April 4, 2000

Note: I understand the term "red herring" comes from Scandinavia where hounds would sometimes been drawn off the track by dragging a smelly "red" herring (fish) across the scent track.  In debate the term commonly refers to raising a highly controversial issue in order to divert folks' attention from the real story. 

In Idaho, for example, we hear much more about some Challis rancher who loses a couple of cow calves than the fact that agri-business plans the worlds biggest and therefore most polluting pig-feeding operation near Burley in southern Idaho. 

By Suzanne Laverty. Defenders of Wildlife

Ben Franklin was a wise man who often used catchy sayings that have great meaning and are applicable to our day-to-day lives. One of my favorite aphorisms is: Penny-wise, pound poor. This adage tells us to not get distracted by issues of little significance or we will soon lose those things that are most important to us. It's good advice. Yet the Farm Bureau and the National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) along with their local affiliates would rather see ranchers fighting with conservationists over the wolf issue than allow them to focus on what is really destroying livestock producers throughout the country. Ted Hoffman's recent Reader's View in the Idaho Statesman also asks ranchers to do just that.

Defenders of Wildlife has talked with a lot of ranchers. We find their perspective is very different than Mr. Hoffman. They tell us corporate consolidation, the loss of markets due to over production, and our blind charge towards freer trade are the real factors threatening their way of life, NOT wolves. Global corporate agribusiness squeezing the small and mid-sized livestock operators; that is what is destroying family farmers and ranchers all across America.

So why doesn't the Farm Bureau, NCBA and Hoffman follow Franklin's common sense advice and discuss ways to keep ranchers pound-wise? Why do they encourage fear of wolves when what producers really need is hope and assistance? We fear the answer lies in the agricultural lobbying groups tight relationship with agri- business.

The most poignant example of this troublesome connection is the contrast between these agricultural groups fervor over wolves that have caused minor economic loses and their lack of interest in attacking Archer Daniel Midland, a corporate partner of Farm Bureau-controlled cooperatives. Mr. Midland was recently fined $100 million for price fixing on feed additives, the single largest fine for that activity ever. A Purdue economist estimated that this price fixing episode cost producers (yes that means ranchers and farmers) roughly $160 million. Ironically, a search of the Farm Bureau's web page contains no mention of its outrage over this travesty yet contains no less than 15 references to wolves.

Examples like the one above have caused many ranchers to question the positions and actions of the Farm Bureau and NCBA as they should. Two such folks are Mike Callicrate with R-CALF and Fred Stokes, president of the Organization for Competitive Markets. Neither of these two in anyway support wolf recovery, but they also don't cite it as a key factor impacting stockgrowers. Ranchers are currently facing tough times and they need to reassess who their friends are.

For our part, Defenders of Wildlife, has and will continue to pay fair and reasonable compensation for as long as wolves remain listed under the Endangered Species Act and possibly beyond. We will also talk to and listen to ranchers advice on how to make our compensation trust more user friendly. We will do our part to ensure that ranchers won't have to be penny wise. But unless people like Hoffman start asking the right questions about who is controlling farm policy, beef prices are going to keep ranchers pound- poor for a long time to come.

This originally appeared as a letter to the editor in February.