Sheep Industry News June 2024

SheepIndustry Volume 28, Issue 6 June 2024

News

June 2024 Volume 28, Issue 6

Contents

4

President’s Notes

6

Market Report

13 30

ASI Member Listing

28

Breeders' Directory

Industry Calendar

ON THE COVER: Hellow Ewe Katrina Steele of Ohio

FOLLOW US

2 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

2024 ASI Photo Contest Now Accepting Entries It’s time to start sorting through those great photos you took the past few years and prepare to enter them in the 2024 ASI Photo Contest. Winning entries will be featured in the October issue of the Sheep Industry News .

12

8 16

20 Dutch Sheep Bear Resemblance to

22

Donate Now to Support Guard Dog, Sheep Heritage Predators come in many forms for America’s sheep flock. While coyotes and wolves stalk lambs under the cover of night, the daylight hours present sheep producers with their own set of challenges – ones that often pit men in suits battling before judges and juries.

Producers Need To Be Involved in Predator Management

YE Spotlight: Tucker & Emily West Five years ago, Tucker and Emily West didn’t know what to think about sheep. They’d raised cows, goats and chickens, but sheep were an enigma to the young couple. They put their concerns aside and purchased 10 ewes.

Dalmatians, Holsteins Prior to the second week in May, the Dutch Spotted Sheep Society U.S. had more human members than registered sheep. That anomaly took a step toward

To increase livestock producer understanding and support of predator control efforts, producers should be

encouraged to become involved in the process.

correcting itself when six sheep were born in Glover, Vt.

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 3

President’s Notes BRAD BONER ASI PRESIDENT

Industry Faces Many Battles T he Biden Administration and those who like to think of themselves as “animal rights” activists have been busy in the last several months. From the new Conservation and Landscape Health Rule to removing the M-44 from the Wildlife Services toolbox to this fall’s referendum to ban all harvesting of animals and fur sales in the city of Denver, these efforts have the potential to significantly impact our industry. This doubling/tripling down at the end of this administration will negatively affect every sheep producer. The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule allows for federal land permits/leases to be issued for conservation alone, thus placing conservation on a level playing field with all other multiple uses – including grazing – along with a huge expansion of the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern acreage. One-third of our nation’s ewe flock spends part of their production year on public lands. This one is particularly egregious for the American sheep industry and will undoubtedly serve as the conduit to remove all grazing on federal lands. Conservation is not a “use,” it is an outcome of good management. This rule is proof positive that the Biden Administration is hell bent on advancing its agenda with little to no concern for the true health of this country’s grazing lands. Control is the only thing that matters to them. ASI is carefully considering joining together with other multiple use organizations to fight this rule in court. The city of Denver has two referendums on this fall’s ballot that affect animal agriculture. One would ban slaughterhouses within the city limits. This is another extreme example of activism run amok. ASI is involved with multiple partners from within and outside our industry in an all-out effort to soundly defeat the slaughterhouse referendum. The initiative to ban slaughterhouses would force the closure of Superior Farms’ lamb processing plant in the city. It is the only business directly affected by the referendum. At the request of the Colorado Wool Growers Association and other state agricultural groups, Colorado State University developed a report on possible impacts of the plant closure. We will have more to share on that report in the near future. This brings me to the meat of this column. The ASI Guard Dog Fund is our only source of funds to fight these very im portant battles. Through the years, this fund has successfully funded court battles and won multiple efforts on behalf of our industry. It is only able to accomplish this through the graciousness of approximately 140 families who have annually donated their hard-earned money to the Guard Dog Fund. Charter members donate $750 or more, while supporting members contrib ute $250 to $749. It is your leadership’s belief that we need to reach a much higher percentage of our members who are willing to contribute to this very important effort. If you are not familiar with the Guard Dog Fund, please turn to the story on pages 8-9 and take a look at the battles the Guard Dog Fund is helping to fight. You can also find information on the ASI website at SheepUSA.org/ about-donate. Members of the ASI Executive Board and association staff can also share the valuable role these funds play in protecting our industry. I would encourage you to donate as you are able. Every penny goes to help us successfully defend this great industry from the onslaught of uninformed detractors whose only goal is seeing that we go away. Until next time, keep it on the sunny side.

4 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

SheepIndustry NEWS June 2024: Volume 28, Issue 6

AMERICAN SHEEP INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION INC. 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360 Englewood, CO 80112-2692 Phone: 303-771-3500 • Fax: 303-771-8200 info@sheepusa.org • Sheepusa.org EDITOR/ADVERTISING DIRECTOR: Kyle Partain COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANT: Parand Malekani ASI Office Staff: Peter Orwick, Executive Director Rita Kourlis Samuelson, Deputy Director/Wool Marketing Larry Kincaid, Chief Financial Officer Zahrah Khan, Operations Manager Erica Sanko, Director of Analytics & Production Programs Christa Rochford, Wool Marketing Programs Manager Heather Pearce, Wool Production Programs Manager Chris Jones, Administrative Assistant The Sheep Industry News is published monthly as the official publication of the American Sheep Industry Association Inc. SUBSCRIPTIONS: Payment of member dues in an ASI affiliated state organization entitles a member to a subscription. For non-members, the subscription rate is $50 per year. ADVERTISING INFORMATION: Rates available at Sheepusa.org. Deadline is the fifth of the month preceding the cover date. All advertising is subject to publisher’s approval. Advertisers must assume all liability for their advertising content. Publisher maintains the right to cancel advertising for nonpayment or reader complaint about service or product. Publisher assumes no liability for products or services advertised in Sheep Industry News.

