YF&R Washington D.C. trip

 I did end up going to D.C. for a quick couple days of meetings and tours with the Wyoming Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers. This was my fourth time going to the nation's capital. This round included meeting with the Department of the Interior, where I asked why the BLM does not maintain the same grazing standards they require of their permittees, especially in areas grazed with wild horses. We also talked about wolves, sage grouse and the Endangered Species Act, trailing permits across public lands, and the issue of disease transmission between domestic and Bighorn sheep.
The Brazilian Embassy was an interesting stop where we learned a lot about agriculture in the Brazil. Specific topics included Foot and Mouth Disease, their ethanol industry and international trade. Their ethanol industry, which uses sugar, was started out with government subsidization. Today it is not government subsidized, and the price of sugar on the open market is higher than the ethanol price, so people rarely use it because of the cost compared to regular gasoline.
Touring the American Farm Bureau Federation Office was also very fun, and we got briefed on several topics of interest/concern within the Farm Bureau organization at present, and see the rooftop view of the Capital.
My last stop was with our Senator, John Barrasso. We're very fortunate in Wyoming to have a great Congressional Delegation, so it was more a thank-you/what's new on issues meeting. From there I flew home to continue on with sorting and shipping while the rest of my group spent a couple days touring our nation's capital.
Here are a few photos from the trip:

The U.S. Capital at night.

 American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman's office, and the great view!

 The Air and Space Museum, exhibit on the race to the moon between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Check out the newspaper articles (writer's plug, lol)

 The super cool, super big camera America launched into to space to spy on the Soviet Union in the late 1960's or early 1970's to see if they were planning and making nuclear weapons (I think). Within a couple years, we perfected this camera from only being able to see items over 40 feet in length, to being able to see a line of people on the street. Very interesting, loved this museum!

 Real airplanes hang from the rafters in the Air and Space Museum.

 Another angle on the Capital.

 Here I am....I'm really not that orange : )

 View from the Capital Steps

 Sitting on the Capital Steps, listening to the Navy Band play, at sunset.

Enjoying the Navy Band.

Here is the whole group that went. We had a great time!

DOL Child Labor Law Revisions

Chad, from Texas, emailed me and asked if I would let you know what I know on the Department of Labor's (DOL) proposed changes to child labor laws. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, here is a link to what the DOL is proposing.


Or, in case you skip the link, here are some of the proposed changes:



The proposed updates include:

• Strengthening current child labor prohibitions regarding agricultural work with animals in timber operations, manure pits, storage bins and pesticide handling.
• Prohibiting hired farm workers under the age of 16 from employment in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.
• Prohibiting youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic devices, including communication devices, while operating power-driven equipment.
• Prohibiting hired farm workers under the age of 16 from operating almost all power-driven equipment. A similar prohibition has existed as part of the nonagricultural child labor provisions for more than 50 years. A limited exemption would permit some student-learners to operate certain farm implements and tractors (when equipped with proper rollover protection structures and seat belts) under specified conditions.
• Preventing children under 18 years of age from being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm-product raw materials. Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions. 

What I know may not be any more than you know on this subject, which is incredibly serious and potentially life threatening to many farms and ranches across this country. Basically, this is another attempt by our government to over-regulate its citizens so that they can drag us down to their preferred level of mediocrity through controlling our ability to work. It is ridiculous, frustrating, and completely shocking to me that anyone would even consider proposing these changes.


If you aren't familiar with agriculture, allow me to make a couple points. First, the family structure on a farm or ranch is rarely kids and their parents. It typically involves cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, distant cousins, and neighbors who you might as well be related to. Part of the proposed rule would limit a youth's ability to work with anyone but his parents, and maybe grandparents, on a farm or ranch. 


Second, tasks like not being able to drive a tractor, not coming into contact with a bull, ride a horse, or be allowed to transport raw farm materials is comparable to saying your child may not come into contact with flour until he/she is sixteen if you own a bakery. Literally is at that level of overkill, with about the same amount of reasoning to back it as you can imagine they would have to keep kids out of contact with flour. Actually it is much the same thing, except it's contact with flour before it's in your kitchen.


I recently sat next to a man who is heavily involved in fighting this proposed rule, and he taught me lot on the subject. First, whoever came up with this idea knows something about agriculture, in his opinion. Why? Because they put the proposed rule out for comment on September 2, which is one of the busiest times of the year for America's farmers, and ranchers, in many cases. They knew our industry wouldn't have time to immediately respond as a whole because we were busy harvesting, weaning, etc... So, as we move forward with this, be aware that timely updates, any future comment periods, and other pertinent information is likely to be released at times when farmers and ranchers are exceptionally busy working, ironically enough.
He also said that one thing he hears a lot in D.C. is that it's okay, they aren't really going to enforce these, but just want to have them updated and current. Really, is anyone buying into that??? No. Don't worry, he isn't either.
He and I also discussed just how safe, or unsafe, our industry is to kids. He had a whole pile of great statistics that I cannot remember, or find at the moment. He mentioned that Hispanic youth who are part of immigrant working families are something like 50-75 percent less likely to suffer an injury working on a farm than they are if they move to an inner-city. So, gangs and other kids are far more likely to result in injury than driving a tractor or riding a horse. He also told me that the most dangerous industry for youth to work in based on data is acting.
In response to eliminating youth under 16 from operating almost all power-driven equipment, he quoted that stock car circuits allow youth to compete, at far greater speeds than a tractor ever dreamed of going, at significantly younger ages. In regard to a component that states youth are unable to manipulate cattle from horseback (ie, ride and move cows). His response is that numerous equine breed organizations, in addition to numerous youth organizations, host contests that prove otherwise.
I apologize for not remembering any more of the very interested and well thought out pieces of information this man had to the rule. The key points here are that there is a lot of data showing agriculture is safe for youth to be involved in, a lot of their proposed rules have no precedence when looking at facts and figures, and basically that it's as ludicrous from that viewpoint as it is from the more emotional standpoint producers often take. The man noted that as a part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, he is fighting on the facts and figures side of the fence, and leaving the emotional side of the battle to the producers. 
You can read some additional information on how the ag industry feels about this issue at these links:


Article One


Article Two


Article Three


This is going to happen, in some form. The DOL has mostly ignored the thousands upon thousands of comments sent in by agriculture producers around the country. But, I do feel better after meeting one of the men fighting this rule face to face with our country's lawmakers.


As for the emotional side of this, here's my personal take. I grew up on an operation that included my parents, aunt and uncle and grandparents. We had a lot of work to do, and not a lot of help. So, at a very young age my siblings and I worked, and worked hard. We had our own horse, knew how to drive a manual pickup, the tractor and various other pieces of equipment, and held long hours some days. We were competent children that could be sent to complete a task, and would. Our level of success was questionable at times, but it was never for a lack of trying.  I didn't just work with my dad either. On any given day I was as likely to be working under my uncle's supervision as my own parents. People also trade work (kids a lot of the time) with neighbors during certain times of the year. 
This law, as currently proposed, would have significantly altered my family's ability to run our operation successfully, not to mention the impact it would have had on me as an individual. Those tasks taught me what work ethic really is, how to be self-sufficient, how to plan, implement and complete a task by myself or in a group setting, and how to work under and/or with a variety of people in both calm and high stress situations.  A person's youth is the cornerstone to their adulthood, and lessons learned early tend to stick. I find it frightening to think out government doesn't want another generation to know how to work.


What can we do? There is still time to submit comments on specific sections of the rule, and several of the links I've provided have information on how to do that. I would also suggest contacting your state representatives, especially if they are unfamiliar with agriculture, and the impact this will have within the industry. You can also offer support, comments, and in some instances your time, through various ag affiliated organizations, including your state stockgrowers/stockmans groups, your state and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA) to name a few. I know the USCA is currently looking for participants for their latest D.C. Fly-In, where you can travel to our nation's capital and meet and discuss current issues, like this one, with various groups and individuals involved in our government.


If you would like to send me an email at doublehphoto@live.com with your respectfully written thoughts, comments, personal experiences growing up, or anything else relevant to this rule, I will accept them and do a post of what everyone has to say in a week or so. My thoughts are we can't publicize this enough, through enough venues, using enough concerned people, in our attempt to get the federal government to see reason. If a few people do email me, I too will take the time to write up a much shorter something to include in the post.


Hope this helps Chad, and thank you again for writing me in regard to this issue.

