• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Montana herd heads to slaughter after exposure to brucellos

OldDog/NewTricks

Well-known member
Beef News
Montana herd heads to slaughter after exposure to brucellosis

By Tom Johnston on 7/17/2007 for Meatingplace.com

A herd of Montana cattle headed to slaughter Monday following exposure to brucellosis.

Semi trucks loaded 290 cows and 16 bulls owned by ranchers Jim and Sandy Morgan for an 11-hour trip from Brinker, Mont., to Yankton, S.D., where they were to be slaughtered, the Billings Gazette reported.

Six of Morgan's cows tested positive for brucellosis in May. The herd was quarantined while the rancher negotiated for a price on the animals with the federal government. (See Montana sets deadline for slaughter of quarantined cattle on Meatingplace.com, July 12, 2007.)

"They are getting $1.45 a pound [at auction]," Morgan told reporters, noting that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is paying him and his wife 85 cents per pound for their cattle.

The Morgans said they felt cheated by both the Montana Board of Livestock, which ordered that the cattle be slaughtered to maintain the state's brucellosis-free status, and by APHIS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Been a lot of comments flying around about how the sale and slaughter of these cattle took place-- and if the negative testing ones even need to be slaughtered...Two things caught my eye in the articles I've been reading- first was the amount lost by not allowing the calves to be weaned, lotted and fed out and sold as beef---but instead they were sold for $.85lb for veal...Maybe this is the simple and efficient way....
(altho I didn't think $1400 pair was too bad a price)

But the number one of the "let the guvment help you" screwups in my mind is that I read they will have to pay "capital gains" taxes on this sale of cattle-even if they use the money to rebuy replacement cattle- so they won't have all the money to reinvest in their herd-- the crooks in D.C. will....

Some comments from one of the ladies involved...


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goodbye to my beautiful girls and their healthy calves. Goodbye to years of selective breeding. Goodbye to another thing that Allan and I struggled to build.

They’re calling this herd tainted. A misleading headline. The Morgans have six cows considered positive. Three of those are home raised, bangs vaccinated cows with healthy calves. The other three are Corriente cows that weren’t vaccinated before they purchased them. Those longhorns also have healthy calves on them. These six have been segregated since the test results.

We’ve been called “welfare ranchers”. The USDA budgeted 22% for Farm and Commodity programs in 2003 - 2006. 11% went to Conservation and Forestry. 6% was for Research, Inspection and Administration. 2% went to the Rural Development Program. 3% was for International Programs. The Domestic Food Assistance Programs took 56%.

We’ve been told that we should be happy, that the government is giving us money for our diseased animals. These cows are no more diseased than the brucellosis exposed bison which are permitted to live and return to Yellowstone Park. These cows are our private property that the government is taking.

These cattle are considered “exposed” to brucellosis. Federal law requires brucellosis exposed livestock to be slaughtered. Federal law does not require “exposed” wildlife to be slaughtered. How is this a scientific solution to the eradication of brucellosis? People were crying over moms and babies. That slaughter did not happen. Ranchers have been vilified as rabid, evil, wildlife haters. Maybe there are some extremist ranchers, but most ranchers enjoy all animals. I don’t appreciate having hundreds of deer in my haystacks, especially knowing that they are relatively recent arrivals to this part of the Clark’s Fork Valley. It makes me wonder about the free all you can eat wildlife buffet being served here.

How did all of this happen? Even with CSI Montana, it is doubtful the actual source will be found.

The original “hot cow” would have been on the Emigrant ranch at the time she contracted the brucella abortus organism. This was not from a bovine source, but another ungulate - elk. How did the elk get this? Probably from the bison.

I understand the history of brucellosis. I am well aware that this is a cattle disease, transmitted from livestock to wildlife. History repeats and reverses itself. Brucellosis is now transmitted from the bison to other wildlife. Every recent case of brucellosis in cattle in the Yellowstone area has had a common denominator - elk.

The writing was on the wall from Day One. We knew that our cattle were going to slaughter. If there was a procedure in place, it should have been followed. We should have been kept abreast of what was happening. I know that Montana has not gone through this in years. I understand that the focus was shifted from our livelihood to the icon of Yellowstone National Park.

We were left in the dark. We apparently were not on a “need to know” basis. My heifers were headed for slaughter. I was getting more information from the Billings Gazette than the agencies involved. I had to call the Feds, not the other way around. I took in the speculation and rumors. I read utter nonsense. We heard from folks crying about “what we were doing to the industry”. My father-in-law was yelled at by a “neighbor” complaining about what I was doing. He didn’t call me. The Industry didn’t come to anyone’s rescue. We were in the middle of political posturing. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. I too, requested a sit down with the Executive Branch.

The slaughter of Jim and Sandy’s herd is not going to eradicate brucellosis. This is a political solution, not a scientific solution. A buffer zone around YNP is not going to solve the problem either. It would create new problems. Political problems, reaching far beyond the borders of the United States, not simply the “buffer zone”.