Wool is Our Business

Call us about selling yours

1-800-624-WOOL

mwc1983@roswellwool.com

Mike Corn, Manager

The American Sheep Industry Association is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

A Tradition of Integrity

It’s not just our motto, It’s our reputation.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send to info@sheepusa.org

www.roswellwool.com

Roswell NM

•

Bakersfield CA

•

Mertzon TX

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 5

Market Report

TYLER W. COZZENS, PH.D. Livestock Marketing Information Center

Lower Production & Higher Prices

S heep and lamb slaughter – federally inspected – moved sea sonally lower in April following the peak level of more than 44,000 head in mid-March. Through April and into the first part of May, weekly sheep and lamb slaughter has been averaging just under 36,000 head per week. Comparison to a year ago is a little tricky due to the timing of the Easter holiday, which was earlier than in 2023. As a result, some weeks in April were lower than last year, but other weeks were higher. Looking at weekly sheep and lamb slaughter levels on a year to-date basis shows that through the first week of May, slaughter levels are tracking marginally higher – less than 1 percent – than during the same period in 2023. Although slaughter levels are tracking slightly higher, dressed weights have been averaging about 2 percent – 1.3 pounds – lower than the same four-month period in 2023. The lower dressed weights have more than offset the slightly higher slaughter levels leading to lamb and mutton production tracking about 1 percent below the same period of last year. Imports in March were 27.2 million pounds, up 8 percent or 2 million pounds from last year and the highest total in two years. Lamb imports through the first quarter of 2024 totaled 71.2 mil lion pounds, a 20-percent or 11.9 million pound increase from the first quarter of 2023. During the first quarter, 75 percent or 52.7 million pounds of total imports were from Australia, up 24 percent or 10.1 million pounds from last year. The remaining 25 percent of lamb imports were from New Zealand with a total of 17.5 million pounds, an increase of 13 percent or 2 million pounds from the first quarter of 2023. Although production in 2024 started marginally lower than a year ago and while imports posted a larger increase during the first quarter of the year, there does not appear to be a buildup of lamb and mutton in cold storage. In March, lamb and mutton in cold storage was 22.4 million pounds, which was 12 percent or 2.4 mil lion pounds above February. But compared to a year ago, stocks are down 13 percent or 3.4 million pounds and 24 percent below the five-year average. Stock levels are well below typical levels and will likely remain low, assuming demand remains as strong as it has, and production continues to track below year-ago levels. PRICES TRACK HIGHER Prices for feeder lambs, fed lambs and lamb carcass values

continue to hold strong in April and track above year ago levels. Feeder lamb prices – 60 to 90 lbs., three-market average in Colo., S.D. and Texas – have moved seasonally lower from the weekly av erage price of $308 per cwt. in March to $284 per cwt. in April for a decline of about 8 percent. Compared to a year ago, feeder lamb prices in April were – on average – about 35 percent higher than last year and 25 percent above the five-year average. Fed lamb prices – national negotiated live – have been mov ing seasonally higher since the start of the year. Prices were $185 per cwt. at the start of the year and by the first part of May, the prices were over $210 per cwt. for an increase of 15 percent in four months. In April, weekly fed lamb prices averaged over $210 per cwt., which was 34 percent above last year and 22 percent higher than the five-year average.

The lamb cutout value has been moving seasonally higher and tracking well above last year’s levels. In April, the lamb cutout value averaged in the mid to upper-$470 per cwt. range but had slipped lower at the start of May. Compared to a year ago, the lamb cutout value in April was 7 percent – $30 per cwt. – higher than in 2023 and 16 percent – $65 per cwt. – above the five-year aver age. Support for the lamb cutout value has come from gains in the shoulder, loin and leg, which have gained 15 percent, 11 percent and 18 percent, respectively, from last year to $4.07, $7 and $5.25 per pound in April. The rack was just below $11 per pound in April, down 4 percent from the previous year. SHEEP & LAMB OUTLOOK The Livestock Marketing Information Center is forecasting

6 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

commercial sheep and lamb slaughter to be fractionally – 0.1 percent – below a year ago to just under 2.2 million head. Average dressed weights are forecast to be down 2.6 percent from 2023. Lower dressed weights combined with a marginal decline in slaughter numbers are expected to result in a 2.7-per cent decline in commercial lamb production to 127 million pounds in 2024. LMIC is forecasting lamb imports to increase 3 percent to 293 million pounds. Prices are expected to remain strong through the remainder of 2024 with annual feeder lamb prices forecast 33 percent above last year at $245 to 253 per cwt. An nual average fed lamb prices are forecast 17 percent higher to $197 to $203 per cwt. WOOL UPDATE The wool market signaled a mixed-to-weaker tone through most of April with prices varying among the micron levels. While the number of bales offered during the month trended lower in Australia, multiple United States wool warehouses held sales in late April. During the month, the number of Australian bales offered started at just more than 50,000 bales but fell each consecutive week with under 40,000 bales offered the week of May 3 – the lowest since early March. As the number of bales offered during

the month moved lower, so did prices. In April, prices for 17 to 19-micron wool were about 1 to 2 percent lower than the prior month and down more than 20 percent from the same period last year. Prices for 20 to 22-micron wool were essentially even with those in March but down about 10 percent from last year. The price of 23-micron wool in March posted a 2-percent increase from the prior month but was down almost 4 percent from last year. Prices for 24 to 32-micron wool were down about 1 to 2 percent from March and were generally lower than a year ago. Merino carding was about 1 percent higher than a month earlier, but the first few weeks of May were slightly lower than April’s price. Current economic conditions in the United States and globally continue to impact the wool market. Slower domestic economic growth in the first quarter coupled with persistent inflation has dampened expectations for lower interest rates. As a result, movements in the wool market during the last few weeks have been influenced more by movements in foreign exchange rates as demand remains rather static. Global economic conditions continue to weigh on the wool market as demand remains lackluster, particularly for coarse wools. The market will need to keep supplies in check to support prices under these conditions.

