Details

Last Updated on Thursday, 10 September 2009 07:35

Written by Christy Hemken

Slater – In a decision made by the Obama administration in early July, Gregor Goertz of Slater has been named the new State Executive Director for Wyoming’s Farm Service Agency (FSA).
    Goertz, an organic wheat and natural beef producer in Platte County, says the appointment will be a major change to his and his operation’s everyday life. With the state FSA office in Casper, Goertz says he plans on commuting some and he also hopes travel the state to get a good handle on how agriculture is doing and how the agency is serving the industry.
    “My goal is to make sure the producers of Wyoming are served in a friendly atmosphere and receive all the benefits of the programs passed by Congress that are available to them,” he explains.
    FSA, which is overseen by USDA, works to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural Americans. Some of the agency’s efforts include facilitating income support, disaster assistance and conservation programs, providing operating loans for the procurement of farm equipment, seed and fertilizer, as well as offering ownership loans to help new and veteran producers purchase a farm.
    Goertz says he sees the lack of an adequate budget to adequately staff and administer programs as one of the biggest challenges to FSA. Goertz’s main responsibility will be to oversee the state office and give direction and guidance to county committees.
    “These individuals have a solid understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing our rural communities and will help build on the Obama Administration’s efforts to rebuild and revitalize rural America,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement after the announcement of appointees.
    Goertz already served on the Wyoming FSA State Executive Committee from 1995 through 2004 under both President Clinton and President Bush. He served a term as Platte County Commissioner from 1987 through 1990, as well as several other community boards, including Chairman of the Slater Wind Association and the Wyoming Wheat Growers Board of Directors.
    “I’m also involved in renewable energy and our family owns and direct-markets Wyoming Pure Natural Beef, so I have some idea of the requirements of value-added and sustainable agriculture,” says Goertz. “I feel that, being a producer with those experiences, I will be sensitive to the needs and challenges faced by producers.”
    His position as State Executive Director will also require trips to Washington, D.C. “In those trips I’ll have the opportunity to work with the headquarters staff and let them know how things work in the field and how they affect the producers. Being a producer, I have a first-hand knowledge of that,” he says.
    Goertz’s son Jason Goertz has been full-time on the family operation, and he will take over responsibility for the day-to-day operations while Goertz is away. Goertz plans to begin in his new position Aug. 10, following wheat harvest, but he will be in communication with the state office until then.
    In addition to FSA State Executive Director, the administration appointed State Directors for USDA’s Rural Development program. Darrel Carruth of Casper, who retired after 31 years with Rural Development, which was previously the Farmers Home Administration, was appointed to lead Wyoming’s agency.
    Currently Carruth and his wife own a food concession business and travel to various fairs, festivals, and tournaments. Carruth serves on the Casper College Alumni Association Board, of which he was President from 2005 through 2007.
    “These individuals will be important advocates on behalf of rural communities in states throughout the country and help administer the valuable programs and services provided by the USDA that can enhance their economic success,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement.
    USDA’s Rural Development administers and manages over 40 housing, business, and community infrastructure and facility programs as laid out by Congress through a network of 6,100 employees located in 500 national, state and local offices. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America. Rural Development has an existing portfolio of over $114 billion in loans and loan guarantees.
    Christy Hemken is assistant editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 07 April 2012 09:17