Grassroots Organizations

This week I am at the Wyoming Annual Farm Bureau Convention, held in Cheyenne. Since my work is no longer a conflict of interest with being personally affiliated with select organizations, I have enjoyed increasing my involvement in Wyoming Farm Bureau through running and being elected to the Wyoming Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee.
My personal belief is it's a necessary act of community service to serve on boards, committees, in public office, etc... It's through personal involvement that you see your community become what you want, how you create positive change that you believe in, and is critical to the future of communities. It's also how you make others aware of issues pertinent and relevant to you and your lifestyle. My family has a long standing history of involvement for these reasons, and I'm excited to increase mine in upcoming months and years.
The thoughts I just mentioned are relevant at the local, county, state, regional, national or international level. That's the beauty of being involved. I am also a very strong believer in grassroots organizations, which are those where local members make policy, and pass it locally, then present it at the district, state, and national meetings, should it pass at each previous step. Grassroots organizations are how local people get local issues heard at a national level by government and other entities through a large and unified voice. This is the opposite of the federal government creating an idea, then passing it down to the local communities they know nothing about. Grassroots is how things should happen.
The American Farm Bureau Federation is the largest farmer and rancher based grassroots organization in the U.S. today, and as I type this, policy is being passed at the state level that has already been voted on at the local and district meetings. These are the ideas, concerns, changes and improvements Wyoming people want to see happen on more issues than you can count. Through creating policy, the people involved lobbying for Farm Bureau at the state or national level have a resource they can refer to on any number of issues to see just what the people back home think on a subject. Then they can use that policy to accurately represent member needs. 
For example, policy was passed today that states Wyoming Farm Bureau supports population control of wild horses through various means including sterilization, humane euthanization, etc... (those aren't the exact words, which in policy exact words are very important, but that gives you the general idea).
With that policy in place, the Farm Bureau lobbyists can refer to it any time there is legislation that encompasses the wild horse, and speak from the point of the organization supporting population control. If there wasn't policy, the lobbyists wouldn't know what the majority of members thought on some issues, and may not represent accurately.
The other side is, having a huge organization with members from every state in the union gets a lot more attention at state or national legislatures than one farmer, or rancher, with a concern or idea.
Savvy?
It's all quite fascinating, and so very important to the future of our country. I encourage anyone who has ever said, "they should do that, or do it that way," to go join the organization you were referring to, and become a part of making it the way you want and believe it should be.

Political Issues - GIPSA Rule

As I've already mentioned we covered a number of topics while in Washington D.C. My plan is to present a number of those issues to you while they're still fresh in my mind.
Up first is the proposed GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) Rule, which USDA is currently working on.
The 2008 Farm Bill required re-writing and clarification of certain aspects of the GIPSA Rule, and the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) was the entity in charge of this rule, so they got the task of re-writing it. The GIPSA website states the goal of the regulation is to level the playing field between packers, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors, and the nation's poultry growers and livestock producers.
The result of the USDA's first draft was varied and outspoken. During the public comment period, 60,000 comments were submitted, voicing everything from strong support to rigorous opposition of the rule. I attended one of a series of USDA/DOJ public workshops on the topic, where a number of panels comprised of members of the livestock industry spoke on the issue, and where producers from across the country spoke passionately for and against it based on the impact it would have on their operation and their neighbor's operations.
Right now everyone is waiting for the USDA to release the final rule after making changes based on the 60,000 public comments. The USDA has three choices of how they can proceed upon completing the writing phase. First, they can release a final rule, period, the end. Second, they can present a proposed final rule with an additional public comment period. Third they can submit a reproposal of the entire rule. They also have the option of doing a combination of the three. For example, they can choose specific parts to be released as final, and make others open for another public comment period.
Many of the congressional delegation are in opposition of continued funding of the rule, because they don't like the idea of the USDA being able to come out with a final rule without anyone getting any additional say in the matter, especially with this being such a sensitive issue. Without funding the rule would die where it is now until the next budgeting session (I think, until sometime in the next session).
Others are in support of keeping the bill fully funded until we see what the final rule, or proposed rule is, then taking action if there is anything they're in opposition of.
The argument with that is if the rule is passed without additional comment, the only way to make changes is through a challenge or new legislation (and perhaps others), all of which can take several years. During that entire time the rule would stand as released.
You can read an outline of the original proposed rule here.
This is an important issue to all members of the livestock industry because it is a rule designed to level the marketing playing, and will have impacts (both good and bad) on all sectors . I encourage you to read up on it, and stay updated on it.
We were able to speak with USDA GIPSA Administrator Dudley Butler on the issue while in D.C., and he said, "If both sides come out a little mad and a little happy, I think will have done a good job."

The Sage Grouse

Picture from here

If you live in Wyoming, odds are you've heard of the sage grouse, and all the "efforts" to protect this poor, stupid bird.
But, in the big picture, it isn't about the Sage Grouse, the Prebbles Jumping Meadow Mouse, (which is now an admitted non-existent animal) or the raptor bird species. These animals are simply a tool used to access and gain control over private lands.
The Sage Grouse is latest in a long line of animals the government is using in an attempt to control private lands.
And it's working. In an effort to prevent the Sage Grouse being listed on the Endangered Species List, a number of people are implementing and signing agreements to alter their management practices to improve bird habitat, connectivity and overall ability to survive.
So, if the government isn't gaining control, why can't you graze your pastures when you want, put in a water tank when you want and where you need it, if you're involved in these initiative programs?
What makes half our state "core areas" for this bird? And how convenient that these core areas are primarily located where intensive energy development hasn't previously occurred, and that they often stop abruptly at state or federal land borders, but encompass the vast majority of neighboring private lands. Furthermore, these core areas were developed by the "experts," a Governor appointed Sage Grouse Implementation Team...hmmm.
I sat around a table over Christmas, and had a lengthy discussion on the Sage Grouse with members of my family involved in ranching, and energy development (guess I was the press aspect), and it was refreshing and educational to hear what they had to say.
My family member involved in energy development noted that they were doing alright dealing with all the raptor-related issues, but that the Sage Grouse has made things almost unbearable in many locations. He said there will be no more vast energy expansion in Wyoming, because these animal-related regulations are becoming too impossible to deal with, or work with.
He noted that now, in order to get their work done, they have to go in and completely destroy the landscape because they are working so fast, in such a concentrated area, to meet the date requirements they're allowed to work. Certain activities aren't allowed during certain times of they year, because the Sage Grouse are nesting, or mating, or their young are too young to fly.
He noted that the footprint cause by energy development was vastly increased by these regulations, instead of the opposite.
He also commented on a few of the more ludicrous accusations the government has come up with in an effort to stop different aspects of energy development. Salt Beak was one he had quite a laugh over. The proposed issue was that the Sage Grouse would accumulate salt at the base of their beaks from drinking water used in energy development. As the salt accumulated, the birds beak would eventually get so heavy he would tip over, and die.
When they asked the BLM? Game and Fish? (I can't remember which) if there had ever been a case of "Salt Beak" they were told there hadn't ever been one, or any evidence of such a thing. The water in question didn't even have enough salt in it for this to occur.
This is a tactic used almost daily. These outrageous claims of energy, or ranching's indirect negative impact on a wildlife species is used to shut down a number of useful practices, many of which are actually beneficial to the wildlife species in question, like providing fresh, clean water to the birds to drink in places where there wasn't water previously.
The real issue is that sometimes (maybe a lot of the time) the local, state, and national government manage to get these crazy accusations passed, and turned into more regulations that limit both the energy and agriculture communities in doing their job.
Keep in mind that it's these industries that provide you with clothing, food, heat, and fuel, and that the private lands involved in these practices provide the highest quality wildlife habitat in the country.
There is also the issue that the local people have the most power, so there is a vast amount of difference in dealing with the Sage Grouse from one area to another. The court system goes round and round, and my relative said they ultimately can't control these local guys, because they've been given so much power.
In my opinion it's the private lands, and the quality management of the private landowners, that has kept this bird, and all these other species, alive so far. With these ever increasing regulations, it becomes more and more difficult to manage private lands in the best way possible. and every time you sign up your private lands for a government program, or initiative, or agreement, you lose a portion of your control over that land.
In Wyoming, that land is used to produce energy that heats, lights and fuels our country in addition to feeding it through the cattle, sheep and crops raised on it. One amazing benefit to ranching is that proper land management also results in unsurpassed wildlife habitat. What I'm saying, is that prior to the government stepping in with their regulations and attempted control, the private landowners were already doing a better job managing the Sage Grouse than the government ever will. It's important we don't lose control of our lands, be it over a bird or anything else.