EE

USA

LIGHTWEIGHT. STRONG. EASY.

SHEEP HANDLING EQUIPMENT

A shepherd’s dream: Portable sheep yards: Lightweight, tough, perfect for handling livestock. Easy assembly, built to withstand rugged conditions. 4-year warranty ensures reliability and peace of mind.

USA DEALER CONTACT Stockquip llc Tony Wutzke; 541 760 6280 tony_wut@outlook.com

LANDQUIP.CO.NZ

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 7

Donate Now to Support Guard Dog, Sheep Heritage

P redators come in many forms for America’s sheep flock. While coyotes and wolves stalk lambs under the cover of night, the daylight hours present sheep producers with their own set of challenges – ones that often pit men in suits battling before judges and juries. Just as producers put faith in livestock guardian dogs to protect their flocks, the American sheep industry has for two decades counted on ASI’s Guard Dog Fund to assist those fight ing legal battles on behalf of the entire sheep industry. Such predators to the industry in recent years include an attempt to close one of the industry’s oldest and most important lamb processing plants, challenges to public lands grazing, restric tions on predator control and unregulated lamb imports. “Dues to ASI are 100 percent spent lobbying in Washington, D.C., so there would be no opportunity to fight for the sheep industry through the court system if we did not have the Guard Dog Fund,” said ASI President Brad Boner. “While we all face challenges as producers, feeders, and lamb and wool proces sors, we need to come together to support our industry. State sheep producer organizations recognize this opportunity and are the primary requests of ASI Guard Dog Funds. All funding requests are reviewed by the Executive Board or, when pos sible, the full Board of Directors.” ASI generally solicits donations for the Guard Dog Fund in the fall. Checks from producers, state sheep associations and industry advocates arrive at the ASI office through the ASI Annual Convention each January. Please review the names of the 140 producer families and other advocates who contributed during the 2023-24 campaign on pages 10-11. These families and businesses carry the entire load of supporting the non lobbying battles of the sheep industry. “ASI recognizes these contributors every year and we are grateful for their membership to the Guard Dog program,” said ASI Vice President Ben Lehfeldt of Montana. “My fam

ily – similar to the Boner family – has contributed since the program was born 20 years ago. Funding needs are out running finances this year given the raft of federal regulations issued that threaten the industry, as well as the animal rights attacks. We believe is it timely to ask the magazine readers to join the program this year. Please use the enclosed envelope or QR code to make a donation.” “It is your leadership’s belief that we need to reach a much higher percentage of our members who are willing to contrib ute to this very important effort,” Boner wrote in this month’s President’s Notes. “I would encourage each of you to donate as you are able. Every penny goes to help us successfully defend this great industry from the onslaught of uninformed detrac tors whose only goal is seeing that we go away.” can graze sheep on their U.S. Forest Service allotments today largely due to Guard Dog support of litigation to fend off shut downs due to challenges over wild sheep. A huge share of sheep production could be threatened if the litigation angle is not met head on by the sheep industry. Fund support every year of the Western Resources Legal Center has been a game changer in the wild sheep fight. Guard Dog support is allowing ASI to intervene in the West ern Watersheds legal effort to shut down grazing over environ mental analysis of grazing permits on Department of Interior lands. The sheep industry is carrying its share alongside cattle men in the fight only because of the Guard Dog program. A referendum in the city of Denver is threatening the lamb industry with a ban on slaughter of livestock within the city limits. The Denver lamb facility is the second largest plant in the country and is the target of animal activists sponsoring this November vote. BATTLES Sheep ranches in Washington, Montana and Colorado

2024

2023

Guard Dog Fund

2022

2021

$0

$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Expenses Donations

8 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

Organizers have admitted a successful ban in Denver could lead to similar efforts in cities throughout the country – which would affect lamb, beef, pork and poultry processors nationwide. ASI’s Guard Dog Fund has committed one of the largest con tributions to date to the campaign to defeat the ban. An impor tant point is that the meat and livestock industry’s first question is, “What is the commitment is of the lamb industry?” So this early and significant donation is critical to the $1.5 million needed to fight the proposed initiative. Producers can learn more at StopTheBanProtectJobs.com. The Guard Dog Fund is the sole source of funds in the legal in tervention to secure delisting of wolves through the Endangered Species Act across most the United States. “We are months down the road already with one of the top law firms to secure delisting of wolves from the ESA. The other side is continually suing federal officials, and as livestock producers we must be active,” said ASI Executive Director Peter Orwick. “This is such a broad issue that one or a handful of state sheep and cattle organizations would struggle to fund, but with the Guard Dog program, ASI can take state requests to a national level to sponsor alongside our livestock counterparts.” At the May meeting of the ASI Executive Board, requests were analyzed to tackle the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management Conservation and Landscape Health Rule and prohibition of coyote traps and snares for 11 months of the year in grizzly bear habitat. The board agreed to tap the Guard Dog Fund for both legal actions to the commitment of $47,500. Both legal issues will impact multiple states and an outsized share of lamb and wool production if not successfully challenged. In both cases, the sheep industry is partnering with multiple livestock organizations and/or livestock and energy development groups to fight the battle as is prudent. The point is, we need to carry our share and right now that share is funded by 140 opera tions. The Guard Dog Fund has spent $129,178 this fiscal year and the commitment has grown to nearly $200,000. Income from contributors is $75,350, so the goal of this solicitation is clear. The Guard Dog Fund also contributed significantly to labor fights in California and Nevada in recent years. Wage hikes in those states have shown a tendency to affect sheepherder wages in other states, as well as through the federal H-2A program. At the request of several state sheep associations, ASI spent more than $110,000 the past four years investigating trade viola tions by lamb importers. ASI has a law firm monitoring trade conditions for another investigation. SHEEP HERITAGE FOUNDATION In addition, there’s always room for additional support to ASI’s Sheep Heritage Foundation. The foundation plays a crucial role in providing financial sup port to students pursuing advanced degrees in animal and meat

sciences as they pertain to the sheep industry. Winners of the annual scholarship have gone on to work in key roles with university extension as well as with the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service. In these roles, they provide daily educational and research support to sheep producers from coast to coast. Memorial contributions – in the name of loved ones who have passed away – is one way that many choose to support the Sheep Heritage Foundation. It’s only fitting that the industry’s future pioneers rise up through the contributions of its past leaders. CALL FOR SUPPORT The Heritage Foundation is a tax-deductible contribution to a charitable entity and the Guard Dog Fund is a business expense (not used to lobby or candidate contributions). ASI leaders urge you to use the enclosed envelope to support the Guard Dog Fund and the Sheep Heritage Foundation. Or you scan the QR code on page 8 to donate online through the ASI website. “We thank the contributing members of the Guard Dog Fund for the opportunity to fight for this industry and we believe the effort is compelling for all of us that receive this membership magazine to join the program,” said Boner. “We believe it’s an investment that will payoff for the American flock as a whole.”

2017, minimal use 230 Volt, 5Hp Motor All safety equipment included, working scale NZ Manufactured ICS Dominator Wool Press

Excellent condition Buyer pays shipping $11,000

Contact: Kelley Yates 502-682-7780 kyates@kysheepandgoat.org

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 9

Guard Dog Fund Contributions The following producers, companies and associations have made a contribution to ASI’s Guard Dog Fund in the past year.

CHARTER MEMBERS John & Nina Baucus, Sieben Ranch – MT Brad & Laurie Boner – WY Ryan Boner, M Diamond Angus – WY Stan & Ann Boyd, Boyd Livestock Services – ID Robert & Becky Boylan, Boylan Ranch – SD J. Paul & Debbie Brown, Reata Ranch – CO Peter & Jackie Camino, Camino & Son – WY Jeanne Carver, Shaniko Wool Company – OR Colorado Wool Growers Association – CO Mike & Jennifer Corn, Roswell Wool – NM John & Mary Eagle, Eagle Suffolks – ID Ben & Stella Elgorriaga, Elgorriaga Livestock – CA Vernon, Terri, Dallas, & Whittney Fairchild, Fair child Shearing & Fairchild Sheep Shearing – ID John & Jodi Faulkner, Faulkner Land & Livestock – ID Guy Flora – OH Paul R. Frischknecht, Frischknecht Livestock – UT William & Sherie Goring, Goring Ranch/NH Shadow Livestock – UT Melchor & Karen Gragirena, El Tejon Sheep – CA Michael A. & Vicki Guerry, Guerry – ID Julie Hansmire, Campbell Hansmire Sheep – CO Mike & Mary Ann Harper, Mike Harper Livestock – CO Jay, Jo, Jeff & Cindy Hasbrouck, Double J Lamb Feeders – CO John & Tom Helle, Helle Rambouillet – MT Ryan & Beatriz Indart, Indart Ranch – CA Kelly J & Kay C Ingalls, Round Grove Ranch – OR Aaron & Katie Jones, CF – MT Skye & Penny Krebs, Krebs Sheep – OR Clint & Maureen Krebs, Krebs Livestock – OR Terri Lamers, Steve Snyder, Todd Snyder & Jackie Thompson, Snyder Ranches – CO Dean & Kathy Lamoreaux, Lamoreaux Sheep – UT

Ray & Randy Larson, R. Larson Sheep – UT David & Bonnie Little, Little Paris Sheep – NV Jim Magagna, Magagna Bros. – WY Jack & Kathryn McRae, McRae Brothers Targhees – MT Dan & Matt Mickel, Mickel Sheep – UT Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers – MN Lorin & Mary Ann Moench, Thousand Peaks Ranches – UT Frank & Elaine Moore – WY Nevada Wool Growers Association – NV Michael, Kelly & Katy Nottingham, Nottingham Livestock – CO Jack & Cindy Orwick – SD Brian & Gayenell Phelan, Superior Farms – CA Larry & Madge Pilster, Pilster Ranch – MT Joe Pozzi, Joe Pozzi Livestock – CA Spencer & Connie Rule, Rule Feeders – CO S. Martinez Livestock – WA Jeff, Cindy & J.C. Siddoway, Siddoway Sheep – ID Jack Smith, Cedar Livestock Association – UT W.L. & Jamie Strauss – TX Angelo, Karin, Anthony & Dani Theos, Theos Swallow Fork Ranch – CO Tom & Deb Thompson, Thompson Farms & Feedlot – CO Gary & Lori Visintainer, Visintainer Sheep – CO Warren Ranch Company – WY Clark & Ruth Webster, C & R Farms – UT Western Range Association – ID Brandon & Vickie Willis, Willis Ranch – UT SUPPORTING MEMBERS Larry Allen, Allen Livestock – CO Joe & Carmen Auza, Auza Ranches – AZ Bob & Sherry Benson – IN Brian & Carolyn Bitner, BRB Livestock – UT Jack & Lori Blattner, Blattner Suffolks – ID Broadbent Family, JRB – UT Curry & Bonnie Lou Campbell, Campbell Mayer

William Mast – OR Max & Joyce Matthews – SD Janet & Michael Mawhinney, Blaker Ridge Farm – PA Michael McCormick, McCormick Ranch – WY Ken & Phyllis McKamey, McKamey Ranch – MT Pierce & Betty Miller, VIP Ranches – TX Ron & Elizabeth Moss, Ron Moss Sheep – ID Will & Laura Nuckolls, Nuckolls Ranch – WY John & Connie Olagaray, Five-O Ranch – CA Dave & Holly Ollila, Flying O Sheep – SD Bob & Jennifer Orwick, Orwick Ranch – SD Pete & Rama Paris, Paris Livestock – NV Dan & Kay Persons, Rafter P Ranch – MN Burton & Pattie Pfliger, Roselawn Legacy Hamp shires – ND Doelene Pitt, Pitt Family Columbias – UT Stan & Carol Poe, Poe Hamps – IN James Powell – TX Jewell Reed – WY Warren & Carla Roberts, Open Heart Ranch – CO Ward & Lynn Rouse, Rouse Farms – OR Tom & Carol Schene, Schene Enterprises – CA Bill & Susan Shultz, Bunker Hill Farm – OH Sarah Smith, Valais Blacknose Sheep of Washing ton State – WA William (Jr) & Margie Sparrow – NC W. Keith & Kathleen Stumbo, Down Valley Farm – NY Dean & Paula Swenson – ND Bill & Jan Taliaferro, Green River Livestock – WY Jean Tennant, Tennant Ranch – SD Randy & Amanda Tunby, Tunby Ranch – MT Lionel Valdez – CO Marilyn Volpe & George Borkow, Sheep Ranch – ID Cody Whitehead Burns, Dolan Creek Cattle – TX Ray & Jeri Willoughby, Willoughby LTD Ranch – TX David & Sara Winters, Winters Ranch Partnership – TX W.L. & Tommy Whitehead Ranch – TX Louis Schmidt, Schmidt Ranch – CO Maurice Short, Bullseye Ranch – OR

Liveoak – TX Steve & Pam Clements – SD Tom, Ron & Cynthia Crane, Crane Family Ranch es – CA David & Theressa Dalling, Dalling Sheep – ID Douglas & Julia Davis, The Homestead Ranch – SD Renee & Lonnie Deal, Sperry Livestock – CO Denis Ranch – TX Rufus & Patty DeZeeuw, DeZeeuw Farms – SD John & Bernie Dvorak & Family – MN David & Janet Earl, Upper Creek Ranch – UT Ted & Renae Edwards, Edwards Ranch – WY Thomas & Leah Edwards, TLE Ranch – WY Ellison Ranching Company – NV Martin & M. Teresa Etchamendy, Etchamendy Sheep – CA Ernie & George Etchart, Etchart Livestock – CO Nick & Kimberly Etcheverry, Eureka Livestock – CA Lorin & Waneta Fawcett, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons – UT Gerry & Gwen Geis, Geis Brothers – WY Kevin & Bobbi Geis, Geis Brothers – WY Helen Glass, JL Glass Ranch – TX Keith & Linda Hamilton, Hamilton Ranch – WY Hampton Sheep Company – WY Thomas & Joni Harlan, Harlan Livestock – WY Marlin Helming, Helming Hampshires – CO Dwight Heser – MT Larry & Angie Hopkins, Little Eagle Creek Valley Farm – IN Lee & Peg Isenberger, Isenberger-Litton Livestock – WY Matt & Sandra Jarvis, Jarvis Sheep – UT Claire Jones, Bar 7 Ranch – TX Gary & Gail Jorgensen, Legacy Lamb – KS Bob, Marie, Ben & Jamie Lehfeldt, Lehfeldt Ram bouillets – MT Kris Leinassar, FIM – NV Louis (Spud) & Thea Lemmel, Lemmel Ranch – SD Randy & Penny Leonard, Leonard Farms & Live stock – CO Dan & Kim Lippert – MN Tim & Kim Mackenzie, Mackenzie Sheep – ID

2024 ASI Photo Contest Now Accepting Entries

I t’s time to start sorting through those great photos you took the past few years and prepare to enter them in the 2024 ASI Photo Contest. Winning entries will be featured in the Octo ber issue of the Sheep Industry News . "Submissions in the ASI Photo Contest continue to be of the highest quality,” said Sheep Industry News Editor Kyle Partain. "In addition, they are a valuable resource for the association as they provide ASI with photos that show a variety of breeds, regions of the country and production systems for use in publications throughout the year.” Rules and prizes for the contest are the same as last year. Pho tographs entered in the contest will be judged on clarity, content, composition and appeal. More than $1,000 will be awarded, with awards of $125 going to the first-place photographer in each of the five categories listed below; $75 for the runner-up in each category; and a $50 prize for third place in each of the five categories. Entries must be received in the ASI office by 5 p.m. mountain time on Thursday, Aug. 1, to be considered. Only the top three photographers in each category will be notified of their winnings. Photographers are advised to submit digital photographs in

the largest file size possible. Also, judges and ASI staff encourage entrants to provide both horizontal and vertical photos. This will better assure these talented and creative photos can be shared in future issues of the Sheep Industry News , as well as in the 2025 ASI Calendar and other ASI publications. The five categories in this year’s contest are: 1. Shepherd/Shepherdess – Photographs of producers, shep herds or others working with sheep. 2. Scenic (East) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located east of the Mississippi River. Photos entered in this category cannot include people. 3. Scenic (West) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located west of the Mississippi River. Photos entered in this category cannot include people. 4. Working Dogs and Protection Animals – Photographs in this category should show herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs or any other livestock protection animal in their natural environ ments. Photos must also include sheep in some fashion as proof that these truly are working animals. 5. Open – Photographs with subject matter that does not fall into the four above-listed categories. Other contest rules: • ASI can use or reproduce all entries at the discretion of ASI. In addition, entries will not be returned. • ASI is not required to notify photographers when photos are used in materials. • Photographs can be submitted via hard copy or electronically, but electronic submissions are preferred. • All entries must be at least 3 inches by 5 inches, color or black-and-white, high-resolution photos (larger sizes encouraged). • Entries must be submitted in the name of the person who took the photograph. • Entries are limited to two per category per person. • Only photographs that have been taken in the past six years can be entered. • Photographs submitted in previous years cannot be re-en tered. • The following needs to be included with each submission: title of photo; category (from the five listed above) into which it is being entered; photographer’s name; mailing address; phone num ber; email address; and approximate location/date of photo. • If there is a particular story that goes with the photo, please include that, as well, with the entry. Entries should be emailed to Partain at kyle@sheepusa.org with the subject line of ASI Photo Contest. Those mailing pho tos should send them to ASI, Attn: Photo Contest, 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360, Englewood, CO 80112.

12 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

ASI Member Listing WWW.SHEEPUSA.ORG l INFO@SHEEPUSA.ORG

VOTING MEMBERS

National Lamb Feeders Association 605-224-0224 • lambfeeders@outlook.com Nebraska Sheep & Goat Producers Association 308-386-8378 • Ne.sheep.goat@gmail.com Nevada Wool Growers Association 775-934-8860 • pr_paris@yahoo.com New Hampshire Sheep & Wool Growers nhswga@nhswga.org Garden State Sheep Breeders Inc. (N.J.) 609-947-2260 • kmelvinnjsheep@gmail.com New Mexico Wool Growers Inc. 505-247-0584 • nmwgi@nmagriculture.org Empire Sheep Producers Cooperative (N.Y.) 585-367-2775 • sheepkath@aol.com North Carolina Sheep Producers Assoc. Inc. 919-522-4110 • wewillservethelord@nc.rr.com North Dakota Lamb & Wool Producers Assoc. 701-333-8009 • curtsheep@gmail.com Ohio Sheep Improvement Association 614-499-2931 • rhigh@ofbf.org Oregon Sheep Growers Association 503-364-5462 • info@sheeporegon.com Pennsylvania Sheep & Wool Growers Association 814-880-3314 • psushepherd@yahoo.com South Carolina Sheep Industries Association 864-360-3222 • debbiewebster615@gmail.com South Dakota Sheep Growers Association 406-581-7772 • lisa@sdsheepgrowers.org Tennessee Sheep Producers Association 931-510-1322 • info@tennesseesheep.org Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers’ Association 325-655-7388 • tsgra@wcc.net Utah Wool Growers Association 435-915-6119 • sierra@utahwoolgrowers.com Vermont Sheep & Goat Association 802-899-2104 • settlementfarm@comcast.net Virginia Sheep Producers Association 540-231-9159 • sgreiner@vt.edu Washington State Sheep Producers 360-999-8118 • washingtonsheep@gmail.com Wisconsin Sheep Breeders Cooperative 608-743-9080 • wisconsinsheepbreeders@gmail.com

Alabama Meat Goat & Sheep Producers 334-613-4221 • BRagland@alfains.com ASI Women 435-528-7570 • sherrischumann@utah.gov Arizona Wool Producers Association 520-560-4202 • caauza@peoplepc.com Arkansas State Sheep Council 870-853-7404 • wjcalloway@gmail.com California Wool Growers Association 916-444-8122 • info@woolgrowers.org Colorado Wool Growers Association 970-874-1433 • cwgawool@aol.com Connecticut Sheep Breeders Association 860-819-8339 • secretary@ctsheep.com Meat Sheep Alliance of Florida 352-502-2564 • ruthtaber@embarqmail.com Georgia Sheep & Wool Growers Association 706-340-1098 • georgiasheep@gmail.com Hawaii Sheep and Goat Association 808-775-8075 • alohadjam@yahoo.com Idaho Wool Growers Association 208-344-2271 • director@idahowoolgrowers.org Illinois Lamb & Wool Producers Inc. 573-205-9208 • amanda.limback@gmail.com Indiana Sheep Association 317-607-5664 • executive@indianasheep.com Iowa Sheep Industry Association 641-625-4248 • info@iowasheep.com Kansas Sheep Association 620-393-5204 • kssheep@ruraltel.net Kentucky Sheep & Wool Producers Association 502-682-7780 • kyates@kysheepandgoat.org Maine Sheep Breeders Association 207-324-1582 • donna.flint@maine.edu Maryland Sheep Breeders Association 410-746-5768 • chestnutcreekfarm@gmail.com Massachusetts Federation of Sheep Associations 508-829-4556 • brmacphee@aol.com Michigan Sheep Producers Association 616-610-5628 • samaludl@gmail.com Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers Association 320-760-5727 • kinneylamb@gmail.com Missouri Sheep Producers Inc.

Brad Boner Wyoming President

Ben Lehfeldt Montana Vice President

Joe Pozzi California Secretary/Treasurer

Peter Orwick Colorado Executive Director

Wyoming Wool Growers Association 307-265-5250 • alison@wyowool.com

573-578-0497 • christy576@gmail.com Montana Wool Growers Association 406-442-1330 • leah@mtsheep.org