Written by Christy Martinez

On March 23 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the USDA’s Final Planning Rule for America’s 193 million-acre national forest system, which he said includes “stronger protections for forests, water and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of rural communities.”
    However, multiple use groups, including public lands grazing, disagree, based on the fact that there was no substantive change in the final rule from the preferred alternative that was released and on which the U.S. Forest Service took comments earlier in 2012.
    “We’ve all weighed in from the very beginning – from the time they first wrote the draft rule in early 2011 we submitted our comments and worked to weigh in with our concerns,” says Public Lands Council Executive Director Dustin Van Liew.
    “It’s now a final rule, and it didn’t change much from what the draft showed,” says Rick Krause of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Most of the concerns that were out there still remain.”
Management for wildlife
    Van Liew says one of his group’s primary concerns are the provisions for “viability of wildlife species.”
    “Through the preferred alternative and the final rule, they continue to rely on the viability of wildlife species as a way to require management on the forests,” he explains. “We’re still very concerned about that because of the litigation it’s brought and the process that it entails. Under statute, we don’t even believe they have the authority to manage for wildlife species, or what they call ‘species of conservation concern.’ That should be left to states.”
    Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna agrees, saying the most significant and hardest to deal with will be the issue of providing for all species, in that “species viability” has been expanded from strictly vertebrates to all plants and animals.
    “That seems to be inconsistent with the fundamental concept of multiple use that’s supposed to drive forest management, and also to some degree an infringement on the authority of the states, who have the responsibility to deal with wildlife species,” says Magagna.
    Van Liew says a perfect example of viability provisions are those that public land grazers have operated under for the last 30 years regarding domestic sheep grazing and the big horn sheep.
    “The big horn sheep issue has been dealt with through a rider in the last omnibus appropriations act, which bars any removal of domestic livestock for big horn sheep, but that shows how a non-protected species can have an effect on grazing and other multiple uses,” he says.
Management for
wilderness
    Van Liew points out another concern, the requirement to maintain wilderness characteristics.
    “This rule includes the requirement to maintain wilderness characteristics where they’re found to exist, which we believe is de facto wilderness,” he states. “If they’re managing it as wilderness, the same restrictions will exist for multiple use that exist under wilderness designations, and under statute only Congress has that authority.”
    Van Liew says the Forest Service has been given a lot of deference in court rulings to allow the agency’s opinion to carry weight through guidance, but this final rule takes it a step farther, making guidance a mandatory requirement under all forest plans.
    “That reduces their flexibly and requires the implementation of guidance that’s often developed outside of public purview,” says Van Liew. “There’s no opportunity for public comment in that process.”
Problems for practical planning
    Magagna adds that another of his concerns is the concept of environmental sustainability.
    “That’s such a broad, philosophical thing, and how it will be applied in any given forest process, we don’t know,” he says. “If you take broad concepts like ‘environmental sustainability’ and ‘climate change’ that are not definable, it poses huge problems for practical planning.”
    Magagna adds that those concepts also make it easier for forest plans to be challenged by the environmental community.
    Along those same lines, Krause says the final rule seems to deemphasize the multiple use concept.
    “It creates ecosystem restoration as the guiding principle, which is not a bad thing, but everything has to be brought together,” says Krause. “We can’t say, ‘We’ll do this at the expense of that.’ We think it goes a little far and deemphasizes grazing, timber and other multiple uses.”
    Krause mentions another concern – the requirement that decisions be made on the basis of the best science, but he says the rule leaves it up to each plan to choose which science they think is the best.
    “It gives the head of the forest a lot of discretion on which science will be used,” he states.
Implementation
    There are eight forests across the West where the final rule will be first implemented when it goes into effect 30 days after being published in the Federal Register.
    “I haven’t seen it posted yet, so we see the beginning of May as the earliest the new rule could begin to be implemented,” says Van Liew.
    PLC is working on Capitol Hill to see if there’s an ability to protect some of public lands grazers’ interests through the appropriations process, but he says we’ve yet to see the full impact.
    “We will have the opportunity to see how this final rule works elsewhere first,” says Magagna. “It will be critical to be involved in local plan development, but we’ll be at a disadvantage because it will be driven by this rule. We can not afford not to continue to look at ways to intervene in the rule through litigation or Congressional action.”
    “The agency claims it will make their job more efficient, and the appropriators on Capitol Hill will be interested to see if those efficiencies are there,” says Van Liew.
    Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

NEPA requirements for trailing, crossing permits still uncertain
    Original rider language in late 2011 allowed flexibility for livestock producers crossing BLM land, saying that they did not need to go through National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to get their trailing and crossing permits.
    “Unfortunately, after the fact we found out the Solicitor was not interpreting the language to be sufficient for agencies to not have to do NEPA,” says Public Lands Council Executive Director Dustin Van Liew of later developments. “We understand that now the BLM is in the process of finalizing guidance to the field on how to proceed, which we understand will be with some level of NEPA for trailing and crossing permits.”
    Meanwhile, Van Liew says PLC has not seen any disruption on the ground from ranchers’ perspectives.
    “We’re working with Chairman Simpson and the Appropriations Committee to clarify the Congressional intent. It remains a concern, but until we see the final guidance, we’re not sure what the impact will be,” he notes, adding that the BLM has been reaching out to the permittees they know will trail on and cross BLM land, and some preemptive work has been completed ahead of the release of the guidance.
    “It’s hard to say what that guidance will be, but I hope from the industry perspective that the agencies would provide flexibility, being that this is a new requirement,” says Van Liew.