What is the solution? I don’t know, but I would like to see all parties involved putting their heads together to work toward trying to eradicate this disease. We need to protect and respect all of our resources. Farmers and ranchers make up a very small part of the United States population. Most of us would not be doing this if we didn’t love it. I know that these are beef cattle. I may not be a third generation Montanan like my late husband, but I understand that I am producing food. These cows were not for sale now. My heifers should have produced nine or ten more calves. Only then should they have been considered beef headed for slaughter. These calves should not be going to slaughter at this young age. They needed to continue getting their mother’s milk for quite some time. It isn’t going to happen.

Personally, I’d like to thank everyone who has been supportive the last few weeks. Your calls, messages, comments and emails have helped. Many of you didn’t understand what was going on. Don’t feel bad, neither did we. We’re all getting an education.

There are scarier things than disease:
Ignorance and arrogance
Taxes and capital gains

http://www.karbonkountymoos.com/2007/07/15/tarred-with-the-same-brush/
 

Jason

Well-known member
It reads like the 85 cents was straight through... no shrink and on cows... that's a pretty sweet deal.

If the money is re-invested in cows there is no way for capital gains to kick in.
 

Denny

Well-known member
We have herds here being bought out for TB all though the government is slow on paying we have 2 years to reinvest the money without capital gains tax I am sure they have the same deal.The herds bought out here were appraised at FAIR market value by independent livestock appraisers and livestock sales facilities.Other than the funds not getting to the owners quickly the depopulation of the TB affected herds went pretty smoothly.The herds had to stay on the Ranch until the funds were available.

Minnesota has chosen 1500 herds to random test for TB mine is one of them and I will just go ahead with it If my herd ends up with it I will depopulate I'm not going to cry wolf and take a chance at ruining every other rancher in my neighborhood..

The problem with this deal is they priced the cattle at their value Today not if they made it until weaning so I am sure it hurts but thats the way the ball bounces.

There are no capital gains when you reinvest the money in a like venture.They will have to pay the taxes if they quit all together as they should.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
asset, so they will be able to depreiciate them out, but not the ones they sold if they were home raised. But then again since they did not pay taxes on the sale of the first cattle I doubt if the IRS will let them depreciate the others out.
 

Denny

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
asset, so they will be able to depreiciate them out, but not the ones they sold if they were home raised. But then again since they did not pay taxes on the sale of the first cattle I doubt if the IRS will let them depreciate the others out.

You can get around all of that with a good accountant something to do with a loss due to the fact that the animal did'nt produce as expected than you could write of for a loss that way.I dont know exactly how it works but my Account sure does I could ask him if someone needs.
 

cowboyup

Well-known member
I think you guys are losing sight of how it would feel to have the government take your herd and tell you what they will pay you. In this day of scientific research and testing I think they could cull out the cows that test positive without destroying the whole herd. I live inside the so called buffer zone that our idiot governor and his bunch of tree hugging socialists are proposing to put in place. What a crock of **** that is. Make us pay for what the park service can't control. I beieve they set the boundaries of the park quite a few years ago and they should remain the same. Vaccinate the elk and the buffalo and erradicate the disease as best we can. That Yellowstone park is all natural and unchanged from what it was two hundred years ago is a farce. The first thing you should notice is the highway your driving in on... Not put there by God I'm sure. So quit treating the animals there like they should come before our livelyhood. I'll get off my soapbox now
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cowboyup said:
That Yellowstone park is all natural and unchanged from what it was two hundred years ago is a farce. The first thing you should notice is the highway your driving in on... Not put there by God I'm sure. So quit treating the animals there like they should come before our livelyhood. I'll get off my soapbox now

AMEN--an interesting sidenote is the poll that the Billings Gazette ran--
Question was who should bear the cost of compensating ranchers who lose their herds because they were exposed to brucellosis?
Federal government --42%
State government-----14%
ranchers should not be compensated--41%

That was a surprising number that was against any compensation--except in reading some of the comments folks make on articles there are a lot of people out there that think ALL ranchers are rich- and already receive large government subsidies- along with cheap public grazing...

Definitely becoming a clash of cultures (which I think is widening with the shrinking middle class and rural folks) and something the ranch world needs to work on....
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Jason said:
It reads like the 85 cents was straight through... no shrink and on cows... that's a pretty sweet deal.

If the money is re-invested in cows there is no way for capital gains to kick in.
Most ranchers take YEARS to build a herd they're proud of,In this situatuation I don't think anything is a sweet deal. :?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Jason said:
It reads like the 85 cents was straight through... no shrink and on cows... that's a pretty sweet deal.

If the money is re-invested in cows there is no way for capital gains to kick in.
Most ranchers take YEARS to build a herd they're proud of,In this situatuation I don't think anything is a sweet deal. :?

I don't think the owners were/did look at it from the $$$$ aspect of it. They were invested ( I don't mean financially) in their cattle. It's kinda like a big ol' slap in the face.

With all these various feed thru meds you would think they'd come up with something for the elk, bison, etc. Well, wait, they prob do have it but whomever invented/produces it prob can't get anyone in the gov't to pay them for their product!!!
 
Top