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 13

Webinar Discusses Public Lands Grazing During Disease Outbreak

A May webinar provided public lands grazers and regula tory officials with an overview of how movement criteria and guidance documents for managing livestock during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak were recently developed. The project – a joint venture of ASI, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council – was funded by a grant from the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Re sponse Program and designed to deal with gaps in food security programs such as the Secure Sheep and Wool Supply Plan and the Secure Beef Supply Plan. Both of these plans now include sections devoted to public lands grazers on their websites. The project dealt specifically with sheep and cattle who are not infected with FMD, but fall in an FMD control area during an outbreak and require a permit to move. Animals could need to be moved for a variety of reasons, including: the end of a graz ing permit or natural disasters such as wildfire, flood or blizzard. Public lands grazers might also find themselves in a situation where their base property is within a control area. For these and other reasons, contingency planning is vital to managing livestock movement during an outbreak. Movement restrictions of susceptible livestock species is one strategy for the control and containment of a disease outbreak. A 72-hour national movement standstill of susceptible species, semen, embryos and wool has been recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during state/national exercises. Dur ing this time, regulatory control areas around infected premises will be designated. The infected, suspect and contact farms will be managed under the guidance in the USDA FMD Response Plan. Livestock operations affected by movement restrictions yet not infected with the disease will need to restart movement as soon as possible to support business continuity that is consistent with mitigating the risk of disease spreading. The guidance in the Secure Food Supply Plans are for operations with no evidence of the disease infection located in a control area to prepare to meet movement permit requirements while reducing the risk of spread ing the virus. Federal land is substantial in the 11 Western states where public lands grazing takes place, with much of that overseen by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. For instance, 80 percent of Nevada’s land is owned by the federal government. Utah and Idaho are both above 60 percent. BLM has 18,000 permittees on 21,000 allotments, while USFS has 6,000 permittees on 7,200 allotments. What that means for public lands grazers is that multiple agen cies – from federal to state to local – will be involved if there is a

disease outbreak, even if their animals are not infected. The NADPRP-funded project had three main objectives: create an advisory group; develop guidance documents; and conduct exercises. The advisory group included seven public lands ranchers from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. It also included representatives from BLM and USFS, USDA’s Wildlife Services, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Veterinary Services. State animal health agencies from Colorado, California and Nevada also participated with staff from ASI, NCBA and PLC. “Bringing together all these stakeholders with the goal to better prepare our industry in the event of an FMD outbreak was the most important objective and was critical for the success of this project," said ASI Director of Analytics and Production Programs Erica Sanko. The group was assembled in April 2022 and started with virtual meetings. Interviews with the advisory group and others pro vided the basis for the document Management Practices and FMD Exposure Risks for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Federal Public Lands . An additional document – Roles of Agencies in Non-Outbreak and FMD Outbreak Situations: Permitting Sheep and Cattle Grazing Federal Public Lands – was also developed. Subsequently, a seminar and workshop were conducted in November 2022 and August 2023, respectively, to discuss move ment scenarios. Through these efforts, the Movement Decision Criteria for Industry and Regulatory Officials Managing Cattle and Sheep Grazing Federal Public Lands During an FMD Outbreak was developed. This guidance document describes three movement options and five decision criteria for industry and regulatory officials to consider when managing cattle and sheep grazing federal public lands that are affected by movement controls – quarantine, con trol areas – during an FMD outbreak, but are not infected with the disease. This is for guidance only, but it aligns with the USDA FMD Response Plan (Oct 2020), and is cognizant of BLM and USFS jurisdiction, referring to the Code of Federal Regulations, instructional memorandums, manuals and directives. ASI is aware of at least one state that partnered with some others on a NADPRP grant proposal to modify and exercise the movement guidance at a state level. More information on future projects will be announced as it becomes available. Visit SecureSheepWool.org/producers/public-land-grazing to learn more.

14 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

AMERICAN POLYPAY SHEEP ASSOCIATION Maternal Power Plus...

Upcoming Sale Dates: * Midwest Stud Ram Sale-June 14 * NSIP Polypay Online Sale-July 10 * Center of the Nation NSIP Sale-July 27

• Growth

• Adaptability

• Out-Of-Season Breeding

• Leaders In Performance Testing

America's Production Breed !

American Polypay Sheep Association www.polypay.org

The LONGHORN ® COMPLETE XT KIT includes:

RAPID DELIVERY IN 3 TO 5 DAYS

Longhorn ® Adapter Bracket

XT

Designed and manufactured in the UK, the Longhorn ® XT has become one of our most popular overhead shearing machines amongst farmers worldwide. Its heavy-duty steel casing provides extra peace of mind when working in tough conditions. Longhorn ® 12 volt version also available. T W O Y E A R G U A R A N T E E 2

Horner SureGrip Handpiece

Longhorn ® 94mm Max Pack (3 combs & 6 cutters)

Heavy Duty EasyDrive Adjustable Flexible Driveshaft*

19mm Ferrule

*also available as a solid driveshaft

Y

Y

Y

E

E

E

E

Y

O

E

A

A

E

N

E

A

R

A

N

E

R

R

HEAVY DUTY 3350 RPM R E 2

W

1

3

10

H

R

Shearing Oil

110-120 volt 60hz

T

MAINS POWERED O

T

T

G

G

G

G

U

U

U

U

E

E

E

A

A

A

A

E

E

E

E

R

R

R

R

T

T

T

T

A

A

A

A

N

N

N

N

Screwdriver

Telephone: +44 1200 427419 Email: info@hornershearing.com www.hornershearing.com

DISTRIBUTOR ENQUIRIES WELCOME

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 15

Producers Need To Be Involved in Predator Management

SCOTT HUBER T o increase livestock producer understanding and support of predator control efforts, producers should be encouraged to become involved in the process. This can be accomplished by having producers help locate coyotes during aerial operations and/or having producers check equipment. It is imperative that producers and trap pers maintain communication between them to keep both parties informed on any changes in coyote activities. One of the most effective things sheep producers can do to help alleviate coyote problems is to have at least one good tight woven wire fence on the side of the pasture where predators are most likely to approach from. Cable devices placed in holes dug by coyotes under these fences are effec tive at preventing coyote problems or removing problem coyotes once predation starts unless small lambs and guard dogs are present. Again, producers and trappers must com municate on techniques used. For instance, holes dug under a tight fence in feral hog range will only encourage hogs. In certain situations, guard dogs can be effective in reduc ing coyote predation. Guard dogs are limited in their effec