Details

Last Updated on Monday, 25 October 2010 11:45

Written by Heather Hamilton

Fort Collins, Colo. – During the public workshop on competition issues in the agricultural marketplaces in Fort Collins, Colo. in late August, a producer panel presented issues of particular importance to their sectors of the industry. Panel members came from across the country and included cattle feeders, hog producers, sheep producers and ranchers.
“We currently have two active packers that will visit our lot on a weekly basis,” said Allen Sents, who owns a 10,000-head capacity feedlot with his wife in central Kansas. “One big challenge weekly is to determine what kind of space we will have with those two packers we deal with. It’s common for us to hear they’ve already secured all but one or two days’ supply when they visit. When numbers swell we have serious concerns about having access to markets and being able to move our cattle.”
Wyoming organic beef producer and Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming (ICOW) president Taylor Haynes added a lack of access to the retail market is another problem
“Decentralizing meat packing is the key. The HAASP rule has killed the small meat packers. You’ve got foxes watching the henhouse. You need point and source interaction and discovery, and you need to enforce the food safety rule where the contamination occurs, which is largely on the kill floor,” noted Haynes, to applause. “If we can bring the small and medium sized meatpackers back, that will bring the small and medium sized feeder back too.”
Colorado lamb feeder and farmer Mike Harper noted demand for lamb is at a record-breaking high. “The worst thing we in the sheep industry are dealing with right now is a lack of numbers. We need to figure out how to bring numbers back and increase interest in young people. We’re at the point in our industry where, if continue to lose numbers, we will probably lose another packer,” commented Harper.
Colorado cow-calf producer and one of six families cooperatively involved in Homestead Meats, Robbie LeValley has concerns as a USDA-inspected packing plant owner.
“We formed a six-family cooperative and purchased a USDA meat packing facility. Approximately one-third of all calves produced by the six families go through our plant for direct marketing. Not only are we selling directly to the consumer, we are also improving the genetics in the cattle we sell to other feedlots.
“My concern is that as you read the proposed GIPSA rules, it states there will be a ban on packer-to-packer sales and their subsidiaries, and we are a packer and it will limit our marketing options. I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of the rules, but that vagueness is one of the unintended consequences as we read the proposed rule. Banning those sales really limits our options, and all six ranching families were innovative and we took market risks, and now we are facing a restriction on trade and that is my concern – the vagueness in the proposed rules,” explained LeValley.
“Initially the packers picked off a few large entities, using supply to gain control. One big disagreement I have is with critics opposing GIPSA who say it’s all about procuring quality cattle. That has nothing to do with it. The largest supply agreements have had everything to do with supply and controlling that inventory, and nothing to do with quality cattle, and that’s been shown by numerous studies,” commented Sents, with audience support.
Secretary of Agriculture and panel moderator Tom Vilsack asked panelists about technology, young people returning to family operations and rural communities and the impacts of availability to markets.
When Vilsack asked panelists what they would like to see in five years if there was another gathering, Haynes said, “I would like for the American consumer to understand that we really are the environmentalists who care most about the land and animals on the land.”
“I want to see the freedom of independent contracts return, but also a policy that will halt the trend of concentration of size to achieve market power,” added Sents.
“There really is something at stake here, which is the livelihood of good, hardworking producers and the capacity of small, rural communities and small towns to thrive,” commented Vilsack at the end of the discussion.
Heather Hamilton is editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Friday, 10 June 2011 10:27

Written by Christy Martinez

Although a rule allowing interstate shipment of state-inspected meat has passed the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, Dean Finkenbinder of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture’s Consumer Health Services Division says Wyoming will not be a part of the program.
By participating in the voluntary, cooperative interstate shipment program, select establishments would have the option to ship meat and poultry products, bearing an official USDA mark of inspection, across state lines. Until now, only federally inspected meat and poultry was allowed into interstate commerce.
“Wyoming hasn’t applied for the program, and, to my knowledge, only four states have,” says Finkenbinder. “Wyoming doesn’t plan to apply, mainly because the plant would have to be a federal plant, and we’d have to purchase computers and all the equipment from USDA to make the inspection in that plant, and then there would be a federal employee to oversee all the training and to evaluate the program, and there would also be a federal stamp that would have to be used on the meat product, so it would no longer look like it was coming from a state meat plant.”
To become part of the program, the state would have to apply with the USDA for the interstate meat shipment program, then any interested plant would have to apply through the state, and the state would go to the district office for the region. The state inspector in that plant would then have to go through training for federal enforcement of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the plant would then have to meet all the federal standards, and be “the same as,” instead of “at least equal to,” which is the current standard for state meat plants.
“When they say ‘same as,’ that means we have to follow the rules and regulations according to how the feds do it. With the state program the way it is, we have a little leeway. As long as we maintain food safety we don’t have to follow the particular requirement specifically the way it’s stated. With the interstate meat shipment, we wouldn’t be able to do that,” he explains.
Finkenbinder says it’s that cost, equipment and federal oversight that will keep Wyoming out of the program.
“While we do have federal oversight now, it’s not direct, and there isn’t a federal person in our state meat plants,” he explains. “If one went to the federal program, we’d also have to have a separate accounting system for that particular program.”
“Our state inspected meat plants do a really good job, and I think if they would have allowed the state plants to ship interstate as they are now, they would have had a lot more participation in the program,” adds Finkenbinder.
Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .