED ROBINSON 

7 Time NRCHA World Champion 

Saturday 

June 22nd 

2013 

36th ANNUAL PRODUCTION SALE 

Doc Quixote 

Colonel Freckles 

Doc Oak 

Young Gun 

Mr Peppy Olena 

Doc’s Rondo 

Doc’s Hickory 

Playin Stylish 

Spots Hot 

Son Ofa Doc 

CD Lights 

Doc Ray Olena 

Cat Ichi 

Holey Sox Jr. 

High Brow Cat 

Dual Rey 

Peppy San Badger 

Freckles Merada 

TR Dual Rey 

Haidas Little Pep 

Hickorydickery Doc 

Doc’s Dulce Bar 

COW KWACKER 

High Brow Cat x Kwackin 

SUES DUAL PEP 

Dual Pep x Meradas Little Sue by Freckles Merada 

QUITE A BOON 

Peptoboonsmal x Maradas Little Sue 

by Freckles Merada 

RICOCHETS SUE 

Smart Lil Rocochet x Meradas Little Sue by Freckles Merada 

LITTLE PISTOL BADGE 

Young Gun x Little Peppy Holly by Peppy San Badger 

Buckskins, Red Duns, Blacks, Roans, Palominos, Grullas, Sorrels, and Bays with Plenty of Chrome 

Sale Terms: 1/3 down payment with balance to be paid in September when foals are weaned and picked up by their new owners. Foal Guaranteed to be alive and sound or your down payment will be refunded. 

SATURDAY, JUNE 22nd 2013 AT THE RANCH IN PROMONTORY, UTAH 

Eric Duarte - Auctioneer 

541-533-2105 

www.duartesales.com 

Ted Robinson - Pedigrees 

805-649-9028 

www.tedrobinsoncowhorses.com 

SMART ZEE DUALLY 

Smart Little Lena x Zee Dually 

BET ON BINION 

Bet On Me 498 x Sangelina 

FOR INFORMATION & 

CATALOG CONTACT: 

Rick Ellis 

208-681-9829 

435-471-7411 

Brian Anderson - Trainer 

40 April 2013

NCA 2009 President's Award Recipient - The Progressive Rancher ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?