tiveness based on the number of sheep and how well those sheep band together, the roughness of the terrain in and around the sheep pastures, and the number of coyotes in a particular area. Guard dogs are limited in their effectiveness when sheep are spread out in rough country with a medium to high coyote population in the immediate and surrounding area. One of the biggest disadvantages to guard dogs is that their presence impacts the ability for trappers to use lethal predator damage management measures. With some effort, guard dogs can be trained to avoid traps and M-44s with rat traps baited with the same baits being used at trap sets and/ or M-44s. Caution still needs to be taken with traps and par ticularly M-44s, even with guard dogs that have been trained to avoid them. Herding and night penning can be helpful in alleviating predator problems but is labor intensive and can become cost prohibitive in many cases. Trail cameras can be used to help identify predator damage and what times predators are returning. KILL ID & LOCATING PROBLEM COYOTES It is important for both trappers and livestock producers

to have a good understanding of identifying livestock kills versus other forms of livestock mortality. Both trappers and livestock pro ducers need to put their biases aside in deter mining accurate reasons for livestock mortal ity so the correct measures can be taken when necessary. Coyotes usually attack sheep in the throat region and kill by suffocation. This can be determined best by skinning out carcasses to see canine puncture wounds, tooth spac ing as well as hemorrhage in the neck area. Another thing to look for is signs of a struggle on the ground as well as fresh blood in the area. Livestock that died from other causes and were fed on do not bleed like an animal that has been killed. Often coyotes will pull the rumen out of the carcass and tear the shoulder blade away from the ribs. Ribs will often be chewed off to a certain length. The hides can be pulled away while feeding on the carcass, but are often still attached to the carcass. Coyote predation can sometimes be determined long after the

16 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org

POLITICAL ANTAGONISMS One example of a Catch-22 situation is that many PDM programs have based the success of their trappers on the number of coyotes removed while the goal of any PDM pro gram should be to reduce the number of coyotes in a given area and consider the number of livestock protected. This is especially true in range lambing sheep operations, where killing lots of coyotes can go hand in hand with lots of dead lambs. This is why it is far more important to monitor and compare livestock losses than the number of coyotes killed, which can vary greatly between different trapper districts with different coyote populations. The goal should be to reduce coyote numbers so there are less coyotes to remove in a historic problem area. Another common situation is when livestock losses are not occurring due to an effective PDM program. Some live stock producers might forget the reason why livestock losses are not occurring. On occasion, livestock producers have been heard saying (paraphrasing), “I don’t know why we are paying a trapper when so few lambs are being killed by coy otes.” In many cases, the reason losses are so low is because of the trapper’s effective efforts. This is where the number of livestock protected is important to identify as it is an easier number to document. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT It is important that PDM trappers utilize all the tools available to them and are knowledgeable about where each method can be used. Here are the following methods utilized by PDM programs and some of the limitations of each of them. Foothold Traps. These are a very effective means of removing problem coyotes. They are probably the most effective means of removing problem animals, but have limi tations that can discourage their use under certain circum stances. Foothold traps can be limited in their effectiveness of coyote removal due to the presence of other wild nuisance animals in the area. The use of foothold traps must also consider the presence of domestic dogs, guard dogs and other pets in the area. Foothold traps can be negatively impacted by snow and muddy conditions. Foothold traps need to be checked in a timely manner, which restricts the number of complaints that can be addressed at any given time. With that, under the right circumstances that consider these limitations, foothold traps can be highly effective in removing problem coyotes. With properly modified foothold traps with thicker jaws, domestic dogs and livestock guard dogs can be released

fact based on carcass rib length and chewed rib bone ends (coyote feeding behavior). This feeding behavior is usually in combination with jaw bones with canine chips or puncture holes in them, and hemorrhage stains on the neck vertebrae bones. Sheep band behavior can also indicate predation when sheep become nervous and tend to avoid certain parts of the pasture. Calf kills can be somewhat different than sheep in that calves are usually taller than lambs, so coyotes will often attack calves in the flank area and often bite the tail of young calves. Bobtail calves can be a sign of coyote predation on calves. Again, the presence of blood at the kill site will usual ly indicate the difference between a calf killed by coyotes and one that died of natural causes and was fed on by coyotes. Cow behavior can also be indicative of a kill as compared to a calf that was born dead. A cow that has fought coyotes after and/or during calving is generally stressed and excited. Calves can also be indirectly killed by coyotes when cows step on their calves while fighting off coyotes. Both livestock producers and trappers should be on the constant lookout for coyote tracks and listening for howling activity particularly during denning season (April to May). The best time to listen for coyote activity is when the yard lights start coming on in the evening. This is when locations of coyotes – based on howling – has the most value because coyotes are often near the den at this time as opposed to morning locates where coyotes can still be traveling to and from the den area while hunting. Locating with sirens or electronic calls should be limited so those methods are not abused to the point they are inef fective when needed. Problems can occur when livestock producers allow private callers to work the same ground at the same time as designated PDM trappers. There is a time and place for private coyote trappers and hunters to kill coyotes without interfering with the PDM activities, and that is during the prime fur season when coyotes are moving everywhere – typically late November to the middle of February. After February, those pursuing these activities and the producers allowing it should consider how they are going to impact the PDM activities of those designated with that responsibility for that area. The use of decoy dogs has become popular among the private sector, but can create a worse livestock loss problem when only one coyote out of a breeding pair is killed and the den is not taken and removed. PDM specialist efficiency can decrease significantly when coyotes that could be removed by calling and shooting have been recently exposed to the same techniques and are now educated to those methods.

June 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 17